A political statement.Follow

yeah, too bad it's not that easy to shut the asshats up.

For the time being we are entitled to free speech and opinion. If you don't like what the current regime is doing you are free to say so, for now. Even if you voted for the current person, if you disagree with him you are free to do so. What exactly would you recommend a forum poster do as to your "doing something about it"

Edited, Tue Jul 13 18:34:13 2004 by CrimsonMagician

Nobody was speaking out against Democracy. It was a political cartoon against the war in Iraq.

http://www.cpusa.org/

There it is, though I'm probably flagged by the NSA now. Thanks alot.

yes it ******* does

I wasn't arguing that they will win, nobody was, i think aires needs to think about what free speech is. Who are you to decide that someone elses political view is not as valid as your own and ban them for running.

Sorry Dracoid, I'm unsure of how to word this thought... Let me try. It may be a guaranteed right that's granted by government. The right to have any political party we want active in the community is/was pretty guaranteed. However just because we have this right doesn't mean that they let us get it started. Thats not as clear as I'd like it to be, but I'm struggling to phrase it in just the right way. While free speech *should* ideally cover this it doesn't, no more than it covers my right to express myself with graphic nude photos. (Pornography has traditionally been under the Freedom of Speechs jurisdiction.) It depends on who interprets the "Right" itself, one party says one thing, while the other says another.

Can you please tell me the difference between them saying we have the right to do it, and them letting us do it, isn't that the same thing.



i'm all for it, i think you can't say the public can have free speech but then say that they shouldn't be allowed to oppose your'e leadership of the country.

editted to add:



let the grown-ups talk a second deano, i'm sure he/she/it will get back to you when we're done.

Edited, Tue Jul 13 19:22:22 2004 by Dracoid

I think what Aries is trying to say is that things like "Hate Speech" regulations may prevent parties such as that Aryan Nation one from taking action.

Of course we don't have unconditional freedom of speech, and that's a good thing. But the US probably has the least restrictions on FOS of any civilized nation. (I'm sure someone will link to a better one).

Ok, say you have kids. Now say the kid wants to go cliff diving. There's a few ways to get around this if you don't want them to do it. You can say no. But then appear dictatorial. You can say yes and deal with it. But then you let yourself down. Now theres a few other ways, you could tell them, sure, if Joey can go with you. But you know Joey down the street is busy. There are variations of the 3rd, but basically you have consented saying yes, you can, at the same time knowing full well they can't.

This is basically what has happened here with communism/national socialism/any other party that isn't wholly democratic. What you have is, yes, you can form the party, no you wont get any support for us or anyone else. After the McCarthy trials how many americans would sign the petitions needed to get on ballots? Even now the echos from those trials still ring. Corporations still shy from anything that is considered to be even remotely "Un-American." My Great-Grandmother, her Dauther, and my mother all have a strange hatred for communism. They can't even define the word to its most basic meaning. So in the end we have biased based off the witch trials of Washington.

Rather than opening it up for a third, or fourth party and supporting the influx that would bring our stale two party system they have banned anyone from entering the game that won't wear a donkey or an elephant.

Edited to add:



Thank you Tricky, thats what I was trying to say. Or close enough to it. :)

Edited, Tue Jul 13 19:31:56 2004 by AriesGhost

crimson, i wasn't disagreeing with you that we should have free speech, you said we did, and i said we don't.

I think trickybeck has hit the button here, when i say free speech i mean unconditional free speech, but conditional free speech would basically mean " you can say whatever you like, as long as its none of these things...", thats not free speech, and don't tell me unconditional free speech is a bad thing, its a matter of opinion, the aryan nation party should be allowed to run if you want a real democracy. The so called "democracies" of the world are making sure that democracy stay sin place and silencing people who want to change it, it's a matter of time before they are overthrown.

you can't compare communism or the **** party to throwing yourself off a cliff, your'e saying they are bad things, and they shouldn't be allowed, and in the democratic society you think you live in, i have as much a say as you do, so you can't tell me that they are wrong.

yes it does, we are disagreeing, thats what i said, but we are not disagreeing on wether we SHOULD have free speech, we a disagreeing on wether we HAVE free speach now.



You did what aries did, your'e saying that being a **** openly is as bad as showing **** to children, and in the democratic society you think you live in, i have as much a say as you do, so you can't tell me that they are wrong.