Hey, we want to be part of the hate!

POSTED BY: dreamtrove
UPDATED: Tuesday, January 20, 2009 02:14
VIEWED: 18566
PAGE 4 of 23

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NEXT PAGE

GEEZER

Monday, January 5, 2009 2:51 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Geezer:

Thanks for the Link
"The Imam said this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time".

That sounds much more like the man.

Actually, it sounds like Imam Khomeini, who he is quoting.

I'm also not seeing the great difference between "Israel must be wiped off the map." and "...this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time."

"Keep the Shiny side up"

SIGNYM

Monday, January 5, 2009 3:07 PM

Geezer, one implies that the occupying force of a city must no longer be an occupier. The other implies that the entire government must disappear.

Finn, you fail to be sufficiently aware of that age-old conundrum: In order to fight Hitler, must one become fascist? In order to fight genocide, must one become genocidal? At one point, you agreed that your goal was to kill only as many as required to save more lives. But the Israeli ambassador to the UN said: "There is no proportionality. We're sorry for the loss of civilians, BUT..."

Ends and mean. Your ends might be fine, but your means betray them.

---------------------------------
Let's party like its 1929.

RUE

Monday, January 5, 2009 6:54 PM

DreamTrove

These are the people I have been arguing against during the the last two years you've been gone. They ARE filled wih hate and prejudice, along with deception.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

KWICKO

Monday, January 5, 2009 7:05 PM

Quote:

I'm also not seeing the great difference between "Israel must be wiped off the map." and "...this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time."

Of course you aren't.

As I said earlier, if I say that George W. Bush will go down as a terrible president, and will be largely forgotten by history, that isn't QUITE the same thing as if I said I'd like to see him "wiped from the map", is it? One is saying that the pages of time will little remember a thing or event, and the other is saying we should actively destroy said thing or event. Subtle difference, I know, but I hoped you could figure it out. Guess I overestimated you.

Mike

"It is complete now; the hands of time are neatly tied."

HERO

Monday, January 5, 2009 8:57 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Questions? Comments?

Free speech can be a really great thing...until people start saying stuff you don't like.

It can also be noisy.

I think that what you are saying is that you want to end free speech on this board. While that sounds really bad and dramatic, traditionally reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions have not been inconsistant with free speech...so long as you can guarrantee content neutrality.

I note for the record that most of us have been called a troll or worse on this forum, most often when our political opinion is not shared by the other party. I've been hanging around here for years...and I can think of only one person that crosses the line on a regular basis. So if your going to ban someone or set some kind of standards...he's your huckleberry (and we all know who it is).

H

RUE

Monday, January 5, 2009 9:14 PM

"Not booted for a position, but booted for lack of civility."

I don't see any attempt to infringe on free speech here. Free speech doesn't appear to be the issue.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

DREAMTROVE

Monday, January 5, 2009 9:24 PM

Geezer,

Yes, there is.

One is calling for the obliteration of a nation state, the other is calling for regime change.

While I may disagree with the Iranians on a lot of things, I wouldn't disagree with regime change for Israel, however, I don't think it's the Iranians job to do it, and I think they know this. It it the job of the Israelis.

There was a long discussion a while back about how would you have run the Iraq war. A surprising majority of people on the forum supported regime change in Iraq, but not by the means we did it. Collectively, people seemed to think that the US should have supported groups within Iraq who wanted regime change. If Iran does the same thing in Israel, then I guess it's fair. If they try to do what we did in Iraq, it will not only be wrong, but should they succeed, it will be a disaster. No one is going to accept a regime not of their choosing.

This is why the US lately gets my praise for supporting the Maliki govt. even when that govt. does not support us: Because it is a govt. that the people of Iraq want. Chalabi and Bremer were not a govt. that the people of Iraq wanted, and supporting a continuation of that would have ended badly. A lot of people think Iraq is an irreparable disaster. I disagree. I think it's very close to being a stable nation state. There were points within the war where I strongly disagreed with tactical decisions, but in the end, cooler heads prevail. Let us hope the same for Israel and Iran, as well as Palestine.

DREAMTROVE

Monday, January 5, 2009 9:34 PM

Quote:

DreamTrove

These are the people I have been arguing against during the the last two years you've been gone. They ARE filled wih hate and prejudice, along with deception.

I pity you.

As for the free speech, it's not an issue of free speech to walk up to a latino on the street and say "sp*c" or "chicano go home." Civility is a matter of etiquette. If someone wants to write an editorial criticizing US immigration policy, they can. If they want to oppose gay marriage in text, or talking amongst people they know, they can. If they show up at the funeral of a soldier and say "god hates f*gs and all marines are gay because of the don't ask don't tell policy so we're glad your son is dead." That's not free speech, it's inciting people to riot.

Next, a message board has never been, any more than an editorial, protected by free speech. If someone were to come here and start posting the names and addresses of jews or muslims and inciting people to take acts of violence against them, I'm sure they would be kicked out. You cannot go into a church and yet "F^&k God!" at the top of your lungs. You can't go into the post office and say anything political. You can't go into a supermarket and say "You're all whores!"

Free speech is to be taken as its intended, the right to state a point of view, not the right to insult and threaten, and on a public forum, there are always rules. Sexy pictures of firefly actors is acceptable. Posting pictures of people having sex with animals would undoubtedly get you banned. So there are already rules, it's just a matter of defining them.

DREAMTROVE

Monday, January 5, 2009 10:12 PM

Signym,

Good points all. You're wasting your time talking to the propaganda machines, they never intend to admit that the opponent is human, so there's really no point.

KIRKULES

Monday, January 5, 2009 10:23 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
"Not booted for a position, but booted for lack of civility."

I don't see any attempt to infringe on free speech here. Free speech doesn't appear to be the issue.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

Can I be the moderator of civility. Someones got to do it, might as well be me since I'm the most civil unbiased person here.

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NEXT PAGE