Another anti-Bush, anti-facism topic.

[Grok]

Who exactly is trying to suppress your right to speak out against the government?  People do it every day.

Read every reply.

[Invert]

Apparently someone has confused freedom with speech in speaking out or writing against the emperor, I mean president, as sedition, and would brand them anti-American or a traitor.  But I won't name anyone for it shouldn't be personal here.

Exercising speech in criticizing ones government is a duty of responsible citizens in a freedom loving republic.  As one of the best Americans you'll ever meet, I take this duty with responsibility.  Anyone who would try to suppress my freedom of speech against the government is anti-American, a traitor to the ideals of our republic.

At least, that's my opinion of it.

This became personal a long time ago when you attacked my country with your remarks.

Grok, it's a struggle for me to debate this with you. I know you are a good man so I just think that you are confused about reality at times. On the other hand I believe that you are also an intelligent man and should see things the way they are yet you appear to be blinded by all the wrong ideals. It's when I think of you as an intelligent man that gets me angry when you can't see past your nose.

Let me point out that the topic to your post clearly states that this post (or part of it) is anti-Bush. If we can add all of your anti-American government posts together than there is no question about this being another act of sedition.

You talk about freedom of speech now and a while ago you were throwing the word "libel" at me, could I not have claimed that I was exercising my freedom of speech? Are you that naive as to believe that we have true freedoms of speech in this country? If so I want you to go into an airport and scream the word "bomb", I want you to come up to a police officer and tell him that you are going to shoot and kill him, I want you to come up to a minor and in the presence of her parents I want you to tell her that you are going to rape her. Go on; exercise your freedom of speech. When you are in jail and in front of a judge I want you to tell the judge all about your freedoms of speech and I want to see how far that will get you.

Your duty is not to criticize your government but to question it. This is where you fail, what you are doing is posting anti-American propaganda, trying to somehow relate Bush to Hitler.

Did you know Abraham Lincoln once wrote that "Congressmen who willfully take actions during wartime that damage morale and undermine the military are saboteurs and should be arrested, exiled or hanged"

Many liberal congressmen have done what Lincoln wrote about, I can name at least 4.
I wonder what you would say if Bush would make a statement like that or wrote something like that. According to your standards Abraham Lincoln one of our greatest presidents would be no better than Hitler.

[DarkMinion]

Read every reply.

Oh come on, now you're just whining.  Disagreeing with you != suppressing you

[MyndFyre]

Willing to take away rights of his people for the good of the country. 

No.  Hitler didn't take the rights away from "his people."  He took them away from specific groups of people within his country but whom he would not call "his people" based on race and sexuality, which we (as enlightened western thinkers) believe to be irrelevant distinctions for the application of human rights.

Willing to find a scapegoat and promote racist policies against them to further his own career. 

What race is Bush discriminating against?  And how has it furthered his own career?  Which is it -- that he's become more popular in the US, that support for his policies has grown since the last election, or that people in other countries like him, or that the US is going to somehow override the US constitution and elect him to a third term?

And who's the scapegoat?

That's patent nonsense.

I'm sure there are others. 

Please come up with them before you make a blanket statement.

[Arta]

Anti-Bush + Anti-Government != Anti-American. I'm not even American and I know that!

[Grok]

Correct Arta.  I love America.  I love all that it stood for and is supposed to mean and be.  To prove it I am willing to speak responsibly and sharply against those threats which oppose the republic, which oppose soverignty of self, freedom of the American person, and establishment of a federal government in any way which is not a servant of Americans.  The federal government is our servant.

Bush is a bad servant of our servant government.  I do indeed in writing attack his policy, his intentions, his actions, his speech, and do so because he is wrong.

You disagree with me about him being wrong, I am glad you are willing to speak out for what you believe.  But do not say that by criticizing Bush that I am attacking America or am somehow anti-America.  In my opinion, that is trying to suppress speech.  To be direct, you are attempting to quash my anti-Bush speech by equating such speech to being anti-America.  I hope you learn to realize that.

When Clinton was in office (another person I loathed but at least he was generally harmless to the United States Constitution), I would guess you said many negative things about him.  Were you anti-American?  Or maybe you didn't.  Maybe you never speak out against any wrong doing by your king, er, president.  Maybe you think they are always right.  Maybe you think when they are wrong, that's ok, nobody should oppose his wrongness.

If any of what I just said is wrong, please clarify.  Because I do not understand your viewpoint.

If you also can relate any of what I have said here to screaming "bomb" in an airport or "fire" in a theatre, then point that out too.

As far as freedom carrying responsibility, congratulations.  You finally understand what liberty is all about.  Freedom alone is of far less value than libery, which is "freedom with responsibility" (I think Thomas Jefferson said this, but not sure).

Please pick up yourself a copy of the Federalist.  Or at least go to Barnes & Noble and read a few chapters.  One needs to understand the corresponding writings of the framers of the Declaration of Independence, and of the Constitution, to understand what went into the articles which made the final drafts.  Live and breath with them as they write in lengthy debate, over the course of a few years, about federal powers, limits, corruption, how to avoid them, and how they can be evaded.

These men knew that any power allowed to be seized by the federal government would be sized by the federal government.

The Articles of the Constitution of the Unites States of America is greater than any one man (Bush), one thousand men, or one nation.  Yet it is smaller than you.  It is designed for you, the individual, and the individual sovereign states.  It is designed as an enumeration of powers granted to the highly limited//restricted federal government.  When your man Bush tries to usurp you and those powers, you are damn right I have a problem with HIM.

I wish that all your passion of spirit and patriotism could be directed at protection of America and not of protection of the government.  For you see, the government are our servants, not the other way around.  I think this fundamental difference of understanding is why we bump heads so often.  But aside from your taking it personally, I otherwise have the greatest respect for your patriotism.

[DarkMinion]

Correct Arta.  I love America.  I love all that it stood for and is supposed to mean and be.  To prove it I am willing to speak responsibly and sharply against those threats which oppose the republic, which oppose soverignty of self, freedom of the American person, and establishment of a federal government in any way which is not a servant of Americans.  The federal government is our servant.

You're certainly right about that.  I also wonder what you think about the war against terrorism (which is indeed a threat to the sovereignty of our nation).

Bush is a bad servant of our servant government.  I do indeed in writing attack his policy, his intentions, his actions, his speech, and do so because he is wrong.

You certainly have the right to question/attack his policy and actions if you disagree with them.  I disagree with some things he's done, and agree with others.  Unfortunately, such Bush "bashers" as yourself have taken it upon themselves to disagree with everything he does in order to prove some sort of point.  Myself, I have decided to support our president in a time of war, and while I may question some of his decisions/policies, I don't intend to deliberately attempt to undermine what footing we have in these trying times.

Also, attacking his speech is simply a petty thing to do, and beneath you.  Attacking his intentions is simply ridiculous because you don't know his intentions.  Unless, of course, you're a mind reader.

You disagree with me about him being wrong, I am glad you are willing to speak out for what you believe.  But do not say that by criticizing Bush that I am attacking America or am somehow anti-America.  In my opinion, that is trying to suppress speech.  To be direct, you are attempting to quash my anti-Bush speech by equating such speech to being anti-America.  I hope you learn to realize that.

I don't think anyone thinks that you're un-American for criticizing Bush.  Howard Dean is just as American as the rest of us, even though he may sound & make himself look like a pompous retard on national television on a constant basis.  Again, you have the right to say/think whatever you want, and nobody is suppressing that.  Nor can they, for that matter.

When Clinton was in office (another person I loathed but at least he was generally harmless to the United States Constitution), I would guess you said many negative things about him.  Were you anti-American?  Or maybe you didn't.  Maybe you never speak out against any wrong doing by your king, er, president.  Maybe you think they are always right.  Maybe you think when they are wrong, that's ok, nobody should oppose his wrongness.

Clinton's reign was just as "bad" or "worse" as Bush's.  The economy started its last real recession under Slick Willy, and his inaction against certain threats against the United States certainly hurt us more than it helped us in the long run (see 9/11, although it probably would've been carried out anyway, possibly unsuccessfully though).   

If you also can relate any of what I have said here to screaming "bomb" in an airport or "fire" in a theatre, then point that out too.

As far as freedom carrying responsibility, congratulations.  You finally understand what liberty is all about.  Freedom alone is of far less value than libery, which is "freedom with responsibility" (I think Thomas Jefferson said this, but not sure).

I don't think anyone can make that relation...certainly you have the freedom of speech, and know that you can legally be held accountable for what you say, but nothing you're saying falls under that context.

The Articles of the Constitution of the Unites States of America is greater than any one man (Bush), one thousand men, or one nation.  Yet it is smaller than you.  It is designed for you, the individual, and the individual sovereign states.  It is designed as an enumeration of powers granted to the highly limited//restricted federal government.  When your man Bush tries to usurp you and those powers, you are damn right I have a problem with HIM.

I'm still curious as to what "powers" (careful) he has usurped from you.  Are you being oppressed in some way, Grok?  I would love to hear about it.

[dxoigmn]

You're certainly right about that.  I also wonder what you think about the war against terrorism (which is indeed a threat to the sovereignty of our nation).

Um...how is the war against terrorism a threat to the sovereignty of the United States? You probably mean terrorism is a threat to the sovereignty of the United States but even in that context my question still stands.

[MyndFyre]

You're certainly right about that.  I also wonder what you think about the war against terrorism (which is indeed a threat to the sovereignty of our nation).

Um...how is the war against terrorism a threat to the sovereignty of the United States? You probably mean terrorism is a threat to the sovereignty of the United States but even in that context my question still stands.

Yes, he means terrorism is a threat to the sovereignty.  Connect terrorism to the parenthetical remark, call that phrase A, and then phrase A is the object of the preposition "on" (war on terrorism (which is a threat to the sovereignty of the United States) such that the following are parts of speech: noun, preposition, and object of a preposition).

Terrorism is a threat to the sovereignty of the United States because it is an attempt to rule and dictate policy from a foreign power (in this case, the terrorist organization, possibly funded by one or more foreign states).  Terrorist organizations do not last unless they have a sociopolitical agenda because they have nothing with which to unify and rally their people.  If the United States was to give in to terrorist demands, it would be losing its sovereignty, much like what happened in Spain following the subway bombings.

Furthermore:

The reason why terrorism is given so much attention is because, if unchecked, it would begin to interfere with daily life. The typical American doesn't think about horrible diseases every time they touch a door handle -- but, as the airline industry saw following 9/11, if there's that possibility looming in the back of someone's mind that their subway car could be blown up or their airplane could be hijacked or poisonous gas could be let loose in a public place, they're more hesitant to put themselves in such situations. Fear is a powerful tool, and it is the reason why terrorism looks horrible on paper but can be highly effective in the real world.

I'm still curious as to what "powers" (careful) he has usurped from you.  Are you being oppressed in some way, Grok?  I would love to hear about it.

I agree 100%.  Tell me, have you been thrown in jail without warrant, without a charge, and without access to a lawyer?  Have you been accused of contacting al Qaeda?

The Constitution's preamble says that the United States is established to "form a more perfect union, establish justice, ensure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty for ourselves and our posterity."

John Locke, in Ch. 18 "Of Tyranny" of the Second Treatise of Civil Government, said the following:

Sec. 199. AS usurpation is the exercise of power, which another hath a right to; so tyranny is the exercise of power beyond right, which no body can have a right to. And this is making use of the power any one has in his hands, not for the good of those who are under it, but for his own private separate advantage. When the governor, however intitled, makes not the law, but his will, the rule; and his commands and actions are not directed to the preservation of the properties of his people, but the satisfaction of his own ambition, revenge, covetousness, or any other irregular passion.

(emphasis added).

If you want to know and talk about the intentions of the founders for the United States, Locke was spot-on a major source of material for federalists as well as the other founders.

This is cited from Ch. 15 "Of Paternal, Political, and Despotical Power, considered together":

Sec. 171. Secondly, Political power is that power, which every man having in the state of nature, has given up into the hands of the society, and therein to the governors, whom the society hath set over itself, with this express or tacit trust, that it shall be employed for their good, and the preservation of their property: now this power, which every man has in the state of nature, and which he parts with to the society in all such cases where the society can secure him, is to use such means, for the preserving of his own property, as he thinks good, and nature allows him;

I think Locke really speaks for himself.

[MyndFyre]

A prime example of how terrorism is a threat to America's sovereignty:

• "If your desire for peace, stability and reconciliation was true, here we have given you the answer to your call."
  
• "I would like to tell you that everything is going to our advantage and the number of your dead is increasing, according to Pentagon figures."
  
• "The new operations of al-Qaeda has not happened not because we could not penetrate the security measures. It is being prepared and you'll see it in your homeland very soon."
  
• "We do not mind establishing a long-term truce between us and you."
  

http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/2006/01/19/osama-tape20060119.html

[Adron]

Terrorism is a threat to the sovereignty of the United States because it is an attempt to rule and dictate policy from a foreign power

Does this apply to attempts to dictate internal policy only or would it be enough if some foreign power attempted to dictate something in regards to your foreign policy? If that is the case, I think the USA is the biggest threat to the sovereignty of  the nations of the world right now...

[CrAz3D]

Terrorism is a threat to the sovereignty of the United States because it is an attempt to rule and dictate policy from a foreign power

Does this apply to attempts to dictate internal policy only or would it be enough if some foreign power attempted to dictate something in regards to your foreign policy? If that is the case, I think the USA is the biggest threat to the sovereignty of  the nations of the world right now...

It depends if those nations were really sovereign.
I don't believe Iraq was.  Most of the population was against Saddam, that is why he had to kill hundreds of thousans of them

[dxoigmn]

This whole idea that sovereignty is "freedom from external control" is entirely a modern concept. The United States wants you to believe sovereignty can be taken away by some external power without consent because that definition has domestic implications. No matter what a foreign power does, a people will always be sovereign.

[DarkMinion]

a people will always be sovereign.

Uh, perhaps you should re-affirm your definition of sovereign.  Sure, the people in the United States will probably always be sovereign, but not so elsewhere.

[Arta]

I think he was referring to a general principle rather than a system of government.