Quote:
Originally posted by Astrocloud
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?
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.
|
Keep telling yourself that rational discourse includes labeling someone obstinate when their first post disagrees with you and they maintain that position in the face of the counter argument of "because they're different". The issue has not been muddied in the least by my points. They are perfectly within the bounds of the discussion. If Clinton had done this I would hold the same position, whether you want to believe it or not. I haven't talked about Bush's involvement at all, only the practice itself so trying to make this about Clinton vs Bush is weak.
Since it's obvious that you have no desire to carry on a real discourse that could serve to offer perspectives I haven't considered or acknowledge the fact that there are legitimate points of view that disagree with yours there's no need for us to continue this line of discussion.