Dissent during Troubled Times

[andyfox]

In the thread on Fox News, Bruce Z. has suggested that dissent has a time and place. That the time for it is not now when we're at war with terrorists. That to dissent in certain ways, such as flag burning, gives aid and comfort to the enemy.

To the contrary, dissent is much more important to the well-being of our nation during times of trouble.

It is in time of war when principles are compromised. It is in time of war when a country that pleaded with other combatants to respect cilivian life and not bomb cities burned 100,000 civilians in a single night. It is time of war when a country that claimed to be defending democracy supported authoritarian tyrants and dropped more bombs on the civilians of the portion of the country it was supposed to be defending than were hitherto dropped in the history of the world.

Bruce Z. would have said rally 'round the flag. We elected our leaders, they made the decisions, they are the experts. The fact that innocent people were murdered is, apparently, beside the point.

Without the ability to dissent, we become no better than the terrorists and the communists and the facists.

[adios]

I'd point out that neither Bush nor his administration is seeking to limit the ability to dissent. Maybe you guys will try to pin that one on him too. Neither is Congress, neither is the Federal Judiciary. Don't know about all governments at the state and city level but in New Mexico that's certainly the case i.e. that state and local government isn't trying to limit dissent to Bush policies anyway. The Democrats are going down in 2004 none the less.

Might as well answer a couple of other posts here as well. Regarding "honest" politicians, it's highly subjective as to what an "honest" politician is. Nobody is totally honest so I think that the original post was silly and meaningless without stated objective criteria for evaluating honesty. The Democrats are going down in 2004 none the less.

As far as deliberate administration lies, why not lie about the evidence you find regarding WMD's i.e. why all of the sudden transform yourself from a compulsive lier to a compulsive truth teller to embarass yourself? Doesn't make much sense to me. Again I'd point out that Clinton basically stated the same things that Bush did about the Iraqi threat. So if Bush is deliberately lying, Clinton did too. I came up with a "prisoners dilemna" choice matrix regarding Clinton and Bush regarding Iraq WMD's. Perhaps sometime I'll share it. Allright I already know the drill. The Bush administration is actually lying about what they've found in Iraq and there's a conspiracy afoot to convince the American people that stockpiles of WMD's actually have been uncovered in Iraq. The Democrats are going down in 2004 none the less.

As far as rap musicians go. It was pointed out to me that "gangsta" rap was a fad in rap music and there is very little of this type of rap music being produced today. Also regarding rap musicians shooting each other, there has never been a conviction, let alone a trial where a rap musiciam was accused of killing another rap musician in the states. Not sure if this is true, just passing along what I've been told. It was also pointed out to me that P. Diddy participated in a marathon race on Sunday and raised over $2 million for charity. The Wall Street Journal's leading editorial yesterday was defending P. Diddy and how his designer line of clothes was manufactured if you will. It pointed out that the Honduran workers in question actually worked in quite humane facillities and that the unions admitted that they knew basically nothing about the conditions of the workers in Honduras manufacturing his line of clothes. Then maybe P. Diddy is more hip hop than rap, I don't know.

[ACPlayer]

... who had the poll that showed that the Democrats were more likely to be going down in 2004?

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

Without the ability to dissent, we become no better than the terrorists and the communists and the facists.

I agree, of course, but have to add that those who criticize dissenters are also exercising their right to free speech.

There is not one single example of dissent being shut down in the US at this point. That's a sharp contrast to WWI, when anti-war protesters were jailed and deported.

We sometimes forget that the right to speak our minds also includes the right of others to call us unpatriotic for doing so. It doesn't make that allegation correct, but those making that allegation should not be restrained, either.

[brad]

'There is not one single example of dissent being shut down in the US at this point. '

simply not true. members of peace activist groups have been placed on 'no fly' lists and been prevented from flying commericial airlines inside USA (intra-US travel).

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
I'd point out that neither Bush nor his administration is seeking to limit the ability to dissent

[/ QUOTE ]

I think this is probably true. But, this is the same administration that encourages labelling those who dissent as giving aid and comfort to the terrorists. This is no better than calling someone who disagrees with affirmative action a klansman or a nazi.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

Please cite a source.

One question. Placed on these lists by whom? The US Gov't or the airlines?

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

This is no better than calling someone who disagrees with affirmative action a klansman or a nazi.

And no more unconstitutional.

[brad]

'Please cite a source.'

youre a lazy bitch you know that.

go on google search for 'activists no fly list'


http://groups.google.com/groups?q=ac...edu&rnum=1

'
...
through US airports, and a
71-year-old nun from Milwaukee who was prevented from flying to
Washington to join an anti-government protest.
...
'

[elwoodblues]

Never claimed it to be unconstitutional...I do find it troubling that the president is resorting to intimidation to stifle dissent.