H'WOOD MORONS

[pedroh 21]

pretty much.. I by no means stereotype all liberals but there are a lot of bad apples in the group that are stuffing the US up for it's fellow citizens..

Do people realize that in the US, thanks to groups like the ACLU, authorities would have had an almost impossible task of capturing similar bombers to those in the UK because the authorities would pretty much have had to hand out flyers in a neighbourhood advising them that they suspect them of terror activities and will need to tap their phone lines ..Then after all of that the alcu would come to the rescue and probably mention that under amendment bla bla bla written in 1787 it's unlawful and sue..

Hopefully the NYT doesn't get their hands on a similar investigation to the terrorists in the UK, prior to any arrests, because they would probably publish the details of the investigation in their paper. Then only to turn around and claim that the George w admin failed to prevent terrorist.. It just seems to be a vicious cycle in the US of the liberals playing a dirty game of 'I'll do anything to screw George W and the republicans', instead of being united on the security of their F'''n lives...

So what's the point - that civil liberties (the result of several thousand years of western civilisation) are to be thrown away for the hell of it?

At which point then does balancing the need to provide effective national security with protecting the cherished freedoms of its citizens lead to a society where a person can be landed in jail for not having carrying his ID?

I'm not ignorant of the threat - but it seems to me that rushing to give away all of our freedoms to the government, with the barest modicum of debate, forethought or safeguard is simply ridiculous - but not inconsistent with current political climate. Straussian philosophy at its best.

It's that sort of attitude that has kept crime rates high in the US. The attitude were criminals have the same rights, if not more, than victims. Were Gang bangers and organised crime, let alone terrorists, can hide

under BS amendments and laws created at a time when the present issues simply did not exist let alone have been foreseeable..

Dont you think that if previous generations, especially the founders of this nation, were brought to the future to see what has become of this nation and how the amendments are now being misused and interpreted literally in-order to suite a persons or particular groups agenda would be disgusted..

i highly doubt the founding forefathers interpreted freedom of speech as allowing idiots to trash the nation with songs like "i don't want to be an American idiot"..

Liberty is meaningless where the right to utter one’s thoughts and opinions has ceased to exist. That, of all rights, is the dread of tyrants. It is the right which they first of all strike down. They know its power. Thrones, dominions, principalities, and powers, founded in injustice and wrong, are sure to tremble, if men are allowed to reason…

There can be on right of speech where any man…[is] compelled to suppress his honest sentiments.

Equally clear is the right to hear. To suppress free speech is a double wrong. It violates the rights of the hearer as well as those of the speaker."

Frederick DOUGLASS

In famous plea for free speech in Boston 1860

American abolitionist, author, orator (1817-1895

Freedom of expression is the matrix, the indispensable condition, of nearly every other form of freedom."

Benjamin Nathan CARDOZO

American jurist (1870–1938)

-------

ahem.. that is called freedom of speech.. Greey Day has the right to sing 'I don't want to be an American Idiot' as the dumbarses from KKK have right to express their point of views... government obey the people, not the other way..

and if you think songs like that trash the nation.. then you have a weak concept of nationalism... I've been listening to rap for almost 2 years.. and not because of that I'm packing a gun and dressing like an 'i shat in my pants' rapper..

[Heracles 417]

Liberty is meaningless where the right to utter one’s thoughts and opinions has ceased to exist. That, of all rights, is the dread of tyrants.

So then why don't we just let all of the criminals out of the prisons since their crimes can be considered a freedom of speech (expression). Where does one draw the line??

That is why h'wood heroes like S Dogg and Eminem have been arrested or warned to watch their language and attitude when travelling to countries like the UK or Australia. Most civilized countries like Australia have a clearly defined line. Right is right and wrong is wrong. A person in these countries cannot simply hide under the expression of 'freedom of speech' and be allowed to negatively influence others..

When something becomes an issue in Australia the laws are amended to deal with the issue. People are free to say or do as they please, unless their words or actions have negative consequences on others and are dealt with accordingly. Whereas in the US someone's words or actions, no matter have negative the consequences, are protected by the first amendment..

Who is right who is wrong, i don't know.. What I do know is that a in these times hell of a lot more people die to live in Australia and the UK than the US and that living standards, general happiness and life expectancy is much higher in AUS & UK than the US.. So obviously someone is doing something wrong here...

PS Then again in AUS actors and singers are not idolized as much as they are here..

Edited August 15, 2006 by Infidel

[Heracles 417]

.

[Trompe le Monde 1,107]

What about the second amendent? Does that have anything to do with it?

[pedroh 21]

mhh if I were single.. I'd move to Australia.. but I'm not.. lololol

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

It's that sort of attitude that has kept crime rates high in the US. The attitude were criminals have the same rights, if not more, than victims. Were Gang bangers and organised crime, let alone terrorists, can hide under BS amendments and laws created at a time when the present issues simply did not exist let alone have been foreseeable..

Screw the perceived "attitude" - answer the question. At which point does balancing the need for effective national security vs. protecting the cherished freedoms of its citizens lead to a society where a person can be landed in jail for not having carrying his ID?

Dont you think that if previous generations, especially the founders of this nation, were brought to the future to see what has become of this nation and how the amendments are now being misused and interpreted literally in-order to suite a persons or particular groups agenda would be disgusted..

i highly doubt the founding forefathers interpreted freedom of speech as allowing idiots to trash the nation with songs like "i don't want to be an American idiot"..

Probably, but the freedoms are bigger and wider reaching than the 'founding fathers' of the country.

Just as disgusting is the shallow pretense of democracy and national dialogue - the repugnant idea that all of America's problems can be comfortanbly reduced down to a corrupted set of political ideas, incorrectly dubbed as "Liberal" or "Conservative".

People are becoming more and more primitive by the day.. Just look at h'wood were peoples lives are obsessed with looks and sex. Or how criminals and gangs are becoming more and more vicious.. Or how the number of self-centered people in the US are growing, which ironically are in the blue states....

PS Whatever progress was made by the western civilization in the US peaked in the 60's and has since been on a downward spiral towards being lost and completely forgotten.. Just watch a few shows on MTV and one will see teens saying, "you are a loser if your a geek or your not hot..". Their whole pupose in life is to be cool or be hot...

So one group of people should have their rights taken away because they are barbaric and amoral, while another, apparently more enlightened group should happily give them away in the hope that the government they so unquestioningly trust will protect them and not overstep its bounds or abuse its power.

Which group are the Morlocks I wonder

Edited August 15, 2006 by erekose

[Fischkoepfin 1]

Dont you think that if previous generations, especially the founders of this nation, were brought to the future to see what has become of this nation and how the amendments are now being misused and interpreted literally in-order to suite a persons or particular groups agenda would be disgusted..

i highly doubt the founding forefathers interpreted freedom of speech as allowing idiots to trash the nation with songs like "i don't want to be an American idiot"..

Probably, but the freedoms are bigger and wider reaching than the 'founding fathers' of the country.

Just as disgusting is the shallow pretense of democracy and national dialogue - the repugnant idea that all of America's problems can be comfortanbly reduced down to a corrupted set of political ideas, incorrectly dubbed as "Liberal" or "Conservative".

The founders actually would have appreciated the fact that there are people willing to criticize their country if need be. Think about it, THEY decided to not only criticize their home country but to start a revolt because they were angry at the fact that they were being governed by an entity that was not interested in their justified criticism. Read the Declaration of Independence and you'll find out that their grievances were very similar to those uttered by Bush-critics today. Thomas Jefferson even went so far as to claim that every generation needs its revolution in order to ensure that the government is for the people and not for the select few. I'm certain most of the founders would be totally appalled not at the voices criticizing the administration but at the way supporters of the current government abuse the founders to silence other critics.

And yes, erekose, I agree that reducing the problems facing this country to ideology is completely misleading. Assuming that it is possible for one group - which does not even exist as a unified entity - to entirely skew the bright future of a nation purporting to be a democracy is not only bizzare but historically untenable. So, I'd like to challenge our so-called conservative friends to come up with a list of problems caused exclusively by "liberals."

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Dont you think that if previous generations, especially the founders of this nation, were brought to the future to see what has become of this nation and how the amendments are now being misused and interpreted literally in-order to suite a persons or particular groups agenda would be disgusted..

i highly doubt the founding forefathers interpreted freedom of speech as allowing idiots to trash the nation with songs like "i don't want to be an American idiot"..

Probably, but the freedoms are bigger and wider reaching than the 'founding fathers' of the country.

Just as disgusting is the shallow pretense of democracy and national dialogue - the repugnant idea that all of America's problems can be comfortanbly reduced down to a corrupted set of political ideas, incorrectly dubbed as "Liberal" or "Conservative".

The founders actually would have appreciated the fact that there are people willing to criticize their country if need be. Think about it, THEY decided to not only criticize their home country but to start a revolt because they were angry at the fact that they were being governed by an entity that was not interested in their justified criticism. Read the Declaration of Independence and you'll find out that their grievances were very similar to those uttered by Bush-critics today. Thomas Jefferson even went so far as to claim that every generation needs its revolution in order to ensure that the government is for the people and not for the select few. I'm certain most of the founders would be totally appalled not at the voices criticizing the administration but at the way supporters of the current government abuse the founders to silence other critics.

And yes, erekose, I agree that reducing the problems facing this country to ideology is completely misleading. Assuming that it is possible for one group - which does not even exist as a unified entity - to entirely skew the bright future of a nation purporting to be a democracy is not only bizzare but historically untenable. So, I'd like to challenge our so-called conservative friends to come up with a list of problems caused exclusively by "liberals."

I was wondering that myself. It's also baffling that noone seems to understand that historically, the curtailing of civil rights has rarely (if ever) ended well. If anything, weakening the national constitution makes it easier for would be Hitler's to do away with it entirely, as happened with Germany in the 30's.

In essence, while Bush et al rightly subject to criticism for their abandonment of constitutional values and human rights legislation, the real worry is that someone worse will come along after him.

[incanada1234 0]

It just seems to be a vicious cycle in the US of the liberals playing a dirty game of 'I'll do anything to screw George W and the republicans', instead of being united on the security of their F'''n lives...

So you think that liberals' opinions on national security are formed solely by the desire to spite GW and Republicans??

Duh.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

It just seems to be a vicious cycle in the US of the liberals playing a dirty game of 'I'll do anything to screw George W and the republicans', instead of being united on the security of their F'''n lives...

So you think that liberals' opinions on national security are formed solely by the desire to spite GW and Republicans??

Duh.

Bollocks

[incanada1234 0]

I Infidel.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

It just seems to be a vicious cycle in the US of the liberals playing a dirty game of 'I'll do anything to screw George W and the republicans', instead of being united on the security of their F'''n lives...

So you think that liberals' opinions on national security are formed solely by the desire to spite GW and Republicans??

Duh.

Bollocks

I watched V for Vendetta last night for the first time! Wow! Now I'm interested in finding copies of the comic. The author seems like a really interesting individual.

...the central question is, is this guy right? Or is he mad? What do you, the reader, think about this? Which struck me as a properly anarchist solution. I didn't want to tell people what to think, I just wanted to tell people to think, and consider some of these admittedly extreme little elements, which nevertheless do recur fairly regularly throughout human history. - Alan Moore

[incanada1234 0]

George Harrison!!!

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I Infidel.

Probably because intellectual dishonesty is synonymous with the current political climate in the US.

Because of course, society's problems can all be laid squarely at the feet of (pick all that apply):

• The Left
  
• Liberals
  
• Hollywood
  
• Video Games
  
• Rap Music
  
• Muslims
  
• Blacks
  

Edited August 16, 2006 by erekose

[incanada1234 0]

I Infidel.

Probably because intellectual dishonesty is synonymous with the current political climate in the US.

Because of course, society's problems can all be laid squarely at the feet of (pick all that apply):

• The Left
  
• Liberals
  
• Hollywood
  
• Video Games
  
• Rap Music
  
• Muslims
  
• Blacks
  

Um, more like

• Hillary Clinton
  
• Robert Byrd (good ol' KKK member)
  
• Joe Biden
  
• Barbara Boxer
  
• Ted Kennedy
  
• ####### Durban
  
• John Kerry (oh wait, he never shows up to work...)
  
• Chuck Schumer
  

But also, yes, hollyweird.