America the Proud?

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Lalaith
No, I don't think so. Most ideas should be allowed to expressed, but not all of them. I think that right winged extremists threaten and discriminate against foreigners and that should not be allowed. Wether it reduces the right of free speech or not.

So who determines whose speech gets restricted? And what happens if someone decides that your speech should be outlawed. That what you believe isn't what they want to hear. What is there to prevent that - when you can already prevent another persons?

You didn't say. But you said it as if he has enourmous power here but it isn't so. We have a parliament.

Well then you shouldn't be afraid of the National Socialist Party - because even if they got into power - they wouldn't be able to do anything because of Parliament. The US president is very weak - he is controlled by Congress.. Everything that the president wants to basically has to go through Congress. One person I was talking to mentioned that "well the president picks the Supreme Court". That particular president doesn't pick the justices - only if there is a vacancy. Even then - Congress must approve the Justices. The President submits a budget - but Congress makes changes, additions, deletions, and has to approve it. All bills have to originate in the House - then they pass up to the Senate - if they're appoved by the Senate - they go to the President - where he can either sign them into law or veto it. Even if he vetos - Congress can still override him with a 2/3 vote.

Who said that they make speeches in public. But they settle and make their operations.
Of course we cannot take them their whole freedom. There have to be a breaking of laws and evidence for it.

You've taken away their freedom of speech without a second thought - all on the possibility that they will commit crimes.

In my opinion they should be forbidden. End of discussion. But maybe you have another relation to National Socialism because it was never a that important issue for you than it was for us.

Well I think socialism should be outlawed - but hey - that's just me. I'm glad I live in a society that gives everyone an equal voice whether we agree with them or not. if we didn't have this right - there would never have been a Abe Lincoln or a Martin Luther King. The Civil Rights would never have happened if we were able to outlaw speech the majority disagreed with.

I can NOT see how you can live in a free society and not allow freedom for EVERYONE. And yes - one of the things I am ashamed of is that it took till the 1960's for segregation to end in the southern half of the US. But we had the means to end it - because EVERYONE had a voice. Martin Luther King was able to stand on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial and give his "I Have a Dream" speech. We have a Free Press that allowed scenes of the police brutality in Birmingham to be shown.

Today - becuase of this - we have Colin Powell and Condoleeza Rice in two of the most powerful positions in government. And Condi Rice (who I had received an e-mail from while she was Provost of Stanford) grew up in the segragated south of Birmingham Alabama.

I will go to a rally to stand up against the KKK - but I will also stick up for the rights of those ignorant people to have their little white hooded demonstrations.

[Elvellon]

It is a reduction in freedom - when ever you take the freedoms away from one group of people because you disagree with their views - you are limiting their freedom. There is NO way around that. I'm not saying allow them to commit crimes against immigrants or to allow them to prevent freedoms of foreigners - but I assume you have laws to protect those things. People are going to have ideas - whether you like them or not and if they can't express them openly - they will just go underground where they are more dangerous. The only way the National Socialist party would be able to do the things you have said frighten you is if the majority of Austrians support them. So do the majority of Austrians support them

That is a debatable issue. If you known the goal of a group is of a criminal nature and to limit your freedoms and you know they are willing to carry such agenda, should you wait for them to actually start to commit crimes? Or should you act before they do it?

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Elvellon
I agree, I couldn’t said it better, I have the same problem with many American neocons, if they would acknowledge that too, and stop telling us how we should do things I believe it would make relations more simple for both sides, after all, we don’t like being said how we should deal with things in our countries too.

Actually - believe it or not - we don't care what you do in your own countries. We don't care if you have socialized health care or if you have 90% income taxes. We care about trade with your countries and tarriffs and things like that. But internal things - we couldn't care less about. However - when Clinton was being impeached - oh there was so much opinion about America. When Bush was elected - again - so much opinion frm Europe. Becuase we don't have national health care - Europeans repeatedly come out saying how superior they're societies are. We don't agree. But we actually don't care about what you do internally within your countries. We don't care what your politicians do. We did find it ironic that France almost voted in LePen - while in the same breath criticising American being too far to the right. It's our country and we'll run it the way we want to.

Nope, it is not as saying that cheating is OK, nor does that means everybody is doing it. It does means, however, that we don’t judge the private life of a politician as part of his public life, furthermore, it is up to those concerned by the cheating to take action as they deem appropriate, not the public.

A public politicians life is PUBLIC. He works for the people of the United States - if we feel it is innapropriate - we will take action. You may disagree with how we reacted to Clinton - but really - was it any outsiders business? It was purely internal US matter.

Also - according to the Constituion - when ever a president loses the trust of the people - impeachment hearings can take place. Clinton WAS impeached by the House - the Senate just felt that his transgressions did not warrant his removal from office. He was disbarred by the Arkansas Bar Association however for trying to get withnesses to commit purgory on the stand. He took an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States - telling people to lie under oath goes completely against that Constitution and the rules of law.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Elvellon
That is a debatable issue. If you known the goal of a group is of a criminal nature and to limit your freedoms and you know they are willing to carry such agenda, should you wait for them to actually start to commit crimes? Or should you act before they do it?

Okay - then why don't we just close down all the musques and take away the freedoms of muslim Americans? Why don't we just deny them their freedom of speech? Supposedly there were many Muslims in paterson NJ who cheered as they watched the Twin Towers burn and collapse. Why don't we limit their speech? We know what Muslims did on 9/11. We know that many Muslims use the Musques as covers to hold their anti-American rallies. Why? Because we live in a free country - and there has to be evidence that they are preparing to commit a crime before we do something. We can't just say - "well they MAY commit a crime in the future - so we better treat them like second class citizens now."

It's funny by your statement - because after 9/11 - many Europeans were outraged that the US was going to finger print visitors to this country and we were going to make it harder for certain groups to come here - either to visit or live. They said "so much for the land of the free" They seem to forget that our Constitution protects Americans - it does NOT extend beyond our borders. If a person doesn't want to be finger printed or have a background check done before entering our country - they don't have to come here.

[Elvellon]

Actually - believe it or not - we don't care what you do in your own countries. We don't care if you have socialized health care or if you have 90% income taxes. We care about trade with your countries and tarriffs and things like that. But internal things - we couldn't care less about. However - when Clinton was being impeached - oh there was so much opinion about America. When Bush was elected - again - so much opinion frm Europe. Becuase we don't have national health care - Europeans repeatedly come out saying how superior they're societies are. We don't agree. But we actually don't care about what you do internally within your countries. We don't care what your politicians do. We did find it ironic that France almost voted in LePen - while in the same breath criticising American being too far to the right. It's our country and we'll run it the way we want to.

Pity they don’t hear you then, for it seems a lot of them waste much time telling us how we should deal with issues they don’t care anyway. If I had a Euro each time I read a neocon telling us how we should get rid of “mommy state,” or start pumping up the defence budget, and generally adopt the neocon outlook, or simply saying how superior they are, well, lets just say it get really annoying, so yes, I can sympathise with your view.

As for Clinton, well, he was popular, and most people simply didn’t understood why the big deal. Since it was not understood, people took time speculating, gossiping really. But then, it was your media that made of it a media circus, and our media followed, considering that the scandal, being of a sexual nature, would be good for the ratings, (ah, the joys of rating dynamics).

As for the Bush issue, it is of a different nature. To the external observer it seemed alarming what happened during the elections. Do not forget the capacity the US has to project force. So who your president is or how it came there is not devoid of external relevance. To most the issue was not how you should or not deal with the issue but rather how, or if, it would affect them.

A public politicians life is PUBLIC. He works for the people of the United States - if we feel it is innapropriate - we will take action. You may disagree with how we reacted to Clinton - but really - was it any outsiders business? It was purely internal US matter.

In the US, not necessarily elsewhere. And frankly I really don’t care about how you dealt with Clinton, I simply used it because you used him before as an example, and I really doubt that if I named a Portuguese politician you would be familiar enough to see my point. (I had a better example in F.S. Carneiro, but I doubt you know of him, so that would make writing of him useless as an example).

Also - according to the Constituion - when ever a president loses the trust of the people - impeachment hearings can take place. Clinton WAS impeached by the House - the Senate just felt that his transgressions did not warrant his removal from office. He was disbarred by the Arkansas Bar Association however for trying to get withnesses to commit purgory on the stand. He took an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States - telling people to lie under oath goes completely against that Constitution and the rules of law.

See above. I‘m defending that our way doesn’t reflect less freedom, but simply is the result of a different outlook.

[Elvellon]

Okay - then why don't we just close down all the musques and take away the freedoms of muslim Americans? Why don't we just deny them their freedom of speech? Supposedly there were many Muslims in paterson NJ who cheered as they watched the Twin Towers burn and collapse. Why don't we limit their speech? We know what Muslims did on 9/11. We know that many Muslims use the Musques as covers to hold their anti-American rallies. Why? Because we live in a free country - and there has to be evidence that they are preparing to commit a crime before we do something. We can't just say - "well they MAY commit a crime in the future - so we better treat them like second class citizens now."

A better example; how about if you have an organization in the US, defending the righteousness of the attacks, defending that more of the same should be done, plus, how about if you had reasons to suspect they are willing to do more than mere words, and want to use it as a public façade and as propaganda and recruitment tool?

It's funny by your statement - because after 9/11 - many Europeans were outraged that the US was going to finger print visitors to this country and we were going to make it harder for certain groups to come here - either to visit or live. They said "so much for the land of the free" They seem to forget that our Constitution protects Americans - it does NOT extend beyond our borders. If a person doesn't want to be finger printed or have a background check done before entering our country - they don't have to come here.

Really? And I presume that is just what those that care about it will do. Oddly, it is those that identify more with the American way that are likely to feel more affected by it, really. Besides, I believe most European countries ID cards include fingerprints,(certainly those of the EU), so for the most part it is a rather redundant exercise, it would be better to get a mutual security agreement , and save a lot of the American taxpayers money, but hey, it is really not my concern.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Elvellon
Pity they don’t hear you then, for it seems a lot of them waste much time telling us how we should deal with issues they don’t care anyway. If I had a Euro each time I read a neocon telling us how we should get rid of “mommy state,” or start pumping up the defence budget, and generally adopt the neocon outlook, or simply saying how superior they are, well, lets just say it get really annoying, so yes, I can sympathise with your view.

What the h*ll is a neocon?

As for Clinton, well, he was popular, and most people simply didn’t understood why the big deal. Since it was not understood, people took time speculating, gossiping really. But then, it was your media that made of it a media circus, and our media followed, considering that the scandal, being of a sexual nature, would be good for the ratings, (ah, the joys of rating dynamics).

So what is he was popular - he's not above the law. The Constitution states that when a president loses the trust of the people - impeachment hearings can take place.

As for the Bush issue, it is of a different nature. To the external observer it seemed alarming what happened during the elections. Do not forget the capacity the US has to project force. So who your president is or how it came there is not devoid of external relevance. To most the issue was not how you should or not deal with the issue but rather how, or if, it would affect them.

All our presidents are on the world stage - but you don't get to elect them. So just because you liked Clinton doesn't mean anything to US - he doesn't represent the interests of Europre - he represents the interests of America.

In the US, not necessarily elsewhere. And frankly I really don’t care about how you dealt with Clinton, I simply used it because you used him before as an example, and I really doubt that if I named a Portuguese politician you would be familiar enough to see my point. (I had a better example in F.S. Carneiro, but I doubt you know of him, so that would make writing of him useless as an example).

It was much more than the sex - as I stated. Can't help it if the media only concentrated on that aspect. I supported the impeachment hearings. I was however unsure if he should be removed.

See above. I‘m defending that our way doesn’t reflect less freedom, but simply is the result of a different outlook.

If you restrict a person's ideas and free speech - then you don't have true freedom. Sorry. If the state can prevent you from peacefully stating your views - you are not free.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Elvellon
A better example; how about if you have an organization in the US, defending the righteousness of the attacks, defending that more of the same should be done, plus, how about if you had reasons to suspect they are willing to do more than mere words, and want to use it as a public façade and as propaganda and recruitment tool?

We do - but we have laws if they do anythng. They have a right to say anything they want - they just can't act on them. We have neo-nazis and we have white supremicist groups. They preach hatred toward groups - and they have have their ignorant views. If they act on them - they pay the concequences - if they do try to stock pile guns - they pay for it. Same with the Black Panthers.

Really? And I presume that is just what those that care about it will do. Oddly, it is those that identify more with the American way that are likely to feel more affected by it, really. Besides, I believe most European countries ID cards include fingerprints,(certainly those of the EU), so for the most part it is a rather redundant exercise, it would be better to get a mutual security agreement , and save a lot of the American taxpayers money, but hey, it is really not my concern.

See we don't have ID cards and we are against ID cards. We do not have cards that we have to carrry around with us or anything. And your ID cards aren't in our computers - it is to make sure that people are doing what they said they were going to be doing in our country. If they said they were going to college - they had better be in college.

[Jonathan]

Originally posted by Elvellon
Besides, I believe most European countries ID cards include fingerprints,(certainly those of the EU

That's incorrect. Most European countries (CERTAINLY those of the EU) DO NOT have finger prints included in the ID cards. In fact I can't think of a single country that has IDs with finger prints. I have to check that up.

[Elvellon]

Originally posted by Elvellon
Pity they don’t hear you then, for it seems a lot of them waste much time telling us how we should deal with issues they don’t care anyway. If I had a Euro each time I read a neocon telling us how we should get rid of “mommy state,” or start pumping up the defence budget, and generally adopt the neocon outlook, or simply saying how superior they are, well, lets just say it get really annoying, so yes, I can sympathise with your view.
Originally posted by Jerseydevil

Originally posted by Jerseydevil
What the h*ll is a neocon?

A nickname to a croud of rather vocal Republicans, that believe to have knowledge of The Truth and seem to take a rather inordinately interest in telling everyone else what to do.

So what is he was popular - he's not above the law. The Constitution states that when a president loses the trust of the people - impeachment hearings can take place.


All our presidents are on the world stage - but you don't get to elect them. So just because you liked Clinton doesn't mean anything to US - he doesn't represent the interests of Europre - he represents the interests of America.

Repeating myself. I really don’t care about Clinton, granted, I do have some sympathy for him, but he IS your problem.

As for Bush, I wonder if he isn’t OUR problem, too.

If you restrict a person's ideas and free speech - then you don't have true freedom. Sorry. If the state can prevent you from peacefully stating your views - you are not free.

You don’t get it, pity. It is not a matter of being able to state your opinions, which you have here; it is a matter of what to do when you have conflicting rights.
I could easily use your reasoning and reverse it: if you do not respect human dignity you are not free, since you are subject to anyone’s whims.

[Elvellon]

Originally posted by Jonathan
That's incorrect. Most European countries (CERTAINLY those of the EU) DO NOT have finger prints included in the ID cards. In fact I can't think of a single country that has IDs with finger prints. I have to check that up.

I’m speaking of the thumb tip print, the digital imprint thing, whatever you call it.

[Jonathan]

Originally posted by Elvellon
I’m speaking of the thumb tip print, the digital imprint thing, whatever you call it.

They don't contain that in the EU for all I know.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Elvellon
A nickname to a croud of rather vocal Republicans, that believe to have knowledge of The Truth and seem to take a rather inordinately interest in telling everyone else what to do.

In other words - anyone who disagrees with your views.

Repeating myself. I really don’t care about Clinton, granted, I do have some sympathy for him, but he IS your problem.

Well he's not our problem anymore either. He's no longer president - thank god.

As for Bush, I wonder if he isn’t OUR problem, too.

Bush has approval 57% approval rating in the US. So whether Europe likes Bush or not - the majority of Americans do.

You don’t get it, pity. It is not a matter of being able to state your opinions, which you have here; it is a matter of what to do when you have conflicting rights.
I could easily use your reasoning and reverse it: if you do not respect human dignity you are not free, since you are subject to anyone’s whims.

NO - because you can say what ever you want. The only way you can disrespect someone's dignity is by taking action. I can say anything I want - I can not act out in violence though. I am not free if someone can tape my mouth shut or tell me what I can or can not say.

I just don't think you live in a free society if you can restrict a person's speech and thoughts.

[Elvellon]

We have neo-nazis and we have white supremicist groups. They preach hatred toward groups - and they have have their ignorant views. If they act on them - they pay the concequences - if they do try to stock pile guns - they pay for it. Same with the Black Panthers

But those are deemed a low risk, apparently. I doubt that if an organization that was known to maintain relations and shared ideology with the Al Qaida would receive such benevolent treatment.

You can even buy Mein Kampf around here, no problem there. But what sometimes make ring an alarm bell are those that are not simply debating ideas.

[Elvellon]

Originally posted by Jonathan
They don't contain that in the EU for all I know.

I live in the EU and have one, I presumed that, since ID cards were supposed to be standardized (or normalized, whatever ) in the EU by now, all had it.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Elvellon
But those are deemed a low risk, apparently. I doubt that if an organization that was known to maintain relations and shared ideology with the Al Qaida would receive such benevolent treatment.

There are many people with shared views of Al Qaeda in the US - unless they are actually doing something illegal - the US can not do something. I can wear a shirt praising Osama bin Ladin - it might be repulsive - but I have a right to wear it and no one can stop me. If I want to wear a shirt praising Hitler no one can do anything. You might want to look at the white supremicist groups here - not really any in NJ that I know of though. The KKK try to march in NJ - but the last time they got one person on stage with the speaker. In the south the KKK are much stronger. You can view many of their hate websites.

I was going to include some KKK and Neo-Nazi sites - but I'm not going to promote their crap. There is a Nazi Party of America also. You can easily do a search.

You can even buy Mein Kampf around here, no problem there. But what sometimes make ring an alarm bell are those that are not simply debating ideas.

We can buy Mein Kampf. Last week I noticed two copies while I was looking in the history section.

One of the current outrages against the Patriot Act because it gives the government power to look at what people take out at the library. Libraries in NJ are fighting this and I think other libraries around the country are fighting it. What a person reads if not the business of the government unless they have a reason to suspect illegal activity and they have a warrant.

Even though the American Civil Liberties Union - ACLU can be a little more left - I do support them for what they do.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Elvellon
I live in the EU and have one, I presumed that, since ID cards were supposed to be standardized (or normalized, whatever ) in the EU by now, all had it.

ID cards seem to be like a product of big brother - especially if they have your finger prints on them.

[Elvellon]

In other words - anyone who disagrees with your views.

Hardly, since I disagree with many people, left and right, about many things. BUT, I do not believe to hold The Truth, nor do I believe that any of us, mortals, do.
So if “you” are a Republican, and deny my positions simply because they are not the same as yours, and believe that by divine intervention, personal genius, or whatever, believe that only “your” position can be valid, well then, “you” are a neocon.

Bush has approval 57% approval rating in the US. So whether Europe likes Bush or not - the majority of Americans do.

As long as what he does doesn’t affect us, is strictly your problem, if affects us it becomes our problem. As for what we can do, certainly not vote, but international relations can suffer, something that could be regretful for both of us in the long run. I certainly don’t wish it.

NO - because you can say what ever you want. The only way you can disrespect someone's dignity is by taking action. I can say anything I want - I can not act out in violence though. I am not free if someone can tape my mouth shut or tell me what I can or can not say.

JD, I believe I already stated that, the only problem is when you have conflicting rights. Then, wanting or not, one of then AS to give way to the other. You opt for one, since you fear that if not the argument of the other could be abused. It is your option, it is valid.


But when confronted with that problem we see it differently, each freedom has to be measured against the other and then the lesser one gives. We opt for more freedom, not less. That is how we see it, it is not your way, fine, what I cannot accept is the absolute validity you seem to be attributing to your position. Me, I’m defending that our is as valid an option as yours, since none of us is omniscient to say otherwise.

[Elvellon]

ID cards seem to be like a product of big brother - especially if they have your finger prints on them.

Why? I fail to understand the fear some have about it.

To me it is just a way to identify who you are.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Elvellon
Why? I fail to understand the fear some have about it.

To me it is just a way to identify who you are.

What business is it of the governments? I shouldn't have to carry around anything that tells them who I am. I carry a license that let's them know I can drive - that is all I need to carry. If I leave the house - I don't have to carry anything. What is the card used for? What might the government want to use it for later on? We have a history of not trusting the government because of colonial times - our Bill of Rights, as I have said - was written to protect us from the government. Our form of government as laid out in the Constitution was developed specically to keep any one branch of the government from getting too strong.