WHY IS IT THAT FANATIC SUPPORTERS OF POLITICAL CANDIDATES on?

Question

this forum to force answers that suit them and if someone posts a honest answer that the don't like FALSLY AND MALISIOUSLY report the answer so the can cause a honest point of view to go unheard ? Are they brainwashed or are they part of a conspirisy to deny us of our constutitional right to free speech ? I answered the question ' DO YOU FEEL THAT bUSH SHOULD BE IMPEACHED FOR HIS ACTIONS WHILE PRESIDENT " my answer was simple straightforward and easy to understand . It was NOT phrased as a threat or anthing except opinion which I am intitiled to state verbally our in any media under the constutition of the United States ARTICLE 1 THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO FREE SPEECH SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED ... this is a GARANTEED AS WELL AS NECESSARY RIGHT TO BE HEARD SO OUR REPRESENTIVES ( not masters yet ) in DC know and can therefore represent or wishes NOT THEIR OWN INTERESTS my answer was as follows " impeached , TRIED , and hanged " this would be a legal action taken by THE PEOPLE NOT a threat

my question is this was my right under our constutition infringed and was yahoo guilty of a crime when they deled my answer or was it the "person who made the report please give a detailed answer ALL ANSWERS WILL BE CONSIDERED ACCEPTABLE ANY REPORTS WILL BE CENSURED unles the answer can be considered illrelavent

The question ask for opinion only which I honestly gave this person took away my rights as a citizen and if he is impeach ( a legal process ) he can be removed from office and would no longer be president

I volenteered for the Marine corps on 11-11-1975 when there was no draft and I was 17 years old I fought my parents for the right to do so even telling them that if I was unable to sign then I would do so on my 18th birthday anyway I fought them for over a month before they gave up and allowed it

Sorry for the bad spelling and wording but I have been in a hurry today and have also been experiancing some techinal difficulties ! Neverthestill the act refered to limiting presidential powers to decllare war only refer to war not a " police action " and we all know how many of those there have been in fact presidents have been known from to from time to time enter a conflict undeclared which is a clear violation of the accepted rules of engagement and if you check into the background of the present situation we are in there is more than a little reason to believe that we have been misled by the present powers in DC if you check the answers I have given perviousley in this forum you will find that my line of reasoning has a strong basis in reality and is not just a crackpot theroy 1) who has profited most by terrorist actions 2) who would be able to smuggle large amounts of military supplies all over the world using their standard and therefore low profile shipping schedules

3) who can supply large quanities of expolsives and chemicals to manufacture bombs without arousing undue notice ( companies that use or manufacture them ) 4) which of these companies combine all stated factors and have heavy political connections in DC ( give large campaign donations to both parties ) and stand most to gain 5) any other factors you can think of I have figured out 3 more but this will eliminate all but one major interest group work it for yourself don't take my or anyone elses word for it decide for yourself ! and remember this even paranoids have enemies !

Answer 1

Some people are afraid of honest answers especially if it is in conflict with their own views

Answer 2

First of all, it happened to me too. I answered that question too and I got deleted for giving an answer which was not a violation of Yahoo's codes.

Second, no, I don't think that Yahoo is acting illegally. Because "freedom of speech" pertains to the subject of government censorship. Yahoo is not the government. The First Amendment does not control how they regulate their own website.

Answer 3

I may not like or agree with what you have to say but I have defended your right to say it as a service person in the military. Give me the same rights....

President Bush has done nothing to be impeached for.
He went to the Congress to receive autorization to declare war on Iraq. Be unhappy with them and scream to your hearts content. But understand the laws of the Constitution.

My right to free speech in all its glory........... God bless you.

For the United States, Article One, Section Eight of the Constitution says "Congress shall have the power to ... declare war. Congress voluntarily limited its use of the power to declare war to issuing authorizations of force. The War Powers Resolution of 1973 (Pub.L. 93-148) limits the power of the President to wage war without the approval of the Congress.

Answer 4

Actually, even hinting that any harm should come to the president, in ANY form, is illegal. That is one thing freedom of speech doesn't cover.
Other than that, I'm in agreement with you. People do report arbitrarily on this site. I've been a victim of it as well. Actually, one morning when I checked my email, I had twelve, oh yes, TWELVE, violation notices. Out of all of them, only one was deserved.