Jewish Federation finds Palestinian flag offensive

[Imran Siddiqui]

And while he is in executive office, he should keep them to his private company

Why? Why are his rights taken away if he is in executive office?

Obviously, but he can represent the interests of America from the p.o.v. of his interest group.
A member of the executive branch however, does not represent himself, or his minority group, but the whole state.

Um... and the President can represent American from the p.o.v. of HIS interest group.

Senior Senators (at the very least) represent America just as much as some cabinet officials.

And don't lecture me about America, ok?

Seeing as you know nothing about it, I think I will continue to do so.

Do you like your president to make decisions based on what he thinks will be better for America or what will be better for Israel?

But what he thinks is best for America is based on his personal beliefs. DUH! This is why we have checks and balances in the US.

There should be.

No there shouldn't. People should have all the rights that anyone else has, no matter what they do.

[Imran Siddiqui]

That's the point.

This is not a thing which should happen.

That's called what is best for diplomacy, Siro .

It is based on interest. If the President think it is the best interest to critique one party, then he'll do that.... putting his personal beliefs right in there.

[Sirotnikov]

What ever happened to free speech for all citizens?

Again, how good will it be if Bush suddenly says that all dem democrats are dirty communists?

He can think that - he can't say that.

So? And yes, you can also extend it to Bush saying he likes Indians and doesn't like Pakistanis as a private person.

Which is yet another thing which he shouldn't say.

So what?! Then they can vote him out the next election. That is what democracy is, you know.

As a representative of america, he should try to avoid projecting his private opinions, especially if they might interfere with his work.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Again, how good will it be if Bush suddenly says that all dem democrats are dirty communists?

He can think that - he can't say that.

Why can't he say that? Basically in the past, you've had situations where the President basically DID say that about the opposition.

Which is yet another thing which he shouldn't say.

If he thinks that would best to say that, why not?

As a representative of america, he should try to avoid projecting his private opinions, especially if they might interfere with his work.

Private opinions are ALWAYS projected. In every decision, no matter how minor or major, private opinions are HUGE. There is absolutely NO decision that is made outside of private opinion. Only a robot could prevent private opinions from getting involved.

[Sirotnikov]

Yes, you are slowly taking away rights of people.

I'd suggest you read about fascism and see that it's not simply a code word meaning "bad, anti-democracy".

You think that democracy means lack of any regulations and absolute freedom.

I disagree.

In any case, neither you, nor america has an exclusive right over democracy.

Also, tell me, you accuse me and Israel of fascism. Was USA a fascist state for the first couple of hundred years?

After all, it limited women and minorities.

[Sirotnikov]

Private opinions are ALWAYS projected. In every decision, no matter how minor or major, private opinions are HUGE. There is absolutely NO decision that is made outside of private opinion. Only a robot could prevent private opinions from getting involved.

Obviously.

But it should be made sure that private opinions interefere as less in the job as possible.

If the President think it is the best interest to critique one party, then he'll do that.... putting his personal beliefs right in there.

If the president thinks it is the best interest of america to critque one party, then he should do that.

If the president has a personal grudge against one side, while obviously it will affect his decision, it is not the optimal situation, and obviously it shouldn't be his sole criteria for actions.

How would you feel if Clinton ordered more money to Israel, not because he sees how it protects american interest of having an ally in the ME, but rather because he has israeli friends, or say, has something to profit from it?

[axi]

In any case, neither you, nor america has an exclusive right over democracy.

I like that statement. Really, I do.

Was USA a fascist state for the first couple of hundred years?

After all, it limited women and minorities.

It was and it still is after the first couple of hundred years.
It's called capitalism. Fascism is a form of capitalism.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Fascism is also very pro state (or nation), and by limiting the speech of executive officials, you are saying you want no one in the cabinet to speak against the leader's ideas. By decreasing critiques of your policy, it is pro-state and pro-unity (another Fascist goal). So, ya your idea is Fascist.

And the USA, after 1800, never had laws restricting officials' freedom of speech. From 1796-1800 it did, and then it was sliding into Fascism... only the election of Jefferson saved it.

And btw, American & Europe do have the right to define democracy. Saying officials can't speak their mind is inherantly undemocratic.

And yes, Israel has learned the lessons of Fascism in WW2 very poorly. It is the most Fascist "democracy" in the world.

[Imran Siddiqui]

How would you feel if Clinton ordered more money to Israel, not because he sees how it protects american interest of having an ally in the ME, but rather because he has israeli friends, or say, has something to profit from it?

Duh, obviously he WOULD think it protects American interests. Clinton, throughout his entire administration, thought that being friendly to Israel was in America's interest.

And he can't order more money to Israel... Congress controls money.

It's called capitalism. Fascism is a form of capitalism.

Not this crap again.

[axi]

heheheee!!

[Imran Siddiqui]

Damn troll you!

[DanS]

"But it should be made sure that private opinions interefere as less in the job as possible."

The president is a particularly poor example, considering that we elect presidents in large part to make decisions based on their private opinions.

I don't think displaying the flag was particularly smart. It just doesn't help the situation, just as the congress having an Israel love-fest doesn't help the situation.

But insulting people should never be against the law, so if I were Dusie, I'd tell the Jewish group to sod off. Who cares if it's offensive?

[CyberGnu]

Huh... An organization supporting a fascist state is outraged over an expression of free speech. I'm baffled...

[Ned]

Of course everyone has the right to free speech. However, if a government organ displays a symbol offensive to a minority group in the US, I gave two examples before, we listen and act. The Stars and Bars is being taken down all across the South at the request of African Americans. Indian team names are being removed from California public schools because they offend Native Americans.

What is wrong with that? Is this truly a denial of free speech?

It is obvious the Dutch have a long way to go in sensitivity training.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Sirotnikov

Private opinions are ALWAYS projected. In every decision, no matter how minor or major, private opinions are HUGE. There is absolutely NO decision that is made outside of private opinion. Only a robot could prevent private opinions from getting involved.

Obviously.

But it should be made sure that private opinions interefere as less in the job as possible.

I did not think I would be interested enough with this thread's topic to participate. But let me say the following:

1) I support Israel -- but please, Siro, at least obtain basic information about how the United States government operates.

Do you not think that our political debates during election times are about anything BUT the politicians' opinions??

You can bet your ass that President Bush and his Republicans will continue to pursue national policies (for good or ill), according to his opinions and other Republicans' opinions.


2) This government official and his wife -- they had every right to display that Palestinian flag on their home. Even if it was inappropriate to do so, it was perfectly legal to do so.




There are only two flags so far, that I really detest being displayed for almost any purpose: the Nazi flag, and the American Confederate flag.
And any flag that represents a rogue regime/nation that supports terrorism, for that matter.

BUT, displaying even these flags are perfectly legal.