# Interesting take on the US from a Brit...



## Chuck Franke (Aug 8, 2003)

Americans will die for liberty 
By Andrew Gimson

....I think Mr. Gimson has us figured out. While mentioning how 'Quaint' some of our foundational beliefs seem to the more enlightened European mind he comes to the realization that America is a young country with an old constitution because the idea that freedom is worth dying for is second nature in the American psyche. Good read, I never would have thought that a European coming to the US would see ours as an old fashioned society.

"_But when the Americans speak of freedom, we should not imagine, in our cynical and worldly-wise way, that they are merely using that word as a cloak for realpolitik. They are not above realpolitik, but they also mean what they say. _
_These formidable people think freedom is so valuable that it is worth dying for_."

..and that pretty well sums it up.


----------



## Tom Bell-Drier (Mar 1, 2006)

the Americans patriotism and faith in their constitution is why I enjoy and choose to spend so much time in the states .Sometimes on ask Andy I can`t help but feel that sometimes there are unrealistic and rose tinted perceptions of the old world or motherland. that is not to say that it is all bad just some aspects are changing and not allways for the better.


----------



## Lushington (Jul 12, 2006)

Other British journalists take a less romantic view of The Republic:

https://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,,1778606,00.html


----------



## fenway (May 2, 2006)

Gee, someone at the Guardian doesn't like the U.S.

Surprise, surprise.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Thank you for the opposing view Lushington. I momentarily felt pride in my adopted country and that another foriegn born person can view the US at its best as I can. Lucky you posted.


----------



## Tom Bell-Drier (Mar 1, 2006)

Lushington said:


> Other British journalists take a less romantic view of The Republic:
> 
> https://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,,1778606,00.html


hmm . the guardian huh, of course a paper not renowned for its wet liberal, youghurt knitting,wishy washy,birkenstock wearing,museli crunching,left leaning style of journalism.


----------



## Lushington (Jul 12, 2006)

Wayfarer said:


> Thank you for the opposing view Lushington. I momentarily felt pride in my adopted country and that another foriegn born person can view the US at its best as I can. Lucky you posted.


Are you suggesting that after looking at Mr. Younge's article, which is hardly a scathing denunciation of the United States, you no longer feel pride in your adopted country? That your illusions have been shattered, and you intend to forsake Arizona for the frozen North? I can hardly believe that. Or is it that you are incapable of addressing substantive arguments, and rely upon sneers and _ad hominem_ attacks to make what meager points you can? Mr. Franke posted an article by a British journalist who had recently visited the United States and who apparently has come away with a remarkably sanguine view of the country. In response, I posted an article by a British journalist who has recently spent time in the US, and has written a book, excerpted on _The Guardian_'s website, which expresses a less sanguine, some might say, more nuanced view. One might think that the contrasting views would lead to an interesting discussion of the respective opinions expressed in the two articles, a discussion that would benefit from the observations of foreign-born persons living in the United States, such as yourself. Alas, I was mistaken, as you respond with a laughable whine about your wounded sensibilities. You apparently have no game at all.

Regarding complaints about _The Guardian_: One might just as easily dismiss _The Telegraph_ as a warmongering Murdoch rag, fit only for wrapping fish and lining birdcages. That, of course, would be perfectly irrelevant when examining the merits of Mr. Gimson's article.


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

I agree with almost everything Mr. Gimson says in this commentary. In fact, I generally agree with this statement:

"But when the Americans speak of freedom, we should not imagine, in our cynical and worldly-wise way, that they are merely using that word as a cloak for realpolitik."

I have seen too much evidence in the people of small-town Vermont, where I live, that this statement is correct to doubt that it applies to the American people.

I think it is also clear, however, that in the mouths of people like George Bush, freedom is a cynical cloak for realpolitik, and the honest love of freedom in my countrymen is too easily manipulated. He has squandered the moral high ground and global support that America had after the 2001 terrorist attacks by an illegal war against a country that posed no serious threat to the United States, and he weakened our ability to defend ourselves in the process.

It is impossible to know what would have happened, but one must at least question whether al Qaida would have had the resources to mount the plot that has apparently been foiled in England this week if we had pursued al Qaeda when we had the chance, instead of diverting our resources to Iraq.

I've frequently seen snide comments about Noam Chomsky on these boards, but I think many readers will agree with his assessment that the United States is the greatest country in the world. The reason that many of us are opposing the course that it is on now is that we want to see our country live up to its highest ideals.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Lushington said:


> Are you suggesting that after looking at Mr. Younge's article, which is hardly a scathing denunciation of the United States, you no longer feel pride in your adopted country? That your illusions have been shattered, and you intend to forsake Arizona for the frozen North? I can hardly believe that. Or is it that you are incapable of addressing substantive arguments, and rely upon sneers and _ad hominem_ attacks to make what meager points you can? Mr. Franke posted an article by a British journalist who had recently visited the United States and who apparently has come away with a remarkably sanguine view of country. In response, I posted an article by a British journalist who has recently spent time in the US, and has written a book, excepted on _The Guardian_'s website, which expresses a less sanguine, some might say, more nuanced view. One might think that the contrasting views would lead to an interesting discussion of the respective opinions expressed in the two articles, a discussion that would benefit from the observations of foreign-born persons living in the United States, such as yourself. Alas, I was mistaken, as you respond with a laughable whine about your wounded sensibilities. You apparently have no game at all.
> 
> Regarding complaints about _The Guardian_: One might just as easily dismiss _The Telegraph_ as a warmongering Murdoch rag, fit only for wrapping fish and lining birdcages. That, of course, would be perfectly irrelevant when examining the merits of Mr. Gimson's article.


1) Show me the _ad hominem_ in my post.
2) My comment was designed to make people ponder why it seems that, for some reason, people can not let a positive statement about the US stand on its own but rather feel compelled to run in and point out its feet of clay.
3) I think thou dost protest too much.

Warmest regards

Edit: I tried to resist but cannot. Lushington, if one wishes to see some _ad homs_, I think one need look no further than how you speak to me. Quite personal in your attacks. I am glad I seem to raise such emotion in your respones. It shows that protest as you do, my posts cut you to the quick.


----------



## Trimmer (Nov 2, 2005)

*The 'old' country*



Chuck Franke said:


> America is a young country with an old constitution


It's older than this one, having constitutional continuity back to 1776. The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland only dates back to 1921.

Trimmer


----------



## Patrick M Thayer (Dec 24, 2004)

GIVE ME LIBERTY OR GIVE ME DEATH!


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

Patrick M Thayer said:


> GIVE ME LIBERTY OR GIVE ME DEATH!


Just a bit off topic but are you any relation to Alfred Thayer Mahan? Being from Anapolis I'm just curious. Please feel free to ignore my query if its too personal.


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

Interesting question in light of the comments on naval warfare in the Civil War.


----------



## Patrick M Thayer (Dec 24, 2004)

pt4u67 said:


> Just a bit off topic but are you any relation to Alfred Thayer Mahan? Being from Anapolis I'm just curious. Please feel free to ignore my query if its too personal.


No, but I am related to Sylvanus Thayer, known as the father of West Point -- military is in the blood, but sailing is life -- that's why Annapolis.


----------



## Rocker (Oct 29, 2004)

jackmccullough said:


> . .. . George Bush . . squandered the ... global support that America had after the 2001 terrorist attacks by an illegal war against a country that posed no serious threat to the United States, and he weakened our ability to defend ourselves in the process.


America never had "global support" or anything like it. Some feckless Frenchman says "We're all Americans now" and you believe him - you think the French would have worked with us in a "diplomatic solution" when they were making millions from the oil for food program and illegally selling weapons to Iraq? Give me a break. Europe could barely cooperate with America even when it was in it's own strategic interests (the deployment of Pershing IIs - anyone remember the row?)

America has always had very few real allies to rely upon (the French fired on American troops and naval vessels as we were landing in N. Africa in operation Torch in WW II, for god's sake). Global support, indeed - a bunch of pretty words from nations who would never lift a finger to do anything substantive to help America. America will always have to do the heavy lifting - as in Bosnia. Great job the EU did negotiating with Iran over nuclear developments so far.

2. How is the war in Iraq illegal please, do explain.

3. How has Bush weakened our ability to defend ourselves?


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

jackmccullough said:


> He has squandered the moral high ground and global support that America had after the 2001 terrorist attacks by an illegal war against a country that posed no serious threat to the United States, and he weakened our ability to defend ourselves in the process.


First, Whenever the U.S. stands up for its interests the world community and American liberals sound the mantra of "squandering our moral high ground." It seems as though when we abdicate our national interests to the world then we have again gained the moral high ground. Reagan lost it, Clinton found it. I'm sure it won't be the first nor last time we here this in the media.

Second, I won't even start down the path of illegal war but could you please show some empirical evidence of how we have been weakended in our ability to defend ourselves.


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

I'll address both of the last posts, although briefly.

1. Beginning a war of aggression is a violation of international law, which the United States is required to obey. Just as it was illegal for Iraq to invade Kuwait, and before that Iran, it was illegal for the United States to invade Iraq. Iraq was not threatening the United States or preparing to invade us. Iraq posed no practical threat to the United States. Also, notwithstanding statements and insinuations to the contrary by the Administration and its allies, Iraq had nothing to do with the terrorist attacks of September 11 or the people who carried them out. Although there had been a period when Iraq was obstructing arms inspections, at the time of the United States invasion Iraq was cooperating with UN inspectors until they left the country on the orders of the United States.

2. We obtained significant cooperation--not perfect, but more than nothing-- from countries who have not normally been considered allies after the attacks, including Pakistan and Syria.

3. Bush directly diverted forces from Eastern Afghanistan and Pakistan, where they had been pursuing bin Laden, to prepare for the invasion of Iraq. Since Saddam Hussein had never attacked the United States and bin Laden had, this diversion of resources in itself weakened our defenses. Furthermore, the war appears to be the proximate cause of military recruiting shortfalls. Finally, given the number of troops in Iraq and the number of units who have had repeated deployments, it is unlikely that we could provide adequate troop levels if we needed to engage another enemy in significant land combat.

We also saw a couple of weeks ago that the United States had a hard time getting a resolution passed in the UN Security Council condemning North Korea's missile testing, not because anyone disagreed with the content of the resolution, but because Bush has a track record of using UN resolutions as a justification for unilateral military action. If he'd thought of the value of international institutions before invading Iraq the UN would now be in a better position to protect global security and U.S. interests. (Unless you don't think global security is in our interests, I guess.)


----------



## patbrady2005 (Oct 4, 2005)

Wayfarer said:


> Thank you for the opposing view Lushington. I momentarily felt pride in my adopted country and that another foriegn born person can view the US at its best as I can. Lucky you posted.


I read you loud and clear, Wayfarer. Does there always have to be someone chiming in to try to shoot down any expression of good feelings, trust or pride in the USA?

We are not perfect, but we are far better than most. There, I said it. We are not nearly as bad as many would make us out to be.


----------



## Trenditional (Feb 15, 2006)

patbrady2005 said:


> I read you loud and clear, Wayfarer. Does there always have to be someone chiming in to try to shoot down any expression of good feelings, trust or pride in the USA?
> 
> We are not perfect, but we are far better than most. There, I said it. We are not nearly as bad as many would make us out to be.


I'll add a little more, when you're at the top there's always someone wanting to knock you off. If you think about, most of us are here today because our ancestors were looking for someplace better. That love for our freedoms and way of life is a strong driving force in the hearts of many Americans.

There are many beautiful countries around the world, with wonderful people populating those countries, but I'm glad to visit and come back "HOME"!


----------



## Chuck Franke (Aug 8, 2003)

Sigh.

I think some folks around here were once told 'If you can't say anything nice, don't say anything' but heard 'If you can't say anything nice, say it through a megaphone'.

Oh well.

I like America, I also happen to be a large fan of the United Kingdom. Some don't.


----------



## Chuck Franke (Aug 8, 2003)

Trimmer said:


> It's older than this one, having constitutional continuity back to 1776. The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland only dates back to 1921.
> 
> Trimmer


Oh I know our Constitution is older... I kinda find irony in that since our nation is so much younger. I still maintain that American Democracy is the worst possible form of government save one....

(One: Every other form that has been attempted)


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

jackmccullough said:


> 3. Bush directly diverted forces from Eastern Afghanistan and Pakistan, where they had been pursuing bin Laden, to prepare for the invasion of Iraq. Since Saddam Hussein had never attacked the United States and bin Laden had, this diversion of resources in itself weakened our defenses. Furthermore, the war appears to be the proximate cause of military recruiting shortfalls. Finally, given the number of troops in Iraq and the number of units who have had repeated deployments, it is unlikely that we could provide adequate troop levels if we needed to engage another enemy in significant land combat.


That is a ridiculous argument. Bin Laden is probably hiding in western Pakistan according to most intelligence sources (at least those willing to discuss it publicly). Are you suggesting we should mass troops and invade Pakistan. Its easy to use the "if we had more troops..." argument however I think most seriuos thinkers on this would disagree. Second the reason we have small military is because in the 90's the armed forces were gutted. Provided congress approves the raising of another 10 divisions we would not have that problem. We have a force structure problem not a recruiting problem. There was a small blip on the Army but the rest were able to recruit on par. The Army is now where it needs to be. Your third response I'm afraid ignores the fact that we only have a fraction of our armed forces in Iraq. We have ~130-140,000 troops in Iraq out of a force of >1,000,000. We're fully capable of dealing with just about any threat in the world and don't forget that our technology edge is a tremendous force multiplier. This means provided North Korea has enough fuel to start rolling its 1950's and 60's tanks across the DMZ they would be readily picked off by our forces and the ROK.


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

Your use of the present tense is important. You are correct that bin Laden "IS probably hiding in western Pakistan".

We also know, however, that the very force, the very same people, who were trying to catch him in the Tora Bora mountains, probably before he got into Pakistan, were taken out of Afghanistan and shipped to Iraq to do ground work for the invasion. Do you think we might have been better off if we'd been able to catch or kill bin Laden? I sure do.

We also know that if the Army is on track with recruiting now it is in part because it has lowered its standards and granted more exemptions to what were previously disqualifying marks on the recruit's record. In fact, the soldier accused of raping an Iraqi woman and killing her family is one of the people who got in because of the exception.


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

jackmccullough said:


> Your use of the present tense is important. You are correct that bin Laden "IS probably hiding in western Pakistan".
> 
> We also know, however, that the very force, the very same people, who were trying to catch him in the Tora Bora mountains, probably before he got into Pakistan, were taken out of Afghanistan and shipped to Iraq to do ground work for the invasion. Do you think we might have been better off if we'd been able to catch or kill bin Laden? I sure do.
> 
> We also know that if the Army is on track with recruiting now it is in part because it has lowered its standards and granted more exemptions to what were previously disqualifying marks on the recruit's record. In fact, the soldier accused of raping an Iraqi woman and killing her family is one of the people who got in because of the exception.


Army staffing levels are determined by a multitude of factors. When recruiting goals are raised (as in a time of war) certain changes are made in standards. I"m sure plenty of those who got in under the new standards have not been on a crime spree and I'm also quite certain that of those who got in under the old standards have committed some crimes.

Your point on Tora Bora does not jive with the timeline. Tora Bora was in Dec. 2001. The buildup of troops for Iraq did not begin until the Summer of 2002.


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

So you're saying forces were not deployed from Tora Bora to Iraq? That's just not true.


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

jackmccullough said:


> So you're saying forces were not deployed from Tora Bora to Iraq? That's just not true.


You make it sound as though infantry were pulled from Tora Bora in the middle of the fight and transferred to Iraq. I think some linguists and some intelligence assets were transferred however in a situation like that mass was more critical then technology. I will say this: I think it was a mistake to rely on technology and covert operations in that situation instead of relying on mass. Hi tech is fine for cornering the enemy but once cornered their is no substitute for the hammer and anvil.


----------



## Rocker (Oct 29, 2004)

jackmccullough said:


> I'll address both of the last posts, although briefly.
> 
> 1. Beginning a war of aggression is a violation of international law, which the United States is required to obey. Just as it was illegal for Iraq to invade Kuwait, and before that Iran, it was illegal for the United States to invade Iraq. Iraq was not threatening the United States or preparing to invade us. Iraq posed no practical threat to the United States. Also, notwithstanding statements and insinuations to the contrary by the Administration and its allies, Iraq had nothing to do with the terrorist attacks of September 11 or the people who carried them out. Although there had been a period when Iraq was obstructing arms inspections, at the time of the United States invasion Iraq was cooperating with UN inspectors until they left the country on the orders of the United States.


Wrong. The U.S. signed a cease-fire agreement with Iraq after the first gulf war - not a peace treaty. Any resumption of hostilites when a cease-fire is broken is perfectly legitimate. Iraq broke the ceasefire flagrantly and frequently by firing at our aircraft, we were free to attack at any time (assuming you feel bound by bogus notions like a "legal" or "illegal" war. I could give a rat's ass what the UN says).


----------



## Rocker (Oct 29, 2004)

jackmccullough said:


> We also saw a couple of weeks ago that the United States had a hard time getting a resolution passed in the UN Security Council condemning North Korea's missile testing, not because anyone disagreed with the content of the resolution, but because Bush has a track record of using UN resolutions as a justification for unilateral military action. If he'd thought of the value of international institutions before invading Iraq the UN would now be in a better position to protect global security and U.S. interests. (Unless you don't think global security is in our interests, I guess.)


You're kidding, right? "Condemning" - wow, that will teach them! We know how much N. Korea cares about world opinion. The only time in its history that UN has been even somewhat efficacious in protecting a nation from invasion was Korea and that was because the Soviet Union stupidly walked out before the vote and because the US was willing to commit the money, weaponry, and manpower. But for America paying the price of 53,000 casualties, S. Korea would be starving like N. Korea today. Ask the Israelis how they feel about UN provided security, or the residents of Srebrenica, or Somalia, or the Congo. You're delusional if you think the UN is/will be of any help to the US. Your mindset is revealed by the fact that, though the invasion of Iraq was approved by the elected U.S. Congress - you, seemingly, wanted the express permission of an undemocratically appointed body of bureaucrats called the UN. One bomb hit in Iraq sent the little bureaucrats scurrying out of the country.


----------



## odoreater (Feb 27, 2005)

I think our Constitution is one of the two greatest documents created by man and I'm glad that America has a tradition of fighting for the freedoms guaranteed by that Constitution. I fear though, that the greatest threat to our Constitution comes from within - from our own people who almost daily seem willing to give up the rights and freedoms guaranteed by that document in exchange for perceived security from terrorists, criminals, hippies, communists, and other "threats.". Perhaps some day we will be pushed too far and will actually heed the warnings of our forefathers instead of just paying lipservice to their ideals.


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

odoreater said:


> I think our Constitution is one of the two greatest documents created by man and I'm glad that America has a tradition of fighting for the freedoms guaranteed by that Constitution. I fear though, that the greatest threat to our Constitution comes from within - from our own people who almost daily seem willing to give up the rights and freedoms guaranteed by that document in exchange for perceived security from terrorists, criminals, hippies, communists, and other "threats.". Perhaps some day we will be pushed too far and will actually heed the warnings of our forefathers instead of just paying lipservice to their ideals.


Not only is the constitution ONE of the greatest, it is THE greatest document every written by man. I believe you are taking the whole "giving up" freedoms things a bit over the top however. Every day we give up certain things in the interests of living in society. We are not free to do as we please in a host of behaviors and have restraints placed upon our behaviors and speech. Every ammendment to the constitution, including the Bill of Rights, has over the years been tested to some degree and restriction been placed upon it. I have a right to bear arms, however I am not allowed to park a functioning howitzer in my backyard. I have the freedom of speech yet can be arrested for inciting a riot. I have the right to vote however in some states if I were a convicted felon I would not. I have a right to not be searched nor my property seized unless a reasonable cause exists.

When we look to secure our liberties against foreign and domestic threats we do so within the framework of the constitution, not by throwing it out the window and starting from scratch. This is an important distinction as the former contains within it a check that up to now has worked quite well. Worse things have happended to this country, the civil war perhaps being the most potentially destructive, and the nations guiding document and emerged unscathed.


----------



## Trenditional (Feb 15, 2006)

odoreater said:


> I think our Constitution is one of the two greatest documents created by man and I'm glad that America has a tradition of fighting for the freedoms guaranteed by that Constitution. I fear though, that the greatest threat to our Constitution comes from within - from our own people who almost daily seem willing to give up the rights and freedoms guaranteed by that document in exchange for perceived security from terrorists, criminals, hippies, communists, and other "threats.". Perhaps some day we will be pushed too far and will actually heed the warnings of our forefathers instead of just paying lipservice to their ideals.


As great as our country is, many times our government's "mistakes" are as unjust as anywhere else in the world. Look at our treatment of the Native Americans (Indians to anyone born before 1980), Italians, Germans and Japanese during WWII and Arab-Americans post 9/11.

I agree, we are threatened from within. Our biggest enemy is living amongst us. To combat this enemy and work within the parameters of our Constitution will be a difficult task. Our freedoms and Rights, make finding those who want to hide amongst us and commit these acts of terror much more difficult. That said, I would still not want to see those rights which we hold so important, compromised.


----------



## odoreater (Feb 27, 2005)

pt4u67 said:


> Not only is the constitution ONE of the greatest, it is THE greatest document every written by man. I believe you are taking the whole "giving up" freedoms things a bit over the top however. Every day we give up certain things in the interests of living in society. We are not free to do as we please in a host of behaviors and have restraints placed upon our behaviors and speech. Every ammendment to the constitution, including the Bill of Rights, has over the years been tested to some degree and restriction been placed upon it. I have a right to bear arms, however I am not allowed to park a functioning howitzer in my backyard. I have the freedom of speech yet can be arrested for inciting a riot. I have the right to vote however in some states if I were a convicted felon I would not. I have a right to not be searched nor my property seized unless a reasonable cause exists.
> 
> When we look to secure our liberties against foreign and domestic threats we do so within the framework of the constitution, not by throwing it out the window and starting from scratch. This is an important distinction as the former contains within it a check that up to now has worked quite well. Worse things have happended to this country, the civil war perhaps being the most potentially destructive, and the nations guiding document and emerged unscathed.


I said ONE of the TWO greatest documents - the other, in my opinion, is the Bible. I understand that we have restrictions placed on freedom, but lately, I think people aren't all that interested in freedom and what freedom really means and the restrictions are getting a bit out of hand. I don't want to see the country that I love so much go the way of other countries that sacrificed everything for a little more security. Maybe you believe I'm taking it over the top because you haven't seen what happens when freedoms get taken away, or maybe having freedoms taken away doesn't effect you all that much. I think a lot of people, those many years ago, thought Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, Patrick Henry, Ben Franklin, James Madison, and the rest, were taking the whole "freedom" and having "rights taken away" thing a little over the top too, but history proved them right - just like I think history will prove me right unless we do something about it right now.


----------



## Relayer (Nov 9, 2005)

odoreater,

I would agree, to an extent, that some of our freedoms are threatened from within, although, maybe not in the same vein as you. the Islamic terrorists are a very serious threast, but I believe that they will be handled in due time. It will be difficult, sometimes painful, but it will be overcome, if not completely eliminated forever.

I believe the biggest threat to our freedom is the socialist path that many are very ready to move down with regard to economic freedoms. Wouldn't you agree that the primary reasons for the War for Independence were economic ones? Freedom to enjoy the fruits of ones labor, so to speak? 

The current path we are headed down takes us to the point where the gov't will tell us just how much of our earnings we "need", and how much is rightfully "theirs". They will provide our healthcare, and are therefore the decision-makers on what we can eat, how we must excercise, who we receive medical treatment from. When the gov't becomes our cradle-to-grave nanny (provider), they are our masters. This is the most likely source of the permanent erosion of American freedoms.
Unfortunately, this is closely related, basically, to the path forseen by de Tocqueville.

Frankly, I have little fear of liberties (other than aformentioned) being taken from me for very long. I certainly do not forsee Amercians "sacrificing everything for a little more security". In troubled times Americans may let some temorarily slide in a minor way, but WILL NOT stand for it in the long term, UNLESS the majority perceives some financial benefit in it for them. 

I feel fairly confident that, although some of us may disagree with your assessment of the current state of liberties, it may not be fair to write if off as an inferior appreciation (or understanding) of what it means to be free on our part.


----------



## odoreater (Feb 27, 2005)

Relayer,

I agree with just about everything you are saying. One of the fundamental problems in America right now (and I've posted about this before) is that more and more people are relying on government for every little need that they may have. This has emboldened the government. A good example of this off the top of my head was the federal government getting involved in the Terry Shiavo case. Our government has become emboldened in many areas - including both economic and social areas. I know that I'm not going to win every battle that I fight, but I think it's important that we fight these battles, if for no other reason than to keep the government honest and to let the government know that they are going to encounter opposition whenever they try to push the power envelope. 

I don't know though - I was born in a Communist country. When I drive down the highway here in New Jersey and I see signs every 10 miles on the Parkway that say "Report any Suspicious Activity - Call *87" it's very earily reminiscent of the Communist countries of the old Eastern Bloc.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

As interesting as any foriegn 'take' is our reaction. I don't think the Dane's consular offices and embassy need worry if a cartoon hostile to our national policy is printed. Tivoli won't be firebombed or Solvang Ca boycotted. A few of us might get silly and start calling danish 'freedom rolls' or call up Public Television when Victor Borge performances are offered in as fund drive premiums.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Kav said:


> As interesting as any foriegn 'take' is our reaction. I don't think the Dane's consular offices and embassy need worry if a cartoon hostile to our national policy is printed. Tivoli won't be firebombed or Solvang Ca boycotted. A few of us might get silly and start calling danish 'freedom rolls' or call up Public Television when Victor Borge performances are offered in as fund drive premiums.


Shhh, we're not supposed to remind people that hundreds were killed or injured and millions of dollars of property damage was committed all over some cartoons. Shhhh, it reminds people we are not dealing with rational beings.


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

Actually, at my blog I've attacked that very thing, even though (or because) I'm probably way to the left of most of the people on this board.

I have to point out, of course, that the Islamic fascists who were punishing Danes for disrespecting Islam aren't that far from the people in this country who would throw people in prison for burning American flags. (I know that most of the posters on the flag issue here seemed to not favor a flag burning proposition.)


----------



## Rocker (Oct 29, 2004)

jackmccullough said:


> Actually, at my blog I've attacked that very thing, even though (or because) I'm probably way to the left of most of the people on this board.
> 
> I have to point out, of course, that the Islamic fascists who were punishing Danes for disrespecting Islam aren't that far from the people in this country who would throw people in prison for burning American flags. (I know that most of the posters on the flag issue here seemed to not favor a flag burning proposition.)


Oh jeez, you just follow every liberal cliché. Talk about moral equivalency. Frankly, I could give a rat's patoot about a flag burning amendment, but if it gets ratified - fine. If it became the law then violators should be punished - I hardly think that it will mark the end of free speech in America. To compare those who seek to change law through peaceful, legal and constitutional measures and through elected representatives to those who break the law, cause harm and damage to persons and property is well, it's mind boggling - but typical of someone who believes that the UN is the true arbiter of "legal "American action instead of the House and Senate.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

jackmccullough said:


> I have to point out, of course, that the Islamic fascists who were punishing Danes for disrespecting Islam aren't that far from the people in this country who would throw people in prison for burning American flags.


Because yes, a duly passed law enacted by the US is *exactly the same* as riot mobs in several countries beating people to death, burning embassies, etc. While I am 100% against a flag burning amendment, to compare the two might be tempting philosophically, once you look at the machinery around the two scenarios, any intelligent person should be able to see the rule of law vs. rule of the mob make them totally different propositions. Yes, the issue is free speech in both cases, but how it is handled i.e. due process vs. riots, stops these comparisons from being valid.


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

Wayfarer said:


> Because yes, a duly passed law enacted by the US is *exactly the same* as riot mobs in several countries beating people to death, burning embassies, etc. While I am 100% against a flag burning amendment, to compare the two might be tempting philosophically, once you look at the machinery around the two scenarios, any intelligent person should be able to see the rule of law vs. rule of the mob make them totally different propositions.


I never said that. What I said was that people who are justly opposed to attempts by Muslim extremists to suppress speech that we might view as critical of Islam, and they view as sacrilegious and insulting, should not be engaged intrying to get their government to suppress speech inthe form of flag burning. I would hope you could see that.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

jackmccullough said:


> I never said that. What I said was that people who are justly opposed to attempts by Muslim extremists to suppress speech that we might view as critical of Islam, and they view as sacrilegious and insulting, should not be engaged intrying to get their government to suppress speech inthe form of flag burning. I would hope you could see that.


Sorry to quibble, but yes you did say that. To be precise, you said:



jackmccullough said:


> I have to point out, of course, that the Islamic fascists who were punishing Danes for disrespecting Islam aren't that far from the people in this country who would throw people in prison for burning American flags.


I have to think, "not that far" conveys that they are mighty close to being one and the same. Again, I can see the attraction on the philosophical level of the free speech issue, but again, I must stress there are key differences when one is attempting to enact something through the US legal system vs. having huge riots in various countries. While I agree both parties are wrong on the issue of free speech, how each party is handling it are worlds apart and the distinction is key. Jack, simply agree that both are wrong on the free speech issue but rule of law vs. rule of mob is the crucial differences between your example and we will all respect your intelligence and rationality. Keep the two as valid comparisons, and I for one will lose any value I had in your posts.


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

odoreater said:


> I don't know though - I was born in a Communist country. When I drive down the highway here in New Jersey and I see signs every 10 miles on the Parkway that say "Report any Suspicious Activity - Call *87" it's very earily reminiscent of the Communist countries of the old Eastern Bloc.


So it bothers you to perhaps contact authorities in case you see a young girl being kidnapped? Where is the equivalence of reporting suspicious activity to reporting someone reading a banned book or worshipping in a non-state approved church?


----------



## Rocker (Oct 29, 2004)

jackmccullough said:


> I never said that. What I said was that people who are justly opposed to attempts by Muslim extremists to suppress speech that we might view as critical of Islam, and they view as sacrilegious and insulting, should not be engaged intrying to get their government to suppress speech inthe form of flag burning. I would hope you could see that.


1) Odd, that this country, apparenlty, had free speech even while some states prohibited flag burning. Seems passing strage that the Supreme Court suddenly discovered this "right" in 1969 - approximately 180 years after the Constitution was written. However did we express oursleves without the right to burn the flag? The suppression of speech mst have been terrible.

2) You seem to overlook the fact that getting an amendment through the House and Senate and gettin it ratified by 3/4 of the States would, in itself, be an act of free speech by the electorate/people - FAR MORE so than some 37 year old ruling made on a 5-4 vote by completely unelected pseudo-monarchs who simply declare by fiat that a new "right" exists.


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

Rocker said:


> Your mindset is revealed by the fact that, though the invasion of Iraq was approved by the elected U.S. Congress - you, seemingly, wanted the express permission of an undemocratically appointed body of bureaucrats called the UN. One bomb hit in Iraq sent the little bureaucrats scurrying out of the country.


I guess I should have been clearer, so I'll try again. There are at least two bodies of law which govern the lawful authority of the United States, or any country, to go to war. One is the domestic law of the country, another is international law.

The law of the United States, as expressed in the Constitution, is that the Congress has the power to declare war. If a President engages in war without Congressional authorization, whether in a declaration of war or in some other fashion, there is at least an argument that this is an unconstitutional action. Because of the Congresssional authorization for the use of military force I have not made that argument in any of these posts.

International law, as set forth in part by treaties that the United States is a signatory to, and which the United States is bound to obey, is another limitation on the legal authority of the United States to wage war. Even if there is a declaration of war as required by the Constitution, a war carried out in violation of international law is illegal.

It is clear that a war of aggression violates international law. This does not mean that the only lawful means to wage war, when a nation is under threat, is to seek a resolution from the United Nations. It does mean, however, that if a nation carries out a war of aggression against a nation that is not threatening it, that war is unlawful.

Without spending too much time talking about international law, this describes the war the United States is waging against Iraq.


----------



## Rocker (Oct 29, 2004)

jackmccullough said:


> I guess I should have been clearer, so I'll try again. There are at least two bodies of law which govern the lawful authority of the United States, or any country, to go to war. One is the domestic law of the country, another is international law.
> 
> The law of the United States, as expressed in the Constitution, is that the Congress has the power to declare war. If a President engages in war without Congressional authorization, whether in a declaration of war or in some other fashion, there is at least an argument that this is an unconstitutional action. Because of the Congresssional authorization for the use of military force I have not made that argument in any of these posts.
> 
> ...


See my earlier post on this thread. Iraq and the U.S. were parties to a cease-fire agreement as a result of the first gulf war. Iraq failed to honor the cease-fire agreement by repetitively "locking" on our aircraft and by firing at our aircraft - hence ceasefire was broken and war was lawful.

The 1950-53 war in Korea was authorized by the UN, but no war was declared by Congress - legal or not?


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

jackmccullough said:


> The law of the United States, as expressed in the Constitution, is that the Congress has the power to declare war. If a President engages in war without Congressional authorization, whether in a declaration of war or in some other fashion, there is at least an argument that this is an unconstitutional action. Because of the Congresssional authorization for the use of military force I have not made that argument in any of these posts.


So in your opinion, was starting the Viet Nam "War" legally done under US law or not?


----------



## Étienne (Sep 3, 2005)

Rocker said:


> you think the French would have worked with us in a "diplomatic solution" when they were making millions from the oil for food program and illegally selling weapons to Iraq? Give me a break.


You are kidding, right? This insinuation is so completely baseless it leaves the mind boggling. Come on, a few million dollars of legitimate sales to Hussein on the one side, good relations with our main security and trade partner on the other. Even if you are sure, as you seem to be, that the French policy was not grounded on its stated principles but only on financial interests, you cannot hold that position seriously.



> (the French fired on American troops and naval vessels as we were landing in N. Africa in operation Torch in WW II, for god's sake)


I have seldom seen such a misrepresentation of history on this board. Congratulations. "The" French have also fired on the French as they were landing on Dakar in 1942 or in Syria. For God's sake.


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

Wayfarer said:


> So in your opinion, was starting the Viet Nam "War" legally done under US law or not?


In my opinion tt was in violation of international law. Whether the Tonkin Gulf Resolution, procured by fraud, was a lawful act authorizing war under U.S. law I don't know enough to say.


----------



## Chuck Franke (Aug 8, 2003)

> Without spending too much time talking about international law, this describes the war the United States is waging against Iraq


Waaaaaaaaaaaaiiiiiiiiiit a moment...
If international law is the issue then read through the provisions of the ceasefire at the end of the Iraq war.

A. They did not allow weapons inspectors in
B. They fired on peacekeeping forces in the no-fly zone
C. They met not one single condition of the ceasefire agreement.

You certainly have a right to your opinion but you don't have a right to your own facts. Under international agreements it was resumption of hostilities resulting from a war of aggression launched by Iraq on Kuwait because Iraq did not comply with international law, the agreements they made or any number of UNSC resolutions.

The thing of it was, that nobody else seemed remotely interested in enforcing those agreements and certain countries actively subverted the diplomatic process by helping Iraq circumvent sanctions.


----------



## Rocker (Oct 29, 2004)

Étienne said:


> I have seldom seen such a misrepresentation of history on this board. Congratulations. "The" French have also fired on the French as they were landing on Dakar in 1942 or in Syria. For God's sake.


Yes, they did - even DeGaulle said about Dakar, to justify his withdraw, he saw no sense to "shed the blood of Frenchmen for Frenchmen." If you want the distinction - fine, "vichy" French. The fact is vichy France used infantry, artillery, airplanes, and naval forces to attack allied forces and vichy france was governed, you know - from Vichy, France.

I will not go into the littany of instances in which France has been only too willing to jab their finger in America's eye when it could. Whether it was having to play games with De Gaulle during WWII to humor his ego and make sure he played a pre-eminent role in the liberation of France, or France's withdraw from NATO from 1959 (naval)/1966(ground forces) to 1993 and demand for the removal of US forces (eventhough France had been happy to have American troops on French soil to fight its battles in two previous wars), France has a long history of not being much of a friend to the US (relatively more recently the refusal to allow American fighter/bomber to refuel over French airspace when bombing Libya).


----------



## Trilby (Aug 11, 2004)

Rocker said:


> Yes, they did - even DeGaulle said about Dakar, to justify his withdraw, he saw no sense to "shed the blood of Frenchmen for Frenchmen." If you want the distinction - fine, "vichy" French.


That's a pretty big distinction. Bear in mind that less than 100 years earlier, Americans were killing each other in large numbers.


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

jackmccullough said:


> International law, as set forth in part by treaties that the United States is a signatory to, and which the United States is bound to obey, is another limitation on the legal authority of the United States to wage war. Even if there is a declaration of war as required by the Constitution, a war carried out in violation of international law is illegal.


There is no "international law" the same way as there are laws enacted in a particular country. There are only national interests and no country signs onto international treaties without making sure its national interests are protected. Our domestic law takes precedence. The constitution cannot be superceded by a treaty because of the natural hierarchy that exists. International treaties are typically signed with a very narrow focus (trade, arms control, etc.). These documents are poured over by a slew of lawyers and diplomats to ensure that sovereignty is not violated. I challenge you to find a treaty that we signed that abdicates our responsbility to take action when we feel threatened.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

jackmccullough said:


> In my opinion tt was in violation of international law. Whether the Tonkin Gulf Resolution, procured by fraud, was a lawful act authorizing war under U.S. law I don't know enough to say.


Well, any admitted left winger that will bash Kennedy/LBG is okay in my book.


----------



## Rocker (Oct 29, 2004)

Trilby said:


> That's a pretty big distinction. Bear in mind that less than 100 years earlier, Americans were killing each other in large numbers.


I don't get your point.

I stated that "the French" attacked US forces in the N. African landing in WWII. Etienne, I think, was trying to claim that vichy French forces were not really French forces - I used the DeGaulle quote, who led the attack at Dakar, to enforce the argument that DeGaulle viewed the vichy France forces as Frenchman.

Now, what was your point in relation to this?


----------



## Étienne (Sep 3, 2005)

Rocker said:


> Etienne, I think, was trying to claim that vichy French forces were not really French forces


Not at all. I was merely stating that you could not call those people "the French" (meaning "all the French" or even "the undisputed legitimate French government").



Rocker said:


> I will not go into the littany of instances in which France has been only too willing to jab their finger in America's eye when it could.


It's as well you won't, since I am getting a little tired with the level of francophobia on this board. I will let this pass for once, I don't have the time for this this time. You can carry on using whatever historical inaccuracies you want to support your outbursts, I will not react again on this thread.


----------



## Relayer (Nov 9, 2005)

Forgive me for returning to this thread so late, but this statement:

"...the Islamic fascists who were punishing Danes for disrespecting Islam aren't that far from the people in this country who would throw people in prison for burning American flags.' jackmcculough"

I know I should not be, but I am always somewhat amazed when I read such reasoning (and yes, I saw the later attempts to explain it away). 

You, jackm, have every right to your opinion, of course. It was very clarifying. However, when I read this type of statement, I know that discussion of the issue is pointless (by me, anyway).

Again, pardon my tardy thoughts, and please carry on.


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

Wayfarer said:


> While I agree both parties are wrong on the issue of free speech, how each party is handling it are worlds apart and the distinction is key. Jack, simply agree that both are wrong on the free speech issue but rule of law vs. rule of mob is the crucial differences between your example and we will all respect your intelligence and rationality. Keep the two as valid comparisons, and I for one will lose any value I had in your posts.


Clearly, there is a difference between suppressing speech by legal process and by doing the same thing by means of mob rule. I'm not sure that that makes much of a difference to the writers in Turkey who are facing prosecution and imprisonment for denigrating Turkishness, insulting the memory of Ataturk, or allowing a character in a novel to use the word "genocide".

These outrages are apparently carried out entirely properly under present Turkish law, but I would not agree that this makes it any more palatable than if the offending writers were hauled out of their homes by an angry mob.

What does this have to do with the United States? It should be pretty clear: the flag protection advocates want to be able to do what the Turks are already doing.

By what we've seen in human history, the urge to censor is strong, and very dangerous, so I take it seriously whenever it arises.


----------



## Rocker (Oct 29, 2004)

jackmccullough said:


> Clearly, there is a difference between suppressing speech by legal process and by doing the same thing by means of mob rule. I'm not sure that that makes much of a difference to the writers in Turkey who are facing prosecution and imprisonment for denigrating Turkishness, insulting the memory of Ataturk, or allowing a character in a novel to use the word "genocide".
> 
> These outrages are apparently carried out entirely properly under present Turkish law, but I would not agree that this makes it any more palatable than if the offending writers were hauled out of their homes by an angry mob.
> 
> ...


This is slippery slope thinking. jackmccullough, there was no constitutional right to burn the flag until 1969 or so, I believe it was illegal in virtually every state until then. I don't think anybody suffered from a lack of free speech as a result. To democratically and legally change the law to status ante the 1969 decision made by UNELECTED judges by a 5-4 vote, is arguably the most democratic thing that could happen (and, as I stated in an earlier post - a form of free speech). The real suppression kicked in when 5 unelected justices decided to impose their political view on tens of millions of Americans. The idea that taking one symbol of America and giving it special protective status will lead to suppression of free speech is ridiculous especially when the there was no legal right to desecrate the flag for the first 180 years of American history - with, apparently, no impact on speech. You might as well bewail how slander, libel, and defamation laws hinder the rights of speech - yes, they do and the fact that the law has limited certain types of speech has not destroyed free speech in general. Banning desecration of the flag (though, like I said, - I'm indifferent to whether such an amendment is passed) will not lead to gulags and it is not the slippery slope leading to censorship anymore than such laws led to such things in the first 180 years of American history.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Actually Rocker, I have to side with Jack here. Burning the flag would seem to be a very political statement and does not the First mention freedom of political speech expressly? Please correct me with a quote from the First if I am incorrect.


----------



## Concordia (Sep 30, 2004)

"Speech" is covered, as is petitioning the government.

Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.


----------



## Rocker (Oct 29, 2004)

Wayfarer said:


> Actually Rocker, I have to side with Jack here. Burning the flag would seem to be a very political statement and does not the First mention freedom of political speech expressly? Please correct me with a quote from the First if I am incorrect.


Would you please tell me how how burning a flag is "speech"? Since when does "action" become "speech"? Would you please point out where in the 1st Amendment it states that action is protected? I mean, that's the first big mistake right there: action does not equal speech. Am I free to take any action I want because it is communicative as long as I don't hurt somone? (Answer:NO) May I walk around naked, defecate on the sidewalk, piss wherever I want because I consider it to be speech? Does not a strict reading of the 1st Amendment preclude there being any laws against slander, defamation, or libel ("shall make no laws abridging&#8230;"); Does it not preclude the government from making any law with respect to obscenity? Do you see in the Constitution any right of the government to regulate campaign spending? Do you see in the Constitution any right of the government pervent me from looking at or publishing kiddy porn? Do you see in the Constitution any right of the government to prevent me from talking to a female colleague and describing all the sexual acts I'd like to perform on her? Yet, all of these are illegal. If you are looking in the Constitution for the state of constitutional law - you'll never find it. The words and intent of the Constitution were discarded long ago. By the way, while you're looking for all that, could you please find the right to privacy that's in there as well?

My point is, flag burning was arguably illegal in every state until 1969 and there was no impact; Do you feel that political discourse was somehow limited because someone could not burn the flag? Was there a lack of debate? No. Conceding that burning the flag is "Speech" (which I think it most assuredly is not - per above) we still regulate speech by law - as I cited, in matters of libel, slander, and defamation in general. Further the law allows states to regulate and prohibit "fighting words" (Can you find that in the 1st Amendment?) (so, I may not be able to use a racial epithet b/c it may be offensive to some, but I can burn the flag b/c even though it's offensive to some - judges like that type of "speech") So your speech is not unlimited. My point is simply this - an amendment to specifically ban flag burning does nothing substantively to deter free speech (so, now you have to say America sucks instead of burning the flag - big deal) - except in this one very narrow circumstance and we already have limits on speech that are significantly much broader. An amendment will not lead to jack-booted thugs shutting down printing presses, nor will it cause us to resemble the Taliban, nor will it substantively limit the message that flag burners desire to convey because they can still say it, make cartoons, write songs, do every possible thing, but burn the flag. It's an extremely limited amendment, as worded, and it merely brings back into law that which existed prior to 1969.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Rocker said:


> Would you please tell me how how burning a flag is "speech"? Since when does "action" become "speech"? Would you please point out where in the 1st Amendment it states that action is protected? I mean, that's the first big mistake right there: action does not equal speech. Am I free to take any action I want because it is communicative as long as I don't hurt somone? (Answer:NO) May I walk around naked, defecate on the sidewalk, piss wherever I want because I consider it to be speech? Does not a strict reading of the 1st Amendment preclude there being any laws against slander, defamation, or libel ("shall make no laws abridging&#8230;"); Does it not preclude the government from making any law with respect to obscenity? Do you see in the Constitution any right of the government to regulate campaign spending? Do you see in the Constitution any right of the government pervent me from looking at or publishing kiddy porn? Do you see in the Constitution any right of the government to prevent me from talking to a female colleague and describing all the sexual acts I'd like to perform on her? Yet, all of these are illegal. If you are looking in the Constitution for the state of constitutional law - you'll never find it. The words and intent of the Constitution were discarded long ago. By the way, while you're looking for all that, could you please find the right to privacy that's in there as well?
> 
> My point is, flag burning was arguably illegal in every state until 1969 and there was no impact; Do you feel that political discourse was somehow limited because someone could not burn the flag? Was there a lack of debate? No. Conceding that burning the flag is "Speech" (which I think it most assuredly is not - per above) we still regulate speech by law - as I cited, in matters of libel, slander, and defamation in general. Further the law allows states to regulate and prohibit "fighting words" (Can you find that in the 1st Amendment?) (so, I may not be able to use a racial epithet b/c it may be offensive to some, but I can burn the flag b/c even though it's offensive to some - judges like that type of "speech") So your speech is not unlimited. My point is simply this - an amendment to specifically ban flag burning does nothing substantively to deter free speech (so, now you have to say America sucks instead of burning the flag - big deal) - except in this one very narrow circumstance and we already have limits on speech that are significantly much broader. An amendment will not lead to jack-booted thugs shutting down printing presses, nor will it cause us to resemble the Taliban, nor will it substantively limit the message that flag burners desire to convey because they can still say it, make cartoons, write songs, do every possible thing, but burn the flag. It's an extremely limited amendment, as worded, and it merely brings back into law that which existed prior to 1969.


I will not address the more moronic and hyperbolic points of your post, but to answer the general premise:

I flip you the bird (an action). Have I said something that you know exactly what the meaning is?


----------



## Rocker (Oct 29, 2004)

Wayfarer said:


> I will not address the more moronic and hyperbolic points of your post, but to answer the general premise:
> 
> I flip you the bird (an action). Have I said something that you know exactly what the meaning is?


What was moronic or hyperbolic? That's a very feeble response to very valid questions and scenarios - none of which you answered and none of which, I suspect, are you intellectually capable of answering.

And if you you'd go back, you would notice that I never denied that action could be communicative (at most, I questioned whether action should be deemed "speech" for the purposes of the 1st Amendment). In fact, in the second part, I argued conceding that action was speech (so, if you read carefully, you'd have noticed that I conceded your premise - though there was no need to) and if you'd go back and read you would realize that I posited the question: if action is speech under what principles can the state regulate behavior that someone intends as speech (and you, apparently have absolutely no idea, based on your response)? Again, if I consider nudity to communicate a message (an action) where does the state find the legal right to arrest me if I walk down the street naked - some may find it offensive, some not, I consider it an expression of my worldly disdain for material possessions. Why, and under what logic, can the state regulate that but not flag burning, if some find it offensive and others do not. This and many other interesting issues/questions/scenarios I asked in my post and all you could come up with was an insult - very persuasive.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Rocker said:


> What was moronic or hyperbolic? That's a very feeble response to very valid questions and scenarios - none of which you answered and none of which, I suspect, are you intellectually capable of answering.
> 
> And if you you'd go back, you would notice that I never denied that action could be communicative (at most, I questioned whether action should be deemed "speech" for the purposes of the 1st Amendment). In fact, in the second part, I argued conceding that action was speech (so, if you read carefully, you'd have noticed that I conceded your premise - though there was no need to) and if you'd go back and read you would realize that I posited the question: if action is speech under what principles can the state regulate behavior that someone intends as speech (and you, apparently have absolutely no idea, based on your response)? Again, if I consider nudity to communicate a message (an action) where does the state find the legal right to arrest me if I walk down the street naked - some may find it offensive, some not, I consider it an expression of my worldly disdain for material possessions. Why, and under what logic, can the state regulate that but not flag burning, if some find it offensive and others do not. This and many other interesting issues/questions/scenarios I asked in my post and all you could come up with was an insult - very persuasive.


Sorry if I did not read through your post carefully, I pretty much gave up at the public defecation part. Call my response feeble if you will, but I do try to keep something in mind in how I decide to answer people: even if you win at the Special Olympics, you are still retarded. Make of that what you will.

Edit: Oh, and as you question my intellectual ability, I will feel free to ask you how old you are? My guess would be 19 or 20, and you just read some Ayn Rand. Lastly, as you wish me to read carefully, I would ask you to do the same. Did you not notice I referred specifically as parts of your post being moronic, not you? Of course not, you are not mature enough to see the difference.


----------



## Rocker (Oct 29, 2004)

Wayfarer said:


> Sorry if I did not read through your post carefully, I pretty much gave up at the public defecation part. Call my response feeble if you will, but I do try to keep something in mind in how I decide to answer people: even if you win at the Special Olympics, you are still retarded. Make of that what you will.
> 
> Edit: Oh, and as you question my intellectual ability, I will feel free to ask you how old you are? My guess would be 19 or 20, and you just read some Ayn Rand. Lastly, as you wish me to read carefully, I would ask you to do the same. Did you not notice I referred specifically as parts of your post being moronic, not you? Of course not, you are not mature enough to see the difference.


More cheap shots without offering any legitimate rationale/logic for how you come to a conclusion that the state may/should not prohibit flag burning, but can/should regulate other forms of conduct and/or speech. You offer a simplistic reference to the 1st Amendment as protecting speech, but apparently, have no construct/defintion of what constitutes speech - at least you've offered none. If you're going to take a stand on a legal issue, at least muster some coherent overarching philosophy/viewpoint which makes it generally applicable and be able to explain why/or why not it should apply. You've come up with flag burning should not be banned because you think it's speech.

You've completely failed to address if action is speech and it's protected by the 1st amendment, why so much other conduct/action which harms no one is legally and readily controlled by the state.

You've failed to acknowledge, despite the wording of the 1st Amendment, the state has, and has always exercised, legitimate restraints on speech and how that would be any different with a flag burning amendment or how it comports with your simplistic notions of "free speech" under the 1st Amendment. 
You've failed to address what real impact a flag burning amendment would have when such activity had been illegal for the previous 180 years with no impact on expressing of hate for the government, the flag, of the country.

You've failed to address why it's ok for the state to prohibit offensive speech such as "fighting words" but not OK to prohibit the offensive speech of burning the flag.

There were many more issues raised, but you've failed to address a single issue, but once again retreat into personal attacks by calling me immature.

What's immature is holding a belief or espousing a principle without any coherent rationale as to how you got to that point and without having developed any systematic way of thinking about the issue, or how you would apply it generally in other circumstances,. You, apparently, don't have a defensible principled belief, you merely have an assertion. You inserted yourself into my comments to another poster on this issue and then completely retreated failing to address any single issue raised and simply asserted that the points were moronic or hyperbolic. If they were so stupid, you'd think you could muster a rebuttal evidencing a coherent application of reason as to why it would (in the very simple fact pattern that I presented to you many times) be bad for the government to regulate the behavior of flag burning but not public nudity (since, nudity is used for expression - in art, paintings, cinema, etc.) or why the government can regulate and prohibit offensive fighting words but not offensive flag burning - these were questions to provoke thought and discussion; to compel you to offer some rationale for your assertion. You did the equivalent of calling me a "do-do head" and ran away - that's immature.

With respect to your statement


> "Lastly, as you wish me to read carefully, I would ask you to do the same. Did you not notice I referred specifically as parts of your post being moronic, not you? Of course not, you are not mature enough to see the difference."


 I read your post and I merely said your post was insulting - I did not say you insulted me, personally. Nevertheless, it is insulting to characterize a person's argument as "moronic" is it not - that is an insult, is it not? 
I'm not an objectivist and don't much like Ayn Rand. I'm neither a libertarian nor an atheist; I'm a social conservative and if you knew anything about constitutional law, you would have deduced that. I'm done fighting midgets.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Rocker said:


> I'm a social conservative and if you knew anything about constitutional law, you would have deduced that.


Yes, because social conservatives are all about big government cutting off freedom of expression? Your rants betray you.



rocker said:


> I read your post and I merely said your post was insulting - I did not say you insulted me, personally..


For someone that chides me about careful reading, you might want to appy that to yourself. I did not posit that you stated I insulted you. What I stated was I was careful not to insult you personally yet you had no hesitations launching personal attacks on me (simply because I do not think we should lock people up for burning a US flag).

As to over arching philosophical stance, I usually do not bother going into those with people that use "pissing" in public as examples to use in defense of why we need an anti-flag burning Amendment. Also, to be frank, re-hashing "fighting words" and "fire in a theatre" type arguments are so Philosophy of Law 101 that I really have no patience with them. Sorry to disappoint.


----------



## odoreater (Feb 27, 2005)

pt4u67 said:


> So it bothers you to perhaps contact authorities in case you see a young girl being kidnapped? Where is the equivalence of reporting suspicious activity to reporting someone reading a banned book or worshipping in a non-state approved church?


"Suspicious activity" is subject to broad interpretation. In New Jersey people have been pulled over and investigated for "driving while black." Just an example of what some people consider "suspicious activity."


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

odoreater said:


> "Suspicious activity" is subject to broad interpretation. In New Jersey people have been pulled over and investigated for "driving while black." Just an example of what some people consider "suspicious activity."


The difference in this country is that this is an abberation instead of state policy. No society is perfect however those that are better readily admit there faults and work toward improving themselves.


----------

