Regarding Cindy Sheehan and Freedom of Speech

[nightflight]

Not Bush himself.  It just sounded like they gave in to political pressure in general.  But then, how do we know one of Bush's cronies didn't call them?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

If they did, they must not have been too effective seeing as how the other station is running the ad. Or maybe they just forgot to call the other station?

[Amethyst]

Or maybe that other station is just really brave.

 

[Godless Dave]

But is this anything new?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

It's not something new, it's something old we thought we'd gotten rid of.

[nightflight]

It's not something new, it's something old we thought we'd gotten rid of.

 

Why did you think that?

[Guest aexapo]

I listened to her bitching about why Bush didn't send his daughters.  Here's one...if her son wouldn't have joined the military, her son wouldn't have been there just like the Bush girls aren't.  He wasn't drafted, he knew the risks.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

True, but what's an acceptable risk changes when you realize that the death isn't to "protect American freedoms" (which, btw, have never existed in Bagdad), but to secure Wall Street's global economic dominance. It's pretty obvious that the fat-cats in the Hamptons aren't sending their kids to fight their profit/energy war -- they just convince "our" kids through manipulative advertising and faux news that we're "under attack" and must be defended from the heathen hourds.

 

It's almost laughable that the military recruitment techniques are believable -- but, education has never been a priority to our society, so -- there you have it. Keep 'em ignorant, poor, etc. -- and they'll believe anything the "authorities" say.

 

On a personal note, but I nearly laughed out my left lung when I got a USAF recruitment brochure (to join their nursing corps). I wanted to call in and explain why I wouldn't be joining (1: I don't support the Bush Wars, 2: they don't let queers in, and 3: "recruitment brochures" are insulting to those over 17 years of age -- try a different approach when trying to convince 30 somethings that they need to take a pay cut to risk their lives defending the dollar), but I resisted the urge. Unlike chicken-hawks, you see, I don't need to use the following excuses: bad back, club-feet, flat feet, bad vision, pilonidal cyst, grad school, etc.

[nightflight]

True, but what's an acceptable risk changes when you realize that the death isn't to "protect American freedoms" (which, btw, have never existed in Bagdad), but to secure Wall Street's global economic dominance. It's pretty obvious that the fat-cats in the Hamptons aren't sending their kids to fight their profit/energy war -- they just convince "our" kids through manipulative advertising and faux news that we're "under attack" and must be defended from the heathen hourds.

 

I half agree. I think this war in Iraq should not be, I have never supported it and never thought that Hussein was a threat. He was contained.

 

However, there is a real threat and that is Islamic Fundamentalism. This is one of the reasons I will not join with the "peace" crowd, because they refer to people like me as "paranoid" or "racist" because I recognize that the real threat hasn't disappeared.

[Guest aexapo]

But is this anything new?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I think the tone is different -- harsher, more intolerant. When Clinton sent forces to Bosnia and Somalia, it was hard to garner support -- the GOP Congress was firmly against it, and he was ridiculed by the "righteous right" for being a draft-dodger who now had the audacity to discern when our military might need to be used.

 

I'm hard pressed to find Clinton-supporters from this time (late '90's) who lashed out at the anti-Clintons with the same ferociousness as Ann Coulter and the Foxites, or the Limbaughnistas. When a Democratic president wants to send troops, it seems like our civic duty to ask questions -- when a Republican does it (or at least, this republican), anyone who doesn't stand behind His Highness is a traitor worth deporting.

 

Are things changing? Yeah, some lefty commentators are growing backbones and lashing back -- but this is NOW, and something that really didn't happen before. Since 2000, anything "liberal" or "leftist" was simply something that couldn't be tolerated in public commentary.

 

When Phil Donahue got a show on MSNBC, he started doing something that only Bill Maher had done on the public airways -- criticize the policies of GW Bush. Although he improved the ratings on his time slot, he was fired for being "too controversial." Maher was also fired from ABC for exercising his free speech.

 

But, if you're "conservative," you can say just about anything. One fox commentator suggested that Valerie Plame was "fair game" for any risk to her life from the Novack leak -- apparently, they can wish death on us, and our alternative is to fall in line, or move to Cuba.

 

I really don't see how there ever were two equal sides to this issue.

[Guest aexapo]

I half agree.  I think this war in Iraq should not be, I have never supported it and never thought that Hussein was a threat.  He was contained.

 

However, there is a real threat and that is Islamic Fundamentalism.  This is one of the reasons I will not join with the "peace" crowd, because they refer to people like me as "paranoid" or "racist" because I recognize that the real threat hasn't disappeared.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I do agree that Islamic fundamentalism is a threat -- a BIG threat that we continue to aggitate with our policies in the mid-east. We can't impose our vision of democracy/religion on them (Coulter says we should invade and convert them all to Jesus), and we should protect our territory from that potential reality.

 

I support the eventuality of peace, but I do realize that the "fight them with love and flowers" is a bunch of crock. I believe in defending our borders, but I don't support speculative wars (which is what Iraq was -- it wasn't pre-emptive as we were told).

 

When it comes to national security, I'm slowly becoming accustomed to the reality that "pre-screening" certain types of immigrants might be necessary -- especially since the Bush crowd isn't the only one singing that song (believe me, if Bush said the sky was blue, I'd need to see some proof). We should probably even resort to "profiling," which sounds horrible -- but, I think even some of us "lefties" are realizing that there are just some people that want us to die.

 

So, I do support the anti-war efforts for this cause -- but, I'm not a pacifist.

[Amethyst]

However, there is a real threat and that is Islamic Fundamentalism. This is one of the reasons I will not join with the "peace" crowd, because they refer to people like me as "paranoid" or "racist" because I recognize that the real threat hasn't disappeared.

 

I agree with you on that. Fundamentalism of *any* kind can be a threat. And I don't think that fighting them with "love and flowers" would work either. You have to get rid of the root causes of extremism and terrorism in the first place.

[dead_hobbit]

I absolutely loathe Sheehan, and I make no secret of that.

 

HOWEVER, I absolutely support her right to her views (some of which I share) and her freedom of speech.

[dead_hobbit]

Lets not forget that it goes both way.  When the right doesn't like what you have to say, they call it anti-Americanism.  When the left doesn't like it, they call it "hate-speech".

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Word.

[Onyx]

She's a brave woman, no doubt. I'm pretty anti war.

But she's not perfect, but I admire her for her stand against a war mad president.

Yes, she's imperfect but she's mad for FREEDOM and NO WAR!

 

If the NZ government decides to get involved in Iraq, I'll stand up.

If NZ makes homosexuality illegal,I'll stand up.

If NZ outlaw sign language once again, I'll fight for it!

[♦ nivek ♦]

To What is Cindy a threat? At Lew Rockwell dot com

 

May give some libertarian insight to this discussion. Well written article.

 

kL

[Japedo]

To What is Cindy a threat? At Lew Rockwell dot com

 

May give some libertarian insight to this discussion. Well written article.

 

kL

 

OUTSTANDING Nivek!!! Thanks so much for sharing it. Two points from the post I wish to highlight.

 

Cindy Sheehan does constitute a threat, not to America, but to the totalitarian forces that insist on crushing the spirit of peace and liberty in order that they might dominate the American people.

 

------------------------

 

Let us also not forget the "butterfly effect" and the power of local, decentralized action. If wars can be started by nineteen men, armed with nothing more than box-cutter knives, perhaps peace can be precipitated by a lone woman standing alongside a road in Texas, demanding that a president be accountable for his actions. Don’t think for a moment that the established order is unaware of and not fearful of just such a possibility.

[a midnight star]

Patriotism now means blindly and unquestioningly following what the current administration says. Freedom of speech is being allowed to say whatever you want as long as it doesn't offend the majority.

 

I disagree. You don't have to agree with everything that Bush does to be patriotic. But when things like nationalism are told to be anti-american, that is where the problems lay. Putting America before other countries is Patriotic and american.

 

nationalism

(noun) : loyalty and devotion to a nation; especially : a sense of national consciousness exalting one nation above all others.

 

 

This is the major difference. When it is said that the UN should have control of our military, we call that unpatriotic. When we should let other countries dictate to us we call that unpatriotic. When lies such as "we are after the oil" is said, we call that unpatiotic. When some religious nut says that our boys should be killed, we call that unpatriotic. When we are told that we should not have pride in our boys, we call that unpatriotic. When we are told not to show our support for the troops (yellow ribbons, and flags) we call that unpatriotic. It has nothing to do with freedom of speech, but if we believe that what is being said is unpatriotic, then we also have the freedom of speech to say such. Whether or not 48% of the population agrees or not.

 

 

Terrorists are now any enemy of the United States. Anyone who has strong political views is deemed a radical nut or a conspiracy theorist.

 

Oh, get real. When has any Republican much less the pres. stated that France or Germany were terrorist? They are against the war, are we really going to get stupid about this?

 

 

Being homophobic is renamed being pro-"family values". Etc.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

One, believing that homosexual is wrong is not the same as being scared of Homosexuals. (phobic = fear). I for one do not think that it is wrong, but even when I was a christian I knew that even though I thought the actions were wrong there wasn't any fear, and we were to not treat the gays any different that the hetero's. Family values is also about two parent families. I was a single mother, so I am not judging anyone here, but am I the only one who thinks that a two parent family is best for the kids?

[a midnight star]

nightflight: The issue, at least as I understand it, is not that freedom of speech is being governmentally restricted but that, as Amethyst said, it has "become "inappropriate" for American citizens to ask questions of their government."

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I find it to be highly hyprocritial that the same people who go out and pick on every word that the President says, cry foul when someone disagrees with them. I do not like Cindy because she is out there further spreading lies. She accuses the Pres. of the same things that I have asked for proof here on this board, but have yet to have it shown. There is no truth to what she has to say. Am I trying to say that she shouldn't have the right to say what she wants? NO. But neither does that take away my right to point out her falasies(sp) and take advantage of my freedom of speech to say she is full of it. See, it works both ways. Nobody is trying to take away her freedom of speech, but don't think about taking mine away because I will debunk her at every turn. After all, that is my right.

[a midnight star]

TV station refuses to air anti-war ad days before Bush visit

 

Yes, I probably should have included that in my initial post.  My fault.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Tell me something. Did you agree or disagree this strongly when television stations refused to show the documentary showing what really happened with Kerry and his time in the military?

 

So are you saying now that the TV stations should be made to show advertisments that they disagree with? wouldn't this be a violation of their rights? Or does it work only one way?

[a midnight star]

If they want to run it, that's their perogative.  I think it might actually be a good thing in the long run because it would encourage debate on the subject and get people to talk about it. Some people might even change their long-held prejudiced views because of it.

 

Don't you think it's a little suspicious that they refused to air the Sheehan ad when Bush was coming to their town?  I think there's more to it than a purely business decision.  Did you even read the article?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Maybe, just maybe they disagreed and refused to support the lies that she is spreading? Maybe just maybe, they like me want to see proof of her alegations before they support her by showing her advertisments?