I have to say "Yes." Disagreement at least allows room for negotiation. Out and out dissention implies that someone has left the bargaining table.
2007-11-27 10:18:59
·
answer #1
·
answered by Doc 7
·
2⤊
2⤋
I strongly disagree. We need both dissension and disagreement for a strong democracy. Dissension is the enemy of Fascism and so is disagreement. A strong democracy can withstand a lot of disagreement and dissension a weak democracy cannot.
2007-11-27 18:48:06
·
answer #2
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
Disagreement is the lifeblood of democracy. Its cancer is stifling that disagreement with censorship and attacks on the disagreer's patriotism.
2007-11-27 18:34:26
·
answer #3
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
0⤋
disagree.
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."
-Theodore Roosevelt
I believe that Roosevelt's quote could easily be applied to our system of government as well as the Presidency.
2007-11-27 18:22:11
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
5⤊
0⤋
Without context I neither agree or disagree, it is merely a statement
2007-11-27 18:19:25
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
6⤊
0⤋
Both.
Does that explain why the Democrats Surrendered to the Insurgents and the Terrorists?
I think not.
2007-11-27 18:27:26
·
answer #6
·
answered by dinamuk 4
·
1⤊
2⤋
I agree to disagree.
2007-11-27 18:17:44
·
answer #7
·
answered by MY NAME MICHELLE I HATE AMERICA 5
·
2⤊
0⤋
Depends on the individual situation...but for the most part it sounds right.
2007-11-27 18:19:26
·
answer #8
·
answered by Erinyes 6
·
2⤊
3⤋
could you repeat the question??!!!
2007-11-27 18:29:13
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
2⤋
I agree. Now don't forget to vote for Ron Paul.
2007-11-27 18:19:05
·
answer #10
·
answered by Anonymous
·
4⤊
9⤋