Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: tejek who wrote (170095)	5/29/2003 2:39:59 PM
From: i-node	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1583406

Tim, I really appreciate your logic and willingness to remain open in these discussions but if you think that all criticism of someone else's comments is a reasonable exercise of free speech, then I think you are misleading yourself. Let's this get this straight. A can criticize B, and it is "freedom of speech". But if C criticizes B, it is not freedom of speech, but rather, "unfair intimidation" of B. You poor thing.

To: tejek who wrote (170095)	5/29/2003 3:15:37 PM
From: Alighieri	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 1583406

This man should be indicted along with the rest of the criminals in this administration. US choice of disarmament to justify Iraq was political: Wolfowitz 10 minutes ago Add Politics - AFP to My Yahoo! WASHINGTON (AFP) - The US decision to focus on Iraqi disarmament as the motive for war was made for "bureaucratic reasons," Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz said in an interview. AFP/File Photo Wolfowitz admitted to the magazine Vanity Fair that the weapons of mass destruction issue was never the United States' prime reason for launching a war on Iraq (news - web sites) to overturn the regime of Saddam Hussein (news - web sites). "For bureaucratic reasons, we settled on one issue, weapons of mass destruction, because it was the one reason everyone could agree on," Wolfowitz said in the interview. Another reason for the war, which slipped by "almost unnoticed, but huge" was that the Iraq war would allow a withdrawal of US troops from Saudi Arabia. The presence of US troops there has been one of the main bones of contention for the terrorist network al-Qaeda, the official said. "Just lifting that burden from the Saudis is itself going to open the door" to a more peaceful Middle East, Wolfowitz said. Seven weeks after the Iraq war ended, no weapons of mass destruction have been found, nor evidence linking the Saddam regime with al-Qaeda -- two of the main reasons given publicly by Washington and London for launching the war. Wolfowitz's comments illustrate the desire of US President George W. Bush (news - web sites) and his administration to play down the issue of weapons of mass destruction -- while nonetheless insisting that finding those weapons in Iraq is still a priority. On Tuesday, US Defense Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld said it was possible the Iraqis may have decided to destroy any such weapons before the conflict started.

To: tejek who wrote (170095)	5/29/2003 3:26:59 PM
From: TimF	Respond to of 1583406

Tim, I really appreciate your logic and willingness to remain open in these discussions but if you think that all criticism of someone else's comments is a reasonable exercise of free speech, then I think you are misleading yourself. I don't see how it could be anything else. Your free to criticize something Rumsfeld said, I'm free to criticize your criticism, the Al can criticize my comments without any of us running afoul of the law or infringing on each other's freedom of speech. Not allowing any of us to make the criticism would be an infringement on our freedom of speech. In Iraq when the gov't first fell, there usually would be someone in a crowd willing to speak out against Saddam. However, no sooner had he had voiced his criticism, then some one else would rail vigorously against the first person's comments. It was no surprise that the first person shout up very quickly. Behind the second person's response was thinly veiled threat. This happened time after time after time. In most cases its not even a thickly veiled threat let alone a thinly veiled one. Even if it vulgar and crass that doesn't make it a threat. And if it is a threat on the order of "I won't buy your CDs if you talk like that", then it isn't a threat that should be a matter of public policy, nor is it a restriction on free speech. People have a right to say what they want and other people have the right to not associate with them if they don't like what they hear. I felt a great deal of intimidation saying what I wanted to say for a period of nearly a year after 9/11. It became fairly ugly on this thread and in other arenas during that time. How can anyone on this thread intimidate you? They can put you on ignore, or perhaps ban you from another thread, but this thread is unmoderated and if they ignore you why do you care? They could respond in a vulgar crass way but then you can put them on ignore, or otherwise blow them off. If you received actual threats (i.e. "I'm going to look you up and kick your ass") then they where probably just blowing hot air but even if they don't it would be the threat not criticism that is the problem. not just financial ones but that their lives and the lives of their families were in danger. If someone sent them a threat that goes beyond criticism. Also I still wouldn't call it censorship but its closer to that then mere criticisms or boycotts. Condemning someone else's behavior may be an example of freedom of speech. However, its intent is to restrict another person's freedoms. I don't think it is. If I say X (either an action or a statement) is awful and you shouldn't do it, I'm trying to convince you not to do it, or just expressing my distaste. I'm not trying to make you unable to do it, and I have no power to prevent you from doing/saying it. Conservatives are in a position of power that we have not seen for nearly 100 years. FDR had a lot more power, other liberals have had more power in the last 100 years. Or do you mean that conservatives have not had this much power? They at least came close with Reagan, and in any case why is it just liberals that get to have power? They are in the position of passing new laws that could well lead to major changes in our lives. Many of them share the views expressed by this author. To those of us who are not conservatives, its not inconceivable that new laws could be passed placing restrictions on some of our freedoms. Liberals have been passing new laws that change our lives and restrict our freedom for a long time. Very few conservatives share the views of that author (that we should have restrictions on how much we can criticize or demonstrate again the government. Its for that reason your quibbling over fine points sounds a bit irresponsible to me and beside the point About the only point that could reasonably be considered quibbling was the nationalism vs. patriotism point. You may be right but you certainly can not guarantee it. I can't guarantee that little green men from Altair won't come down tomorrow and kill us all, but some fears are reasonable and some are not. The threat to freedom of speech is probably more likely then the threat of an Altairian invasion but to the extent that it is more from the left then the right, and except on college campuses it has mostly been contained. Anyone proposing general government censorship would get attacked from all sides. There is little support for implementing an idea like that. That doesn't mean that you shouldn't keep a watchful vigilance but it does mean there is no reason to sound the alarm about conservatives imposing censorship on the country at this time. Then why do you think these comparisons are being made? Because the people making them don't like conservatives, want to attack them, and want to get political advantages from the feat that the comparisons might generate. This all consuming hate of all things French is very overdone and unnecessary. There are many of us who don't particularly like the French and don't always agree with their politics, but don't feel its necessary to bash everything French or to even boycott their products. Hey we agree on something. :) I think "Freedom Fries" is weird, and boycotting their products is a bad idea. However I don't really think its a danger to our freedom. We didn't want Hitler to take over Europe AND us. Hitler never had a real chance to do that. He lost the Battle of Britain. We could have had a cold war against a dangerous Nazi regime. Maybe later there could have been a nuclear war (but we lived with that danger anyway). I don't agree........I think it was nationalism and arrogance that shaped him and brought the hate to the surface. Well then we are just going to have to disagree on this. There are lots of nationalists and patriots, few of them ever had so much hatred and almost none of them were responsible for the deaths of millions. What was special about Hitler was that he combined the hate, with charisma and ambition and lived in a time and place where that combination could be deadly. Then what do you call it? You think we are preying on Iraq and Afghanistan?!? I think liberate is a good positive term, or you could just say invade or occupy, but prey implies that we are destroying them for our own selfish benefit. In fact we have liberated them and we are not stealing their resources but rather pouring billions of dollars of our own to help them out. Again.....if your reasoning above is correct, then why the comparisons? And before you answer, its more than partisan gamesmanship. I can't answer for specific people making the claims, any specific person could have any reason, but in general I think it is mostly partisan gamesmanship and most of what isn't for partisan advantage is based on emotion rather then reason. Tim