I am sorry that my defense of Lissa carried that implication about another poster. I’ll avoid that next time.
I thought it was nice of you, though.
Oops, she was a Representative.
No, actually, 12/8/41.
12/11 was Germany.
If I only see what I want to see as you claim, then you must be legally blind at the very least. Open your eyes and look around you. Where do you think you are? This is not the forum for your unrefined polemic and implied insults (though you’ve been lucky with the moderators so far). The idiocy you keep posting doesn’t even count as a bad debate, and you haven’t been able to defend successfully a single one of your ridiculous assertions. I repeat: stop posting rubbish. You aren’t impressing anyone but yourself.
quote:
“It is the soldier, not the reporter who has given us the freedom of the press. It is the soldier, not the poet, who has given us the freedom of speech. It is the soldier, not the campus organizer, who gives us the freedom to demonstrate. It is the soldier who salutes the flag, who serves beneath the flag, and whose coffin is draped by the flag, who allows the protester to burn the flag.” ~Father Dennis Edward O’Brien, Sergeant, USMC
So, basically, you simply have an emotional feeling that we should never criticize a military action–even one that has not begun–simply because people will die? No actual logic or rationale, simply a feeling supported by platitudes and insults.
Then you should have posted this in The Pit, since you merely wanted to rant and not actually engage in a debate.
any person has the right to free speech. What is contained in that speech can either be positive or negative. It doesnt have to to be one or the other. When one disagrees with another opinion, they can get emotive and cal start calling names but in the end its a matter of ones opinion against another, bith having equal weight.
I can call protestors subversive, liberal, candy assed wimps and they can call me a war-mongering, heartless, evil stupid-head. neither one infringed on the others rights because both were allowed to express them even if they were negative. There is nothing in the constitution that said free speech had to be positive and respectful. Imposing that would be a restriction on free speech.
However had the OP said, “Those chumps are a bunch of subversive bastards and should shut up!” Then I would agree that he is trying (or calling upon) to deny someone elses first ammendment rights.
Yeah right :rolleyes:
It seems that you are making insults. I make replies and you make insults. Sorry my replies/opinion insult you - not.
I have been trying to say that there is a time and place for protests. The fighting people of my country are already posed for action in retaliation to the wrongs of another nation and in an attempt to enforce resolutions that the world agreed on - even Iraq. If you believe that nothing should be done or have been done to the Saddam regime, then you should have been protesting before the UN when the resolutions were being drafted.
We were United for a short period after we were so closely reminded what terrorism is all about. The protests cause a divide and doubt in our commitment to fight terror. Also, I’m sure it does not make the military persons in the ME feel good about their position.
Perhaps you do not believe we should do anything about it. I am hopeful that all the power we are sending to the ME is enough to muscle Saddam into compliance without the need for a shot to be fired. BUT just because we are acting and talking tough, does not mean that we are going to war - the protests may serve to undermine the tough talk! It would be a shame if the protests took the bite out of the talk and forced our hand - causing shots to be fired.
What’s the difference in him saying this is not the time, and you saying this is not the place?
A lot of the protesters are just going on ‘emotional feelings’ and have every intention of thwarting the government’s plans. So I hope that they can respect someone else’s right to call it subversive and potentially harmful, if he wants to.
The protests cause a divide and doubt in our commitment to fight terror.-Blown & Injected
You really don’t get it. Protests indicate an already present divide and doubt in our rush to war.
Surely the most they can do is bring attention to the issue so that all members of a supposed democracy can think on it. I presume in your perfect world noone would even hear about an invasion until it was all over, that’s not my kind of place.
CarnalK:
out of context comment
Posted by * X~Slayer(ALE) *
**
Good point.
My irritation is that B&I seems to see protest as something dangerous and potentially weakening. I see it as something that strengthens everything America is suppost to stand for. As he said here:
He seems to me to feel that protestors have an almost witchy power to change patriots into flower-power hippies. This isn’t about to happen. Those with the die-hard opinion that action needs to be taken are not about to be swayed by those they see as “subversive,” which is a word that’s almost offensive to me. Protest in no way undermines Americanism, but is actually a beautiful, important part of our liberty. It seems to me that B&I would like to see them “shut up.” The implication has been that protest is almost treasonus.
Those opinions could have been expressed during the Red Scares of 1918 and the 1950s when the feeling was that communists and their literature should be suppressed because of their power over imprssionable minds.
Saying that you don’t agree with the protesters, and that they’re wrong is fine and dandy. Call them candy-asses, I don’t care a bit. What I DO care about is when someone implies that the very act of protest is somewhat un-American, subversive, divisive and dangerous to our nation’s pshyche.
I’m sure the protesters would be pleased that their actions are imbued with such power. If I were a protester, I’d rather be seen as powerful, then snickered at and ignored.
It’s like Fabian said in * Pulp Fiction, * “Any time is a good time for pie.” Well, anytime is a good time for protest. Protest did not suddenly spring up in this time of Middle East crisis. (Remember the World Bank protests in peacetime?) A time at the brink of war is the BEST time for protest, in my opinion. Politicians should know if a sizable portion of Americans have serious reservations about any potential action, especially since those Americans are bound to remember come next election day.
Right, lets back up and check out your special context:
b&i-*If you believe that nothing should be done or have been done to the Saddam regime, then you should have been protesting before the UN when the resolutions were being drafted.
We were United for a short period after we were so closely reminded what terrorism is all about. The protests cause a divide and doubt in our commitment to fight terror. Also, I’m sure it does not make the military persons in the ME feel good about their position.*
So the full context is that now the protests cause divide because they didn’t protest 11 years ago(which of course isn’t actually true). Yes it all makes sense now.
I guess I should ask, you do realize that the UN resolutions do not call for military action don’t you? The US would not be following any current resolutions if it starts bombing Iraq. So in reality they are protesting before any UN war resolution is drafted. I guess this means you are all for the protests now. 
ps- I’m sorry if I hurt the feelings of any military persons in the ME(?) but I’m more worried about their lives.
It’s possible to not be against the UN resolutions while still being against attacking Iraq at this point. It’s not an either-or decision as you’re presenting it.
This Forum is Great Debates. B&I has resorted to lots of emotional claims and some really illogical (or fact-free) arguments to simply rant against the protestors. I have no problem with the OP as an emotional rant. However, having posted in this Forum, it would have been nice if B&I had actually atempted a debate rather than simply dismissing all opposition to his rant with emotional condemnations and pleas, spiced up with the occasional platitude. For one thing, had I known that it was merely going to be a Pit rant, I would not have wasted the energy to reply, thinking that the next post might contain a fact or a logical conclusion. It’s not a big deal. It was just disappointing–and, since he set the tone with his content-free emotion, I chose to voice my disappointment.
Time vs Place? It took him to the bottom of the third page to actually put out something that resembled a coherent thought on why this might be a bad time. Simply repeating that it is “bad” somehow to attempt to participate in a democracy because a war might start is not an actual debate or discussion. He has still never addressed how the protests are actually going to harm anyone. This is not 1969. People are not running around spitting on GIs or chanting “baby killer” at guys coming off a plane. (They didn’t even do that the last time we went over and protected our oil supply.) They are protesting a policy of the administration. I think B&I has overreacted based on pure emotion. He certainly has not put together a debate (or even offered a scenario where someone might be hurt). That sort of illogical, unthinking rant is better suited to the other Forum.
Did not think I would have to explain it to you like trying to explain it to a child - I’m talking about the psychological implications.
Now your personal attacks and my response to them is what is causing it to feel like a pit rant
Which you have never provided any evidence will occur, have never described as to what will occur, and which you have met with each probe of your purported position by claiming that we aren’t trying hard enough to understand what you have not posted.
Feh. Now you’re whining that you have been attacked–after all the veiled (and not so veiled) insults that you’ve hurled, here?
This is Great Debates. You have refused (or been unable) to even articulate your actual points. It is the nature of a debate to attack the others’ facts and arguments. Since all of your “arguments” have been purely emotional condemnations, any attack on them has to look like a personal attack because you have provided no facts to oppose.
In all actuality, you are both right. Protests are sometimes divisive when done at the wrong time but at the same time if it were done at the right time it would be crucial to changing the course of history for the better.
Unfortunately only history can determine which is the right time. So our founding fathers, instead of trying to predetermine a correct time, just allowed it at any time.
As far as public opinion being overly influencial to our political leaders, only a politician allows the opinion of the masses overide what he knows to be the truth. A leader does what is right and what has to be done, not what is popular.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by X~Slayer(ALE) *
**
Unfortunately only history can determine which is the right time. So our founding fathers, instead of trying to predetermine a correct time, just allowed it at any time. **
As well they should. Public debate and protest should be at its height during crucial decisions. Honestly, I can’t see ANY time when protest is “wrong” or inopprotune. Protest is never harmful in of itself. It is only people’s reaction to it which can be harmful, and the most dangerous reaction is declaring that people are somehow subversive in protesting in the first place.
A cause may have popular support, and when faced with people who do not agree, emotions can run high, some declaring that there ought to be a limit on what and when someone can express opposition. There’s a “for us or against us” mentality that doesn’t take into account those who would prefer to stop and think things over before action. This is just downright scary. Never will every single American be behind any cause, but we should not demonize the dissenters by characterizing them as un-American. By voicing their disagreement, they are being American in the truest sense.
**
Frankly, I fear our nation has been in the hands of politicians for a while now, not leaders. Charging ahead despite public opinion does not necessarily make one a leader: it may be that the person in question is just plain stubborn.