First, I support free speech and the right to protest against that with which you don't agree. However, I see many on the left complaining about challenges against their positions by the right. They seem to believe that they should be allowed to make whatever vile statements they choose with no recourse for their actions.
Let me be clear I am not supporting the idiotic rhetoric from the right anymore than I support the same from the left. I find bashing useless as a tool. I am just saying you cannot have your cake and eat it too. You either believe in the right to free speech for all, or you don't really believe in free speech at all.
2007-03-19 01:50:36 · 8 answers · asked by Bryan 7 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
lois c: I agree, both sides are guilty of this behavior. I used the left and protests because it seems to be a major topic at this time. I don't give either side a pass, everyone is allowed to speak freely, or none are.
2007-03-19 02:03:12 · update #1
Most of the ones I have met and work with. They are all for free speech unless it challenges their position or ideology.
2007-03-19 01:55:01 · answer #1 · answered by aiminhigh24u2 6 · 3⤊ 2⤋
My personal experience has taught me that when you have a different point of view or opinion that the person you are debating and they get angry or start screaming majority of the time they are flaming liberals and they suspect their arguments are weak so they resort to name calling or other tactic. As a history buff I find history amazing with it's relavance of events today.
Leading up to WW2 a large portion of Americans did not wants us involve, there were even protestors againts our involvement (deja vu anyone) sadly there are so many naive people that believe the opposite of war is peace when in actuality the ooposite of peace is appeasement.
2007-03-19 12:02:09 · answer #2 · answered by Ynot! 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Many on the left truly don't understand the nature of free speech. They believe that have a right to be listened to, not a right to state their opinions.
For example, the whole Dixie Chicks dust-up comes to mind. Of course they had every right to say what they said. BUT, people are under no obligation to listen to them or their music. Their indignation over their being snubbed by the public is a great illustration of this point.
2007-03-19 08:57:27 · answer #3 · answered by webbrew 4 · 3⤊ 1⤋
You've just described Ann Coulter. This is one of the things that annoys me most about her. She'll make some deliberately inflammatory statement for the specific purpose of eliciting a reaction, and then, when she gets the reaction she was looking for, she claims people are trying to "silence" her and infringe on her First Amendment rights because they reacted to her stupid statements.
I'm not saying that those on the extreme left don't do this. I'm just saying that limiting it to one party or the other is a little bit naive. It isn't "liberals," it's "extremists" of both parties that do this.
Say whatever you want. Just be prepared that you're probably not going to change my mind. I didn't just up and decide one day to hold the views I hold because they're fashionable among my party. I belong to the party I belong to because of the views I hold, not the other way around.
2007-03-19 08:55:50 · answer #4 · answered by Bush Invented the Google 6 · 3⤊ 1⤋
I guess they are exercising their free speech again. They have a right to complain, the same way that people have a right to complain over the KKK's use of their free speech. They don' t have to like it, and they don't have to be silent about it. That is what debate is all about.
2007-03-19 09:30:47 · answer #5 · answered by hichefheidi 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
It is generally evident that when someone makes a point and will not debate someone that challenges them. It generally means they have no argument or proof to back their arguments. Usually when they become angry or agitated it is not at the person or group that challenges them, but the anger is at themselves for not having thought out their position first.
2007-03-19 09:31:53 · answer #6 · answered by Jay 5 · 4⤊ 0⤋
I think they fail to see both sides of the coin, while i think Bush invaded the wrong country I shed no tears over Saddem's demise, on 911 they (the islamic terrorists) awoke a sleeping giant, maybe we can withdraw via Saudi Arabia or Iran , or throw everything at Afghanstan. Personally Id of rather seen him use nikes against afghansatn on 9/12 as in my mind, that being a comabt viet nam vet and father of iraq combat vets I dont want to see my kids shed their blood over some table cloth wearing bomb blasting fanatic, let them glow in the dark and No one would ever tred on us again. Then we could all sing a chours of coom by yah, and march against nukes
2007-03-19 08:57:16 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
dear bryan, i agree with you kiddo your right, but i think that both sides do the same thing.. we need to step back and findout whats best for the country and find the best leaders for it or well'll end up like the roman empire and we will not last 1200 years at this rate
2007-03-19 08:57:40 · answer #8 · answered by ♥lois c♥ ☺♥♥♥☺ 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋