First Amendment should yield respect

[Archasgame5]

It is amazing Congressman Pete Clark has managed to stay in office as long as he has. Then again, he is from California.
The Democratic flame-thrower had the floor during a health care debate by the United States House of Representatives.
“You don't have money to fund the war or children," Stark said to House Republicans. "But you're going to spend it to blow up innocent people if we can get enough kids to grow old enough for you to send to Iraq to get their heads blown off for the president's amusement."
Stark’s comments were not only irresponsible, they were bordering on treasonous.
But let’s forget Stark; his Oct. 18th outburst wasn’t his first. Stark personally attacked a congressman from Oklahoma in 2001, claiming his children were illegitimate (when, in fact, they were not).
On June 6, 2006, a school bus driver with a bus full of children flipped President Bush the bird as he rode by in his motorcade.
In the eighteenth century, the individual in question probably would have been found guilty of treason and sedition and, consequently, been tarred and feathered. Fortunately for the bus driver, twenty-first century Americans are not so barbaric and cruel. Still, the hostile sentiment lingers.
Cindy Sheehan, the mother of a fallen Army soldier, has gone so far as to call President Bush a murderer.
On college campuses students proudly flaunt “Buck Fush” t-shirts.
With any freedom, especially the freedom of speech, comes responsibility.
Radicals like Cindy Sheehan have long walked the fine line between free speech and political dissent, and probably always will.
For the rest of us, we will speak with our vote.
The American public should respect the highest office in our nation, regardless of political loyalties. Anything less is shameful.
If the American people don’t respect the Administration, how can we expect the world to?



-------

I wanted to add, as a sidenote - I meant nothing against Californians, but California politics is...well....

[lily]

On June 6, 2006, a school bus driver with a bus full of children flipped President Bush the bird as he rode by in his motorcade.
In the eighteenth century, the individual in question probably would have been found guilty of treason and sedition and, consequently, been tarred and feathered. Fortunately for the bus driver, twenty-first century Americans are not so barbaric and cruel. Still, the hostile sentiment lingers.
Cindy Sheehan, the mother of a fallen Army soldier, has gone so far as to call President Bush a murderer.
On college campuses students proudly flaunt “Buck Fush” t-shirts.
With any freedom, especially the freedom of speech, comes responsibility.
Radicals like Cindy Sheehan have long walked the fine line between free speech and political dissent, and probably always will.

What punnishment are you suggesting Arch? Free speech isn't limited only to what one wants to hear.


For the rest of us, we will speak with our vote.

I think we all do that.

The American public should respect the highest office in our nation, regardless of political loyalties. Anything less is shameful.


If people don't speak out.......then how is the present or anyother administration know that the public is not satisfied with their job? I remember a lot of protesting during the Nixon years, Reagan not so much, but there was a small voice out there, especially with his trick down economy. Lots of noise and pure mocking of the White House was done in the Clinton years..........yet you want the public to be quiet when we see what is done by this administration?

If the American people don’t respect the Administration, how can we expect the world to?

This one has me thinking...........you don't think this administration is the one that is at fault for the lousy reputation that it has around the world........when it was pretty much A-OK before he took office?

[Archasgame5]

Thanks for the comments.

Free speech isn't limited only to what one wants to hear. If people don't speak out.......then how is the present or anyother administration know that the public is not satisfied with their job?

I'm a journalist. If anyone should be in favor of free speech, it would be me. I am in favor of the first amendment. It would be up to the individuals in question to "self-govern" their choice of words.

you don't think this administration is the one that is at fault for the lousy reputation that it has around the world........when it was pretty much A-OK before he took office?

Generally, yes. While much of the world's opinion of the U.S. is skewed by the media (I am referring more to social issues here - No, not all Americans love McDonalds), this brings up the issue of aggressive foreign policy, which is a different discussion.

I am in favor of the United States stepping down from the self-appointed role of "world's police."

[lily]

I'm a journalist. If anyone should be in favor of free speech, it would be me. I am in favor of the first amendment. It would be up to the individuals in question to "self-govern" their choice of words.

So you are in favor of free speech, as long as it's quiet and polite?



Generally, yes. While much of the world's opinion of the U.S. is skewed by the media (I am referring more to social issues here - No, not all Americans love McDonalds), this brings up the issue of aggressive foreign policy, which is a different discussion.

I'm not understanding this. The entire world doesn't read the New York Time or the Wall Street Journal. They are getting their news from their countries newspapers, who are reporting about this administration.

In all seriousness, what this administration does effects most of the world and not just us here in this country. I would think as a journalist, you would want the people informed and not just one side of the story.


I am in favor of the United States stepping down from the self-appointed role of "world's police."

We sure do agree there!

.........oh and welcome!

[Archasgame5]

So you are in favor of free speech, as long as it's quiet and polite?

Not at all. I believe people should be able to speak their mind, but speak responsibly. In other words, while I am not in favor of censoring those individuals, I think their actions are disrespectful and wrong. It goes back to the title of the thread.

.........oh and welcome!

Thanks!

[lily]

Not at all. I believe people should be able to speak their mind, but speak responsibly. In other words, while I am not in favor of censoring those individuals, I think their actions are disrespectful and wrong. It goes back to the title of the thread.

If I'm taking it off topic, then I apologize. While I can see a bus full of children flipping the bird to Bush as his motorcade pass by as somewhat disrespectful.......I also see it for what it is.......a bunch of kids.

Not to doubt you.......but how did a busload of kids even get near the motorcade?

Sheehan was a grieving mother, who took her grief public and the leeches at Code Pink latched onto her and she willingly let them use her. I don't agree with their tactics, but will defend their right to use them........just as I will defend the right of the police to arrest them......but you seem to be upset because she had the audacity to call Bush a murder, which surprises me.

College kids wearing Buck Fush t-shirts........sorry, this one I just don't understand.

Again........sorry if this isn't the direction you wanted this thread to go in. I'll understand if you don't want to reply and keep it in the vein you wanted it.:thumbsup:

[Pookie]

I think that if you do exercise your right to free speech, then you need to back up your words and own them. By owning them, I mean be prepared from everything from heckling to being arrested for what you say. And if you speak disrespectfully to another, don't be too surprised if you don't get any respect in return.
Where I respect the highest office in the nation, I don't necessarily respect the holder of that office when he has done nothing but completely lose any respect for him or faith in him that I might have had. Instead, I think the man has alienated both his fellow Americans and our allies abroad and therefore does not deserve a lot of respect.
And I could not agree more with the statement that America should step down as the world's police.
Welcome, Archas. I look forward to debating with you, and shedding some badass liberal cat fur and dander on you!
LOL.
Purrs,
Pookie

[davo]

Stark personally attacked a congressman from Oklahoma in 2001, claiming his children were illegitimate (when, in fact, they were not).


Under British law, civil laws prohibit you from making false claims against someone to damage their reputation. The law in Britain regarding defamation initially assumes the right not to be falsely defamed, whereas the law in the United States initially assumes the person's right to free speech. There are advantages and disadvantages with both ways; the situation you just mentioned would probably allow him to be sued in the UK.


On June 6, 2006, a school bus driver with a bus full of children flipped President Bush the bird as he rode by in his motorcade.
In the eighteenth century, the individual in question probably would have been found guilty of treason and sedition and, consequently, been tarred and feathered. Fortunately for the bus driver, twenty-first century Americans are not so barbaric and cruel. Still, the hostile sentiment lingers.


In the eighteenth century, the founders would probably have tarred and feathered George Bush and the Neocons and used them as an example for why defending the constitution is so important. The true patriot is someone who speaks out against unjust rule; the true traitors are those who've destroyed constitutional government.


Cindy Sheehan, the mother of a fallen Army soldier, has gone so far as to call President Bush a murderer.
On college campuses students proudly flaunt “Buck Fush” t-shirts.
With any freedom, especially the freedom of speech, comes responsibility.
Radicals like Cindy Sheehan have long walked the fine line between free speech and political dissent, and probably always will.
For the rest of us, we will speak with our vote.
The American public should respect the highest office in our nation, regardless of political loyalties. Anything less is shameful.
If the American people don’t respect the Administration, how can we expect the world to?


Free speech means to protect political views the government doesn't like. You don't need a constitutional amendment to only protect views the current government likes. If you really think the American people should respect the current administration, maybe you should work on getting an administration that actually is respectable into power.

[Archasgame5]

The true patriot is someone who speaks out against unjust rule

I would agree, but the individuals doing so should be attacking the policies and views of the person, not the person himself/herself (i.e. Stark).

Under British law, civil laws prohibit you from making false claims against someone to damage their reputation.

In the United States, you can sue someone for defamation of character, but under what grounds I am not exactly sure. This also brings up the issue of libel.

[DANG]

“You don't have money to fund the war or children," Stark said to House Republicans. "But you're going to spend it to blow up innocent people if we can get enough kids to grow old enough for you to send to Iraq to get their heads blown off for the president's amusement.":worship::clapper: There arent any laws against stating the obvious are there? :clapper::worship:

[Keith Hamburger]

There sure are a lot of "but"s in these posts.

Whenever anyone says, "I believe in freedom, but ...", everything before the "but" was a lie.

Keith

[Osborn F. Enready]

Well said Keith, and I agree.

[Tessy]

If there wasn't a date attached to this post I would swear it was
written prior to Sept. 2001!


It is amazing Congressman Pete Clark has managed to stay in office
as long as he has. Then again, he is from California. The Democratic
flame-thrower had the floor during a health care debate by the United
States House of Representatives.
“You don't have money to fund the war or children," Stark said to House
Republicans. "But you're going to spend it to blow up innocent people if
we can get enough kids to grow old enough for you to send to Iraq to
get their heads blown off for the president's amusement."

:clapper: Awesome! This guy rocks! I'd vote for him!

Stark’s comments were not only irresponsible, they were bordering on
treasonous.

When I think of treason I think of:

The Patriot Act I
The Patriot Act II
Speculation on Stephanopoulos (http://thinkprogress.org/2005/10/02/bush-directly-involved/)
The pretense for the Iraq war.
The Use of Uranium 238 D.U munitions.
The undeclared illegal war itself.
The participation in the United Nations
The military actions taken in support of UN resolution.
The fact that neither the Pres. nor the VP have rebuked their membership
in the CFR (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XOAk-7F1EVU) ( a known communist organization) after taking office.
The participation in the SPP (www.spp.gov) by heads of state in order to form the
NAU - essentially nullifying the Declaration of Independence, The
Constitution, and The Bill of Rights in one fell swoop.
China-Gate
The misuse and extension of the War Powers Act to declare the right to
establish a dictatorship and suspend the constitution on the presidents
determination and whim.
The illegal sales and profiteering of illegal weapons (http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2006/07/341918.shtml).
The establishment and use of a nation-wide criminal syndicated vote fraud
network.
Hundreds of counts of lying to the American people (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EYI7JXGqd0o).
The unauthorized use of the NSA to spy on ALL of the American people
since the year 2000 and prior.
The purposeful capture and control of the press and media for political gain (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2179700192640504810)
and the manipulation of the American people (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6632255652046262625).
The theft of privately owned land, buildings, and businesses in order to
build the NAFTA highways in many states but especially Texas.
The federal intervention of drug law enforcement over the top of state laws
to the contrary.
The continued use and support of an illegal but government sanctioned
counterfeiting operation known as the Federal Reserve.
The confiscation of personal property and the imprisonment of American
citizens for refusing to pay an illegal tax for which NO LAW exists (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1656880303867390173) on
the books.
I could go on and on and on and on and on and on and on and...


But let’s forget Stark;

Awe... I was just starting to like the guy!!!

his Oct. 18th outburst wasn’t his first. Stark personally attacked a congressman
from Oklahoma in 2001, claiming his children were illegitimate (when, in fact,
they were not).

On June 6, 2006, a school bus driver with a bus full of children flipped President
Bush the bird as he rode by in his motorcade.

In the eighteenth century, the individual in question probably would have
been found guilty of treason and sedition and, consequently, been tarred
and feathered. Fortunately for the bus driver, twenty-first century Americans
are not so barbaric and cruel. Still, the hostile sentiment lingers.

Cindy Sheehan, the mother of a fallen Army soldier, has gone so far as to
call President Bush a murderer.

She's right too and in more ways than one. She's talking about deaths as a
result of the war which is true and correct but I'm talking about something
MUCH more sinister. It's true of his father and both Clintons (http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en-us&q=Clinton+Murder&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8) too!

Here's just one of MANY! http://fadi420.wordpress.com/category/clinton-murder/
There are MANY more on the Clintons and they pale in comparison to Bush senior, his
son and the current VP. When you're dealing with real mobsters real people get real
dead.

On college campuses students proudly flaunt “Buck Fush” t-shirts.

With any freedom, especially the freedom of speech, comes responsibility.
Radicals like Cindy Sheehan have long walked the fine line between free
speech and political dissent, and probably always will.

Did you know that our Constitution and the authors of the constitution both
DEMAND of us as U.S. citizens that political dissent be harbored and voiced
as a duty of being a citizen? Sounds to me like Cindy is great american!

For the rest of us, we will speak with our vote.

Then your throat has already been cut and your tongue removed. Your new
found silence fills my ears as would the most hideous scream!

See the two videos on this page: http://www.thetruth247.com/ and visit the
www.blackboxvoting.org site and dig around there for awhile.

The American public should respect the highest office in our nation, regardless
of political loyalties. Anything less is shameful.

Respect is earned and suppressing dissent is the most shameful act an American
could ever perpetrate. Our entire Constitution and Bill of Rights is there for just
about the sole purpose of guaranteeing our right to dissent and promoting an
atmosphere and society where dissent thrives and the federal government is
powerless against against the individual except for guaranteeing that State laws
do not become too tyrannical.

If the American people don’t respect the Administration, how can we expect the
world to?


Only through corrosion or deceit could anyone.

--
I implore you to take the time to watch and consider each of the links I have
provided for you. Sometimes waking up can be painful but after move around
a bit and stretch your muscles the morning air is welcome and refreshing!

[Osborn F. Enready]

And again, thanks for a wonderful, well thought out and on point post Tessy.

Not much I can say except "I agree"!

[maten149]

It is amazing Congressman Pete Clark has managed to stay in office as long as he has. Then again, he is from California.
The Democratic flame-thrower had the floor during a health care debate by the United States House of Representatives.
“You don't have money to fund the war or children," Stark said to House Republicans. "But you're going to spend it to blow up innocent people if we can get enough kids to grow old enough for you to send to Iraq to get their heads blown off for the president's amusement."

Stark’s comments were not only irresponsible, they were bordering on treasonous.


Labelling his (strong) view as bordering on treasonous implicates that
he is violating something untangible 'social code of conduct'... such
as conforming to the 'way we should respect the government'...

Isn't your reaction bordering on conformism? Even having freedom
of speach isn't very much help if an entire society is enslaving itself
under the unseen authorities of 'behaving respectfully'.

Freedom of speach under such circumstances is bordering 'useless'
and more a facade which the government and people in power can
subdue free individuals. I think you are demonstrating this behaviour
with a frightening clarity...


The American public should respect the highest office in our nation, regardless of political loyalties. Anything less is shameful.
If the American people don’t respect the Administration, how can we expect the world to?


... now this is even more of the same...

Best regards,
Mattias