Lets vote, for president

[senseiman]

Thrice divorced. He and Marta just called it quits.

Yes, he does insult and demean. He is far from having a monopoly on that, though. Neither do conservatives in general have a monopoly on it, for what very little that is worth.

I agree, liberals can be insulting and demeaning too, and those that do are just as much dinks as Rush is.

Could you tell me the last time you heard him demand a harsh crackdown on crime and crack dealers? He hasn't mentioned it in the last eight years, largely due to awareness of his own lack of room to talk on the matter.

Don't know about that, I haven't listened to his show since the early 90s. In his books he certainly was in favor of some draconian measures to crack down on crime, if memory serves. I read them about 8 or 9 years back and don't remember the details.

I wasn't aware that prior military service was a prerequisite for having views on the use of the military. Since there are approximately 300 million Americans who don't have experience of being President, I guess we will all have to stop second-guessing Bush, now won't we?

Military service isn't at all a prerequisite to voicing opinions on military matters. But Rush isn't just voicing his opinion, he is trying to cultivate this tough military guy image which he really has no business doing. I remember seeing the cover of one of his newsletters once with a picture of him dressed up like Patton. That is just hollow, hypocritical bullshit posing. We see it replicated in pretty much all the neo-conservative 'chicken hawks' in the Bush administration who talk tough but have never put their asses where their mouths were. Clinton never served in the military either, but he never pretended to be a tough fighter or anything. He knew who he was, an academically gifted man who wasn't much of a 'hero' in the traditional sense. If Rush could be similarly honest with himself, he would have to admit that an overweight college dropout with no social skills whatsoever like himself doesn't really fit the 'hero' mold either.

I appreciate your taking the time to reply to my request to elaborate (sincerely, I do). But would you do me the further favor of listing some of the warped political views you alluded to?[/QUOTE]

Which of his political views are warped? The list could go on and on, but suffice it to say I think that anyone who supports Bush and the Iraq war as strongly as he does must be at least a bit funny in the head.

 

[Glenn]

The school scenario is silly because every school district has it's own rules on what can and can't be taught. If a teacher were to teach something like Creationism they would be stopped because that's not approved by the school district. So I'm not seeing how that scenario applies to the issue of free speech.

Alright, but if a teacher teaches Creationism when the school district says that evolution is correct and should be taught, then the teacher should not be punished under free speech. If the teacher is fired for teaching Creationism, then the teacher could argue that his rights to free speech were violated, and that the dismissal was unconstitutional. Under the right to free speech, the teacher would win, and could continue to teach Creationism. That would be a case in which free speech shouldn't be seen as a right. This is what I meant with this example originally.

Although the tought of throwing Bush in jail for what he's done does appeal to me, are you saying you'd like to make lying illegal? Good luck. I don't think any country could pull that off.

I never said to throw him in jail for it. Look again:

Do you think that people shouldn't be able to sue him for lying about a nation's ability to attack us, and those lies leading us into a war that we shouldn't have fought? According to the universal right to free speech, he shouldn't be punished for this.

What I am saying is that he should be punished for it. He should have to face some serious consequences. If I used lies to try to get what I wanted and got lots of people killed, I should be punished for it. If someone lied about having AIDS to have unprotected sex with someone, and then transmitted it, that person should be punished for it. I think that lying, when it is as egregious as this, should be illegal, and that no one should have the right to it. I'm not saying that lying is always a seriously punishable offence and that anyone who does it should go to jail, because we would all be there. By the way, not everything that is illegal is punished by jailtime.

Now, before we get too much further with this:

Is everything allowed in the US under the first amendment ? What about slander, diffamation, etc.

No, those kinds of things are not accepted. Even for things that are "legal", there are strong social pressures against things like racist comments. But I don't think you should be arrested just for being an a@@h*le.

Really, it seems as though we agree on this issue. My original response was this:

People like the KKK go against any reason and sound thinking, and they cause injury. I think that they should not be allowed to say what they say and believe what they believe for that very reason.

and...

This doesn't mean that no one should have the right to hold controversial beliefs; it just means that they had better have some damn good evidence to support those beliefs.

Since the KKK has no evidence at all to support their white supremacy beliefs, they should not be able to legally spread them. It's not just that I don't agree with them, it's also that they are dead wrong. What they do is like the teacher who teaches incorrect information, except it's worse -- they use it to spread hate. Even if the teacher example wasn't the best, I think this one serves to make my point.

 

[Brooker]

I think we agree more than we disagree. My fear is that if you abridge the rights of free speech of the people you don't want to hear, you'll also end up doing the same to the people you do want to hear. I think the best thing to do is to let everyone speak freely and hope the truth will prevail, becuase it usually does. This seems to be the current policy of America and I think it's a good one.

In many cases, the lying isn't the thing that should be punished - it's the result of the lying that should be punished. In the case of the KKK member, harrasement (legal penalties), the AIDS patient, wreckless endangerment (legal penalties), the teacher, poor teaching (loss of job), the president, leading his country into an unnecessary war (loss of re-election).

 

[Maciamo]

I think the best thing to do is to let everyone speak freely and hope the truth will prevail, becuase it usually does. This seems to be the current policy of America and I think it's a good one.

There is no truth in opinions and subjective comments/judgements. The problem is never when people tell facts, but their opinions. Whatever prevails is biased, regardless of how good or bad (which is also subjective).

 

[Brooker]

So you think people shouldn't be allowed to express their opinions? Because it would be impossible to seperate the good ones from the bad ones. And who's to say which ones should be allowed and which ones shouldn't. A country where you're not allowed to express your opinions sounds like a prison to me.

 

[Maciamo]

So you think people shouldn't be allowed to express their opinions? Because it would be impossible to seperate the good ones from the bad ones. And who's to say which ones should be allowed and which ones shouldn't.

Why make me say what I didn't say. It not because people can have accidents that all cars or prohibited, nor because one can die of an overdose of alcohol that it should be banned. As long as there are driving test and licences, and people learn to drink moderately, everything is fine. Just a matter of education.

It's the same thing for speaking or expressing one's opinion. It is not because one can offend people, organize a revolution or spread evil ideas that everybody should give up expressing their opinions. The important is education and tell people that there are limits to things you can tell others or say publicly, because they can have serious consequences. I have been told how to respect other people's feelings since I was a child, and so do the majority of Europeans and Japanese, I suppose. What couldn't Americans do the same, instead of seeing things "black or white", total freedom or "total prohibition". In all cases, I'd say, freedom requires education. In the same way as people driving without a licence get fined, people who abuse their right of public expression should be punished according to how much "damages" they have done (by spreading harmful lies, indoctrinating people into dangerous religious sects, promoting terrorism or violent racism, stirring up crowds to harm people, etc.).

 

[Brooker]

Maciamo wrote....

I have been told how to respect other people's feelings since I was a child, and so do the majority of Europeans and Japanese, I suppose. What couldn't Americans do the same, instead of seeing things "black or white", total freedom or "total prohibition".

I don't think this problem exists in America as you see it. People in America aren't running around violently hurting eachothers' feelings anymore here than elsewhere. I'm not sure where this image came from, perhaps from the fact that Americans protect their free speech so firmly. I can't think of any example of ways that Americans consistently abuse their right of free speech to blatantly hurt others, so I'm not sure exactly what you're objecting to. I'd say America's policy of allowing its people to express themselves is one of the things that I highly approve of about my sometimes questionable homeland.

Recently in Northern Idaho (known in America as being home of some of the most racist people in the country) a group of white supremecists numbering about 15 members tried to hold a parade and were nearly run out of town. They weren't even speaking, all they were doing was walking. Eventually they were allowed to walk and no one except reporters and curious onlookers showed up to watch. But there were two good things about that....

#1 It's nice to see that people with those views aren't very popular even in an area that has been historically less hostile to groups like that.

and

#2 It's good that they were still allowed to walk.

What would be accomplished by not letting them walk? In fact, their walking only prooved that they weren't very popular and had the opposite affect from what they were looking for. I like the fact that even people with unpopular views can express them in America.

Did you know that America has a Communist Party? No one ever votes for them. But I think it speaks to the open-mindedness of a country that objects to Communism so strongly, but still allows a Communist Party to exist.

Ideas, information, and opinions can not be evil. It's what people do with it that has the potential to be evil. But people should not be shielded from information.

But, I admit, I'm a fundamentally hard-core defender of free speech, even compared to other Americans.

 

[Maciamo]

I don't think this problem exists in America as you see it. People in America aren't running around violently hurting eachothers' feelings anymore here than elsewhere. I'm not sure where this image came from, perhaps from the fact that Americans protect their free speech so firmly. I can't think of any example of ways that Americans consistently abuse their right of free speech to blatantly hurt others.

I have seen people badly insulting each others on more than one forum (not too much here, otherwise we ban them ), and the majority of those who can't control their words are Americans (rather than British, European, Singaporian, Indian, Japanese, etc). Another reason is true American movies and TV, and yet another one is from meeting Americans myself (though while travelling by themselves many are usually better behaved than at home or in group). I guess that the US troops abroad give quite a bad image of verbal abuse too, but I didn't even consider them as soldiers are basically the same everywhere. Just for consolation, I found that Australians could be even ruder than Americans, but it is usually as a game. One more thing, social level certainly influence one's control over one's speech. The worst image of Americans come from poor black comunities, rednecks and other country whites.

Anyway, I guess it's a question of sensibility. When some Americans insult each others, they might not be really hurt as they are used to it. In Europe there are also noticeable differences of language level betwen countries. I'd say that Latins are more likely to call each others names than Germanic people. In England, it's all a matter of class (the lowest, the rudest, which is one of the reason why Brits consider the average American or Australian as lower-class).

 

[Brooker]

I suppose it depends on the area. Only once (actually it was recently) have I been insulted in public by a stranger in Seattle (Seattle is renouned for being polite, but not friendly). I'm sure in New York this happens more often, but I don't know, I've never been there.

The rudest I've ever seen strangers be to eachother in public was in Scotland and Ireland. Standing in line at McDonald's people would yell and swear at eachother over nothing.

Arguing on a forum is a little different situation. I've known some people who will argue on a forum, but would never do so in person. Maybe they feel like they've been walked on a lot in everyday life and use the forum as a chance to feel like they're not taking any sh*t.

But you're right that there is something about Americans that tends to make them more agressive and I'm not sure why. But there are other countries who share these same traits. Not to make generalizations, but a lot of the Germans and Pakistanis I've met have been very agressive, but maybe in a different way. There are some pretty aggro Brits too, but, you know, people like that can be found anywhere.

 

[Maciamo]

There are some pretty aggro Brits too, but, you know, people like that can be found anywhere.

Well, Japanese or Scandinavians have a reputation for not being aggressive, and upper-class Brits for being very polite. There must be a reason for that.

 

[Brooker]

It's just the difference of culture.

Upper-class Brits are very formal, but lower-class Brits and even middle-class Brits can be very crass but are a hell of a lot of fun at a party. :gulp:

I've even met very rude Japanese people, but it's a little less common than other places.

 

[RockLee]

and the majority of those who can't control their words are Americans (rather than British)

Well...not the British HOOLIGANS or players in a game....they curse/swear/talk shit the whole time!!Even worse than Americans!! *for the English ppl on this forum...pls don't take this as a personal isult..just talking about the hardcore ppl *

 

[jovial_jon]

Well...not the British HOOLIGANS

There's a few too many of them for my liking, but it's not just the hardcore - it's pretty evident in day-to-day life. There's a complete lack of respect for other people in this country as far I'm concerned. I love England's eccentricity, but it just needs to chill out a bit in terms of its aggressiveness.

 

[Brooker]

@Maciamo....
It sounds like what you're objecting to is Americans who act like jackasses on your forum. And, although that behavior is unfortunate, it's really not an issue of free speech. Nowhere in free speech does it cover "ones right to act like a jackass".

All I can say is try not to judge all Americans as a whole or by a few bad encounters you've had. Jackasses are everywhere.

I hate it when Americans act like jackasses because it makes all of us look bad. On more than one occasion while in Japan I was ashamed of my countrymen's behavior.

My non-American friends would say that I'm "the good American" which was nice, but it also implied that being a good American was the exception to the rule. Now do you see why I don't really want people to see the red, white, and blue sitting next to my name everytime I make a post. I'd rather be judged by my words than by my nationality because I know that Americans don't have to best image, and that sucks.

But there are plenty of Americans out there earning that bad reputation and to them I say, "KNOCK IT OFF! YOU'RE RUINING IT FOR THE REST OF US."

 

[Glenn]

Now do you see why I don't really want people to see the red, white, and blue sitting next to my name everytime I make a post. I'd rather be judged by my words than by my nationality because I know that Americans don't have to best image, and that sucks.

Of course, one could make the argument that showing that you are American and behaving in a proper manner would show that Americans are more civilized and intellectual than people tend to give us credit for. I understand that you've had some bad experiences with idiot Americans giving all of us a bad rap, but never on this forum have I had problems just because I have an American flag under my name and avatar. Aside from that, I can use it as an opportunity to show exactly what I stated above -- that there are polite, considerate, educated (I hope :shock, intelligent Americans, and more than some may think. I think that that is important on such an international forum as this one.

 

[Brooker]

Of course, one could make the argument that showing that you are American and behaving in a proper manner would show that Americans are more civilized and intellectual than people tend to give us credit for. I understand that you've had some bad experiences with idiot Americans giving all of us a bad rap, but never on this forum have I had problems just because I have an American flag under my name and avatar. Aside from that, I can use it as an opportunity to show exactly what I stated above -- that there are polite, considerate, educated (I hope :shock, intelligent Americans, and more than some may think. I think that that is important on such an international forum as this one.

True. But initially even intelligent people may think only of the negative stereotypes. I don't like being guilty of being a jerk until proven innocent and having to prove myself. I wish people could be a little more open minded, but I've seen it time and time again.

And, I'm just getting tired of seeing the damn thing.

I'm not completely without patriotism, but Americans show off the flag too much and there's a point where pride becomes arrogance. (Although that statement doesn't really pertain to the use of flags on this website.)

But I don't intend to open the flag issue can-of-worms again.

 

[Glenn]

And, I'm just getting tired of seeing the damn thing.

I'm not completely without patriotism, but Americans show off the flag too much and there's a point where pride becomes arrogance. (Although that statement doesn't really pertain to the use of flags on this website.)

I know what you mean -- bumper stickers and whatnot. I get a little sick of it myself. Most of the time it seems to me to be blind patriotism. However, I do think that the flags here are for showing location information only. I'm not saying that you should put it up, it just seems to me that this is a seperate case from the rest of the flag waving. Of course, being tired of seeing it is still being tired of seeing it.

 

[kirei_na_me]

Yeah, I definitely see my flag as showing my location only. You think you've got it bad in the Northwest? Try coming down to the Bible Belt. Talking about flag-flying, bumper sticker displaying, flags from the September '01 newspapers taped to doors, etc.

You would really see it down here. It's a pet peeve of mine and I do not consider myself patriotic, but I will put the flag up there just so people know where I'm from. It doesn't define who I am.

 

[Elizabeth]

You would really see it down here. It's a pet peeve of mine and I do not consider myself patriotic, but I will put the flag up there just so people know where I'm from. It doesn't define who I am.

What does it really mean, though, not to be patriotic ? Only to like, not love, your country ? Or just to love parts of it ? :? To me, patriotism doesn't really have anything to do with supporting the current government or power structure but more to preserve its promise, ideals, history, natural beauty, etc -- basically to support the country as much as one person can in reaching its full potential. Although I can't say I've ever had to sacrifice anything for it like a lot of people. :blush:

 

[TwistedMac]

Main Entry: pa?tri?ot?ism
Pronunciation: 'pA-trE-&-"ti-z&m, chiefly British 'pa-
Function: noun
: love for or devotion to one's country


source: Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary