QFTGunSlinger OIF II wrote:
we're all giving these cocksuckers WAAAAAAY too much attention. shit like this you ignore it. when they lose an audience, they lose their message
As I said before and ATG has pointed out. No one is advocating the removal of freedom of speech/expression or their right to assemble. I promise you I hold my first amendment right close to my heart. But as with all freedoms they can be abused. Questioning the manner in which they chose to display their viewpoint is not equivalent than silencing their voices. Burning a symbolic soldier will most widely be interpreted as wishing harm on to them. These guys are attention whores who could give a shit about the kids of these soldiers who are watching. There are proper ways to have your voice heard. They are trying to gain shock value by burning what represents a soldier and a fellow American. It is a form of hate speech in my book. No different than burning a cross in front of a black mans house. Let's not ignore they grey area. We must still be responsible when exercising our rights. Acting civilized is not stripping away free speech.Spearhead wrote:
Some of you guys want to punish these guys for dishonoring the troops?
I'm sorry, it's called freedom of speech. You know, that amendment that says you can say anything you want? It also coincides with the right to bear arms, in csae of a corrupt government take over. Speaking out and fighting against a corrupt government is what we Americans are supposed to do in certain situations. It's jus tthat these people are going a little too far, but that does not mean their freedom of speech should be taken from them.
When it comes down to your own personal freedoms, the government is your worst enemy. You may think that modifying freedom of speech ever so slightly may not be anything big, but all problems start somewhere. If you can change one thing about it, chances are, eventually, you'll be able to change even more things.
Freedom of speech is the very thing that seperates us from the Nazis, the Soviets, and North Korea. The fact that some of you guys want to kill them for speaking their mind is absurd, and quite frankly very ironic because the soldiers being criticized are the ones who defend your freedoms in the first place.
I'm sorry, but everytime I hear someone say the first amendment should be modified, I lose respect for them. It's actually very scary to hear people say that. Did the Germans have the right to speak out against the invasions in 1939? No. Don't take freedom of speech for granted, it's one of the few things that are actually still great about this country. I think it's pretty sad to see some of you (much older than me) who should know why freedom of speech exists and protected instead calling for these people to be killed just for saying shit. It's damn scary.
Last edited by Kmarion (2007-03-26 12:13:35)
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Changing the way someone displays his/her view point may not be the same as silencing, but if that "changing" takes the form of "disallowing" then you are stuck between a rock and a hard place due to it being a freedom that does not require PC view points of any sort. While protest in of themselves are for the most part peaceful in action -- but in message it does not have to be. We let KKK parades do all of the HATE talking freely because we know damn well restricting that freedom is wrong no matter how they are choosing to portray it.
To whom do we have to be responsible to in terms of our free speech -- if the freedom being granted is just that FREE SPEECH -- actions on the other hand induced by free speech are different because they may effect others.
To whom do we have to be responsible to in terms of our free speech -- if the freedom being granted is just that FREE SPEECH -- actions on the other hand induced by free speech are different because they may effect others.
I'm alright father. Thanks for asking. Ohhh i heard HoS is bumming you good, tell me it isn't so?usmarine2007 wrote:
Another troll. Hi troll. How are we today?m3thod wrote:
Someone evidently more intelligent than you'll ever be Privaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaate.usmarine2007 wrote:
You act like you are so high and mighty to everyone else here, and that their opinions are not worthy. Who the fuck do you think you are? Go somewhere else then Hunter of Skulls.
Stay HoS, slap him daft a bit more.
Blackbelts are just whitebelts who have never quit.
The law tells us we can not restrict the content, but we can hold them accountable for the harmful effects as a result. So responsibility is owed to the public at large. Inciting riots and defamation are just a couple ways using free speech in a reckless manner can impact another persons rights.Fen321 wrote:
Changing the way someone displays his/her view point may not be the same as silencing, but if that "changing" takes the form of "disallowing" then you are stuck between a rock and a hard place due to it being a freedom that does not require PC view points of any sort. While protest in of themselves are for the most part peaceful in action -- but in message it does not have to be. We let KKK parades do all of the HATE talking freely because we know damn well restricting that freedom is wrong no matter how they are choosing to portray it.
To whom do we have to be responsible to in terms of our free speech -- if the freedom being granted is just that FREE SPEECH -- actions on the other hand induced by free speech are different because they may effect others.
Last edited by Kmarion (2007-03-26 13:52:02)
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Yes, let's beat and kill people for expressing their opinions. That's certainly democracy. Does the flag or that effigy go and fight the wars for us? No. It's a piece of cloth. An act only has as much power as you give it. If you all keep getting your panties in a bunch over something as trivial as burning a piece of cloth, then people will continue to do it as an act of protest. Seriously, do you think any of those kids would do any of that shit in the face of a marine? No, because they know they would get their asses handed to them. Who gives a fuck what some whiny college kids in Che Guevara shirts who read something by Noam Chomsky and now think they're experts in anarchy philosophy in Oregon are doing? There's a difference between spitting and throwing feces (which I'm against) and burning a piece of cloth (which I really don't care about, seeing as it's pointless and futile and really doesn't accomplish anything besides getting the right wing's panties in a bunch). Remember, free speech doesn't protect the speech you love, it protects the speech you hate.
Umm..yes I guess. Which is all you seem to do rather then discuss the subject.m3thod wrote:
I'm alright father. Thanks for asking. Ohhh i heard HoS is bumming you good, tell me it isn't so?
And then they went and contributed to the pollution of our environment by burning all of those polymers using lighter fluid made from foreign oil. And they all had Jansport backpacks, wore shit from hot topic, had flags from China, used markers from Sharpie, etc.
"It doesn't matter what candidate you want, throw down the ballot and pick up the gun."
I doubt any of these pussies own guns or would be able to shoot them. Aren't they supposed to be anti-guns anyway??? Whatever, I guess we can obey them on this point... pick up the gun, and mow down the anarchist/gay/emo/retarded/spoiled little shits.
"It doesn't matter what candidate you want, throw down the ballot and pick up the gun."
I doubt any of these pussies own guns or would be able to shoot them. Aren't they supposed to be anti-guns anyway??? Whatever, I guess we can obey them on this point... pick up the gun, and mow down the anarchist/gay/emo/retarded/spoiled little shits.
No, no, no. I know you beleive you understood what you think I wrote, but I am not sure you realize that what you read is not what I meant.HunterOfSkulls wrote:
No, no they fucking don't get thrown out the window just because they offend you. If you react, that's on you and not anybody else. You wanna talk cowardice? "He made me beat the shit out of him", that's fucking cowardice. And tell me, was it Cindy Sheehan who drove a pickup truck through the impromptu memorial to the fallen soldiers that had been put up at Crawford? No, it was one of the "Support the Troops" fuckheads showing his true colors: disrupting that memorial was more important than honoring the soldiers. He ground their names into the fucking mud under his tires. Did anyone beat the shit out of him? I fucking doubt it.
You are talking about citizens right to protest against the troops and the war, and claiming usmarine and I are being led by blind patriotism. In actuality I never said that I would inflict harm on any protesters. What I did say I would do is choke someone the fuck out if I ever caught them antagonizing or assaulting a soldier because they dont agree with what he stands for. You said it yourself, you have the right to protest and if someone assaults you you have the right to defend yourselves. Well why is it when I employ that logic you disagree? If a U.S. soldier minding his own business gets followed, antagonized and spit on or something of that nature then your precious leftists are now the ones initiating assault, on whatever level. He has the right to defend himself and we have the right to defend him as well. I have not stated that I would be a proponent of punishment for protest. I dont like it but that is what makes the country great. Our right to hate eachother. I am just wondering why you claim I am wrong for reciprocating initiated violence when you said it was ok.
Are you labeling those of us who support troops? Please elaborate that statement for me.HunterOfSkulls wrote:
it was one of the "Support the Troops" fuckheads showing his true colors:.
Malloy must go
bashing ming > topicusmarine2007 wrote:
Umm..yes I guess. Which is all you seem to do rather then discuss the subject.m3thod wrote:
I'm alright father. Thanks for asking. Ohhh i heard HoS is bumming you good, tell me it isn't so?
Blackbelts are just whitebelts who have never quit.
Seeing how this article is not in the least bit relating to protesters attacking real human beings this useless arguing whether you could defend yourself (the marine in this case) and or help the marine seems a bit besides the point, no?
Lets face it people in here react blindly to symbols and they express the contempt behind an assault on hippies/anarchist/pussies etc. face it you are intolerant of the freedoms you so truly hold close to your heart and this should not come to a surprise to you because they DO NOT TEACH in school that dissent is a vital part of democracy for it would interfere with your indoctrination into the system.
Lets face it people in here react blindly to symbols and they express the contempt behind an assault on hippies/anarchist/pussies etc. face it you are intolerant of the freedoms you so truly hold close to your heart and this should not come to a surprise to you because they DO NOT TEACH in school that dissent is a vital part of democracy for it would interfere with your indoctrination into the system.
Excuse me, but I will take words from people in here then I don't know, like riots over cartoons that actually hurt people.Fen321 wrote:
Seeing how this article is not in the least bit relating to protesters attacking real human beings this useless arguing whether you could defend yourself (the marine in this case) and or help the marine seems a bit besides the point, no?
Lets face it people in here react blindly to symbols and they express the contempt behind an assault on hippies/anarchist/pussies etc. face it you are intolerant of the freedoms you so truly hold close to your heart and this should not come to a surprise to you because they DO NOT TEACH in school that dissent is a vital part of democracy for it would interfere with your indoctrination into the system.
Last edited by usmarine2007 (2007-03-26 15:12:37)
Would you dishonour an SS, or a Japanese soldier?ATG wrote:
I just want to win the war and have world peace.
I think there should be some limits to free speach. Burn an sffigy of the president= fine. He has earned derision.
Do not dishonor the troops.
No. I respect the troops who fought. Now, if it was an(a) SS soldier(s) who burned people alive in an oven, then fuck yes I would disrespect them.Bubbalo wrote:
Would you dishonour an SS, or a Japanese soldier?ATG wrote:
I just want to win the war and have world peace.
I think there should be some limits to free speach. Burn an sffigy of the president= fine. He has earned derision.
Do not dishonor the troops.
I'm dead sure that you wouldn't usmarine. Your comments here have shown a complete and utter lack of understanding and empathy.
I respect all troops who fight and follow legal orders.Bubbalo wrote:
I'm dead sure that you wouldn't usmarine. Your comments here have shown a complete and utter lack of understanding and empathy.
Well, when you said this...deeznutz1245 wrote:
No, no, no. I know you beleive you understood what you think I wrote, but I am not sure you realize that what you read is not what I meant.
...it seemed an awful lot like what you were saying is you do endorse or at least excuse people who would assault protestors. If that is not what you mean, then I apologize for reading into it but you really made it difficult to think otherwise.deeznutz1245 wrote:
All rights get thrown out the window when my nations colors are burned. The only reason something that dispicable is being put on display is so that you freaks can weasle out these kind of reactions out of "us", so you can claim "your" rights are being violated now.
I'm all ready on record here as saying I do not think the troops should be spit on or otherwise assaulted. I'm also on record as saying I don't see that realistically being a widespread phenomenon and more like the resurgence of a popular myth.
I'm saying that there are some people who say "Support the Troops" but mean "Support the War and the politicians who pushed for it". There are those whose support of the soldiers is either secondary to their hatred of "the Left" or conditional on those soldiers not saying a single solitary word that's out of line with "America, Fuck Yeah!". Sometimes it seems like supporting the troops isn't really all that important compared to using the dead and wounded to try and shame the rest of us into agreement with this war.deeznutz1245 wrote:
Are you labeling those of us who support troops? Please elaborate that statement for me.
Oh yeah, we're all anti-gun. None of us own guns, evil machinery that they are. So please try to keep in mind when you "pick up the gun to mow down the anarchist/gay/emo/retarded/spoiled little shits", any gunshot wounds you sustain in the process that may or may not be of a fatal or permenantly crippling nature will be obviously nothing more than propaganda of the liberal media.iamangry wrote:
I doubt any of these pussies own guns or would be able to shoot them. Aren't they supposed to be anti-guns anyway??? Whatever, I guess we can obey them on this point... pick up the gun, and mow down the anarchist/gay/emo/retarded/spoiled little shits.
@ Hunter---
then I beleive there is a misunderstanding, I only would get physical with someone if they drew "first blood" on a soldier minding his own biz. When I stated that it was in response to ATG's comment. As much as I hate flag burners and protesters I think the death penalty or whatever someone previously stated is a little extreme. I would take the flag away before they burned it if possible, I took an oath once to protect it.
then I beleive there is a misunderstanding, I only would get physical with someone if they drew "first blood" on a soldier minding his own biz. When I stated that it was in response to ATG's comment. As much as I hate flag burners and protesters I think the death penalty or whatever someone previously stated is a little extreme. I would take the flag away before they burned it if possible, I took an oath once to protect it.
Malloy must go
I'm fully against the war too, and I hate bush with a passion, but i'd never in my wildest dream deface an effigy of a troop or the flag. Damn I hate the first amendment sometimes.
Bad comparison.Bubbalo wrote:
Would you dishonour an SS, or a Japanese soldier?ATG wrote:
I just want to win the war and have world peace.
I think there should be some limits to free speach. Burn an sffigy of the president= fine. He has earned derision.
Do not dishonor the troops.
Not unless if I was a Jap or SS.
Non-Americans are free to do as they like.
Legal to whom? In Germany, it was perfectly legal to kill Jews. There is no universal definition of "legal", the way we use the word, it's what the government you're living under allows you to do.usmarine2007 wrote:
I respect all troops who fight and follow legal orders.Bubbalo wrote:
I'm dead sure that you wouldn't usmarine. Your comments here have shown a complete and utter lack of understanding and empathy.
So, you think that all people should respect soldiers of their country? You'd be critical of a German who criticised the SS?ATG wrote:
Bad comparison.Bubbalo wrote:
Would you dishonour an SS, or a Japanese soldier?ATG wrote:
I just want to win the war and have world peace.
I think there should be some limits to free speach. Burn an sffigy of the president= fine. He has earned derision.
Do not dishonor the troops.
Not unless if I was a Jap or SS.
Non-Americans are free to do as they like.
Like I said. The soldiers who were fighting I respect, the ones in the camps I do not.Spearhead wrote:
Legal to whom? In Germany, it was perfectly legal to kill Jews. There is no universal definition of "legal", the way we use the word, it's what the government you're living under allows you to do.usmarine2007 wrote:
I respect all troops who fight and follow legal orders.Bubbalo wrote:
I'm dead sure that you wouldn't usmarine. Your comments here have shown a complete and utter lack of understanding and empathy.
There wasn't necessarily a clearly defined line between the two.