Quote:
Originally posted by onetime2
At the risk of being chastised by lebell for this clarification, there is no place in a rational discourse for someone to label the other conversant as being obstinate. It does nothing to further the conversation. I have my belief and you have yours. Just as I would not tell someone that they're being pig headed if they held a belief that differs from mine, I would expect the same from them.
|
No, you're wrong. The place "within rational context" is where I am not only debating you -I am pointing out the shortcomings of your position to
others. Not that others need that much convincing on your positions inherent weakness -because you are (deliberately or accidentally) obfuscating the issues (more on that later).
Right now it seems that you can’t take
any criticism without feigning injury. I assert that this is a tactic in order to shut people up who don’t agree with you. True or not –it seems conspicuous so perhaps you should develop thicker skin when it comes to accepting criticism.
It’s not that your beliefs are different from mine. In this case they are outright wrong. Think: “what if Clinton did something like this” –Would you be outraged? If the answer is no –then you are not being honest. This policy of stifling political criticism goes beyond petty personal politics and affects the future of the United States. I’m honestly surprised that more Bush Apologists haven’t thought about it.
What if the next Democrat in office did something like this?
Quote:
Originally posted by onetime2
The parades I discussed were done in public places, the sidewalks of cities are public places, court rooms are public places, your front yard is private property.
In no way have I said that the people who protest against Bush should be in jail I have only said that relocating them does not violate their ability to speak freely.
|
I’ve quite literally spent hours in a graduate level class studying the first amendment. What you seem to “not get” is that content is not subject to censorship. Context is. So when someone ‘shouts fire in a crowded public theater’ in order to create an unreasonable panic –this context is restricted. When someone shouts fire and there is a fire –then the context is unrestricted. This also goes for parades and court rooms etc. If you honestly need help understanding this then I suggest you read a good book on Constitutional Law instead of obfuscating the issue here. It is tricky and there are lots of ‘ins and outs’ to it. Furthermore, Astrocloud does not necessarily have all the answers on hand. I suggest you educate yourself.
The bottom line is that Bush is very clearly and deliberately censoring people. As pointed out in the article
the protest zones are not places where the media is allowed to visit. This is a clear violation of the first amendment. Dissenting citizens
ARE going to jail for it. These are the facts.