Presidential Debate

[Danno 1,228]

Blue I respect your opinions but <snip> Obama isn't suggesting that he will sit down with Iran & have some tea... this is just a twisting of facts by the McCain campaign. Many former (and respected) officials, to include some Republicans, agree that we should have diplomatic talks with countries such as Iran. It's all part of the "DIME" approach (diplomacy, information, military, economics).

It might be that you are doing a little "fact-twisting" yourself my friend.

Here lets listen to Barry and see if he said he would meet "without preconditions" or not.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oSFSUbMWenU

Sure it's a little long winded but in light of the yes-or-no question, Barak said "YES"

[Danno 1,228]

How is everyone? Have not been on in awhile! I watched the presidential debate last night and some of the questions from the moderator made mariya angry They had questions for the canidates if they thought russia was now an evil empire! I laughed because I thought it was funny but Mariya was mad. They had a few other questions about Russia such as the Georgia situation ect... I still do not understand why so many people have bad views about russia? I remember George bush and John Mcain condeming Russia for driving tanks into a different country? What did we do in Iraq? Why does George W. Bush and the Usa think they are responsible for what happens everywhere esle in the world and trying to be like police? Anyway I am definitely voting Obama in the fall! Did anyone else what the debate last night?

Not sure what the Obama "Hurray" is all about?

You seem to hold the Russia thing as very important..... Yet this is the one area the two candidates seem to agree on.

[Blues Fairy 0]

I'm not arguing whether or not they should've been dancing in the streets I'm simply saying they had the right to and even though we may have disagreed with them

They had the right to revel in the deaths of thousands of innocent people? Do you really believe that?

Well, I guess for some it's an inalienable right and for others a slap in the face. To each his own.

Not true.

Do you know a lot of terrorists? And before you retort with, "well, do you?" I will answer that no I do not. Not personally. However, I have a pretty good education on terrorism/anti-terrorism, as I'm sure mox does as well, and I can tell you I've been to several of the "terrorist-supporting countries", as has mox, and have known many, many people from those countries and they've given me quite an insight into the "terrorists" there.

So much for your "education" - a few testimonies from "people from those countries". Did you even read anything on the subject? Start with this, for example, maybe it'll put a few cracks in the pretty pink bubble you're living in.

My husband spent years profiling suspect terrorists while on assignments for the dept. he used to work for. Believe me, you have no idea what's being done to prevent people like you from living in the state of constant fear (times worse than the fear you perceive as being inflicted on you by the politicians). You simply have no idea what you are talking about.

Do you honestly think anyone cheering in the streets of America that day was a terrorist? Do you honestly think they looked at the reactions of those around them and said, "OK, I think I'm going to give up my nice easy lifestyle here in the U.S. and start being a terrorist!"?

Or... do you think maybe, just maybe, they were tired of seeing America b!tch slap their home country and finally had the RIGHT to cheer when someone did something about it?

Wow. How exactly was America ######-slapping their countries before 9/11? Come on, if you are so sure of USA's great sins which warranted the right of those Muslims (guests of this country) to cheer at the death of thousands of innocent citizens, you might as well put forward some facts, don't be shy. Or was their nice and easy lifestyle here in the US so insulting to them as to provoke such a reaction?

Seriously, I am quite sick of this argument. It's like being told that a rabid dog has every right to gnaw my leg and all I can do is explain the values of vegetarianism to it.

Edited October 15, 2008 by Blues Fairy

[mox 298]

They had the right to revel in the deaths of thousands of innocent people? Do you really believe that?

Well, I guess for some it's an inalienable right and for others a slap in the face. To each his own.

You keep confusing the right to free speech with your right to be offended. Both of your statements are true. They had the right to revel in th deaths of thousands of innocent people, and you (and the rest of us) have the right to feel it as a slap in the face. You were insulted when I speculated about your lack of knowledge about the Bill of Rights, but you keep demonstrating a fundamental lack of knowledge in your arguments. I get that it offends you, and I get that you wanted their аssеs kicked. But the students are the ones exercising their right to free speech, and the mob are the ones committing assault. Your right to be angry does not automatically translate to your right to do harm on another person. It doesn't matter what your personal feelings on the matter are, the law is the law. I personally think it's a travesty that these students were beaten and their assailants allowed to go free, not because I support their hateful speech, but because I support the rule of law that governs our society. I don't know why you can't see that, or that you consider it somehow a weakness. You have said things that I consider abhorrent, but I will always defend your right to say and hold these beliefs. Democracy is a double-edged sword.

Wow. How exactly was America ######-slapping their countries before 9/11? Come on, if you are so sure of USA's great sins which warranted the right of those Muslims (guests of this country) to cheer at the death of thousands of innocent citizens, you might as well put forward some facts, don't be shy. Or was their nice and easy lifestyle here in the US so insulting to them as to provoke such a reaction?

Your question contains at least 3 different logical fallacies which misrepresent the issue, so I'm going to answer the question "what are some examples of issues that caused so much hatred from many Muslims towards the United States?"

American military bases in Saudi Arabia. Our unconditional support of Israel. Our raids over Libya to go after Qaddafi. The first Gulf War. Our unconditional support of Israel. Arms for Hostages. Lebanon. Our unconditional support of Israel. (and to be clear, I support Israel's right to exist but there are some legitimate grievances against Israel that must be addressed if there is ever to be peace.)

Now you can justify every one of these events if you want (and I agree some were justified), but you asked for examples, and just because you can justify them doesn't mean it didn't piss off a very large sector of the Middle East, to the point that it fomented hatred towards the United States.

Seriously, I am quite sick of this argument. It's like being told that a rabid dog has every right to gnaw my leg and all I can do is explain the values of vegetarianism to it.

And yet you keep coming back. I don't understand...you seem genuinely angry. But there's really no need to be. I'm not angry at you, and I don't think anyone else is either. This is just talk amongst folk.

Your dog-gnawing analogy by the way is false. Had these students partaken in actually attacking Americans or property, then yeah, I say let the gloves come off and do what is necessary to put them down. What your analogy is really like is a dog barking at you, and you wanting to do it physical harm. But I really hate arguing with analogies because they always break down at some point, and rarely is an analogy ever truly analogous.

[slim 1,514]

They had the right to revel in the deaths of thousands of innocent people? Do you really believe that?

Not only do I believe that, but I'd be willing to fight and die to protect their right to do that.

So much for your "education" - a few testimonies from "people from those countries". Did you even read anything on the subject? Start with this, for example, maybe it'll put a few cracks in the pretty pink bubble you're living in.

Thank you for the link, I will read it when I get more time. And yes, I have spent literally hundreds, maybe even thousands, of hours reading information on the subject and I'm always open to reading more. As to my "education" it included several trips to the Middle East and a whole bunch of reading... and doing a lot more than reading!

As to the "pretty pink bubble" I'm living in... let me just say my pretty pink bubble is called reality. Reality is terrorism doesn't even blip my radar. Why? Because the threat posed to my daily life by terrorism is so minimal I don't even need to think about it. The fact of the matter is the threat posed to the daily lives of 99% of Americans is so minimal they shouldn't think about it. But yet, they do. Why is that?

Are terrorists bad people? Sure.

But, are all people who cheer at something automatically in the same group as the terrorists?

When Bush said "you're either with us or with the terrorists" he wasn't keeping the Bill of Rights in mind. He was letting his emotions dictate his actions. And that's why, while sitting with a group of foreigners, when they saw his picture come up on the TV they pointed and shouted "TERRORIST!" (Oh, by the way, they weren't from the Middle East and weren't even Muslim.... what's that all about?)

My husband spent years profiling suspect terrorists while on assignments for the dept. he used to work for. Believe me, you have no idea what's being done to prevent people like you from living in the state of constant fear (times worse than the fear you perceive as being inflicted on you by the politicians). You simply have no idea what you are talking about.

Now I see why you're offering up the arguments you are. It's ironic that as I sit here typing this I'm fear free and you're biting your fingernails over what the terrorists are going to do next.

I know what goes on to protect us from "the terror threat." However, I firmly disagree with the manner in which it's done because it's not done in a manner consistent with established international laws. What a lot of people, even those in the government and those who profile "suspects" for government "agencies" fail to realize (becuase they're so focused on eliminating the threat through what they're doing) is the manner in which they go about it does very little to thwart terror and goes a long way to garner support for it.

To truly combat terror you don't fight the "terrorists"... you fight the underlying causes. And on that note, actively seeking out terror "suspects" is a waste of time. Better to make yourself a hard target (terrorists are traditionally "soft" fighters) and address the causes of terrorism. It's extremely hard for terrorists to be successful when NO ONE wants them to be.

Wow. How exactly was America ######-slapping their countries before 9/11? Come on, if you are so sure of USA's great sins which warranted the right of those Muslims (guests of this country) to cheer at the death of thousands of innocent citizens, you might as well put forward some facts, don't be shy. Or was their nice and easy lifestyle here in the US so insulting to them as to provoke such a reaction?

mox covered this one nicely so I'll leave it alone other than to say I can't believe you told me I have no idea what I'm talking about.

Seriously, I am quite sick of this argument. It's like being told that a rabid dog has every right to gnaw my leg and all I can do is explain the values of vegetarianism to it.

I agree with you that explaining the value of vegetarianism isn't going to work. So let me offer a suggestion to prevent rabid dog attacks in the future.

What you should do is start kidnapping all the normal looking, non-rabid dogs in the neighborhood, lock them in cages for long periods of time and then torture them and ask them about being rabid or if they know any other dogs that are rabid or why they were trained to be rabid against their former owners that used to beat them 25 years ago.

Before long, every dog in your neighborhood is going to start wondering what happened to all those normal looking, non-rabid dogs. Then word's going to get out that someone has them locked in cages and kicks them everyday because there was ONE RABID DOG gnawing on some woman's leg.

The neighborhood dogs would probably start thinking someone was going to kidnap them and put them into cages and they probably wouldn't think too highly of the person that was doing it. Hell, they'd probably go so far as to gnaw on that person's leg themselves if they got the opportunity. I know I would if I was a dog put in that situation.

You wouldn't?

[Danno 1,228]

QUOTE(Blues Fairy @ Oct 14 2008, 11:39 PM) *

They had the right to revel in the deaths of thousands of innocent people? Do you really believe that?

Not only do I believe that, but I'd be willing to fight and die to protect their right to do that.

-Slim

=======================

NOw I wonder Slim, if you and your wife were in a public area and someone on the street

was demonstrating against your country and upon seeing your wife he began to slur her in the most load voice, calling her a #######, ####### etc.

Would you really fight and in fact give your life to stop anyone who tried to shut him up?

IN my view "freedom of speech" does not include everything a person lets out of their mouth. If this liberal concept had any merit we would never have had the many laws past out-lawing obscene or profane public utterances.

One cannot incite a riot.

This whole concept of clinging onto "higher principles" despite the cost... is in, fact greasing the skids toward our own downfall.

Political speech is one thing, ideas that are challenging are clearly protected but this whole notion that people should stand by and allow some jack-asses demonstrate at a Dead Marines Funeral is crazy, the idea that People on our soil would feel free to show public jubilation... and celebration after mass destruction is exactly what is wrong with this latest concept of "freedom of speech".

When I was in school, I recall the most, liberal teachers harping on "freedom of speech" (as if it were the only amendment)

Now that they are clearly in power at Schools, we see the "speech Codes" in every collage handbook.

So my Friend Slim, tell me what you would do given that situation?

[mox 298]

I'm sure slim has his own thoughts, but Danno what you are describing often falls under assault, and is not generally protected speech. As you pointed out, it could also fall under public indecency laws. I think it's generally recognized that speech that makes somebody feel reasonably and specifically threatened is not protected. (this is my "definition," you can probably poke holes in it, but I think I'm right in general.)

If you asked me to define exactly what constitutes reasonable free speech and what constitutes blatant аsshattery, I'd be hard pressed to come up with one. In fact, the courts have been wrestling with this since day one. But I know someone screaming profanities in my wife's face is not protected, and I'm pretty sure I'd be within my rights to take reasonable precautions, including decking the guy. Free speech doesn't include harassment, which this most certainly would be. "Revelry" on the other hand, even if we find it disgusting and/or "un-American," is most definitely protected.

Here's another example of free speech: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XbbcVNOMqSk . It disgusts me to no end, but I will defend this аsshat's right to do it.

[eekee 182]

When I was in school, I recall the most, liberal teachers harping on "freedom of speech" (as if it were the only amendment)

Now that they are clearly in power at Schools, we see the "speech Codes" in every collage handbook.

I think you have misunderstood what free speech is. When you agree to attend a "collage," you agree to abide by all the rules and regulations of the college. They can put all the restrictions they want in place--you have the choice to go there or not. It's like the TOS on a website. It's irrelevant when it comes to the issue of a government restricting speech.

[slim 1,514]

Handled nicely above....

Just to add - Protests at military funerals are disrespectful, but protected. That's exactly what those Marines fought to protect. Folks have the right to protest govt. actions and the sad state of affairs we're in now guarantees them extra press coverage if they do it at a funeral. In times past they would've been "escorted out" but now the media is there before the funeral and those Americans with respect for the dead who would've "escorted" the disrespectful people out in times past can no longer do so.

Either way though, protest is protected speech.

Just as a side note, we recently had a pretty big military funeral here. (Matt Maupin - Army MIA for a few years, returned home a few months ago) and there were some protests scheduled along the route. One of the veterans groups, the POW/MIA guys with big Harleys, rode along with the procession and every time there were protesters along the route they'd stop in front of them and rev their engines and the flags they carried would block the protesters from view. So, in effect the protesters still had the right to protest, but the vets still had the right to keep the funeral procession respectable. They did a very good job and still everyone kept their rights.

To address the other thing - If I had a dollar for every time someone called my wife a mail-order bride or Russian ####### or something like that I wouldn't be rich, but I'd certainly have more money than what I have today. But, if I would take action against them (KA-POW!) each time, I'd be poor because lawyers cost more than several dollars. Sure, technically their speech isn't protected but I'd be hard pressed to find a judge that would rule my right to feed them their teeth oversteps their right to say bad words.

[Bobalouie 0]

Handled nicely above....

Just to add - Protests at military funerals are disrespectful, but protected. That's exactly what those Marines fought to protect. Folks have the right to protest govt. actions and the sad state of affairs we're in now guarantees them extra press coverage if they do it at a funeral. In times past they would've been "escorted out" but now the media is there before the funeral and those Americans with respect for the dead who would've "escorted" the disrespectful people out in times past can no longer do so.

Either way though, protest is protected speech.

Just as a side note, we recently had a pretty big military funeral here. (Matt Maupin - Army MIA for a few years, returned home a few months ago) and there were some protests scheduled along the route. One of the veterans groups, the POW/MIA guys with big Harleys, rode along with the procession and every time there were protesters along the route they'd stop in front of them and rev their engines and the flags they carried would block the protesters from view. So, in effect the protesters still had the right to protest, but the vets still had the right to keep the funeral procession respectable. They did a very good job and still everyone kept their rights.

To address the other thing - If I had a dollar for every time someone called my wife a mail-order bride or Russian ####### or something like that I wouldn't be rich, but I'd certainly have more money than what I have today. But, if I would take action against them (KA-POW!) each time, I'd be poor because lawyers cost more than several dollars. Sure, technically their speech isn't protected but I'd be hard pressed to find a judge that would rule my right to feed them their teeth oversteps their right to say bad words.

See, I believe that it becomes a "do unto others" type of situation. I would never debase anyones funeral, military or otherwise, and I expect the same treatment. If I did do something like that, I would fully expect to have my teeth fed to me as a response. While I would not go to jail over words about my wife, I would go to jail because of someone defiling a funeral of a friend or loved one. There are lines, permitted by free speech laws that still should not be crossed. I dont think that the right to free speech should in anyway allow a person to turn off their decency switch and engage their mouths. Thats not what the constitutianal right to free speech protects.

Edited October 20, 2008 by Bobalouie

[Danno 1,228]

I'm sure slim has his own thoughts, but Danno what you are describing often falls under assault, and is not generally protected speech. As you pointed out, it could also fall under public indecency laws. I think it's generally recognized that speech that makes somebody feel reasonably and specifically threatened is not protected. (this is my "definition," you can probably poke holes in it, but I think I'm right in general.)

If you asked me to define exactly what constitutes reasonable free speech and what constitutes blatant аsshattery, I'd be hard pressed to come up with one. In fact, the courts have been wrestling with this since day one. But I know someone screaming profanities in my wife's face is not protected, and I'm pretty sure I'd be within my rights to take reasonable precautions, including decking the guy. Free speech doesn't include harassment, which this most certainly would be. "Revelry" on the other hand, even if we find it disgusting and/or "un-American," is most definitely protected.

Here's another example of free speech: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XbbcVNOMqSk . It disgusts me to no end, but I will defend this аsshat's right to do it.

You made my "mock situation" more threatening than I wanted, I never said anyone was "in her face", obviously we have a right to self protection.

But it's true, as you say it is hard to define what is speech and what is not.

One thing I know for a fact, this modern day concept that nearly anything goes for speech has no historical basis. IN my fathers time No one would have dared speak to any women on the street like that, every man present would have beat his ###.

We are in a new era now and I'm sad to say it's not for the better.

We obsess about the individuals right to utter profane meaningless words than we do about the whole community who must endure it.

How is it we can look at the trends of Global warming and make a determination but our social trends are blind to us?

Anyway, I gotta run.

[mox 298]

You made my "mock situation" more threatening than I wanted, I never said anyone was "in her face", obviously we have a right to self protection.

Ah, sorry about that. I just don't know then, I think it's really a case-by-case basis. My feeling is that if I feel threatened--like, REALLY threatened--then it's not protected speech. Perhaps I would start to exercise my own right to free speech with a few choice words and gestures, or maybe we just walk away. As the saying goes, never wrestle with a pig. You both get muddy and the pig likes it. (and yes Brad, I am a pig. )

We are in a new era now and I'm sad to say it's not for the better.

We obsess about the individuals right to utter profane meaningless words than we do about the whole community who must endure it.

There was a day when, if a man felt you had besmirched his or his woman's honor, it was dueling pistols at dawn. And there was a day when the class that you were born into determined your rights. I like to think that socially we're progressing in a more positive direction.

What really interests me though, is how powerful tolerance can be. If some Nazi jackoff is standing on a street corner spewing his bile, and everybody just keeps walking on by, completely ignoring him, he's got nothing, and will eventually just walk away scratching his head. But if someone goes up and puts him in the hospital, he's just become a martyr to his cause. Very often people do and say awful things to get a reaction to further their own ends. When we "turn the other cheek" it ideologically castrates them. This to me is much more effective.

How is it we can look at the trends of Global warming and make a determination but our social trends are blind to us?

You make a great point actually, even if I don't agree with your main argument. We do tend to be blind towards social trends, and I think it has a lot to do with how polarized we are as a nation. Most of us are very rigid in our thinking, and many of us don't bother to think at all. I think the political climate of the last 10 years has been very detrimental to the honest exchange of ideas in this country, and so possibly you are seeing a lowering of the level of discourse and attributing problems with our first amendment rights to it. I personally believe that with rights come responsibility, but that is a self-imposed maxim and has nothing to do with rights guaranteed to us.

[Danno 1,228]

When I was in school, I recall the most, liberal teachers harping on "freedom of speech" (as if it were the only amendment)

Now that they are clearly in power at Schools, we see the "speech Codes" in every collage handbook.

I think you have misunderstood what free speech is. When you agree to attend a "collage," you agree to abide by all the rules and regulations of the college. They can put all the restrictions they want in place--you have the choice to go there or not. It's like the TOS on a website. It's irrelevant when it comes to the issue of a government restricting speech.

Didn't Woolworths make this same argument about their lunch counters?

Many of these school are Built and operated tax payer money, it's not quite like a web-site.

But the main point you missed was the hypocritical actions to silence honest, legit opinion.

We lost respect for Jimmy Swaggert (if we ever had it) after it became known he wasn't practicing what he preached, I don't see much difference here... though both may have a "right"

to act contrary to the lessons they insist others learn.

[slim 1,514]

Many of these school are Built and operated tax payer money, it's not quite like a web-site.

So if we can create speech codes for schools, why can't we silence those on public assistance? Their concerns seem to be taken pretty seriously by the government even though they don't pay for representation.

[mox 298]

I think you have misunderstood what free speech is. When you agree to attend a "collage," you agree to abide by all the rules and regulations of the college. They can put all the restrictions they want in place--you have the choice to go there or not. It's like the TOS on a website. It's irrelevant when it comes to the issue of a government restricting speech.

Freedom of speech is often misunderstood to mean that enyone can say anthing they want, anywhere. This is not the case of course. As pertains to academic institutions, however, they have a long tradition of supporting free speech. That's why people such as the Iranian President (whose name I can't be bothered to spell check at the moment ) are invited to speak at universities, despite the abhorrant views they hold.

People also believe that forums such as VJ are havens of free speech, and that when a post is deleted or edited by a moderator, that this is "censorship." But nobody has the right to free speech on private property, which is what VJ is. You can't go into a Walmart and start picketing them, because it's private property. But you can stand on the public sidewalk out front of their store and picket to your heart's content.