Welcome to thebackpacker.com
create account login
Dissent is offensive
Viewing posts 1 to 50 of 166 messages posted.
Jump to Page |  1 | 2   | 3   | 4   |  next >>
To add this thread as a favorites, you need to first login.
Do you find this offensive?
Uncle oSAMa Says:
I Want YOU To Invade Iraq
Go ahead. Send me a new generation of recruits. Your bombs will fuel their hatred of America and their desire for revenge. Americans won’t be safe anywhere. Please, attack Iraq. Distract yourself from fighting Al Qaeda. Divide the international community. Go ahead. Destabilize the region. Maybe Pakistan will fall -- we want its nuclear weapons. Give Saddam a reason to strike first. He might draw Israel into a fight. Perfect! So please -- invade Iraq. Make my day.
A small local newspaper near my town ran this ad from http://www.tompaine.com/ and caused quite a stir. The mayor demanded that the editor apologize and urged people to boycott the paper. I say WTF?!!”
“And thus has it been always. Freedom of speech for me, but not necessarily you.
As an editor, I would have no reason to run it in my paper, unless it had some local connection, which it clearly does not.
For a daily, it could make a suitable op-ed piece if combined with a column on the issue. Editorials, editorial cartoons, and columns are opinion.”
“hmm...that's a cool ad. i guess it stands to reason that it's offensive to the mayor. but i don't think the editor of the paper should apologize, and i have no idea why the mayor thinks he should have to. bizarre!”
“actually, maybe it is good that the mayor did that. no publicity is bad publicity, right? now more people will see that ad, than would have before.”
“Actually, I thought the text was a reasoned argument based on points I have argued as well. The nation was founded on dissent. Dissent is an essential element in decision making. If somebody has an opposing viewpoint, they should raise it.
How many times in history have dissenters been proven right, yet at the time they raised it were shouted down?
Now if the piece was recruiting terrorists for Al Qaeda, that would be another matter. But that clearly is not the case.”
“Any elected offical that wants people to boycott a paper for exercising freedom of opinion should be removed from office.
How much more Un-American can you get than to take a position of:
"If you say things I don't agree with, I will devote my attention to ensuring that you cannot be heard"”
“Nuthin layik a good ol fashyun book burnin t' larn them libril fantsy pants!”
“Apparently some unnamed veteran’s group took offense and he decided to take up their cause.”
At least the small newspaper near you
“had the cajones to run the ad. Our local Gannett owned paper is nothing more than the propaganda arm of the chamber of commerce. They wouldn't dare run anything that the area developers/oligarchy didn't like or thought might affect the business (growth at all costs) climate.”
“That poster is about the truest thing I've seen yet, on the internet.”
“I think it probably the most reasonable thing I've seen yet dealing w/ this ridiculous idea that we should go to war w/ Iraq. I don't think it's un-American, if it is, how so? Someone explain that to me. Why would someone need to apologize for stating their point of view. No way. I think the editor should tell the mayor to shove it up his a$$.”
“Editors have ways of doing things like that Newgie!”
“I'm on this story!”
“Oh great, things should get alot dumber then.”
“I think the editor should tell the mayor to shove it up his a$$."
“Perhaps a few weeks of stories focussed on the mayor's failings being covered in the paper should shut the mayor up.”
“Some people have nothing better to do!
“If I could add a modifier to Newgirl's recommendation', that word would be 'SIDEWAYS', <G>.”
“I support the Mayor's right to free speech.”
“Amen, sister........you too, newgirl!
The mayor can say what he wants, but to try to use political position to stifle dissent is just a BIT tyrannical.”
And from the left
“free speech = tyranny”
“Maybe it does for you.”
Was this the same paper/website that urged us to :
"Nuke A Gay Black Whale For Jesus"
seems like it originated in the same, slightly sarcasticly-bent frame of thought process.
Personally, I think the ad makes some salient points, and the Mayor is only trying to get some free publicity.”
“Careful y'all, warmongers can be sensitive.”
“I completely agree with that ad. I do find it worrisome that when you disagree with this President people try to censor you.
I can't believe that people are offended by the idea that Osama was created by the U.S. invading Iraq (and having troops in SA) but the same thing won't happen this time. Muslims are already asking for us to leave Pakistan (a nuclear armed country).”
“If this knucklehead(Bush) does invade Iraq, we'll be in for more trouble of the kind that has saved his presidency from oblivion(domestic issues).
I think the "treat" will subside after Nov 5.”
“Yeah, didn't Pakistan recently have elections and basically, the radical Muslim contingent came in a close second?
Invading Iraq may be just the thing needed to generate a coup against Musharef and destabilize that region even more...”
“I find it worrisome when liberals speak out it is called free speech, but when conservatives speak out it is call tyranny and censorship.”
“That holds true particularaly when the conservative speaking is calling for another person speaking to be silenced.”
“A boycott is censorship? Someone better tell Jesse Jackson.”
“It's ultimate effect is the same.
And you know it!”
“It is called free speech, ya moron.”
If you liked that one, you'll love tompaine.com
When Did Iraq Become More Important Than America?
“Oops, that's "threat"....”
“Jesse Jackson is not an elected official.....moron”
“Can I edit my post from last week :-0”
“Elected officials do not loose their right to free speech.”
“bacpac – While the mayor is still a citizen with rights to free speech, for him to use his office to attempt to limit freedom of speech or the press is wrong. If the veteran’s group expressed their outrage and called for a boycott, it would be entirely different.”
“Thank you Violin.
Bacpac: stop screwin' the pooch and get with the program!”
“Hold on a minute. The article above fails to mention that all those issues are conditional mainly upon the economical state of this country. As with the U.S. until the investors feel secure and the economy begin to flow again the economy is not going to be that great. We now know the economy was 40% less than what we thought it was 4 years ago. However, all that aside, job one of any gov't, state, country, etc. is to protect its citizens. The argument still returns to the issue if Iraq a legit threat. This is the same issue we disagreed on last week.”
“It's not an article, trailhound57. They refer to it as an op-ad - I guess standing for opinion advertisement.”
“But as long as you want to talk about the relationship between war with Iraq and the economy, may I suggest War against Iraq will hurt global economy: Stiglitz”
“Nobody is claiming the conflict won't affect the economy but what's the most important action should be. We can either set idle in the name of the economy which has been done for the last 6 years or enforce a treaty.”
“'Round and 'round and 'round she goes,
Where she stops, nobody knows...”
“Hopefully enforcement of the U.N. treaty will not lead to any bloodshed but all access inspections. If the treaty is not enforced the U.S. proves again as in Mogadishu that we talk the talk but never walk the walk.”
“Again, I agree with rosey that we simply disagree and that this board is a much better place for talking backpacking.”
“dammit violin and trailhound,,,,
quit dissenting with each others posts,,,,it is offensive...
While reasonable minds often differ, it is an unreasonable mind that refuses to listen.”
“Her's a beaut from The New York Sun
EDITORIALS & OPINION
Comfort and the Protesters
Mayor Bloomberg and Police Commissioner Kelly are doing the people of New York and the people of Iraq a great service by delaying and obstructing the anti-war protest planned for February 15. The longer they delay in granting the protesters a permit, the less time the organizers have to get their turnout organized, and the smaller the crowd is likely to be. And we wouldn’t want to overstate the matter, but, at some level, the smaller the crowd, the more likely that President Bush will proceed with his plans to liberate Iraq. And the more likely, in that case, that the Iraqi people will be freed and the citizens of New York will be rescued from the threat of an Iraqi-aided terrorist attack.
In a federal court action filed yesterday, the New York Civil Liberties Union, representing the anti-war protesters, cites the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The court action seeks a court injunction that would allow the protesters to march down First Avenue near the United Nations. “A central part of the February 15 event is to convey a message to the United Nations about opposition to any war against Iraq,” the complaint filed yesterday says. But the right of peaceable assembly in the Constitution refers to the right “to petition the government for a redress of grievances.” The protesters would be on stronger ground if they wanted to convey a message to the U.S. Mission to the United Nations — if, in other words, if they were petitioning the government, not the U.N.
The protesters probably do have a claim under the right to free speech. Never mind that it’s not the speech that the city is objecting to — it’s the marching in the streets, blocking traffic, and requiring massive police protection.
So long as the protesters are invoking the Constitution, they might have a look at Article III. That says, “Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.”
There can be no question at this point that Saddam Hussein is an enemy of America. Iraq was the only Arab-Muslim country that did not condemn the September 11 attacks against the United States. A commentary of the official Iraqi station on September 11 stated that America was “…reaping the fruits of [its] crimes against humanity.” A government employee in Iraq reacted to the loss this month of the space shuttle Columbia by telling Reuters, “God is avenging us.”
And there is no reason to doubt that the “anti-war” protesters — we prefer to call them protesters against freeing Iraq — are giving, at the very least, comfort to Saddam Hussein. In a television interview aired this week, Saddam said, “First of all we admire the development of the peace movement around the world in the last few years. We pray to God to empower all those working against war and for the cause of peace and security based on just peace for all.” After the last big anti-war protest, the one in Washington last month, Saddam hailed the anti-war protests as proof that Americans back Iraq rather than President Bush. “They are supporting you because they know that evildoers target Iraq to silence and dissenting voice to their evil and destructive policies,” Saddam told senior officers, including his son Qusay, commander of the Republican Guard.
So the New York City police could do worse, in the end, than to allow the protest and send two witnesses along for each participant, with an eye toward preserving at least the possibility of an eventual treason prosecution. Thus fully respecting not just some, but all of the constitutional principles at stake.
To those concerned about civil liberties, we’d cite the pragmatic argument made last night by, of all people, the New York Times’s three-time Pulitzer-Prize winning foreign affairs columnist, Thos. Friedman. “I believe we are one more 9/11 away from the end of the open society,” Mr. Friedman told an American Jewish Committee dinner honoring the chief executive of the New York Times Company, Russell Lewis. His point was that if terrorists strike again at America and kill large numbers of Americans, the pressure to curb civil liberties and civil rights will be “enormous and unstoppable.” What we took from that was that the more successful the protesters are in making their case in New York, the less chance they’ll have the precious constitutional freedom to protest here the next time around.”
Post a MessageIn order to post a response to this thread you must first be logged in. If you do not already have an account, you must first create a new account.
Ready to Buy Gear?
Great Outdoor Sites