People come up with the outrageous NOTION that Showing DISSENT for your government somehow equates or defines Democracy or Freedom ?
Countless posts over the several months that I've been here.. . Proudly proclaim that showing dissent IS the definition of Democracy !!! Who put that notion in their heads ? While the Freedom to show dissent is available and legal.. . . . . IN NO WAY, SHAPE, OR FORM does that define democracy nor indicate patriotism !! FACT . Where the heck did this come from ?
And how the heck do we correct it ?
2007-02-03 03:44:38 · 8 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
"I'm not worthy!". Once again, Over the top! It's not a definition of democracy. it's the Right, given to us by those Brave Americans, who fight to save Our Nation. Keep the logic comin'.
2007-02-03 04:11:00 · answer #1 · answered by Goggles 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Liberals define dissent as patriotic only when Republican are in power.
Remember when Clinton was in power these same liberals marched in lock goose step with what ever gvmt did at the time, and criticized dissenters as being unpatriotic for not supporting a corrupt present who never won a majority of the voters?
Look, they will protest Iraq all day long, but do you ever hear about the quagmire of the war Clinton got us into in Bosnia?
2007-02-03 04:05:24 · answer #2 · answered by radical4capitalism 3 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Dissent is what built our country. Jefferson, Washington, Revere, Franklin, Adams and others were considered traitors by the British government - and by your standards judging by your post. That was why they believed so strongly in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. These ideas are what set us apart from other nations and I, for one, do NOT think they need to be changed.
also - to respond to "sewer gas". So dissent is only allowable if they are saying what you belive in or consider to be correct?
2007-02-03 03:55:51 · answer #3 · answered by arkiemom 6 · 2⤊ 2⤋
Hello Its called the First Amendment
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
no need for a correction
2007-02-03 03:50:47 · answer #4 · answered by squeegie 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
You can correct by executing anyone that disagrees with you. But that wouldn't be very democratic now would it? The fact that the the American colonies gained their freedom from England through dissent proves you wrong.
2007-02-03 03:49:33 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
i suppose the way you could 'correct' this would be to stop pretending that you in any way support the idea of real democracy.
the ideas of dissent and disagreement are part of a thing called 'freedom of expression' which is one of the foundations of our nation.
oddly though, there have been politicians in the last year who have suggested that freedom of expression may need to be curtailed...
2007-02-03 03:54:43 · answer #6 · answered by nostradamus02012 7 · 1⤊ 2⤋
It's not he dissent that is objectionable it's the CONTENT of the statements. Lefties never figure this out.
2007-02-03 03:54:56 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
squeegie got it right...at least ONE person out there has taken the time to read the Constitution...i would add that, in a democracy such as ours, it is not only the RIGHT of citizens to speak out when they feel the government is screwing up, it;s their RESPONSIBILITY! this is OUR government-if we only participate on election day, shame on us!
2007-02-03 03:56:19 · answer #8 · answered by spike missing debra m 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋