Tweet
why?
-
Some don't believe in the freedom of speech. I do.To us, it is the BEAST. -
honestly, i fail to see the dire national peril iraq was putting the united states in, so why is criticism unwarranted and arrogant?B♭3Comment
-
I have no respect for those people out there who think it is their right to call Bush a liar when they don't even have their own house in order. They are the liars. They are endangering national security by making the branches of government get wrapped up in some baseless charges. The leftists out there who are instigating this should be ashamed of themselves.Originally posted by Q Cubed
I have to disagree with Roosevelt on that one.
why?
I do damn see a good reason for removing Saddam. He posed imminent danger to his neighbors whom produce a substantial amount of oil. If this was hit and damaged it would endanger international security, let alone mostly hit the United States. So stop with this nonsense and accept the reality. I don't see why the left has turned a blind eye to this undeniable fact.For there is [another] kind of violence, slower but just as deadly, destructive as the shot or the bomb in the night. This is the violence of institutions -- indifference, inaction, and decay. This is the violence that afflicts the poor, that poisons relations between men because their skin has different colors. - Bobby Kennedy (Mindless Menance of Violence)Comment
-
you still haven't answered my question. why is it arrogant?
if you go by this logic, you wouldn't have been able to castigate clinton; as it turned out, numerous republicans did not have their houses in order. that didn't stop them from condemning and all but paralyzing the government.
indeed, there are quite a few on the left who did feel that removing saddam was a fundamentally good thing; however, they disagree with bush in the process by which it was done. is it wrong for them to criticize bush because they disagree with his policies?
what imminent danger was saddam posing to his neighbors? was he engaged in aggressive foreign behavior against iran, turkey, kuwait, saudi arabia, or syria in the past four years? if people were not convinced by that case for war, why would it be wrong of them to disagree with bush and criticize him?
fez, the problem with the mindset that no criticism should be permitted in this case is that it smacks most people as going contrary to the spirit of the very constitution that bush is sworn to uphold and protect.
you cannot protect something that you are in the process of destroying.
even if the criticism is wrong, or baseless, that is no reason to desire a silence brought upon them.B♭3Comment
-
I just said they were arrogant, not that they should be silenced. Sure I hate there opinions as wrong as they are... but I can't disabled the reply button on this forum.For there is [another] kind of violence, slower but just as deadly, destructive as the shot or the bomb in the night. This is the violence of institutions -- indifference, inaction, and decay. This is the violence that afflicts the poor, that poisons relations between men because their skin has different colors. - Bobby Kennedy (Mindless Menance of Violence)Comment
-
If you could, would you silence them?Originally posted by Fez
not that they should be silenced.
Yes or no answer please
Any other answers will constitute an attempt at evading the question
Comment
-
Of course they have the right to call Bush a liar.I have no respect for those people out there who think it is their right to call Bush a liar
Come again?when they don't even have their own house in order.
Come again?They are the liars.
As if Iraq is a danger to "national security"They are endangering national security by making the branches of government get wrapped up in some baseless charges. The leftists out there who are instigating this should be ashamed of themselves.
Further, national security is not the be-all, end-all. Individual liberty is vastly more valuable than national security, and if it takes undermining national security to secure individual liberty, then by all means, do so.
As for Saddam, it's a moot point that I'm not going to argue about. Suffice it to say that Iraq was never a threat to the US, nor did they have that capability.Follow me on Twitter: http://twitter.com/DaveDaDouche
Read my seldom updated blog where I talk to myself: http://davedadouche.blogspot.com/Comment
-
You people are putting me to sleep.
No.Individual liberty is vastly more valuable than national securityFor there is [another] kind of violence, slower but just as deadly, destructive as the shot or the bomb in the night. This is the violence of institutions -- indifference, inaction, and decay. This is the violence that afflicts the poor, that poisons relations between men because their skin has different colors. - Bobby Kennedy (Mindless Menance of Violence)Comment
-
Why not? What is the point of responsible government, if not to protect freedom? Is the point to exercise power and control for its own sake?Follow me on Twitter: http://twitter.com/DaveDaDouche
Read my seldom updated blog where I talk to myself: http://davedadouche.blogspot.com/Comment
-
I'd rather be living than killed by a terrorist attack. National security doesn't have to make freedom diminish. Responsible government in your opinion means anarchy? Right? Well that is unacceptable.For there is [another] kind of violence, slower but just as deadly, destructive as the shot or the bomb in the night. This is the violence of institutions -- indifference, inaction, and decay. This is the violence that afflicts the poor, that poisons relations between men because their skin has different colors. - Bobby Kennedy (Mindless Menance of Violence)Comment
-
Obviously, but you can avoid terrorist attacks by promoting individual freedom/self determination worldwide, by not ****ing around with other nations. Switzerland doesn't have many problems with regards to terrorists, now does it?I'd rather be living than killed by a terrorist attack.
If you are limiting free speech in the name of national security, then you are certainly limiting freedom.National security doesn't have to make freedom diminish.
No, responsible government means holding individual rights as paramount. Anarchy and government are mutually exclusive.Responsible government in your opinion means anarchy? Right? Well that is unacceptable.Follow me on Twitter: http://twitter.com/DaveDaDouche
Read my seldom updated blog where I talk to myself: http://davedadouche.blogspot.com/Comment
-
No you can't.Originally posted by David Floyd
Obviously, but you can avoid terrorist attacks by promoting individual freedom/self determination worldwide,
That is an incredibly stupid thing to do.by not ****ing around with other nations.
It is a funding haven for many terrorists and dictators.Switzerland doesn't have many problems with regards to terrorists, now does it?
Well lets just say you are placing statements where they don't belong.If you are limiting free speech in the name of national security, then you are certainly limiting freedom.
That is your definition of responsible government. And you are not credible in the least.No, responsible government means holding individual rights as paramount. Anarchy and government are mutually exclusive.For there is [another] kind of violence, slower but just as deadly, destructive as the shot or the bomb in the night. This is the violence of institutions -- indifference, inaction, and decay. This is the violence that afflicts the poor, that poisons relations between men because their skin has different colors. - Bobby Kennedy (Mindless Menance of Violence)Comment
-
So if the US didn't have troops in the Middle East and wasn't actively supporting Israel, 9/11 would still have happened?No you can't.
What, messing around with other nations? I agree - that's what got us 9/11.That is an incredibly stupid thing to do.
It is a funding haven for many terrorists and dictators.
Fine, Sweden. Or Liechtenstein. Or the Netherlands. Whatever. Canada.
You mean I'm attributing statements to you that you didn't make, or that by exercising free speech, I am placing statements where they don't belong? If the former, please explain further. If the latter, that's irrelevant - whether I should say something and whether I should be able to say something are two different matters.Well lets just say you are placing statements where they don't belong.
At least I don't have a three letter nickname that starts with B and ends with -AM.That is your definition of responsible government. And you are not credible in the least.Follow me on Twitter: http://twitter.com/DaveDaDouche
Read my seldom updated blog where I talk to myself: http://davedadouche.blogspot.com/Comment
-
I am not arguing with you anymore. If you think you can put statements where they don't belong then so be it. Also, I never have fully supported Israel... only to the extent that it has a right to exist.
You are foolish. Not doing anything got 9/11.What, messing around with other nations? I agree - that's what got us 9/11.
Don't even ****ing bring up 9/11... don't try to politicialize it.For there is [another] kind of violence, slower but just as deadly, destructive as the shot or the bomb in the night. This is the violence of institutions -- indifference, inaction, and decay. This is the violence that afflicts the poor, that poisons relations between men because their skin has different colors. - Bobby Kennedy (Mindless Menance of Violence)Comment
-
Fine, go hide.I am not arguing with you anymore.
I offered you a chance to explain this statement. I do so again. Eh?If you think you can put statements where they don't belong then so be it.
I don't care what you support, I'm talking about what the US supports.Also, I never have fully supported Israel... only to the extent that it has a right to exist.
You mean, don't do as Dubya and Co. did? And everyone else does as well?Don't even ****ing bring up 9/11... don't try to politicialize it.Follow me on Twitter: http://twitter.com/DaveDaDouche
Read my seldom updated blog where I talk to myself: http://davedadouche.blogspot.com/Comment
Comment