Have you EVER considered that your PUBLIC HATRED for PRESIDENT BUSH could promote?

Question

more HATRED and EMBOLDEN THE TERRORISTS ??? . . STOP .. .. STOP RIGHT HERE and THINK FOLKS .. .We all have the precious 1st amendment right to FREE SPEECH, but isn't it PRUDENT to THINK about the CONSEQUENCES and maybe use some 'discretion' ?? I mean, really folks, I know all the Dems are charged up for what appears to be a victory in November, but FREE SPEECH at what COST ?? Is it PRUDENT to yell "Fire " in a crowded theater? NO. And it's not even legal. Because it puts the lives of others in DANGER. Cmon, let's see at least one Democrat that can ADMIT how wrong and dangerous this is.

Thanks Lancelot. I really do hope some dems see the consequences of this hatred. But just in case, I better get ready for the onslaught of hatred.

C=JD - Yes, but if they get in power, we have to get them to understand. Their attitudes on this topic are as dangerous as the terrorists themselves. And anyone who doesn't understand that, simply MUST learn.

farkas419 - I saw that question and the 'answers'. Somehow they don't understand 'patterns of behavior'. Thank you, I've got to go back and see if any democrat has admitted the truth.

Well if Alex is a democrat, then he's the first to admit it. You have my RESPECT sir, whether you're a democrat, Republican or other. Thank you

Hey 'logical' - I didn't say dissent. I said HATRED... . more than once if I recall... and in CAPITAL LETTERS. HATRED HATRED. There, now if you claim to have double-vision, you can see it twice in a row. Or would that be 4.. . .I'm asking, because I think it's important. OKAY??

lamoviema - -Bush Blunders... .help terrorists.. .. . opinion polls ????? Opinion Polls ?? Opinion polls do not DECIDE the TRUTH.. . Democrat or Republican, I never want a President to govern based on OPINION POLLS..That's so crazy....We Elect LEADERS. .. .Strong LEADERS do not and have never governed by OPINION POLLS

Cmon, 'mlamb56' what rights have you lost? Tell me one thing that you used to be allowed to do and now you can't. If there are any for you, I'm sorry, but I haven't lost any rights. And I don't care if the gov't wants to listen in on overseas calls. Even when I used to make a fair number of overseas calls, I wouldn't care. Ya wanna know why? Because, A. I have nothing to hide. . . . and B. If somehow we get some info on the terrorists, it's worth them listening to an innocent conversation

Zafrod - -I see the 'original intent'. But to be fair to our founding fathers, they didn't have 300 million people to protect. There were no nukes, capable of killing thousands or millions. There were no planes. There were no computers. There were no shoulder-fired missiles. There were no gatherings/sport's events/concerts where as many as 200,000 people could be in one small area, there was no real 'technology'. There was no nuke plants, chemical plants, highrises, stock market, highways, or cities of 10 million or more. That is to be fair. Changes are always met with resistance. And I'm not advocating the dismissal of the constitution, but I still haven't had even one right removed from me.

I'm not responding to those of you that said " I was trying to keep you quiet" or the ones who said that 'I am against your right to dissent'. Clearly I didn't say anything like that. I was speaking about HATRED. If you think dissenting and PUBLIC HATRED are the same then... . . .. . . .. .. ..

Answer 1

I disagree with many policies that Pres. Bush has and holds, but I will never say I hate an American elected leader that at least in his mind thinks he is doing whats best for the American public. Though I may not agree with him, he is serving, using his life, to try and better America in a way he thinks is right, and truly, that makes him a good American, as much as any other American, Dem, Rep or otherwise would be, as long as they want to better their country. I do agree, hating our president makes us no better than those that hate him overseas.

Answer 2

America was not founded on the ideal of safety being more important than freedom, liberty, and justice. It is always more dangerous to live in a free society, because free people are free to do evil things. That is something the founding fathers understood quite well, but they also understood the dangers of autocracy and the inevitable corruption of unopposed, unaccountable autocrats. Having just fought a war to remove themselves from the control of such an autocrat, they resolved to create a republic where individual liberty was valued more highly than any other value, including the public saftey. Read the Bill of Rights... nearly every one makes keeping the public order more difficult. We could revoke them all and make America much, much safer, at least for those willing to go along and not cause trouble. We would be safer, but we would not be the Republic envisioned by our forefathers. Might public dissent embolden America's enemies and possibly even make America less 'safe?' Perhaps. But signing the Decleration of Independence made an enemy of the most powerful nation on Earth and endangered the life of every colonist, and yet that was the price of liberty. If our forefathers were willing to incite the anger of the world's most powerful military force, what base cowards would we be to give up those freedoms and quietly endure corruption when our enemy is so comparitively weak?

{EDIT} - There's always a reason to give up freedoms. Growing populations, new weapons, and unforseen dangers are not new to us in the 21st century. Excuses are fine, if you believe that liberty is no longer more important than safety. You've already said you'd allow your phone conversations to be tapped without warrant if it would help catch terrorists. In doing so, you put saftey before liberty. I'm not saying that's the wrong choice... it is a matter of opinion, and until the perfect system of government is found, the matter is up for debate. However, the idea is patently unamerican and goes against the principles upon which we were founded. All people want to feel safe. I understand that. But people die all the time. Some die of disease. Some die of age. Very, very, very few people in this country have died as the result of a terrorist action. Yet you would give up your privacy and liberty out of fear. I do take issue with that, yes.

(Blogged at http://www.zafrod.com/neuralminefield )

Answer 3

Actually Franson... Yes they do. O'Reilly regularly has Liberals on his show. Hannity and Colmes? Every single night. Should we discuss Chris Mathews and his "Hardball"show? His hardball show is only hard on conservatives. You can practically see the brown on his nose when he gets a Liberal on there. How about Keith Oberman or whatever his name is. How about Jack Cafferty? Wolf Blitzer? Anderson Cooper? You want to talk about slanted journalism. What about these people?

Bottles never said anywhere in his post that he wanted to take away anyones right to freedom of speech. He simply stated that perhaps we should all think of how exploiting that right can and will affect our country. I completely agree with you bottles. You are right though. For those who regularly pervert and exploit their right to free speech, what you are saying means nothing. After all, if they had to sit and think about how to use that right constuctively, very few of them could get past the first word or two

As a wise man once said... (I'm surprised not more of these folks haven't thrown this quote at you)

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." - Reply to the Governor, November 11, 1755 from the General Assembly

That wise man was Benjamin Franklin.

Guess what else Benjamin Franklin once said...

"Discretion is the better part of valor" (previously attributed to Shakespeare in 1597 but later repeated by Ben Franklin) He went on to say in the same article "Exercise caution, don't take unnecessary risks. Proper judgment is better than unwarranted bravery." - Poor Richards Almanac, 1747

Sounds to me like Ben felt that protecting our Liberties was important. It also sounds to me like Ben didn't want us to be foolish or wreckless in the manner in which we did it. which is exactly what a HUGE portion of society is doing. You are right bottles. Completely.

Answer 4

1st off, I'm not a Democrat. You need to realize, it's not just the Democrats that are disgusted with the current administration. As for your call for "discretion", I'm not sure how you reasoned this out. Are you saying those that oppose the current administration should keep quite in the name of national security? That's absolutely asinine. How many Republicans showed the same "discretion" when commenting on Clinton and his administration? If over half of Americans think their current leader is a dangerous and incompetent one, shouldn't they do everything in their power to dethrown such a leader? Shouldn't they do everything in their power to ensure another like him doesn't take his place?

Really kiddo. Do the math. It doesn't work out for you. You're trying in vain to make a logistical argument against criticizing GW because you have no viable defense for his conduct.

And here's a hint for future posts: over using CAPITOL LETTERS DOES NOT MAKE YOUR POINT ANY MORE VALID. It just makes the question look like it was written by a child (if you are indeed a child please accept my preemptive apology).

Answer 5

You have a point - but I think the circumstances are that terrorists don't care about internal American politics, and want to destroy us no matter who's in office, or whether the country is united or divided about the president. Of course, if this internal bickering prevents us from stopping the terrorists, then it is putting lives in danger, isn't it?

Answer 6

I believe that there are limits to freedom of speech. A little while ago, someone asked a question on here about what people would do/say if they met President Bush. I could not BELIEVE the people who said they would either physically harm him, or assassinate him!
There is nothing wrong with disagreeing with a president.
What is wrong is making up lies about him, calling him a Nazi, calling him another Hitler, calling him a terrorist, and/or threatening his health or his life.
People should be respectful when they disagree. I didn't like Clinton, but I NEVER would have thought of saying all the things about him that I see people type on here on a daily basis!

Answer 7

The left's hatred of the right is a direct result of the right's hatred of left going back to the Clinton years.

Think about it -- "Liberal" is a dirty word to most conservatives. To be liberal is roughly equivalent to being morally bankrupt, evil incarnate, and stupid. There isn't a converse in the "liberal" world. John Stewart has conservatives on his show all the time, and gives them the opportunity to state their vision, their point of view. Does O'Reilly offer the same? Does Hanity and his lapdog Combs offer the same?

If you want to stop the hatred of the president, you have to address the polarization of this country brought about by the president's men. You have to stop smearing techniques like Swift Boat. You have to tell the republican leaders to stop acting like they are the only party with the right to lead. You have to stop treating those who oppose the war like they are for Al Queda.

When the quality of the political dialog rises in this country, it will rise for all parties.

Answer 8

I think the world hates president bush. trust me, you need to read a bit more world news than your local rag.

emboldening the terrorists though...puh-lease! If you understood and took time to learn where the terrorists are coming from they wouldn't want to know what we westerners were thinking. They are wrapped up in there psycho-land (their own personal 'crazy land' in their head, not a comment disregarding the religion if Islam). They are not affected by what the rest of the world is thinking, they are just trying to kill everyone and anyone who is not Muslim.

very interesting question to me. wish i could ask you a question or two. but i hope my reply helped a bit...

Answer 9

1st amendment, eh? I wonder how much longer. You have lost the 4th, 5th, 6th and 8th so far under this guy, along with Habeas Corpus. If telling the truth about this disastrous administration is what it takes to save the country, I say it's worth it. Whose lives, exactly, does that put in danger? If you are thinking of the ones in Iraq, they are in danger already, and we didn't put them there.

To answer your further rant: The right to face your accusers, the right to a trial by a jury of your peers, the right to remain silent, the right to see the evidence against you. You doubt it? Ask Jose Padilla. And yes I know you are going to say he is a terrorist, but who says so? GWB does, and that is enough? Either GWB or Rumsfeld (yes, just those two) can declare you or me or anyone else an enemy of the state and that is that. Last person to be able to do that under the common UK and US law was king John of England in the year 1215. Call that progress?

Answer 10

Actually, I dont hate bush but the fact that he is so closely tied to the government and that people seem to have this anger toward the republican party, even though the last two republican presidents did have fairly notable service records, does give radical islam a foothold.