 |
| |
|
|
Q Cubed
|
 |
t3h y3ll0w p3ril
Apr 1999
time: 23:29
|
|
you still haven't answered my question. why is it arrogant?
if you go by this logic, you wouldn't have been able to castigate clinton; as it turned out, numerous republicans did not have their houses in order. that didn't stop them from condemning and all but paralyzing the government.
indeed, there are quite a few on the left who did feel that removing saddam was a fundamentally good thing; however, they disagree with bush in the process by which it was done. is it wrong for them to criticize bush because they disagree with his policies?
what imminent danger was saddam posing to his neighbors? was he engaged in aggressive foreign behavior against iran, turkey, kuwait, saudi arabia, or syria in the past four years? if people were not convinced by that case for war, why would it be wrong of them to disagree with bush and criticize him?
fez, the problem with the mindset that no criticism should be permitted in this case is that it smacks most people as going contrary to the spirit of the very constitution that bush is sworn to uphold and protect.
you cannot protect something that you are in the process of destroying.
even if the criticism is wrong, or baseless, that is no reason to desire a silence brought upon them.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:29
|
|
Why not? What is the point of responsible government, if not to protect freedom? Is the point to exercise power and control for its own sake?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:29
|
|
quote:
I'd rather be living than killed by a terrorist attack. |
Obviously, but you can avoid terrorist attacks by promoting individual freedom/self determination worldwide, by not ****ing around with other nations. Switzerland doesn't have many problems with regards to terrorists, now does it?
quote:
National security doesn't have to make freedom diminish. |
If you are limiting free speech in the name of national security, then you are certainly limiting freedom.
quote:
Responsible government in your opinion means anarchy? Right? Well that is unacceptable. |
No, responsible government means holding individual rights as paramount. Anarchy and government are mutually exclusive.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:29
|
|
quote:
I am not arguing with you anymore. |
Fine, go hide.
quote:
If you think you can put statements where they don't belong then so be it. |
I offered you a chance to explain this statement. I do so again. Eh?
quote:
Also, I never have fully supported Israel... only to the extent that it has a right to exist. |
I don't care what you support, I'm talking about what the US supports.
quote:
Don't even ****ing bring up 9/11... don't try to politicialize it. |
You mean, don't do as Dubya and Co. did? And everyone else does as well?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Tingkai
|
|
To find the Northwest Passage
Aug 2001
time: 13:29
|
|
Guys, take it to another thread.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:29
|
|
quote:
You are foolish. Not doing anything got 9/11. |
Then why doesn't Sweden get hit with terrorists flying 747s? Or anyone else, for that matter? The reason is that the US is viewed as the greatest threat/problem by these terrorists. If we ****ed off they'd leave us alone.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:29
|
|
quote:
David Floyd said I would hide? There he goes again. |
Eh?
quote:
You are making statements and saying I support these statements. I never made such statements. Catch my drift? |
Then why don't you tell us all what you said, then. What it sounded like you said was that it was OK to limit free speech to defend national security, yet we could defend national security without compromising freedom.
Good comeback.
Then explain to me why the US was hit with 747s on 9/11, rather than, say, Botswana.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:29
|
|
quote:
Limit free speech? Umm... I don't care what the media does.. or any political organization (except those I am aligned with) for that matter. |
OK, then, my mistake, I misunderstood you. I'm not gonna argue it except to say that your earlier statements were highly ambiguous.
quote:
Has to do with the US being the sole superpower. |
And, as such, the US is the one doing most of the ****ing around with other nations, right?
quote:
Anyways.. I am leaving this dumb debate before Ming gets me on the BBQ. |
Why would Ming BBQ you, unless you were breaking the rules?
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:29
|
|
Fez,
You said,
quote:
They are endangering national security by making the branches of government get wrapped up in some baseless charges |
Then I said,
quote:
Individual liberty is vastly more valuable than national security |
Then you said,
It's reasonable to assume that if you believe national security is more important than individual liberty, you also believe that individual liberty can be restricted in favor of national security.
I assume you see the ambiguity of your position?
quote:
So let the world go to hell! |
Exactly the attitude that rightly earns us the contempt of much of the world, and if we didn't have that attitude people would probably like us more. If people liked us more, it's less likely we'd be a target for terrorists - people don't blow themselves up on a whim or against people who aren't bothering them, now do they?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:29
|
|
OK, bud. In other words, you ran out of material.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Q Cubed
|
|
t3h y3ll0w p3ril
Apr 1999
time: 23:29
|
|
and to add fuel to the fire:
quote:
you still haven't answered my question. why is it arrogant? |
with which you responded:
quote:
I just said they were arrogant, not that they should be silenced. Sure I hate there opinions as wrong as they are... but I can't disabled the reply button on this forum. |
to which i respond again, why is it arrogant?
let's make a point here. fez has clarified his position: he doesn't want them silenced, but he does feel them to be stupid and arrogant. i want to know exactly why.
quote:
I'd rather be living than killed by a terrorist attack. National security doesn't have to make freedom diminish. |
why is individual liberty not more important than national security?
i too would rather be living than killed by a terrorist attack. however, i would also like to have that life as free of government intervention as possible. i am not prepared to hand over my rights simply "to feel safer".
why? plenty of reasons. chief amongst them is that the government's idea of security isn't a very good idea of security, nor is it very secure. police states are rife with corruption and backdoor deals, allowing plenty of threats in when they're close friends of those in power. even if it's not a police state, the government's efforts will undoubtedly be ham-handed: just look at america's TSA and airport security. i don't want my rights exchanged for more worthless crap like that designed to make me feel safer than actually be safer.
second is that although national security does not have to diminish rights and freedoms, the way governments often go about implementing national security often comes into direct conflict with those freedoms and rights. i'd rather have the rights than the security.
third is the trite old line, "if we do this... the terrorists will win." i hate that line, but it's very true in this case. terrorism's main goal is to strike fear into its victims' hearts. this fear of death by terrorism, no matter how unlikely, leads to a strange willingness to exchange freedoms and liberties for security. this fear is destroying the foundation of what our nation was built on.
quote:
Responsible government in your opinion means anarchy? Right? Well that is unacceptable. |
i have to agree with floyd here: government and anarchy are mutually exclusive terms. in many ways, i'm libertarian, and would like to have the tiniest government possible. in my opinion, a responsible government would be one that chooses personal liberties over security.
why is that unacceptable?
why is floyd not credible?
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:29.
Apolyton Time is 00:29. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
15-07-2003 02:05
Any other answers will constitute an attempt at evading the question 
Further, national security is not the be-all, end-all. Individual liberty is vastly more valuable than national security, and if it takes undermining national security to secure individual liberty, then by all means, do so.
|