It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

America there is no freedom

page: 8
26
<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 17 2012 @ 06:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by intelligenthoodlum33
reply to post by Corruption Exposed
 




Your truly a good person, my friend. Thank your parents.

On topic, to the OP: I think the spelling is wrong. America never meant to say freedom...it meant to say freedoom. Those in denial are just scared. They see liberties being taken away daily and the current candidates are foaming at the mouth to take more. We expected change, but things are getting worse, rather than better. Peace to you and your people.


Yes, I thank my parents every chance I get. My father is actually a member on this site, so hopefully he sees this. Thank you for the kind words.

I sense that you are American, my country is experiencing the same loss of freedoom at a rapid pace, and many of my countrymen refuse to admit it. I have no problem saying that my country is better off than Iran and that I would much rather live here instead of there, but it does not change the fact that my country is a cesspool of corruption, just like yours


I'm glad to see there are still a few people on ATS with a level head. It saddens me to think of how many of your people were hoping for change during the last election just to get cheated and have more of the same, but worse.
You're people deserve better since they are a hard working group who really mean well, just like the rest of the world.

Each of our corners of the world is riddled with shame, we need to stop acknowledging these boundaries so we can unite as human beings because all this "my country is better than yours" crap coming from the Jingos is getting out of hand aned It's poisoning the whole planet.

peace
edit on 17-2-2012 by Corruption Exposed because: (no reason given)




posted on Feb, 17 2012 @ 06:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by nenothtu

Originally posted by harvib
reply to post by nenothtu
 



Originally posted by nenothtu
You have the right to say what you want, when you want. You DO NOT have the right to a captive audience. You do not have the right to harass, detain, or otherwise hinder those whom you want to rail at - you have the right to speak freely, you do not have the right to be listened to at any cost.


What is the relevance of this post and why is it directed towards me? Who said anything about taking anyone captive, or harassing, detaining, or hindering anyone??? I know I didn't suggest any of those infringements.


If you can't decode the quote from your post to divine the relevance, I can't help you.

You are claiming that protestors are being savaged by US police. I'm pointing out the fallacy of that. They are NOT being arrested for speaking, no matter how you try to spin it. They are being arrested for interfering with others.




I would prefer if you didn't put words in my mouth. I never stated that protesters are being savaged by police.

Is it your really your position that if I spend a few minutes I am not going to be able to find numerous examples of protesters being arrested for things other then "interfering with others". Do you really believe that? Did you do any research before you made such a claim?



posted on Feb, 17 2012 @ 07:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by harvib

Is it your really your position that if I spend a few minutes I am not going to be able to find numerous examples of protesters being arrested for things other then "interfering with others". Do you really believe that? Did you do any research before you made such a claim?



Yes. that is my position. Yes, that is what I believe. yes, I researched it, as it was occurring, looking for improprieties. There were some, but not of the nature you suggest.

No, you didn't specifcally use the word "savaged" but that was the intent. For example:



I responded to an individual who seemed to be professing governmental supremacy. He pointed out post after post the brutalities of the Iranian Government yet for each example he gave, an equally brutal and severe example could be given that occurred right here. And this individual seemed to be oblivious of his or her hypocrisy. As do you.


And:



Failure to comply may result in arrest and/ or torture and on occasion even death.


and:



Wow! That is a very specific example you have tasked me with! If I am unable to provide such a specific example does that invalidate my premise that dissenters have routinely been treated as harshly?


and:



No "right of free speech" is recognized despite any document you can point to that you believe applies to you.




Since the assertion is that the Iranians deal savagely with their own dissenters, specifically because of that dissent, and you make the claim of "equally brutal and severe" examples here in the US, what else could it mean?




edit on 2012/2/17 by nenothtu because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 17 2012 @ 08:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by nenothtu

Originally posted by harvib

Is it your really your position that if I spend a few minutes I am not going to be able to find numerous examples of protesters being arrested for things other then "interfering with others". Do you really believe that? Did you do any research before you made such a claim?



Yes. that is my position. Yes, that is what I believe. yes, I researched it, as it was occurring, looking for improprieties. There were some, but not of the nature you suggest.



Sigh...

A lot of these are going to be examples from the "occupy" movement because that is what is current.

Examples of being arrested for "protesting without a permit":


Over 30 sheriff deputies in riot gear arrested 13 Occupy Fresno protesters Sunday at 3 a.m. at the Courthouse Park in downtown Fresno. Protesters were arrested for operating without a permit.
Source



"NYPD told Naomi Wolf that they were going to arrest her for marching in front of Skylight Soho in violation of the event space's SAP permit." And so they arrested her.
Source



Crosby was arrested for protesting without a permit
Source


Example of protesters being arrested for loitering:

Occupy Phoenix protest draws thousands over weekend; dozens arrested for loitering
Source


Example of protesters being arrested for unlawful assembly:

The protesters were arrested on charges of unlawful assembly and failure to disperse, a university spokesman said.
Soure



The school said 10 protesters arrested were given misdemeanor citations for unlawful assembly and failure to disperse.
Source


Example of protester being arrested for obscenity:

On Saturday, October 22, a peaceful demonstration at the corner of Curlew Road and U.S. 19 in Clearwater attracted no less than five squad cars due to the presence of a sign deemed "obscene" by some anonymous motorist that phoned in a complaint. In yet another display of spectacularly heavy-handed police tactics, the protester was arrested instead of merely being asked to put down his sign.
Source


Examples of famous individuals arrested for using their "free speech":

Abbie Hoffman and the Chicago Seven

Ezra Pound

On 25 November he was arraigned in Washington D.C. on charges of treason. The charges included broadcasting for the enemy, attempting to persuade American citizens to undermine government support of the war, and strengthening morale in Italy against the United States...

Pound's lawyer, Julien Cornell – whose efforts to have him declared insane are credited with having saved him from life imprisonment[77]— requested his release at a bail hearing in January 1947. The hospital's superintendent, Winfred Overholser, agreed instead to move him to the more pleasant surroundings of Chestnut Ward, close to Overholser's private quarters, which is where he spent the next 12 years.



posted on Feb, 17 2012 @ 08:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Indigo5
reply to post by hmdphantom
 


LOL...There is irony in the fact that Iranian Propagandists can use American forums to deride our way of life.

It is because our government trusts it's people to decide for themselves what is true in a free market of ideas and opinions. We enshrined this principle in our founding documents.

I pray someday that you might enjoy the same, in the meanwhile please take no offense that I find your propaganda unconvincing and that I have no intention of responding to your baiting.

Again...just to drive my point home...would you like to comment on the Iranian government and thier failings? Any criticisms of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad you would like to offer?

You are unable because (a) you work for the Iranian Government or (b) You would be arrested...or likely both.

Either way your inability to do so discredits everything you have posted.




Absolutely spot on!!!

I have called the OP on this also.

I would like to know,with out deflection,what he feels about this picture.
I know I wont get a REAL response from him though.

She had no problem fighting for her Freedom in Iran.






posted on Feb, 17 2012 @ 10:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by harvib

Sigh...

A lot of these are going to be examples from the "occupy" movement because that is what is current.



Yes, I thought as much. I sort of figured that the Occupy Protests were what you were getting at. Should those protestors learn how to exercise free speech without infringing the rights of others, they will likely not encounter so many difficulties.

It was a lovely listing of arrests, but do you have any to put forth that demonstrate the improprieties you allude to? You know, something that supports the allegations of arrest for exercising free speech?

For what it's worth, I'm not sure why Abbie Hoffman was ever inflicted on society again, and your "example" of the treasonous Ezra Pound - I mean, seriously? that wasn't really the best you could come up with, was it?



posted on Feb, 18 2012 @ 12:44 AM
link   
reply to post by nenothtu
 





Yes, I thought as much. I sort of figured that the Occupy Protests were what you were getting at. Should those protestors learn how to exercise free speech without infringing the rights of others, they will likely not encounter so many difficulties.


Oh wow. This is getting exhausting... I was not "getting at" the occupy movement. What I was "getting at" is a response to your post alleging that protesters in this country get arrested for "interfering with others". I gave you numerous examples to the contrary.

Had the occupy movement not dominated the first 10 pages of every google search I made then examples from the civil rights movements, Vietnam war protest, economic protest, and numerous other examples would have been provided. The bottom line is people are routinely arrested for utilizing free speech.




and your "example" of the treasonous Ezra Pound - I mean, seriously? that wasn't really the best you could come up with, was it?


I am not sure why the Ezra Pound example is not acceptable to you?? You even made this statement:


It was a lovely listing of arrests, but do you have any to put forth that demonstrate the improprieties you allude to? You know, something that supports the allegations of arrest for exercising free speech?


Why doesn't the Ezra Pound example fit this criteria. Do you not understand that the treason he was alleged to have committed was because of his use of "free speech"??

And you seem to have completely ignored the Abbie Hoffman example.

Regardless, I don't think you are open to the possibility that you don't have the freedoms you think you have. And I think any examples or evidence provided will be simply ignored or distorted. Therefore I'll wish you the best of luck.

However if you ever wish to find out the amount of "free speech" you have try voicing a dissenting opinion to a police officer.




posted on Feb, 18 2012 @ 01:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by Ixtab
reply to post by benevolent tyrant
 


You do understand the police routinely brutalise protesters in America right?

You are infact aware of this?, cause that should really be paid attention to when posting videos highlighting another nations treatment of protestors. IRAN WHAT A SURPRISE!

But if I follow your logic correctly, Its ok to do it in America because some other country is doing it to?
edit on 16-2-2012 by Ixtab because: (no reason given)


Are you talking about the occupy wallstreet people? A lot those people instigated the situation so they could victimize themselves to get on t.v. Its all part of the "Look at me generation". Not that I'm making excuses for the cops, there just as bad as some of the rotten protesters.

Before I continue I'll admit I've had a few,been intern and learning a lot things I love and things are on the up and up and decided to celebrate! So I apologize if I come if I come off as crass.

Anyways you're generalization of American and not having any freedoms is just as bad as me coming out and saying that every one in Iran is under a repressive theocratic regime. Because I've never experienced what its like to live in Iran. Even in my young age and my families income(trust me were not rich, I've lived ridiculousness poor, and at best upper middle class) I've gotten to see a lot of this world, even though it really was only a fraction.

And your whole point about how America is being controlled by the media is just dumb. If you're dumb enough to let the Media control you and instead of make an informed decision that on you. Just like I'm sure people in Iran fall into the trap of becoming a zealous Muslim(like in a America you can became a Zeal in X). Then you're not smart enough to make that informed decision in the first place.

I don't know maybe its because I grew up rural with a pair of teachers as parents. I just believe if you're not happy with the world, yourself, or anything. Don't stand at the bottom of the rung and apologize and moan or from the top of your pretend high horse and crap and everything form below. Change it, and even if you failed trying or even died from it. At least you were man enough to reach into the the hard dirt, work it, and set out to grow the sweetest grapes.

To end this drawn out post, peace to you to. Even though we have different opinions hopeful we can be humble enough to learn form each other. Because thats a practice thats truly hard to master.



posted on Feb, 18 2012 @ 04:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by harvib

Oh wow. This is getting exhausting... I was not "getting at" the occupy movement. What I was "getting at" is a response to your post alleging that protesters in this country get arrested for "interfering with others". I gave you numerous examples to the contrary.

Had the occupy movement not dominated the first 10 pages of every google search I made then examples from the civil rights movements, Vietnam war protest, economic protest, and numerous other examples would have been provided. The bottom line is people are routinely arrested for utilizing free speech.


You gave me not a single example of Occupiers being arrested for exercising free speech.





I am not sure why the Ezra Pound example is not acceptable to you?? You even made this statement:


It was a lovely listing of arrests, but do you have any to put forth that demonstrate the improprieties you allude to? You know, something that supports the allegations of arrest for exercising free speech?


Why doesn't the Ezra Pound example fit this criteria. Do you not understand that the treason he was alleged to have committed was because of his use of "free speech"??


No. Pound was indicted for Treason, and arrested for collaborating with the enemy, to wit: Mussolini and the fascists by broadcasting enemy propaganda to Americans during time of war. He was not arrested by Americans, he was arrested by Italians, and turned over to the Americans.




And you seem to have completely ignored the Abbie Hoffman example.


Abbie Hoffman was arrested for conspiracy and incitement to riot, not exercise of free speech. I still don't understand why he was ever inflicted on the American people again afterwards. He incited a riot, the riot occurred, and somehow he managed to skate out of it.



Regardless, I don't think you are open to the possibility that you don't have the freedoms you think you have.


I'm open to the possibility, but have yet, in some 50 odd years, to find a convincing example. Quite the contrary, I have (and still do) exercised my rights for that same amount of time, and not once gotten in a bind for exercising my rights. Not once, and I've gotten pretty extreme upon occasion. Perhaps that's a function of understanding what my rights are, and where they end, and not infringing on the rights of others.



However if you ever wish to find out the amount of "free speech" you have try voicing a dissenting opinion to a police officer.





Wow. You seem to have a flawed understanding of what "free speech" is, what constitutes common sense, and just what the First Amendment covers, all of which are inextricably linked. I did tell a cop one time that he'd piss himself if anyone ever pointed a gun at him after he had finished bragging about all the guns he's had pointed at him. He was full of crap, and I made no bones about making it known he was a liar. Specifically what I said was "I'll bet you've not been a cop for six months, and you would piss all over yourself if half of what you claimed had happened ever came to pass." Yes, I was arrested, but not for calling him out. I was arrested for possession of a firearm, and it was thrown out of court. No problem, no loss of freedom. It wasn't my problem if the cop didn't know the law. The judge explained it to him, rather grouchily, right there in the courtroom.

Rights are not granted. Anything you accept as a grant can also be revoked. Instead, you grab them, you claim them, and you fight for them if necessary as I did that day in the court room, without a lawyer to back me up. They can't be taken away, they can only be given up by failing to exercise them. You grab them, you growl, and you never, ever back down.

Integral to fighting for your rights is knowing them intimately, where they begin and perhaps more importantly, where they end. Otherwise, you've not got a hope in hell of defending them with only BS and bluster, claiming a right was violated that clearly was not.

that will only deliver heartache when you realize how wrong you were.

Your rights end in the same place mine or any one else's do - where the rights of another begin. Perhaps the most succinct way to sum it up is what I was taught in Constitutional Law - your right to swing your arms ends where my nose begins.

Now, here's the deal - the cat in the video gave up his immunity against "harassment" when he started harassing others - not just the cops, but from the sound of it his entire neighborhood. It's the same principle as the inability to claim "self defense" when you start a fight. If you walk into a bar, pick the biggest, ugliest, hairiest guy and pop him dead square in the face, you can't haul out a gun and shoot him when he proceeds to pound you into bug dust. You gave up claims to "self defense" in that situation by instigating the altercation.

Which is a pretty fair analog to what that guy in the video did, even at the same time as he was screaming and disturbing the peace of his neighbors. Multi-tasking - the boy has talent!







edit on 2012/2/18 by nenothtu because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 18 2012 @ 11:11 AM
link   
reply to post by nenothtu
 


And this is how these debates always go...



No. Pound was indicted for Treason, and arrested for collaborating with the enemy, to wit: Mussolini and the fascists by broadcasting enemy propaganda to Americans during time of war. He was not arrested by Americans, he was arrested by Italians, and turned over to the Americans.





Abbie Hoffman was arrested for conspiracy and incitement to riot, not exercise of free speech. I still don't understand why he was ever inflicted on the American people again afterwards. He incited a riot, the riot occurred, and somehow he managed to skate out of it.


I think I see the disconnect. You are looking for an example of someone being charged with "unlawful use of free speech". My freind, there is no so charge. Dissenters who use their "free speech" in unapproved ways are arrested under various charges. i.e protesting without a permit, unlawful assembly, disturbing the peace, attempting to incite a riot or violence, etc.

Ezra Pound was arrested for voicing a radically dissenting view point. He was prosecuted in America and charged with treason.


The charges included broadcasting for the enemy, attempting to persuade American citizens to undermine government support of the war, and strengthening morale in Italy against the United States


Why do you fail to comprehend that these charges are based on his use of "free speech"?? It was what he said that caused these charges and his subsequent incarceration.

Abby Hoffman was found guilty of intent to incite a riot. Do you not see that this "attempt" was done by through his use of "free speech" by voicing a radically dissenting view point???



Quite the contrary, I have (and still do) exercised my rights for that same amount of time, and not once gotten in a bind for exercising my rights.


So we are all waiting on you to have a personal encounter before you accept the plight of others who have been charged, prosecuted, and incarcerated. Because you have not experienced something first hand does not negate it's existence.



Wow. You seem to have a flawed understanding of what "free speech" is, what constitutes common sense, and just what the First Amendment covers, all of which are inextricably linked.


This line of rhetoric is commonly used as way for people to disregard the examples of individuals that are arrested for their use of "free speech".

However it is used by individuals that clearly have little understanding of "rights" and "freedoms". You mention that "free speech" and "common sense" are inextricably linked. How are they linked and by whom? And whose common sense is used to determine how my right to "free speech" is used, because if it is not my common sense that dictates how I use my speech, then it is not my right but the individual or entity that has the ability to impose their common sense.

The common failure to understand this concept derives from the failure to understand what a "right" is.

Just because you agree with the regulations imposed on speech does not mean that speech is "free". It means it is acceptably regulated in regards to you.



Now, here's the deal - the cat in the video gave up his immunity against "harassment" when he started harassing others


I see. So it is your position that when someone doesn't like something that was said to them they have the right to trespass on to that person property and physically restrain and kidnap that individual?

Those cops had every right to yell anything they wanted to to that individual but they did not have a right to stay on his property when asked to leave. They did not have a right to put their hands on that individual or his property, and they certainly did not have the right to kidnap him.









edit on 18-2-2012 by harvib because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 18 2012 @ 08:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by harvib


I think I see the disconnect. You are looking for an example of someone being charged with "unlawful use of free speech". My freind, there is no so charge. Dissenters who use their "free speech" in unapproved ways are arrested under various charges. i.e protesting without a permit, unlawful assembly, disturbing the peace, attempting to incite a riot or violence, etc.


No. I am looking for examples where an individual was charged with a reasonable offense, but charged unreasonably. It could them be argued that the charge was a sham. That is not the case in the cases presented.



Ezra Pound was arrested for voicing a radically dissenting view point. He was prosecuted in America and charged with treason.


The charges included broadcasting for the enemy, attempting to persuade American citizens to undermine government support of the war, and strengthening morale in Italy against the United States


Why do you fail to comprehend that these charges are based on his use of "free speech"?? It was what he said that caused these charges and his subsequent incarceration.


Precisely. What he did was treasonous, and so he was charged reasonably with treason. It was not a simple case of saying "I don't agree with the course the government is taking". It was active support, aid, and comfort to the enemy, against the interests of his own people, and indeed humanity everywhere. Dissent against the government is one thing, active aid and support to the enemy is another thing altogether.



Abby Hoffman was found guilty of intent to incite a riot. Do you not see that this "attempt" was done by through his use of "free speech" by voicing a radically dissenting view point???


The case was overturned, and for the life of me I can't figure out why, but that is what it is. He incited a riot, the riot occurred, damages and injury ensued, and he skated out of it. It's a clear cognate of the "screaming fire in a crowded theater" paradigm. We are free to say what we want, but with freedom comes responsibility for ensuing mayhem predicated on that speech. He said it, no one stopped him, and we got what we got, for which he never paid the price. He successfully escaped his responsibility, causing more people to now expect they can escape theirs, too.




Quite the contrary, I have (and still do) exercised my rights for that same amount of time, and not once gotten in a bind for exercising my rights.


So we are all waiting on you to have a personal encounter before you accept the plight of others who have been charged, prosecuted, and incarcerated. Because you have not experienced something first hand does not negate it's existence.


No. we are waiting on any one, anywhere in the US, to have their freedom of speech infringed upon. There HAVE been cases of such occurring, but not in any of the examples you have given. Even in the case that occurred, no rights were "taken", or the speech would never have occurred in the first place. People HAVE been punished for speaking their mind reasonably, usually in court settings under the ubiquitous "comtempt of court" charge. That in no way prevented them from speaking, it only provided results for the speeches made.




Wow. You seem to have a flawed understanding of what "free speech" is, what constitutes common sense, and just what the First Amendment covers, all of which are inextricably linked.


This line of rhetoric is commonly used as way for people to disregard the examples of individuals that are arrested for their use of "free speech".


Such examples must be provided before they can be disregarded.



However it is used by individuals that clearly have little understanding of "rights" and "freedoms".


That amusesd me. School me on "rights" and "freedoms", then.



You mention that "free speech" and "common sense" are inextricably linked. How are they linked and by whom?


In the same way and by the same agency that leaves and plants are linked. One is completely useless without the other.



And whose common sense is used to determine how my right to "free speech" is used, because if it is not my common sense that dictates how I use my speech, then it is not my right but the individual or entity that has the ability to impose their common sense.


that would be your own common sense employed. If you do not employ it, that is not the problem of society at large. Why would you need someone else to impose their "common sense" on you, and how would that be accomplished?



The common failure to understand this concept derives from the failure to understand what a "right" is.

Just because you agree with the regulations imposed on speech does not mean that speech is "free". It means it is acceptably regulated in regards to you.


So where is your definition of what a "right" is? From this I can only gather that you believe your rights somehow supercede the rights of all others, negating ours. I'm still waiting to be schooled on what a "right" is, and whom you believe are in posession of rights.




Now, here's the deal - the cat in the video gave up his immunity against "harassment" when he started harassing others


I see. So it is your position that when someone doesn't like something that was said to them they have the right to trespass on to that person property and physically restrain and kidnap that individual?


Absolutely. No one may harrass and attempt to intimidate others, disturbing the peace and tranquility of their neighbors, with any expectation of impunity. You cannot start a fight and then run and hide from it under some illiusion that your rights somehow supercede the rights of all others.



Those cops had every right to yell anything they wanted to to that individual but they did not have a right to stay on his property when asked to leave. They did not have a right to put their hands on that individual or his property, and they certainly did not have the right to kidnap him.


No. They did not have the right to "yell anything they wanted". that would have made them just as guilty of disturbing the peace for no good reason. Pissing contests are not an exercise of "rights", they are just useless pissing contests. Once he opened the door to action, they had every right to take that action. He was not "kidnapped", he was arrested for cause. By his impropriety of breaching the peace, he left the door wide open to actions pursuant to the restoration of peace.

The flaw in his judgement was that his rights do NOT superced or negate the rights of anyone else. There are much saner and effective ways of dealing with any impropriety he may have thought he witnessed. Going off like a mad woman slinging crap with a sock is not one of those ways, and is almost always dealt with accordingly.



posted on Feb, 19 2012 @ 02:37 AM
link   
reply to post by nenothtu
 


Ok my friend I give. I think this could go on indefinably. Me providing examples of individuals being arrested for using their "free speech" and then you responding with an explanation on why the example doesn't count i.e lack of common sense, offense being taken, etc. And then requesting that I provide examples of people being arrested for using their "free speech".

I guess your position on what "free speech" constitutes is that you can say what ever you want as long as no one can hear it.

And you ask me to enlighten you on the concept of freedom. I think you should begin by contemplating what constitutes the loss of freedom. And realizing that such a loss is a problem:


I was arrested for possession of a firearm, and it was thrown out of court. No problem,no loss of freedom. It wasn't my problem if the cop didn't know the law.


edit on 19-2-2012 by harvib because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 19 2012 @ 05:26 AM
link   
My country is not where you can find freedom.

But I couldn't find true freedom in the US.

Like I said , dominions raise sheep , then they tell the sheep what to do. Then the sheep are freely choosing what they have been told.

So , I know Iranian sheep and American sheep.

I haven't seen Iranian sheep crying for war and invading and occupying other countries to bring sheepness to the invaded country.

But American sheep always demands war , because the American govt does.

So , as you can see , there is no true freedom anywhere and comparing the sheep world wide , I learn that I should be scared of an American sheep knocking on my door.

 


If you want to determine whether you are sheep or not , ask your self " Is freedom something USA should take to other nations or it is the nations who should demand freedom and move that way ?"

 


I am sorry that there is no better words to express my opinion. Don't get emotional , there are sheep everywhere.



posted on Feb, 19 2012 @ 05:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by KonquestAbySS
reply to post by hmdphantom
 


Well I know our freedom is polluted, but I know what you mean. Basically don't use our polluted freedoms to pollute yours...I know it makes plenty of sense to me, but I don't know how much it makes to others.


I think that people should leave this level of freedom which raises sheep and demand true freedom that avoids sheepness.

There is not much freedom in Iran , but I don't see an illuminati here raising sheep. My dominion was not dictating people what to think or we shouldn't have all protests in such amplitude in Iran.



posted on Feb, 19 2012 @ 05:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by lordlobster
In a two-party nation?

Of course not, it is practically dictatorship.

And they call the other countries that got 100 different political parties to elect from dictatorships lol.

So up-side down livin in one of the so called dictatorship countries and see how USA is run and what they say about us.


SO ,that is what you know , more parties more benefits for people ?

Or

The more parties the more freedom ?

So I tell you my vision , the more parties the more division , the more dominions can keep people cool. The more parties the more confusion and the people further away from analyzing the movements of the shadow government. The more parties , the more time dominions buy to do what they want in their shadow government.

Was that enough ?



posted on Feb, 19 2012 @ 05:59 AM
link   
reply to post by nenothtu
 


hello nenothtu.

great reply.
thank you.



Freedom, on the other hand, is the realization that NO mob, NO ruling class, NO media outlet, NO document, NO mullah or overseer or ruler of any sort bestows or defines the rights you have, and being willing to act accordingly.


I understand what your trying to get . But I have one question. Because human beings want to live in cities and they form societies , so how can we get our rules for that society ?

I think that people are the ones who should decide where to get their rules from. So , are you saying that we have to get our rules from where you get your rules ?

Or are we have to leave religion because you have left religious laws to refer to ?

Isn't that some kind of dictating your opinion on the way you want to get civilized ?

BTW , how should we get our rules of civilization ?



posted on Feb, 19 2012 @ 06:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by sonnny1

Originally posted by Indigo5
reply to post by hmdphantom
 


LOL...There is irony in the fact that Iranian Propagandists can use American forums to deride our way of life.

It is because our government trusts it's people to decide for themselves what is true in a free market of ideas and opinions. We enshrined this principle in our founding documents.

I pray someday that you might enjoy the same, in the meanwhile please take no offense that I find your propaganda unconvincing and that I have no intention of responding to your baiting.

Again...just to drive my point home...would you like to comment on the Iranian government and thier failings? Any criticisms of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad you would like to offer?

You are unable because (a) you work for the Iranian Government or (b) You would be arrested...or likely both.

Either way your inability to do so discredits everything you have posted.




Absolutely spot on!!!

I have called the OP on this also.

I would like to know,with out deflection,what he feels about this picture.
I know I wont get a REAL response from him though.

She had no problem fighting for her Freedom in Iran.







That girl was shot in the crowd and there is no sign who shot her .

It is said that MKO shot her. There were much terrorist groups acting in that period of time. She was a sacrifice for some people's hunger for power.



posted on Feb, 19 2012 @ 06:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by lonewolf19792000
reply to post by hmdphantom
 


As long as we have the right to bear arms we will always be free because we have the largest standing army i the world. Until they take away the second amendment we will always have a measure of "freedom". The day we let them take our guns will be the day we deserve to have the chains of slavery heaped upon us.
edit on 16-2-2012 by lonewolf19792000 because: (no reason given)


You do know we will die one day .

Do you find the army standing for you and answering what you have been doing for supporting war ,in this world ?

I have searched much , but I couldn't find an army answering what I have been doing in this world . maybe you have.
edit on 19/2/12 by hmdphantom because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 19 2012 @ 07:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by harvib

Ok my friend I give. I think this could go on indefinably. Me providing examples of individuals being arrested for using their "free speech" and then you responding with an explanation on why the example doesn't count i.e lack of common sense, offense being taken, etc. And then requesting that I provide examples of people being arrested for using their "free speech".


"Lack of common sense" is not grounds for arrest, either. Failing to exercise it can often lead to arrest for other causes, however, which sometimes follow in the wake of that failure. Common sense dictates that we do not walk off of a cliff, as there will most definitely be results your organism may not like very well. There are, however, proper ways to get down that cliff which will have more agreeable results. The same task is accomplished, but in one case you re alive at the end, and in the other you may not be.

Simply being offended is not grounds for arrest, either. No one has a right not to be offended, because the feeling of being offended is entirely internal and subjective. No one can control the internal reaction of another. I have offended people with some of the most innocuous phrases I have ever uttered. How they emotionally respond to that is all them.



I guess your position on what "free speech" constitutes is that you can say what ever you want as long as no one can hear it.


Not at all. Speech is useless if no one hears it. Why waste the air? My position is that there are ways to get your point across without making the listener tune out and become an ignorer or worse. Communication of ideas is not well served by screaming and spitting. If you would want someone to hear what you have to say, say it in a manner that will make them want to listen.

What good is speaking otherwise?



And you ask me to enlighten you on the concept of freedom. I think you should begin by contemplating what constitutes the loss of freedom. And realizing that such a loss is a problem:


I was arrested for possession of a firearm, and it was thrown out of court. No problem,no loss of freedom. It wasn't my problem if the cop didn't know the law.


I'm sorry. That was entirely lost on me. I lost no freedom. I went down to the station with the nice policeman, signed a paper, walked right back out, and trounced him on my day in court. I'm still just as free, say exactly what I want, when I want, and still have a cart load of weapons. What freedom did I lose there?

It's been nice discussing this with you. Exchange of ideas is what makes the world go 'round - well, that and centripedal force...



posted on Feb, 19 2012 @ 07:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by hmdphantom
reply to post by nenothtu
 


hello nenothtu.

great reply.
thank you.


Greetings! Nice to bump into you again.




I understand what your trying to get . But I have one question. Because human beings want to live in cities and they form societies , so how can we get our rules for that society ?


I may not be the best person to answer that question. I despise cities and city living. they remind me of nothing as much as they do an ant-hill.

There are lots of different ways, but they almost all boil down to doing as you like, as long as it doesn't bring harm to another. Where we run into trouble is trying to make rules and regulations beyond that. The Wiccans have a simple rule that says "if it harms none, do what you will". The Christians have a similar concept when they say "the whole of the law is to love your brother as yourself". Of course if you love someone as you do yourself, you are not going to do things that bring harm to them.

Now, in any society there is going to be a certain segment that just doesn't care who they harm. It happens in ALL societies. This is why laws come about - to provide measures to prevent those people from interfering with the rest of us. It shouldn't be our problem if THEY can't control themselves, so some times they must be controlled. If laws could be held to that, there would be no problem, but rule-makers thing the sole purpose of their existence is to make rules, without which they have no purpose to be, so that is exactly what they do. When they run out of sensible rules, they start making non-sensical ones, because they can.



I think that people are the ones who should decide where to get their rules from. So , are you saying that we have to get our rules from where you get your rules ?


No. I'm against the export of western style law to countries that are unsuited to it, and I'm definitely against "nation building" and spreading "democracy" at the point of a sword. In my mind, that exercise is no different than spreading communism by force, spreading Islam by force, or any other political system by force. Spreading ideology is not the proper purpose of war. If you must use force to convince someone that your way is the right way for them to go, you are not very effective at getting your ideas across, and it just may be that your way is NOT the right way for them to go.



Or are we have to leave religion because you have left religious laws to refer to ?


Again, no. Religious law, to one degree or another, is probably the only law that will be acceptable in Iran, and more so in Afghanistan, Most Islamic countries fall somewhere on that spectrum, some closer to one end than the other. I seriously don't care how Iran handles their internal matters, nor do I care how Korea (either north or south), South Africa, Brazil, Cuba, England, or any other country handles THEIR internal matters. If I don't live there, and they aren't bothering me, why should I have any say in it at all?

Whether Sharia is considered a "regression" or not is a moot point. It's not for me or any other outsider to decide, it's for those who live there to decide. if they're happy with it, I am too - for them.

I'm more concerned with the way countries handle their external relations, since I may have a stake in that. In the matter of Afghanistan, I've said for as long as I've been at ATS that "nation building" is a useless exercise there, and an improper use of the military. I personally believe they should have gone in, erased the Taliban, and got back out, letting Afghans decide how to run Afghanistan, and providing support for them in the way THEY wanted their country to be run - as long as the Taliban was gone. Whether that was as a Warlordship, a Satrapy, a democracy, or entirely tribal makes no difference to me. It's THEIR country, not mine. However, I should insert a caveat that if their new government chose to ally itself with my enemies, it would stand in danger, too - and that tendency for alliance isn't a function of the type of governmental system. ANY system could go that way.

As ar as I'm concerned, wasting time "nation building" just takes resources away from the war effort, and should NEVER be engaged in by any military personnel. Their purpose is to fight and win, not govern.



Isn't that some kind of dictating your opinion on the way you want to get civilized ?


Absolutely. Talk if you can, fight if you must, but NEVER tell them how to live within their own nation. That is neither the job of diplomats or of the military - it's the job of the inhabitants to decide.



BTW , how should we get our rules of civilization ?


As they like within nations, by agreement and consensus between nations.



edit on 2012/2/19 by nenothtu because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
26
<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in

join