Hong Kong: Is Democracy taking hold in China?

[Sava]

why?

Some don't believe in the freedom of speech. I do.

[Q Classic]

honestly, i fail to see the dire national peril iraq was putting the united states in, so why is criticism unwarranted and arrogant?

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by Q Cubed

Quote:

I have to disagree with Roosevelt on that one.

why?

I have no respect for those people out there who think it is their right to call Bush a liar when they don't even have their own house in order. They are the liars. They are endangering national security by making the branches of government get wrapped up in some baseless charges. The leftists out there who are instigating this should be ashamed of themselves.

I do damn see a good reason for removing Saddam. He posed imminent danger to his neighbors whom produce a substantial amount of oil. If this was hit and damaged it would endanger international security, let alone mostly hit the United States. So stop with this nonsense and accept the reality. I don't see why the left has turned a blind eye to this undeniable fact.

[Q Classic]

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.

[Giancarlo]

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.

[Nubclear]

Originally posted by Fez
not that they should be silenced.

If you could, would you silence them?

Yes or no answer please Any other answers will constitute an attempt at evading the question

[David Floyd]

I have no respect for those people out there who think it is their right to call Bush a liar

Of course they have the right to call Bush a liar.

when they don't even have their own house in order.

Come again?

They are the liars.

Come again?

They are endangering national security by making the branches of government get wrapped up in some baseless charges. The leftists out there who are instigating this should be ashamed of themselves.

As if Iraq is a danger to "national security" 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.

As for Saddam, it's a moot point that I'm not going to argue about. Suffice it to say that Iraq was never a threat to the US, nor did they have that capability.

[Giancarlo]

You people are putting me to sleep.

Individual liberty is vastly more valuable than national security

No.

[David Floyd]

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?

[Giancarlo]

I'd rather be living than killed by a terrorist attack. National security doesn't have to make freedom diminish. Responsible government in your opinion means anarchy? Right? Well that is unacceptable.

[David Floyd]

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?

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.

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.

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by David Floyd


Obviously, but you can avoid terrorist attacks by promoting individual freedom/self determination worldwide,

No you can't.

by not ****ing around with other nations.

That is an incredibly stupid thing to do.

Switzerland doesn't have many problems with regards to terrorists, now does it?

It is a funding haven for many terrorists and dictators.

If you are limiting free speech in the name of national security, then you are certainly limiting freedom.

Well lets just say you are placing statements where they don't belong.

No, responsible government means holding individual rights as paramount. Anarchy and government are mutually exclusive.

That is your definition of responsible government. And you are not credible in the least.

[David Floyd]

No you can't.

So if the US didn't have troops in the Middle East and wasn't actively supporting Israel, 9/11 would still have happened?

That is an incredibly stupid thing to do.

What, messing around with other nations? I agree - that's what got us 9/11.

It is a funding haven for many terrorists and dictators.

Fine, Sweden. Or Liechtenstein. Or the Netherlands. Whatever. Canada.

Well lets just say you are placing statements where they don't belong.

You mean I'm attributing statements to you that you didn't make, or that by exercising free speech, I am placing statements where they don't belong? If the former, please explain further. If the latter, that's irrelevant - whether I should say something and whether I should be able to say something are two different matters.

That is your definition of responsible government. And you are not credible in the least.

At least I don't have a three letter nickname that starts with B and ends with -AM.

[Giancarlo]

I am not arguing with you anymore. If you think you can put statements where they don't belong then so be it. Also, I never have fully supported Israel... only to the extent that it has a right to exist.

What, messing around with other nations? I agree - that's what got us 9/11.

You are foolish. Not doing anything got 9/11.

Don't even ****ing bring up 9/11... don't try to politicialize it.

[David Floyd]

I am not arguing with you anymore.

Fine, go hide.

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?

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.

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]

Guys, take it to another thread.

[David Floyd]

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.

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by David Floyd


Fine, go hide.

David Floyd said I would hide? There he goes again.

I offered you a chance to explain this statement. I do so again. Eh?

You are making statements and saying I support these statements. I never made such statements. Catch my drift?

You mean, don't do as Dubya and Co. did? And everyone else does as well?

You need help.

I had enough with this useless debate.

Next!

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by David Floyd
If we ****ed off they'd leave us alone.

No they wouldn't.

[David Floyd]

David Floyd said I would hide? There he goes again.

Eh?

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.

You need help.

Good comeback.

No they wouldn't.

Then explain to me why the US was hit with 747s on 9/11, rather than, say, Botswana.

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by David Floyd


Eh?



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.

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.

Then explain to me why the US was hit with 747s on 9/11, rather than, say, Botswana.

Has to do with the US being the sole superpower.

Anyways.. I am leaving this dumb debate before Ming gets me on the BBQ.

[David Floyd]

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.

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?

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?

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by David Floyd
except to say that your earlier statements were highly ambiguous.

No they weren't.

And, as such, the US is the one doing most of the ****ing around with other nations, right?

So let the world go to hell!



I am through with you.

[David Floyd]

Fez,

You said,

They are endangering national security by making the branches of government get wrapped up in some baseless charges

Then I said,

Individual liberty is vastly more valuable than national security

Then you said,

No.

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?

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?

[Giancarlo]

Your attitude is what deters other from talking with you. You are nothing but a stuck up person with a oversized ego.

[David Floyd]

OK, bud. In other words, you ran out of material.

[Giancarlo]

I never run out of material. I just ran out of patience to argue with somebody like you.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Tingkai
Guys, take it to another thread.

Too late. It was already Fezzed. David apparently wanted to add to the train wreck.

[Q Classic]

and to add fuel to the fire:

you still haven't answered my question. why is it arrogant?

with which you responded:

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.

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.

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?

[mindseye]

Too late. It was already Fezzed.

I strongly suggest you all simply add Fez to your Ignore List. I did long ago, threads are now much more pleasant to read, at least as long as the likes of David Floyd can resist taking the bait ... (ahem!)

The Ignore List is your Friend. Trust me, you feel no need to rebutt what you cannot see.