Bush fatigue, interrupted

[Mazer]

malvachat, ignoring what sinner and albed have written for a moment, you need to separate theory from practice when you talk about these things. Theoretically the federal government has the ability, under the 16th Amendment of the Constitution, to tax up to 100% of our income and turn the United States into a socialist welfare state. But that hasn't happened and nobody would stand for it if it did. It's the same with the 1st Amendment. Under special circumstances the government can limit free speech, and if they had the ability to define those circumstances (which they don't) they might limit it entirely. But even if they could put an end to our free speech it wouldn't mean they had. I present this post as evidence; if you're reading this then it means I haven't been censored.

None the less, to be fired from one's job for one's words is not the same as censorship. My boss probably wouldn't fire me for my opinions, but even if he did he still couldn't stop me from expressing them. You see, we're not really talking about freedom of speech here, we're talking about actions and consequences. If we never wanted our opinions to have consequences then we would never express them, would we?

If people never faced any consequences for the things they said then they'd lose interest in saying anything meaningful. Take albed for example. He gets away with calling people names and calling them liars in this forum, and as a result he posts a lot but he doesn't really say much. His inconsequential insults are the background noise of this forum, and the precious few points he does make go unnoticed. If he made an effort to censor himself I think he could contribute a lot to this forum.

What I'm trying to say is that you shouldn't be surprised when the things you say come back around and hurt you. The 1st Amendment does exactly what it says, preventing congress from making laws that abridge our freedom of speech. Consequence is not abridgment so the Constitution doesn't protect us from the consequences of our words and it shouldn't.

[theknife]

Originally Posted by Mazer

If people never faced any consequences for the things they said then they'd lose interest in saying anything meaningful. Take albed for example. He gets away with calling people names and calling them liars in this forum, and as a result he posts a lot but he doesn't really say much. His inconsequential insults are the background noise of this forum, and the precious few points he does make go unnoticed. If he made an effort to censor himself I think he could contribute a lot to this forum.

perhaps he could teach us all how to be more manly and less disgusting.

[albed]

Probably too late for that. Once alcohol and drugs do their damage; or brainwashing by religious fanatics; there's little chance I can reorganize those damaged brain cells so you respect the truth.

[malvachat]

I can see where your coming from Mazer.
What I've picked out is.

"You see, we're not really talking about freedom of speech here, we're talking about actions and consequences"

"The 1st Amendment does exactly what it says, preventing congress from making laws that abridge our freedom of speech. Consequence is not abridgment so the Constitution doesn't protect us from the consequences of our words and it shouldn't"

I suppose it's the consequences that happen to restrict your free speech.To me that's the same.This price to pay thing.
I fully understand there has to be limits.

Now sinner said this
"But when it comes to criticizing government and government officials,free and open discussion should be allowed without fear of retribution"

And he says

"Yes I do. Cindy Sheehan, Mike Moore, John Stewart, Al Franken, Bill Maher, etc etc etc

Have not all these people been personally attacked.
Not the issue they have raised?
Are they not tarred with a brush as being "far left nut jobs"?
This happens the other way round as well of course.
Neo cons comes to mind.
Shoot the messenger sort of thing is what I find so wrong in a so called free society.It happens here in the UK as well.

"Theoretically the federal government has the ability, under the 16th Amendment of the Constitution, to tax up to 100% of our income"

I'm a bit puzzled about this one.
It stands to reason I'm not a student of the constitution,but I watched this a while ago and wondered about this tax thing.

http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?...arch&plindex=0

Now,as to

"ignoring what sinner and albed have written for a moment"

Sinner I don't mind at all,sometimes he say daft things.but mostly he answers from his point of view without the silly name calling.
For example
Daft thing to say.
"Don’t care about international law"
Answers from his point of view
"the USA is far far from becoming a Fascist State"
What I said was they're "going down the road to a fascist state"
Albed can sometimes can say some sensible thing,I have even agreed with him on a couple of occasions(I know shame on me)But the silly chat is like listening to a child in a school yard.So to tell me to become a man is so silly.
But now I know he's a brain surgeon I'll see him differently.

"I can reorganize those damaged brain cells"
Do you get medals for doing that as well?

[albed]

That sort of thing is beyond current neurosurgery. What I was thinking was a shock inducing device to be actuated whenever you lie or act like a scumbag. Such devices are commonly used on dogs to modify their behaviour and there was even a drug rehab center using them on clients, which got some protest from the liberal media.

Enough negative stimulus will cause the brain to reorganize neuron pathways to avoid the pain, at least for somewhat normal brains. Maybe we can break your harmful beer addiction and you'll be able to think clearly like an unimpaired person.

[Mazer]

Originally Posted by malvachat

Now sinner said this
"But when it comes to criticizing government and government officials,free and open discussion should be allowed without fear of retribution"

And he says

"Yes I do. Cindy Sheehan, Mike Moore, John Stewart, Al Franken, Bill Maher, etc etc etc

Have not all these people been personally attacked.
Not the issue they have raised?
Are they not tarred with a brush as being "far left nut jobs"?

Well, the government is not the source of those personal attacks. For the most part those individuals have been wholly ignored by the government. It is the public and members of the press who have slung mud at them, and the 1st amendment also protects mudslinging, within limits. If our government made it so we never faced any criticism, it would have to abridge our critics' freedom of speech to do so.