Do Republicans really hate America?

from PolMach Forums
Do Republicans really hate America?

You knwo the situation all to well. An anti-bush person or a Michael Moore fan says some thing bad about the president and then conservatives plaster him with this saying;
"Well if you hate america so much just get out of here."

Well doesn't the constitution grant people to have the right to say what they want to say?

So when ever republicans say that, aren't they saying that you shouldn't be allowed to have the freedom of speech?



And isn't that one of the founding principles of america?

So conservatives, I say to you;

"If you hate free speech so much why don't you just ban it and turn america into a totalitarinism (spell check me)"
politics
10,871 views 20 replies
Reply #1 from JoeUser Forums Top
Do Republicans really hate America?

By: Log2000
Posted: Thursday, September 16, 2004
Message Board: Politics
Do Republicans really hate America?

You knwo the situation all to well. An anti-bush person or a Michael Moore fan says some thing bad about the president and then conservatives plaster him with this saying;
"Well if you hate america so much just get out of here."

Well doesn't the constitution grant people to have the right to say what they want to say?

So when ever republicans say that, aren't they saying that you shouldn't be allowed to have the freedom of speech?



And isn't that one of the founding principles of america?

So conservatives, I say to you;

"If you hate free speech so much why don't you just ban it and turn america into a totalitarinism (spell check me)"


YES you have th right to free speech in this country. Wnat "most"people seem to forget is that it DOES NOT grant you the right to say what you want with impunity!
Reply #2 from PolMach Forums Top
YES you have th right to free speech in this country. Wnat "most"people seem to forget is that it DOES NOT grant you the right to say what you want with impunity!


i.e. If I said drmiler here was nothing more than a blowhard who didn't know jack squatt with nothing to back it up with, than why should he not than turn around and debate about it. Reps are pointing out the Dems because the Dems say Reps are bad and hate America, so Reps turn it around as well. Excessive party spirited politics is all that it is, not much to worry about just wish it would die down on both sides.

Also why should Mikey (or for that matter anyone) not be debated against, since when did the essence of a debate die in this country, or at least get wiped from extreme right and left politic pundits.

P.S. drmiler it was just a hypothetical didn't actually mean it.
Offworld Trading Company
Reply #3 from JoeUser Forums Top

Reply #2 By: ShoZan - 9/16/2004 7:43:12 PM
YES you have th right to free speech in this country. Wnat "most"people seem to forget is that it DOES NOT grant you the right to say what you want with impunity!


i.e. If I said drmiler here was nothing more than a blowhard who didn't know jack squatt with nothing to back it up with, than why should he not than turn around and debate about it. Reps are pointing out the Dems because the Dems say Reps are bad and hate America, so Reps turn it around as well. Excessive party spirited politics is all that it is, not much to worry about just wish it would die down on both sides.

Also why should Mikey (or for that matter anyone) not be debated against, since when did the essence of a debate die in this country, or at least get wiped from extreme right and left politic pundits.

P.S. drmiler it was just a hypothetical didn't actually mean it.


I knew that!
Reply #4 from PolMach Forums Top
So when ever republicans say that, aren't they saying that you shouldn't be allowed to have the freedom of speech?


how is that saying you shouldnt have the freedom of speech? it is suggesting that you leave if you dont like how things are run
Reply #5 from PolMach Forums Top


how is that saying you shouldnt have the freedom of speech? it is suggesting that you leave if you dont like how things are run


That about sums it up as far as un-American thought goes. Remember that all-American saying "I may not agree with what you say, but I will fight to the death for your right to say it"? Remember democracy? That's the idea of a participatory system where if you don't like something you can change it or at least give it a good shot. Dissent is critical to a healthy democracy.

If you are looking for a system where you follow the leader, have no say in the running of your own life, and can be killed for going against the grain, I think you're looking for Fascism.

That's what Hitler, Mussolini, Henry Ford etc. were all about. If that's what you truly want I would love to pay for your one-way ticket to Saudi Arabia.

A lack of appreciation for democracy and it's principles is inarguably un-American.
Reply #6 from PolMach Forums Top
OR Communism which is what Socialism will lead to.
Reply #7 from JoeUser Forums Top
Remember that all-American saying "I may not agree with what you say, but I will fight to the death for your right to say it


You might be surprised to know that Voltaire (one of those damned frenchies) said that, not an American. Or then again you might not be.

OR Communism which is what Socialism will lead to.


Yes, socialism more often than not leads to totalitarian communism, but democracy more often than not leads to totalitarian fascism or dictatorship. It's more about where you live and who you live with as to how effective the government is going to be and how free you are. Scandinavia is probably 90% socialist and it seems a fantastic place to live (at least from my brief visits). The US is probably 90% democratic and it also seems a great place to live (from my one and only visit and the testament of other joeusers). It's all relative really.

Freedom of speech seems more trouble than it's worth to me, but then I like being able to sue for slander.
Reply #8 from PolMach Forums Top
Don't forget to sue for libel as well.

Yeah I don't think we are heading down the road to Facism and Communism just right yet, after all one of the key things to heading down that road is no more freedom of speech, no second amendment (i.e. all guns taken away) and martial law is declared.

Since those three have not happen at the moment US is okay.
Reply #9 from JoeUser Forums Top
That's what Hitler, Mussolini, Henry Ford etc. were all about. If that's what you truly want I would love to pay for your one-way ticket to Saudi Arabia.


How did Henry Ford get roped into the same league with Hitler and Mussolini?

And why is telling someone they have the freedom to leave a bad situation equivocated with being against free speech? Every American has the right of Free Speech. However, that does not mean that all speech has to be heard. We also have the right to shut out what we dont want to hear........like cry babies whining over their poor lot in life.
Reply #10 from JoeUser Forums Top
Log2000:

If anything we are moving away from free speech in this country, not towards more. That may seem contradictory to being on a public site that allows opinions to be "published" such as Joe User but if you think of how we come to our opinions through the news outlets and internet more and more of said outlets say the same news over and over again. If you just look at CNN, FOX, and network websites you become hammered with the same set of opinions and news.

This does affect what we are thinking and thus the ideas we talk about.

I strongly suggest that you include the international press and even contrary viewpoints to your own in your reading and research. The whole key is perspective.

One final comment, those who say "if you think that way, why don't you leave" are just sending up the flag of defeat. They are powerless to argue and know that you make more sense than they do. We see this in-print when someone here doesn't answer your inquiry or blacklists you.
Reply #11 from PolMach Forums Top
I strongly suggest that you include the international press and even contrary viewpoints to your own in your reading and research. The whole key is perspective.


I watch Newsworld International, though mainly to watch Japan's NHK broadcast, but I tend to watch it from time to time. The problem with Fox, CNN, etc. is not the anchors of a show but the pundits. Which, if you want to see the entire unedited broadcast of someone in Congress,etc. you watch CSPAN or CSPAN 2 both have been there for the longest time and have no pundit happy people yammering on about junk.

One final comment, those who say "if you think that way, why don't you leave" are just sending up the flag of defeat. They are powerless to argue and know that you make more sense than they do. We see this in-print when someone here doesn't answer your inquiry or blacklists you.


Or have gotten tired of listening and answering your argument despite the many answers given the person still goes on and on and on like a record skipping, a mindless automaton, which so you know I loathe mindless automaton because for the most part they are either half-informed or completely misinformed. So what is the point in arguing with an automaton? Just ends up being a waste of time and effort.

Not to mention you can NEVER change somebody's opinion but you can show him or her your viewpoint on the issue at hand.
Reply #12 from PolMach Forums Top


How did Henry Ford get roped into the same league with Hitler and Mussolini


Henry Ford was a major enthusiast of fascism and did business with Nazi Germany, as were many other prominent businessmen like Morgan and Prescott Bush.




OR Communism which is what Socialism will lead to.


Please define these two terms.
Reply #13 from PolMach Forums Top
Please define these two terms.


Main Entry: com·mu·nism
Pronunciation: 'käm-y&-"ni-z&m
Function: noun
Etymology: French communisme, from commun common
1 a : a theory advocating elimination of private property b : a system in which goods are owned in common and are available to all as needed
2 capitalized a : a doctrine based on revolutionary Marxian socialism and Marxism-Leninism that was the official ideology of the U.S.S.R. b : a totalitarian system of government in which a single authoritarian party controls state-owned means of production c : a final stage of society in Marxist theory in which the state has withered away and economic goods are distributed equitably d : communist systems collectively

Main Entry: so·cial·ism
Pronunciation: 'sO-sh&-"li-z&m
Function: noun
1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2 a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3 : a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done

Same damn definition in my book and this is from Webster.

Thanks for making me find the definitions, Socialism and Communism are the exact same thing with one little difference.
Reply #14 from PolMach Forums Top


Same damn definition in my book and this is from Webster


Interesting. Looks like you got the cold-war era definition. I guess that's the interesting thing about definitions; they change. Below is the definition from the new revised Merriam-Wesbter. I was just curious after seeing the reference to a non-existent country.

communism
\Com"mu*nism\, n. [F. communisme, fr. commun common.] A scheme of equalizing the social conditions of life; specifically, a scheme which contemplates the abolition of inequalities in the possession of property, as by distributing all wealth equally to all, or by holding all wealth in common for the equal use and advantage of all.

Note: At different times, and in different countries, various schemes pertaining to socialism in government and the conditions of domestic life, as well as in the distribution of wealth, have been called communism.

[Free Trial - Merriam-Webster Unabridged.]
Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.

But anyway all of that is completely aside from the point. How did your comment tie into the discussion of why those who try to stifle free speech are un-American and anti-democratic?

I was stumped by your reference, that's why I asked you to define them.
Reply #15 from PolMach Forums Top
http://www.webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=communism
Definition for Communism and it said
and Marxism-Leninism that was the official ideology of the U.S.S.R.


Was as in past tense not present tense. Learn the English Grammar along with your learning of the language.

Main Entry: was
Etymology: Middle English, from Old English, 1st & 3d singular past indicative of wesan to be; akin to Old Norse vera to be, var was, Sanskrit vasati he lives, dwells
past first & third singular of BE

Well what does it have to do with free speech I wonder hmmm what would Communism have to do with free speech, well I bet all of Stalin's detractors had free speech in Russia, so I guess that does not count.

UnAmerican, hmm so if the absence of free speech is american than damn I am wrong, or how about how Socialism is the transitional stage before Communism and we all know how FREE speech is in communism.

So I think I covered why Communism and Socialism are American and guard Free Speech

Sorry to have confused you.
Reply #16 from PolMach Forums Top


I bet all of Stalin's detractors had free speech in Russia


Bad example.

Studied this a little in economics, though propagandists within Russia and America both liked to refer to the Soviet Union as a "communist" country, it wasn't. Especially under Stalin. The economic mode of the state in the USSR was capitalist (despite restictions on small private capitalist enterprise the state itself acted economically as a capitalist enterprise). Stalin was totalitarian. The USSR (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) was a totalitarian capitalist state.

Back to the topic:
The reference to free speech limitation was in consideration of the neccessity of participation and dissent in a healthy democracy. So once again the "love it or leave it" position is an affront to participation and subsequently democracy.
Reply #17 from PolMach Forums Top
If they were not Stalin's detractors, than how about any detractors at all, come on do you think the USSR supported Freedom of Speech, but yeah back to the topic.

The reference to free speech limitation was in consideration of the neccessity of participation and dissent in a healthy democracy. So once again the "love it or leave it" position is an affront to participation and subsequently democracy.


I don't like that policy either, but if it refers to the person just downright hating America, and I mean hate not dislike policies of Government than they should leave that is all there is to it. What is the point in living in a country you hate?

Also what is up with the WORLD is over shite if Bush or Kerry wins, hmmmm, the world did not end when Reagan became President, the world did not end when Clinton became President, the world will not end and america will not end because somebody else beside your favorite candidate becomes President.

I don't know but I will willing to wager that America is stronger than that, don't you think?
Reply #18 from PolMach Forums Top
Personally and this on Communism and Socialism,

If everything is going to be provided for me and there is no room for advancement, what is the point of working hard or working well.
After all you could do a crappy, half-assed job and still get the same pay as somebody who did a good job, and that is my main hate for Socialism and Communism, without any prospects on future advancement to make more Bio-Survival Tickets than what is my motivation to work period, the point to work is Bio-Survival Tickets to get the stuff you want along with the stuff you need take it away. What is the point than?

Just my two cents on Communism and Socialism don't really have to respond to it.
Reply #19 from PolMach Forums Top


If they were not Stalin's detractors, than how about any detractors at all, come on do you think the USSR supported Freedom of Speech, but yeah back to the topic.


That was the entire point of the last post. The USSR was a totalitarian state with the economic mode being state capitalism. Obviously there would be no freedom of speech in a totalitarian state.



What is the point in living in a country you hate?


Once again, in a democracy if you hate the government it is practically an obligation to participate and change it if you care that much. No matter what side you're on or what it is that you're upset about, unless it's democracy itself that you hate. In that case go ahead and leave.



Just my two cents on Communism and Socialism don't really have to respond to it.


Yes, I'll pass on that one. Off topic.
Reply #20 from PolMach Forums Top
Back to the topic:

Which is most consistent with Republican politics?

de·moc·ra·cy P Pronunciation Key (d -m k r -s )
n. pl. de·moc·ra·cies
1. Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives.
2. A political or social unit that has such a government.
3. The common people, considered as the primary source of political power.
4. Majority rule.
5. The principles of social equality and respect for the individual within a community.


fas·cism P Pronunciation Key (f sh z m)
n.
1. often Fascism
a. A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.
b. A political philosophy or movement based on or advocating such a system of government.
2. Oppressive, dictatorial control. (as opposed to democracy or liberalism)