NationStates Jolt Archive

There is a group on myspace now called Fuck Our Troops. There has been a petition set electronically. This will end tomorrow. Anyway it has over 300 replies, I was number 313, that we're going to petition to Tom, the creator of Myspace, to remove the group. I mean, even if I don't support the war I'll still support the troops. I really hope we're able to put a stop to them. That's just my opinion, what do you guys think?

There is a group on myspace now called Fuck Our Troops. There has been a petition set out and electronically. This will end tomorrow. Anyway it has over 300 replies, I was number 313, that we're going to petition to Tom, the creator of Myspace, to remove the group. I mean, even if I don't support the war I'll still support the troops. I really hope we're able to put a stop to them. That's just my opinion, what do you guys think?

Where do I sign?

I'm pro war, pro troops, pro Iraqi...If you've been on NS long enough you know my rants.

I have a whole lot of four letter words I'd like to spew out at those ornery little cusses but I'll hold my tongue.

hold on, it's on a bulletin so I'll give you a link

Uh-oh, someone on myspace violated the PC POLICE!

Its called freedom of speech, even freedom to say politically incorrect things like "fuck the troops" or "fuck the sand monkeys."

doesn't mean I can't petition against them

Where do I sign?

I'm pro war, pro troops, pro Iraqi...If you've been on NS long enough you know my rants.

I have a whole lot of four letter words I'd like to spew out at those ornery little cusses but I'll hold my tongue.

alright are you ready for the link

Uh-oh, someone on myspace violated the PC POLICE!

Its called freedom of speech, even freedom to say politically incorrect things like "fuck the troops" or "fuck the sand monkeys."
As much as I hate to say this, I completely agree with you. Freedom of speech means freedom of ALL speech, even if it's as despicable, hypocritical and selfish as that group.

And this is coming from someone who is joining the Marines in 1 year.

Also, I am for the war (I think we should bring the draft back and send like 1 million guys in there), I am for the brave men and women serving in Iraq, and I was also for the invasion, although I was 13 at the time and probably didn't understand the full political implications of what Shrubby was getting us into.

Uh-oh, someone on myspace violated the PC POLICE!

Its called freedom of speech, even freedom to say politically incorrect things like "fuck the troops" or "fuck the sand monkeys."

They can say whatever they want, and they have a RIGHT TO.

But that doesn't mean we will sit back and have our sensibilites violated. We have a RIGHT to do something about it too ;)

I'm exercising that right

Myspace is full of support and hate groups alike; there are hitler-loving pages, God-hating pages, race-hating pages, president-hating pages, and God-haters-hating pages. They're going to have to let the troop-hating pages stand unless they want to remove all the others on the same basis, I guess.

Fuck Our Troops is a pretty lame idea for a group, but whatever- the kinds of people who participate in those kinds of things are also those who keep tissues and vaseline stashed behind their monitors.

Consequently, I don't care what they do.

Show me a link to the myspace groups site, these guys sound like shitbags.

They can say whatever they want, and they have a RIGHT TO.

But that doesn't mean we will sit back and have our sensibilites violated. We have a RIGHT to do something about it too ;)

I'm exercising that right
I'm a little confused over here. So, they do have the right to hate our soldiers, but they don't?

It's a goddam myspace. Who the fuck cares? I love it how people get worked up over random crap on the internet.

No one cares about online petitions either.

Indeed, just pointing out that whats basically at stake here is "i'm offended," the same reasoning which informs other PC-crusades.

There is a group on myspace now called Fuck Our Troops. There has been a petition set electronically. This will end tomorrow. Anyway it has over 300 replies, I was number 313, that we're going to petition to Tom, the creator of Myspace, to remove the group. I mean, even if I don't support the war I'll still support the troops. I really hope we're able to put a stop to them. That's just my opinion, what do you guys think?

Pardon the expression, but I would like to fuck our troops. At least the good-looking ones. :D

Are we sure this isn't a gay webpage? Cause it might be a compliment.


Edit: UCK! Beat me by one minute!

Uh-oh, someone on myspace violated the PC POLICE!

Its called freedom of speech, even freedom to say politically incorrect things like "fuck the troops" or "fuck the sand monkeys."
Agreed go figure that one of the biggest groups to tear down and label everything too “PC” all the sudden are up in arms when their pet group has people that don’t like it.

Don’t get me wrong I find that group detestable but still find it funny all the right wingers that are pushing their own PC agenda

There is a group on myspace now called Fuck Our Troops. There has been a petition set electronically. This will end tomorrow. Anyway it has over 300 replies, I was number 313, that we're going to petition to Tom, the creator of Myspace, to remove the group. I mean, even if I don't support the war I'll still support the troops. I really hope we're able to put a stop to them. That's just my opinion, what do you guys think?
I had to stop and really think about this before I responded. My immediate, gut reaction was to say, "Hell yeah, I'll sign!" Then I thought, "Wait a minute. What is it for which we fight if not freedom to speak your mind?"

So, as with many other issues I've had to confront on a rather personal level, I was conflicted. I thought about how the abuse ( yes, I said "abuse" ) of soldiers returning from Vietnam had deeply offended me, and still rankles. And I thought about those who died there never really knowing what it was they were fighting for.

But ... I really do believe in the freedom to speak your mind. So ... I can't sign this petition. If someone feels that our soldiers need to be fucked over ... again, it's their right to say so, especially since so many gave their lives to guarantee it. In a way, it's actually a tribute to my brothers and sisters ... in a way.

I had to stop and really think about this before I responded. My immediate, gut reaction was to say, "Hell yeah, I'll sign!" Then I thought, "Wait a minute. What is it for which we fight if not freedom to speak your mind?"

So, as with many other issues I've had to confront on a rather personal level, I was conflicted. I thought about how the abuse ( yes, I said "abuse" ) of soldiers returning from Vietnam had deeply offended me, and still rankles. And I thought about those who died there never really knowing what it was they were fighting for.

But ... I really do believe in the freedom to speak your mind. So ... I can't sign this petition. If someone feels that our soldiers need to be fucked over ... again, it's their right to say so, especially since so many gave their lives to guarantee it. In a way, it's actually a tribute to my brothers and sisters ... in a way.
I feel the same way, although I've never served in the military(yet).

Thank you for your service. It means a lot to me.

Are we sure this isn't a gay webpage? Cause it might be a compliment.


Edit: UCK! Beat me by one minute!

:D

I would care... but it's myspace, so they are probably do nothing losers anyways.

I would care... but it's myspace, so they are probably do nothing losers anyways.
Glad to see someone else has come to the conclusion that MYSpace is for losers.

There is a group on myspace now called Fuck Our Troops

no there isn't

got a couple called "fuck the troops", but i don't see any "ours" around. can't you people do even basic fact checking?

no there isn't

got a couple called "fuck the troops", but i don't see any "ours" around. can't you people do even basic fact checking?

I knew it was too good to be true... *puts his pants back on*

Pardon the expression, but I would like to fuck our troops. At least the good-looking ones. :D

they've got at least 3 groups for that too

no there isn't

got a couple called "fuck the troops", but i don't see any "ours" around. can't you people do even basic fact checking?

I'm sorry I got one word wrong

Glad to see someone else has come to the conclusion that MYSpace is for losers.

it's an easy way for me to talk to some of my friends and maybe make new ones, possibly, not likely, ok very seldomly

Agreed go figure that one of the biggest groups to tear down and label everything too “PC” all the sudden are up in arms when their pet group has people that don’t like it.

and of course, what some of them did next was form groups called things like "DEATH TO THE MEMBERS OF 'FUCK THE TROOPS GROUP'"

now where have we seen this sort of reaction to finding something insulting before? it seems so familiar...

I'm sorry I got one word wrong

I trusted you Baked squirrels. Now you have lost all credibility.

Petitioning against a petition? Where does it stop...? And besides, let them have their say however much you disagree with it, it doesn't change the situation in Iraq in any way, shape, or form.

Uh-oh, someone on myspace violated the PC POLICE!

Its called freedom of speech, even freedom to say politically incorrect things like "fuck the troops" or "fuck the sand monkeys."
Exactly.

I trusted you Baked squirrels. Now you have lost all credibility.

but I.....it was an easy mistake.......

An online petition is like throwing a rock at a tank.

<irony>
Let's petition to have it taken down.
If that fails, let's write to our congressmen, demanding a law
If that fails, write to the papers and do an email campaign
If the papers won't bite, one of us should hunt them down and kill them
Then the world will pay attention!
We must make sure that no-one in the whole world is unaware of this group
</irony>

Oh, why am I bothering? Eut has spoken.

An online petition is like throwing a rock at a tank.

*guy pops his head out of the tank, rock hits his head and he falls out*

*guy pops his head out of the tank, rock hits his head and he falls out*

Wasn't he wearing his helmet?

*it was a big rock*
reminds me of Patton

Regardles how big the rock was, if it was heavy, the guy wouldn't have been able to hurl it, thus having the rock fall slowly. Also, have you seen tanker helmets? They're really big. So even if the rock was thrown at such a force, it would still do minimal damage, if anything to the chap who stuck his head out of the tank.

Regardles how big the rock was, if it was heavy, the guy wouldn't have been able to hurl it, thus having the rock fall slowly. Also, have you seen tanker helmets? They're really big. So even if the rock was thrown at such a force, it would still do minimal damage, if anything to the chap who stuck his head out of the tank.

What if the rock bounced off the helmet and struck the tanker in the nuts? The tanker dude would hurl chunks on the gunner and make him accidently fire the round into the ammo dump thus destroying the tank and thus proving that online petitions are capable of changing the world through the power of lame analogies.

I am sorry but I will deny the liberty of sombody to form a group called "fuck our troops" any day of the week. Seems like we are now getting back to the old vietnam mentality of throwing rocks and piss balloons at combat veterans. Back then , in the early years of Vietnam it was ....oh we oppose the war but support the troops. The Conservatives knew that it was total shit. Soon, by 68' or so....3 years in, the anti-war left realized that it was the "troops" who were committing all of the "evils" that they were rallying against. Now, 3 years into Iraq, we can already see that complete support for the troops witnessed just 2 short years ago evaporating. Bottom line, the chocie is clear, the best way to support the troops is to support the mission for which they are putting their lives on the line, to bring peace and order to Iraq. If you cannot do that, you belong in that myspace group. It is a disgraceful thing.

I am sorry but I will deny the liberty of sombody to form a group called "fuck our troops" any day of the week.

which is precisely why any talk of 'freedom' from people like you is called for the bullshit it obviously is

which is precisely why any talk of 'freedom' from people like you is called for the bullshit it obviously is

No, hatespeech directed at American soldiers in a time of war is treason. It comforts the enemy on purpose. Freedom means nothing without our brave soldiers. " It has been said truthfully that it is the soldier, not the reporter, who has given us the freedom of the press. It is the soldier, not the poet who has given us the freedom of speech. It is the soldier, not the agitator, who has given us the freedom to protest."

Anybody who betrays that soldier and aids his enemy should be punished accordingly.

No, hatespeech directed at American soldiers in a time of war is treason.

no it isn't. and what hate speech are you talking about anyway?

no it isn't. and what hate speech are you talking about anyway?

The entire point of the group is to say that you do not care what happens to our soldiers (fuck em'). Think about what an allie of al-queda and the Iraq insrurgency that makes the members. It is a direct assault on the patriotic men and women who are risking their lives over seas and is highly offensive. That is why "myspace" should destroy it.

The entire point of the group is to say that you do not care what happens to our soldiers (fuck em'). Think about what an allie of al-queda and the Iraq insrurgency that makes the members. It is a direct assault on the patriotic men and women who are risking their lives over seas and is highly offensive. That is why "myspace" should destroy it.

hilarious. are you sure you aren't a parody?

hilarious. are you sure you aren't a parody?

Eh. I think he's a semi-sentient computer program.

Glad to see someone else has come to the conclusion that MYSpace is for losers
I think many people came to the conclusion the Myspace sucks. Including me.

hilarious. are you sure you aren't a parody?
Your name is an oxymoron. Your posts lack specifics and are not very pithy. Sounds like a parody to me. Not a funny one either. I am thinking recent SNL.

The entire point of the group is to say that you do not care what happens to our soldiers (fuck em'). Think about what an allie of al-queda and the Iraq insrurgency that makes the members.

Yes, I'm sure Osama Bin Laden is hearted by the support he gets on MySpace. It is most assuredly one of the bedrocks upon which his soul rests, granting him the strength to pursue his terrorist objectives.

Eh. I think he's a semi-sentient computer program.

As opposed to you who is non-sentient and cannot dream of performing the operations per second of a computer...even an old IBM. You know, the kind with a print button on the keyboard.

Yes, I'm sure Osama Bin Laden is hearted by the support he gets on MySpace. It is most assuredly one of the bedrocks upon which his soul rests, granting him the strength to pursue his terrorist objectives.

Whether a specific terrorist sees it is besides the point. Making treasonous statements in a time of war does not require that the enemy hear it. I wish we could go back to the days of Palmer raids. But that is the history lover in me speaking.

As opposed to you who is non-sentient and cannot dream of performing the operations per second of a computer...even an old IBM. You know, the kind with a print button on the keyboard.

Yeah, and yet the world still hasn't been taken over by computers. Yanno why? First, they don't seem to know what sentient means. Secondly, they can't understand those complex operations, they just do them.

Your name is an oxymoron.

His name is the only decent way of organizing a society.

His name is the only decent way of organizing a society.
Stalin plus freeom equals oxymoron. Sorry. No way around it. I guess, in the fantasy land in which that works, we could bad mouth the soldiers in harms way all day long and never face a consequence.

Whether a specific terrorist sees it is besides the point.

I agree. More relevant is whether said specific terrorist cares. The answer to which is, "most certainly not."

Making treasonous statements in a time of war does not require that the enemy hear it.

So what does it require, then?

I wish we could go back to the days of Palmer raids. But that is the history lover in me speaking.

What "freedom" are you interested in protecting again?

Stalin plus freeom equals oxymoron. Sorry. No way around it.

Obviously, you have no idea what he is referencing, because it has absolutely nothing to do with Stalin.

Yes, I'm sure Osama Bin Laden is hearted by the support he gets on MySpace. It is most assuredly one of the bedrocks upon which his soul rests, granting him the strength to pursue his terrorist objectives.

additionally, he's been training his followers in the art of war via internet flaming - it turns out that writing the words 'fuck the troops' on a message board somewhere has a higher kill rate against u.s. soldiers than blowing them up with homemade bombs.

we can only pray that they never launch a coordinated e-ttack against dear leader. our country wouldn't survive the blow.

Your name is an oxymoron. Your posts lack specifics and are not very pithy. Sounds like a parody to me. Not a funny one either. I am thinking recent SNL.

Brave words coming from someone naming his nation after an uberconservative whose presidential ambitions literally went up in a mushroom cloud.

And watching your attempts at Orwellian double standards for Freedom of Speech just made me think of this:

http://www.kirktoons.com/busheviks/busheviks.html

"Freedom of the Press: The due reward for all who responsibly report the virtues of Our Glorious Leader."

"Rugged Individualism is Strongest When We Obey."

Those two sound just a lot like you.

I agree. More relevant is whether said specific terrorist cares. The answer to which is, "most certainly not."

No, not at all.

So what does it require, then?
Treason requires that you either aid or comfort the enemy with the intent to harm the defense of the United States. An organized group in the public domain who wants to see the troops "fuck"ed is comforting the enemy by removing our ability to defend ourselves from those who we are fighting.

What "freedom" are you interested in protecting again?


I am for protecting the freedoms found in the Constitution of the United States.

additionally, he's been training his followers in the art of war via internet flaming - it turns out that writing the words 'fuck the troops' on a message board somewhere has a higher kill rate against u.s. soldiers than blowing them up with homemade bombs.

we can only pray that they never launch a coordinated e-ttack against dear leader. our country wouldn't survive the blow.

Indeed. In defense against this imminent threat, we need to ban all posts on the Internet that question the divinely-granted wisdom of our great and flawless Commander-in-Chief, George W. Bush.

We must stand strong in the War on Terror, and we cannot wait for the smoking gun that may end up being a deviously treasonous and highly lethal post on MySpace.

additionally, he's been training his followers in the art of war via internet flaming - it turns out that writing the words 'fuck the troops' on a message board somewhere has a higher kill rate against u.s. soldiers than blowing them up with homemade bombs.

we can only pray that they never launch a coordinated e-ttack against dear leader. our country wouldn't survive the blow.

Treason does not require that one soldier be killed. It requires sombody saying anything that gives our enemies comfort with the purpose of hindering our defense. Organizing a group who's only stand is that they want to see our troops get "fuck"ed.....as in done in.....is committing treason. Your semi-humorous sarcasm has nothing to do with the topic at hand. Nothing relavent...at least.

Brave words coming from someone naming his nation after an uberconservative whose presidential ambitions literally went up in a mushroom cloud.
Barry Goldwater lost when a liberal defamed him with an ad that was ironic at best. Look who ended up fucking us over ...(*johnson*
And watching your attempts at Orwellian double standards for Freedom of Speech just made me think of this:

http://www.kirktoons.com/busheviks/busheviks.html
I will not watch your children's cartoon. I sleep in on saturday's now.
"Freedom of the Press: The due reward for all who responsibly report the virtues of Our Glorious Leader."

"Rugged Individualism is Strongest When We Obey."

Those two sound just a lot like you.

You can criticize the President and the tactics of the war. Rugged individualism is the soul of America. That does not give you the right to commit treason or defame people like me. ;)

First of all - could you please reply in your actual post, not in the quote boxes? Your present strategy makes constructing a reply to your post excessively annoying and needlessly difficult.

Treason requires that you either aid or comfort the enemy with the intent to harm the defense of the United States.

They are neither aiding nor comforting the enemy, and you have no evidence whatsoever that they intend to harm the defense of the US.

An organized group in the public domain who wants to see the troops "fuck"ed is comforting the enemy by removing our ability to defend ourselves from those who we are fighting.

Leaving aside the question as to whether the current involvement in Iraq has the slightest to do with the "defense of the US," how, exactly, are they removing the capability of the US military to fight in Iraq?

I am for protecting the freedoms found in the Constitution of the United States.

Except when they apply to radicals?

Indeed. In defense against this imminent threat, we need to ban all posts on the Internet that question the divinely-granted wisdom of our great and flawless Commander-in-Chief, George W. Bush.

We must stand strong in the War on Terror, and we cannot wait for the smoking gun that may end up being a deviously treasonous and highly lethal post on MySpace.

Again, your semi-witty attempts at sarcasm are very misleading and besides the point. You can criticize the President. I do my share of it. Nobody is flawless. But for Gods sake, that is not equal to saying that you want to see American soldiers "fuck"ed in a time of war and heavy casualties. For crying out loud, it does not matter what medium you do it in, providing comfort to the enemy must be punished.

Treason does not require that one soldier be killed. It requires sombody saying anything that gives our enemies comfort with the purpose of hindering our defense.

that is not the definition of treason

First of all - could you please reply in your actual post, not in the quote boxes? Your present strategy makes constructing a reply to your post excessively annoying and needlessly difficult.They are neither aiding nor comforting the enemy, and you have no evidence whatsoever that they intend to harm the defense of the US.Leaving aside the question as to whether the current involvement in Iraq has the slightest to do with the "defense of the US," how, exactly, are they removing the capability of the US military to fight in Iraq?
Except when they apply to radicals?

lots of questions. I will answer them and then give a comment. A pithy one.

1) yes
2) The evidence that I have that the group intends on harming the U.S. is as follows: they are fighting for their lives on a battlefield and this group wants to see them fucked over. What does that mean? Al-queda wants the same thing as the people in this group. If you think that helps America think again. Then again, many on the left, if they had their way...would have Saddam Hussein still in power. Thats another story.
3) They are lowering moral of both the soldiers and the general public and in turn putting political pressure on the Congress to cut and run before the mission is won, surrender to al-queda hurts American interests.
4) radicals?

Comment: The liberal posts on this thread explain alot about why only one Democrat has broken 50% in a nation election since Vietnam.

that is not the definition of treason
"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort.

"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort.

and do you know what the word 'adhering' means? or the legal definition of 'aid and comfort'? i got's a dollar says you don't.

tell you what,

fuck the troops

now you go get those treason charges rolling, ok?

"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort.

Unless Fuck The Troops is sending Care Packages to Bin Ladin, you're smoking Bush Crack again.

2) The evidence that I have that the group intends on harming the U.S. is as follows: they are fighting for their lives on a battlefield and this group wants to see them fucked over. What does that mean? Al-queda wants the same thing as the people in this group. If you think that helps America think again. Then again, many on the left, if they had their way...would have Saddam Hussein still in power. Thats another story.

Think what you want of their opinions, but the fact of the matter is that they are not actually causing any harm.

3) They are lowering moral of both the soldiers and the general public and in turn putting political pressure on the Congress to cut and run before the mission is won, surrender to al-queda hurts American interests.

Calling for the cessation of the military occupation of Iraq is not "treason," and if it qualifies, well, in that case I am a proud "traitor."

4) radicals?

Palmer Raids (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palmer_Raids)

Comment: The liberal posts on this thread explain alot about why only one Democrat has broken 50% in a nation election since Vietnam.

I am not a liberal, nor am I a Democrat. Their opinions are not my opinions. If they are concerned with winning elections, that is their business.

and do you know what the word 'adhering' means? or the legal definition of 'aid and comfort'? i got's a dollar says you don't.

tell you what,

fuck the troops

now you go get those treason charges rolling, ok?

First of all let me say thank you. You are the reason the Democrats keep losing. Thanks. your arrogant and irritating liberalism grates like nails on a chalk board where I come from.


adhering: "To remain devoted to or be in support of something"..that...gives aid and comfort which means:

"help, support, or relief" and "To soothe in time of affliction or distress."

Saying that you do not support our soldiers does all of those things for al-queda, the very same people who attacked us on 911. And Saddam Hussein who, if it was up to you, would still be in power instead of sitting in a prison cell on trial for crimes against humanity by his own people's new democratic government. You can keep your f*ing dollar.

There is a group on myspace now called Fuck Our Troops. There has been a petition set electronically. This will end tomorrow. Anyway it has over 300 replies, I was number 313, that we're going to petition to Tom, the creator of Myspace, to remove the group. I mean, even if I don't support the war I'll still support the troops. I really hope we're able to put a stop to them. That's just my opinion, what do you guys think?

how do you know whose troops they're on about? MySpace is an international community, after all.
But even if it is about US troops.... why would it bother you that people are freely voicing their opinion? Why would you take action to silence them? Oh, wait, freedom of expression only so long as they agree with the government, I forgot.....

Unless Fuck The Troops is sending Care Packages to Bin Ladin, you're smoking Bush Crack again.

Treason can consist of words alone. Hey, its not my fault that you could not muster 60 million votes to beat the guy. He ...maybe on the boat through OZ you can impeach Bush ( with a 2/3 vote in the Senate) and make Cheney the 44th President.:p

They can say whatever they want, and they have a RIGHT TO.

But that doesn't mean we will sit back and have our sensibilites violated. We have a RIGHT to do something about it too ;)

I'm exercising that right

You have a right to try and force others to keep silent? So, basically, you have a right to try and take their right away?

First of all let me say thank you. You are the reason the Democrats keep losing. Thanks. your arrogant and irritating liberalism grates like nails on a chalk board where I come from.

i am not now, nor have i ever been, a democrat or a liberal


adhering: "To remain devoted to or be in support of something"..that...gives aid and comfort which means:

"help, support, or relief" and "To soothe in time of affliction or distress."

so that's a no on the legal definitions then?

Treason can consist of words alone. Hey, its not my fault that you could not muster 60 million votes to beat the guy. He ...maybe on the boat through OZ you can impeach Bush ( with a 2/3 vote in the Senate) and make Cheney the 44th President.:p

Trying to change the subject all ready Comrade Bushevik? I guess if you can't come up with hardcore legal evidence backing up your claim of "Dissent is Treason," going back to the "He Won, Get Over It" chant is all that you can do.

Ladies and Gentleman, we have a challenger for Corny's Communal Property Title!

:p

Calling for the cessation of the military occupation of Iraq is not "treason," and if it qualifies, well, in that case I am a proud "traitor."
I am not a liberal, nor am I a Democrat. Their opinions are not my opinions. If they are concerned with winning elections, that is their business.

sequence of events:
1) we go against the wishes of the soldiers on the ground, the generals, the penatagon, the senate, the President, and the government of Iraq and pull out right now
2) Iraq decends into further chaos and full blown civil war
3) the democratic government collapses
4) Iraq is your next mass murder site and a new dictator takes over
5) the United States loses a war
6) al-queda learns that they can bully us into submission
7) terrorist attacks on U.S. soil for the first time since 911
8) all of the soldiers who have died have died for nothing, any thing that they did accomplish is destroyed
9) you are proud and continue to lose elections

Treason can consist of words alone.

no, it can't - except maybe if those words took the form "i swear that i shall do everything in my power to help the enemies of the united states defeat it." but you'd need two witnesses to those words and you'd have to convince the court that that counts as an 'overt act'. so good luck with that.

I had to stop and really think about this before I responded. My immediate, gut reaction was to say, "Hell yeah, I'll sign!" Then I thought, "Wait a minute. What is it for which we fight if not freedom to speak your mind?"

So, as with many other issues I've had to confront on a rather personal level, I was conflicted. I thought about how the abuse ( yes, I said "abuse" ) of soldiers returning from Vietnam had deeply offended me, and still rankles. And I thought about those who died there never really knowing what it was they were fighting for.

But ... I really do believe in the freedom to speak your mind. So ... I can't sign this petition. If someone feels that our soldiers need to be fucked over ... again, it's their right to say so, especially since so many gave their lives to guarantee it. In a way, it's actually a tribute to my brothers and sisters ... in a way.
Well Eut, I have to say that I am impressed by your response, and attitude to this issue. You certainly do have your moments and this was one of them. :)

BTW, I don't agree with the message that FOT is putting forward, but then again, I am against all hate speech.

I had to stop and really think about this before I responded. My immediate, gut reaction was to say, "Hell yeah, I'll sign!" Then I thought, "Wait a minute. What is it for which we fight if not freedom to speak your mind?"

So, as with many other issues I've had to confront on a rather personal level, I was conflicted. I thought about how the abuse ( yes, I said "abuse" ) of soldiers returning from Vietnam had deeply offended me, and still rankles. And I thought about those who died there never really knowing what it was they were fighting for.

But ... I really do believe in the freedom to speak your mind. So ... I can't sign this petition. If someone feels that our soldiers need to be fucked over ... again, it's their right to say so, especially since so many gave their lives to guarantee it. In a way, it's actually a tribute to my brothers and sisters ... in a way.


Looks like we agree for once, friend :)

Well Eut, I have to say that I am impressed by your response, and attitude to this issue. You certainly do have your moments and this was one of them. :)

BTW, I don't agree with the message that FOT is putting forward, but then again, I am against all hate speech.

So how come he didn't dismiss this bunch as Media Whoring Spitting Hippies like he always labels someone against the "War on Terror"?

.... why would it bother you that people are freely voicing their opinion? Why would you take action to silence them? Oh, wait, freedom of expression only so long as they agree with the government, I forgot.....

Voicing an opinion is one thing. Organizing a group who's only platform is the demoralization American soldiers is another. It cooperates with the enemy. It feeds into their needs. I would take action to silence them to protect American interests. This has always been done during times when American soldiers are in harms way. You say that you do not support them, you are not supporting America. You are supporting those who kill Americans. Freedom of expression counts all of the time that it does not comfort our enemies.

"Stop abortion" is not treason.
" no off shore drilling" is not treason
" stop the death penalty" is not treason
" fuck the troops" is treason.

fuck the troops

traitor

You have a right to try and force others to keep silent? So, basically, you have a right to try and take their right away?

No, rights under the Constitution have limits ( say it aint so).

i am not now, nor have i ever been, a democrat or a liberal


bull.

sequence of events:
1) we go against the wishes of the soldiers on the ground, the generals, the penatagon, the senate, the President, and the government of Iraq and pull out right now
2) Iraq decends into further chaos and full blown civil war
3) the democratic government collapses
4) Iraq is your next mass murder site and a new dictator takes over
5) the United States loses a war
6) al-queda learns that they can bully us into submission
7) terrorist attacks on U.S. soil for the first time since 911
8) all of the soldiers who have died have died for nothing, any thing that they did accomplish is destroyed
9) you are proud and continue to lose elections

You ignored my entire post except for one irrelevant bit. Brilliant argumentation there.

I see no point in discussing this particular question here - I've done it plenty elsewhere, do a search for "Soheran" and "Iraq" if you really want to - but for what it's worth I would like to quote something I just said that you appear to have missed:

I am not a liberal, nor am I a Democrat. Their opinions are not my opinions. If they are concerned with winning elections, that is their business.

Trying to change the subject all ready Comrade Bushevik? I guess if you can't come up with hardcore legal evidence backing up your claim of "Dissent is Treason," going back to the "He Won, Get Over It" chant is all that you can do.

Ladies and Gentleman, we have a challenger for Corny's Communal Property Title!

:p

Once again, you are being a jerk. I never said the things that you put in quotes as if I did. How dishonest. Dissent is not treason. It never has been. People dissent all of the time. That does not meant that it is treason. You are putting an idiotic spin on what I said with misleading quotes around it. Only when you fulfill the Constitutional text's language for treason do I think you have been treasonous. Jesus, if dissent was treason everybody would be a traitor. Mocking, misleading, and mopping up drool seems to be what you do. :( stop defaming.

bull.

aww, po' baby dudn't know what to do when swumbudy steps outside his wittle ideological box

i am not now, nor have i ever been, a democrat or a liberal

It's Bushevik indoctrination. If you're brown skinned, you're a terrorist, and if you speak bad about Dear Leader and the Glorious War on Terror, you're a Dummycrat Liberal.

so that's a no on the legal definitions then?

He has none of course. So instead he tries to change the topic he brought up on Dissent = Treason to "He Won, Get Over It."

:D

no, it can't - except maybe if those words took the form "i swear that i shall do everything in my power to help the enemies of the united states defeat it." but you'd need two witnesses to those words and you'd have to convince the court that that counts as an 'overt act'. so good luck with that.

so you just said it cannot and then you gave a clear example of how it can consist of words. How about " I wish harm on American soldiers". How about "I hope al-queda kills the troops" How about "fuck the troops"...slippery slope to treason town. Surely myspace has not imploded so severely as to have less than two people aboard?

sequence of events:
1) we go against the wishes of the soldiers on the ground, the generals, the penatagon, the senate, the President, and the government of Iraq and pull out right now
2) Iraq decends into further chaos and full blown civil war
3) the democratic government collapses
4) Iraq is your next mass murder site and a new dictator takes over
5) the United States loses a war
6) al-queda learns that they can bully us into submission
7) terrorist attacks on U.S. soil for the first time since 911
8) all of the soldiers who have died have died for nothing, any thing that they did accomplish is destroyed
9) you are proud and continue to lose elections
Are those "sequence of events" from the Barry Goldwater playbook? Got it all figured out huh? Your sensationalism is.......well fantastic!! :rolleyes:

BTW, the soldiers that have given their lives, in Iraq, have done so in a war that was totally unnecessary. Unfortunately many more will die unnecessarily until sanity prevails.

I am against all hate speech.

We say "fuck the troops" because we love them...:rolleyes:

So how come he didn't dismiss this bunch as Media Whoring Spitting Hippies like he always labels someone against the "War on Terror"?

I am a fan of the American media and I think that it is a great forum of ideas.
I neve use that H word.
I do not believe in the concept of a "war on terror". Terrorism is a tactic. World war one was not a war on German trenches, WWII was not a war on the blitz. Vietnam was not a war on Guerilla tactics. This is not a war on terror. It is a war on fundamentalist Islam.

traitor


ah, some out of context quoting....nice.......you serve your side well.

so you just said it cannot and then you gave a clear example of how it can consist of words. How about " I wish harm on American soldiers". How about "I hope al-queda kills the troops" How about "fuck the troops"

nope, nope, and nope. treason requires taking overt action to aid an enemy - taking up arms with them, providing them shelter, directly working for them, etc.

so anyway, fuck the troops. have you turned me in yet?

aww, po' baby dudn't know what to do when swumbudy steps outside his wittle ideological box

Life has been hard since you started taking things I wrote and cutting them as to put them out of context to defame me intentionally. You may not last long with behavior like that. I never request forum bans, If I did , though, you would need to keep an eye over your shoulder...all the time.

It's Bushevik indoctrination. If you're brown skinned, you're a terrorist, and if you speak bad about Dear Leader and the Glorious War on Terror, you're a Dummycrat Liberal.



He has none of course. So instead he tries to change the topic he brought up on Dissent = Treason to "He Won, Get Over It."

:D

My girlfriend is "brown skinned".......and my neighbors who I ate dinner with tonight...um...yeah you are an ignorant jerk

I already gave all necessary defininations. He did not accept them because they were not the convoluted crap that spews forth from some page written by an activist judge.......also, you put quotes again around somthing that I never said. Way to go.:gundge:

It's Bushevik indoctrination. If you're brown skinned, you're a terrorist, and if you speak bad about Dear Leader and the Glorious War on Terror, you're a Dummycrat Liberal.


He has none of course. So instead he tries to change the topic he brought up on Dissent = Treason to "He Won, Get Over It."

:D

you know what they say - make the pie higher and stick with what doesn't work.

BTW, the soldiers that have given their lives, in Iraq, have done so in a war that was totally unnecessary. Unfortunately many more will die unnecessarily until sanity prevails.

So if it was up to you Hussein would still be in power. There would be no free elections in Iraq. Mass graves would still be being filled. U.N. resolutions would still be violated. Saddam should send you all "holiday cards" as the ACLU calls them, for trying to help him out in his time of need. I would like you to go to a military funeral and tell that grieving family that their loved one died for a pointless mistake. I need a barf bag.

nope, nope, and nope. treason requires taking overt action to aid an enemy - taking up arms with them, providing them shelter, directly working for them, etc.

so anyway, fuck the troops. have you turned me in yet?

No it does not. It requires adhering to them and giving them aid and comfort. Pure and simple. I am calling Attorney General Gonzales as you type.

Can't we all just burn a flag and get along?

No it does not. It requires adhering to them and giving them aid and comfort. Pure and simple. I am calling Attorney General Gonzales as you type.

Yeah, I'm sure you have "It's Not Torture" Al's number on the speed dial and he'll find your whine about "He said fuck the troops, waaaah!" to be a matter of national security concerns.

:rolleyes:

you know what they say - make the pie higher and stick with what doesn't work.

the left said it was to steal oil. we turned the oil ministry back ASAP without stealing a drop...in fact we lost oil

they said we would never catch saddam...we did.

they said we would never hand over sovereignty..we did

they said Iraq would never get a Constitution. it did

they said the Iraq sunnis would never participate....they did

they said the people would not turn out to vote...they did

they said we would find no evidence that Hussein broke U.N. resolutions. we did

now they say we need to leave, that we are trapped?

I see what you mean about sticking with what does not work.

Can't we all just burn a flag and get along?

yeah...damn..I needed one more vote on that amendment...

Yeah, I'm sure you have "It's Not Torture" Al's number on the speed dial and he'll find your whine about "He said fuck the troops, waaaah!" to be a matter of national security concerns.

:rolleyes:

hehehe. :p Look you cracked my hard heart of Conservative stone. That was pretty funny.

Can't we all just burn a flag and get along?

indeed. and then we could have a nice sing-a-long


fuck the troops, my lord, fuck the troops
fuck the troops, my lord, fuck the troops
fuck the troops, my lord, fuck the troops
o lord, fuck the troops

My girlfriend is "brown skinned".......and my neighbors who I ate dinner with tonight...um...yeah you are an ignorant jerk

And with the wonderful power of Internet Anonymity, I'm actually Bill Gates and I'm posting on NS General for shits and giggles when I'm not busy.

:rolleyes:

I already gave all necessary defininations. He did not accept them because they were not the convoluted crap that spews forth from some page written by an activist judge.......also, you put quotes again around somthing that I never said. Way to go.:gundge:

If it was something you said, it would be bracked in a quote box like above. Not only do you have no evidence to prove that Fuck The Troops are traitors, you're insecure about how indefensible your Corny-esque rants are.

indeed. and then we could have a nice sing-a-long


fuck the troops, my lord, fuck the troops
fuck the troops, my lord, fuck the troops
fuck the troops, my lord, fuck the troops
o lord, fuck the troops...
Yeehaw!

indeed. and then we could have a nice sing-a-long


fuck the troops, my lord, fuck the troops
fuck the troops, my lord, fuck the troops
fuck the troops, my lord, fuck the troops
o lord, fuck the troops

translation: I never want a liberal President in the white house. I can't wait to lose in 08'.

Voicing an opinion is one thing. Organizing a group who's only platform is the demoralization American soldiers is another. It cooperates with the enemy. It feeds into their needs. I would take action to silence them to protect American interests. This has always been done during times when American soldiers are in harms way. You say that you do not support them, you are not supporting America. You are supporting those who kill Americans. Freedom of expression counts all of the time that it does not comfort our enemies.

"Stop abortion" is not treason.
" no off shore drilling" is not treason
" stop the death penalty" is not treason
" fuck the troops" is treason.

So during times of war, one is no longer allowed to critisise one's government, as that would be aid and comfort to the enemy? What you are saying is basically that all protestors against the war commit treason by voicing their opinion. So what if they don't support American interests? So what if they support the killing of American soldiers? One could argue that even your government agrees with that, otherwise they wouldn't send them to war.
I don't see that anywhere in your consitution that all American citizens are forced by law to protect American interests...

No, rights under the Constitution have limits ( say it aint so).

Show me where it says so.

And with the wonderful power of Internet Anonymity, I'm actually Bill Gates and I'm posting on NS General for shits and giggles when I'm not busy.

:rolleyes:



If it was something you said, it would be bracked in a quote box like above. Not only do you have no evidence to prove that Fuck The Troops are traitors, you're insecure about how indefensible your Corny-esque rants are.

You have just demonstrated your only tactic. Call me a liar. You deny my terms, you deny facts about myself, and you deny that you misquoted me. Denial is a disease for some. I have the cure.

translation: I never want a liberal President in the white house. I can't wait to lose in 08'.

Translation: I can't prove Fuck The Troops are traitors that deserve to hang, so I'll cop out with the "Dummycrats r L00zers l0l" routine.

So during times of war, one is no longer allowed to critisise one's government, as that would be aid and comfort to the enemy? What you are saying is basically that all protestors against the war commit treason by voicing their opinion. So what if they don't support American interests? So what if they support the killing of American soldiers? One could argue that even your government agrees with that, otherwise they wouldn't send them to war.
I don't see that anywhere in your consitution that all American citizens are forced by law to protect American interests...

Once again you misread. During times of war you cannot undermine the war effort. Criticize all you want. Do not undermine. If people do not support American interests in a time of war they are in Leauge with the enemy. If they act on it they are treasonous. It is not very complicated. Your bullshit comment about the government wanting people on our side to die is crazy at best and at worst...dishonest. Your argument makes defense impossible. It is silly..and not very relavent. You should read to the end of my first sentence or two before responding next time.

No it does not. It requires adhering to them and giving them aid and comfort. Pure and simple. I am calling Attorney General Gonzales as you type.

Just a quiet word here, Barryg.
Do you know that the members of "fuck the troops" are US citizens? And are therefore bound to uphold the constitution?
'Cos if you don't know that, the definition doesn't make a whit of difference.

EDIT: I mean the definition of "treason," a federal crime.

Show me where it says so.

I already gave the f*ing Constitution definition of treason. Go back and read it.

You have just demonstrated your only tactic. Call me a liar. You deny my terms, you deny facts about myself, and you deny that you misquoted me. Denial is a disease for some. I have the cure.

Unless you can prove it to be true, why should I assume it so? And where did I ever claim to quote you? Again if I wanted to quote you I would use a Quote box instead of quotation marks. And again you're insecure about how you're becoming Communal Property like Corny, owned and passed around by people on NS General on a regular basis.

translation: I never want a liberal President in the white house.

as a translation it's not very good. but coincidently, i do agree with the sentiment - i'd certainly take a lib of either definition over the fash, but i'm not going to go around actively wanting one

I don't see what the problem is with a group advocating that the US enlisted men get laid..
But hey..

Translation: I can't prove Fuck The Troops are traitors that deserve to hang, so I'll cop out with the "Dummycrats r L00zers l0l" routine.

No, you lost the argument when you started this gang up on the lone Conservative by denying all terms, definitions, and circumstances until he goes to bed movement. And yes, it is true, the Democrats lose alot.

Just a quiet word here, Barryg.
Do you know that the members of "fuck the troops" are US citizens? And are therefore bound to uphold the constitution?
'Cos if you don't know that, the definition doesn't make a whit of difference.
Love your work, btw :p

hmm I do not know that. It was my base assumption though.

You have just demonstrated your only tactic. Call me a liar. You deny my terms, you deny facts about myself, and you deny that you misquoted me. Denial is a disease for some. I have the cure.

This reminds me of:

"The world is a dirty place, and I am America's lemon-scented wetnap."

Unless you can prove it to be true, why should I assume it so? And where did I ever claim to quote you? Again if I wanted to quote you I would use a Quote box instead of quotation marks. And again you're insecure about how you're becoming Communal Property like Corny, owned and passed around by people on NS General on a regular basis.

I gave the definition of treason. I showed how this "group" clearly fit into it. All you did was deny all terms, definition,etc. and call me a liar. You refered to me and then used quotation marks. That is called quoting a person. Boxes....or not. I must get passed around pretty fast, as all you libs ever do is taunt and burble instead of debate.

I don't see what the problem is with a group advocating that the US enlisted men get laid..
But hey..


:D

This reminds me of:

"The world is a dirty place, and I am America's lemon-scented wetnap."

again...:D

No, you lost the argument when you started this gang up on the lone Conservative by denying all terms, definitions, and circumstances until he goes to bed movement. And yes, it is true, the Democrats lose alot.

I don't know which alternative universe you're typing from, but anyone else on NS General can see you're not The Last Bushevik by far. And it takes a lot more of denial than Egypt has to come to the conclusion that Fuck The Troops are traitors that rank up there with Aldritch Ames and Robert Hansen.

And again you miss the point Comrade. You keep saying "Dummycrats Lose" because you can't come up with concrete evidence to back up your claims that Fuck The Troops are traitors.

Pwned like Corny. Again.

No, you lost the argument when you started this gang up on the lone Conservative by denying all terms, definitions, and circumstances until he goes to bed movement. And yes, it is true, the Democrats lose alot.

This is turning into a "No I didn't!" "Yes you did!" sort of thing.

Time for bed, God bless.

again...:D

I wonder if you got where that's from...

I already gave all necessary defininations. He did not accept them because they were not the convoluted crap that spews forth from some page written by an activist judge

damn those world war 2 era activist judges!

No, you lost the argument when you started this gang up on the lone Conservative by denying all terms, definitions, and circumstances until he goes to bed movement. And yes, it is true, the Democrats lose alot.

There's a reason you're the only voice which you identify as Conservative. Look at the first 20 or so posts. I'm just guessing here, but it seems to me that most of those who took your position eary thought twice about it. Read Eutrusca's post.

One reason you feel ganged up on and defending in all directions, is because you keep trying to veer off topic to make the points you have made over and over again elsewhere, and ad hominem-ing. Which isn't even a word.

Sorry to be personal. It just hurts to see you enabling such creulty.

damn those world war 2 era activist judges!

Remember, a judge is "Activist" if they push for anything other than Fundamentalist Baptist Values in court like The "Honorable" Roy Moore.

Remember, a judge is "Activist" if they push for anything other than Fundamentalist Baptist Values in court like The "Honorable" Roy Moore.

And that's rude too. Stop making fun of Barrygoldwater, please. It clearly isn't working.

And that's rude too. Stop making fun of Barrygoldwater, please. It clearly isn't working.

He brought it on himself. First declaring that Fuck The Troops are Ames and Hansen-class traitors then trying to change it to "He Won Get Over It" and "Why Are You All Picking On Me?" when he was called on it and couldn't bring out the evidence.

And that's rude too. Stop making fun of Barrygoldwater, please. It clearly isn't working.

i doubt that anything could really work in this case

Does the group in question actually advocate any particular agenda, or are people simply objecting to the title/name? Even advocating unlawful activity, if any such thing actually occurs, can constitute protected free speech (see also: Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio)). Additionally, the title of the group may be offensive to some, but it is still protected free speech (see also: Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15 (1971) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cohen_v._California)).

He brought it on himself. First declaring that Fuck The Troops are Ames and Hansen-class traitors then trying to change it to "He Won Get Over It" and "Why Are You All Picking On Me?" when he was called on it and couldn't bring out the evidence.

Oh, I agree.
You can't possibly be saying that what just happened was a good debate, though?
Not that it's finished, of course ;)

EDIT: <Appoints self mod> ... ooh, that feels good! :D

Even advocating unlawful activity, if any such thing actually occurs, can constitute protected free speech (see also: Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio)). Additionally, the title of the group may be offensive to some, but it is still protected free speech (see also: Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15 (1971) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cohen_v._California)).

that looks like activist judgerating to me - where are the sweeping verdicts of hangings for everyone, like what god intended?

Oh, I agree.
You can't possibly be saying that what just happened was a good debate, though?
Not that it's finished, of course ;)

EDIT: <Appoints self mod> ... ooh, that feels good! :D

A good debate? No. Fish in a barrel? Yes, and worth every shot.

So if it was up to you Hussein would still be in power. There would be no free elections in Iraq. Mass graves would still be being filled. U.N. resolutions would still be violated. Saddam should send you all "holiday cards" as the ACLU calls them, for trying to help him out in his time of need. I would like you to go to a military funeral and tell that grieving family that their loved one died for a pointless mistake. I need a barf bag.
You still don't get it do you? In March 1990, Saddam was a "great friend of America", and by August of 1990, he was "Hitler".

When ya get it sorted out, let me know?

Once again you misread. During times of war you cannot undermine the war effort. Criticize all you want. Do not undermine. If people do not support American interests in a time of war they are in Leauge with the enemy. If they act on it they are treasonous. It is not very complicated. Your bullshit comment about the government wanting people on our side to die is crazy at best and at worst...dishonest. Your argument makes defense impossible. It is silly..and not very relavent. You should read to the end of my first sentence or two before responding next time.

I'm not saying your government wants that, I'm saying they agree with the fact. They accept it.

I don't actually see how a MySpace group undermines American interests.
"Criticising" means voicing an unfavourable opinion.
"Undermining" means to gradually weaken.

So, unless you can prove that criticising weakens, you've got no point at all.

And that's rude too. Stop making fun of Barrygoldwater, please. It clearly isn't working.
I think that any "wounding" of BarryGoldWater is purely self inflicted.

I think that any "wounding" of BarryGoldWater is purely self inflicted.

I don't know why, but I'm tempted to make a Shakespeare reference...

There is a group on myspace now called Fuck Our Troops. There has been a petition set electronically. This will end tomorrow. Anyway it has over 300 replies, I was number 313, that we're going to petition to Tom, the creator of Myspace, to remove the group. I mean, even if I don't support the war I'll still support the troops. I really hope we're able to put a stop to them. That's just my opinion, what do you guys think?


Where do I sign?

I oppose the war - but I'm all for our troops.

Where do I sign?

I oppose the war - but I'm all for our troops.

I'll never understand that concept.... "I oppose the war, but I support fighting"

:confused:

I'm not saying your government wants that, I'm saying they agree with the fact. They accept it.

I don't actually see how a MySpace group undermines American interests.
"Criticising" means voicing an unfavourable opinion.
"Undermining" means to gradually weaken.

So, unless you can prove that criticising weakens, you've got no point at all.

Tangential question: do you think that the F-word is acceptable?

I think that the use of the F-word all by itself is sufficient reason to pull the plug.

I'll never understand that concept.... "I oppose the war, but I support fighting"

:confused:


Fighting or not-fighting - OUR lads.

Clearer now? ;)

Tangential question: do you think that the F-word is acceptable?

I think that the use of the F-word all by itself is sufficient reason to pull the plug.

I'd say that depends on the specific rules and regulations of MySpace. I don't think anybody who wants to be taken seriously should use that word in making a point, but that just my personal opinion, really.

I know I tend to say it a lot, although not in serious discussion ;)

Fighting or not-fighting - OUR lads.

Clearer now? ;)

Marginally. I still failt to understand how you would support someone in doing something you don't agree with.

It's a bit like an anti-abortionist supporting people who abort for patriotic reasons. It puzzles me.

I'd say that depends on the specific rules and regulations of MySpace. I don't think anybody who wants to be taken seriously should use that word in making a point, but that just my personal opinion, really.

I know I tend to say it a lot, although not in serious discussion ;)

Uh-huh. I must say that I wont take many people serious when they deviate from the norms of civilised behaviour as one would experience at, say, the Lambeth Conference. ( Most of whose participants, btw, are highly critical of the War. )

As I've stated before, I feel strongly that rude language ought to be a criminal offence - everywhere.

Marginally. I still failt to understand how you would support someone in doing something you don't agree with.

It's a bit like an anti-abortionist supporting people who abort for patriotic reasons. It puzzles me.
Try to stop thinking about the action and start thinking about the person. In other words you do not support what they are doing, but support the people who are doing it, especially when they are, after all, just following orders.

I suppose the closest analogy I can think of is how you would act towards a friend who was doing something you disaprove of. You wouldn't disown them; you might try to persuade them to act differently, but they would hopefully remain your friend.

Tangential question: do you think that the F-word is acceptable?

I think that the use of the F-word all by itself is sufficient reason to pull the plug.

You haven't read all of this thread, have you?
The F-word, as you so quaintly put it, has been used ... a few times.
And here you are, posting to it. And claiming it should be pulled.

That said, I don't like the word either. There's something hypocritical about using a word meaning "sex" as an insult or threat.

Marginally. I still failt to understand how you would support someone in doing something you don't agree with.

It's a bit like an anti-abortionist supporting people who abort for patriotic reasons. It puzzles me.

They're OUR soldiers,
OUR representatives in a nasty business that is not of their own making.

Regardless of whether their devotion to duty be to a good or a bad cause, their devotion to Duty is highly honourable.

Try to stop thinking about the action and start thinking about the person. In other words you do not support what they are doing, but support the people who are doing it, especially when they are, after all, just following orders.

I suppose the closest analogy I can think of is how you would act towards a friend who was doing something you disaprove of. You wouldn't disown them; you might try to persuade them to act differently, but they would hopefully remain your friend.

Ok, so it's like opposing abortion but supporting the doctors who perform them.

Try to stop thinking about the action and start thinking about the person. In other words you do not support what they are doing, but support the people who are doing it, especially when they are, after all, just following orders.

<snip>

Quite right. I'm not part of any faction here who are saying "this is really cool - they are so right" ... but I do defend their right to criticise any army for doing their job. Start naming individual soldiers, and advocating harassing their families, and it's beyond freedom of speech.

(Where do I stand on racial vilification? I'm OK with it. Get personal, it's abuse.)

You haven't read all of this thread, have you?
The F-word, as you so quaintly put it, has been used ... a few times.
And here you are, posting to it. And claiming it should be pulled.

That said, I don't like the word either. There's something hypocritical about using a word meaning "sex" as an insult or threat.


I'm aware of the use of the F-word.

I'm also aware of the fact that there is a dichtomy between gentlemen on one side - and trash on the other side.

Ok, so it's like opposing abortion but supporting the doctors who perform them.

And what the hell is wrong with that?

I'm aware of the use of the F-word.

I'm also aware of the fact that there is a dichtomy between gentlemen on one side - and trash on the other side.

Well thankyou :)

They're OUR soldiers,
OUR representatives in a nasty business that is not of their own making.

Regardless of whether their devotion to duty be to a good or a bad cause, their devotion to Duty is highly honourable.

Maybe that's where I fail to understand. I hate being misrepresented and will try and fight anyone who tried to represent me without my consent and permission.

That said, I don't like the word either. There's something hypocritical about using a word meaning "sex" as an insult or threat.

fuck is the greast fucking word in the entire fucking universe. a general purpose exclamatory, modifier/intensifier, insult, compliment, whatever - it's a verb, a noun, an adverb, an adjective, and an infix. fuck yeah.

And what the hell is wrong with that?

It doesn't make sense: "I hate hate hate what you're doing, but I hope you succeed".

Well thankyou :)


The acceptance of the F-word is a fine litmus-test for that dichtomy. ;)

( Or, why I consider Dick Cheney to be the Right Dishonourable Dick Cheney... )

Regardless of whether their devotion to duty be to a good or a bad cause, their devotion to Duty is highly honourable.

if the duty is a bad, then devotion to it would be doubly so, yes?

Maybe that's where I fail to understand. I hate being misrepresented and will try and fight anyone who tried to represent me without my consent and permission.


In that case, you and I might have a fruitful discussion about legitimacy of democratic government and institutions. Such legitimacy cannot be derrived from personal opinion. If it were so, blatant tyranny would be legitimate.

To paraphrase Brother Judd ( who took the arguments too far):

'here I staaaaaaaaaaaaand'

if the duty is a bad, then devotion to it would be doubly so, yes?

I guess BogMarsh is following the code of Bushido here...

The better Samurai is the Samurai who serves and evil lord, not the one who serves a good lord. Serving your lord in all adversity constitutes best the code of Bushido ;)

if the duty is a bad, then devotion to it would be doubly so, yes?


Try studying syntaxis.

We haven't determined whether the duty is bad at all.
Please, read the sentence carefully.

I guess BogMarsh is following the code of Bushido here...

The better Samurai is the Samurai who serves and evil lord, not the one who serves a good lord. Serving your lord in all adversity constitutes best the code of Bushido ;)

Unless that lord is so dishonourable that the best service to mankind is to kill said lord.

Life is ( or at least should be ) an individual submission to conflicting imperatives.

I guess BogMarsh is following the code of Bushido here...

The better Samurai is the Samurai who serves and evil lord, not the one who serves a good lord. Serving your lord in all adversity constitutes best the code of Bushido ;)

I don't know the code of Bushido, but I can't help making what you said better:

The better warrior is the one who serves badly an evil lord, than the one who serves well a good lord.

I am completely insane. But I guess you've all guessed that already <reboots>

In that case, you and I might have a fruitful discussion about legitimacy of democratic government and institutions. Such legitimacy cannot be derrived from personal opinion. If it were so, blatant tyranny would be legitimate.

To paraphrase Brother Judd ( who took the arguments too far):

'here I staaaaaaaaaaaaand'

I think in a democratic government, you shouldn't be forced to agree with whatever actions are being taken by those elected, but always have the option to try and sway public opinion to favour your position, using democratic tools such as demonstrations, petitions, etc.
This thread is about taking away that option, and that's what I don't agree with.

Okay babies, I just have to say, that anywho who describes themselves as "pro-war" or who thinks that restricting freedoms is a valid method of gaining them is, quite frankly, an idiot.

stupid republicans. ever heard of free speach. you can't just ttack a website because their stance on on the war isent "strongly support"

fuck is the greast fucking word in the entire fucking universe. a general purpose exclamatory, modifier/intensifier, insult, compliment, whatever - it's a verb, a noun, an adverb, an adjective, and an infix. fuck yeah.

you forgot "proposition" :D

Okay babies, I just have to say, that anywho who describes themselves as "pro-war" or who thinks that restricting freedoms is a valid method of gaining them is, quite frankly, an idiot.

Even idiots can learn.
And genii be ignorant.

The well-informed can be wrong.
The ignorant sometimes guess right.

The brave can serve well the wrong cause
The coward desert the right one

If I'm a baby, I wanna suck your tit.

Freespeech for Iraki people?
?
?
?
For some...
The others are the Ennemy!
?
?
?
Why?
Make them all the ennemy, who cares?

Courage Soldiers you're fighting for freedom.
(Speech from X Xxxxx to his troops)



Where X Xxxxx could be replaced by any name you like.

It doesn't make sense: "I hate hate hate what you're doing, but I hope you succeed".
When the alternative is them failing and coming home in a body bag, it makes perfect sense.

I think in a democratic government, you shouldn't be forced to agree with whatever actions are being taken by those elected, but always have the option to try and sway public opinion to favour your position, using democratic tools such as demonstrations, petitions, etc.
This thread is about taking away that option, and that's what I don't agree with.


Sorry. Let me restate and rephrase my question clearer:

What is the source of legitimacy?

you forgot "proposition" :D

And interjection. And prefix and suffix. Affix in general really.

stupid republicans. ever heard of free speach. you can't just ttack a website because their stance on on the war isent "strongly support"

Their stance is outside the realm of polite and decent and civilised behaviour in any society.

Their stance is outside the realm of polite and decent and civilised behaviour in any society.
what the hell? baked squerrels dident even give a link, so theres no way i could know. but i still think they have the right to be on the internet.

what the hell? baked squerrels dident even give a link, so theres no way i could know. but i still think they have the right to be on the internet.


Do you deny that said group used swearwords?

They have a right to be on the internet because they are sad teenagers who think insulting the troops makes them uber cool. Frankly, anyone, including the troops should either ignore them or laugh hysterically. It's a waste of time to petition against them.

Their stance is outside the realm of polite and decent and civilised behaviour in any society.

Irrevelant, for reasons already explained (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11445467&postcount=135). Good, bad, or ugly, it's still protected.

Do you deny that said group used swearwords?
What's wrong with the "fuck" word?

Irrevelant, for reasons already explained (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11445467&postcount=135). Good, bad, or ugly, it's still protected.

No sir.

There is the dichtomy between gentlemen, and trash.

There is not the slightest possible excuse for being trash.

Being 'legal' is no excuse either.

What's wrong with the "fuck" word?


That is isn't a turn of phrase of decent people.

It may be 'free' or 'democratic' but it has no place whatsoever in society.

That is isn't a turn of phrase of decent people.

It may be 'free' or 'democratic' but it has no place whatsoever in society.
Because the majority deems it to be ebil.

There is the dichtomy between gentlemen, and trash.

There is not the slightest possible excuse for being trash.


Still irrevelant.


Being 'legal' is no excuse either.


Who is "gentlemen" or "trash" is not the issue, and invocation of such concepts amounts to nothing more than a red herring (edit: not to mention an ad hominem; attacking a characteristic of the person, instead of attacking the person's argument). The relevant issue is whether or not the name of the group constitutes free speech. The law indicates that it does. One might not like that, but, again, that is simply irrevelant.

Still irrevelant.



Who is "gentlemen" or "trash" is not the issue, and invocation of such concepts amounts to nothing more than a red herring. The relevant issues is whether or not the name of the group constitutes free speech. The law indicates that it does. One might not like that, but, again, that is simply irrevelant.
Sophistry.

An act is either right and moral, or it is something to be penalised, criminalised, and marginalised.

Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me.

Yet we always worry about the words..

I don't care who you are, you have no right to censor anyone.

And interjection. And prefix and suffix. Affix in general really.

You forgot the smilie.

The way the word "Fuck" is used (subject of the thread) is intended to be offensive.
It's intended to disrespect someone's troops. Kudos to those oil-on-the-waters folks who tried to make it "copulate with the troops."

Now, if the name of the site was "kill Coalition troops" or "kill US troops" no-one would be whining here. They'd report it to someone, but not be getting up a petition.

Isn't that odd?

An act is either right and moral, or it is something to be penalised, criminalised, and marginalised.

...and, according to the law as it currently exists, the act in question cannot be penalized or criminalized. Simple as that.

(edit: Correction: it can be marginalized in the sense that private citizens can choose not to associate on their own.)

Huh? They seem to have been shut down. I looked for the site on myspace and all I could find were about twenty one-member groups started by the same person who is angry that it got shut down.

Huh? They seem to have been shut down. I looked for the site on myspace and all I could find were about twenty one-member groups started by the same person who is angry that it got shut down.
http://groups.myspace.com/fuckthetroops

No sir.

There is the dichtomy between gentlemen, and trash.

There is not the slightest possible excuse for being trash.

Being 'legal' is no excuse either.

Whether you like a word or not has no bearing on whether a person or group should be able to use it. That is the hallmark of a free society. The declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen puts it nicely: "Liberty consists of doing anything which does not harm others: thus, the exercise of the natural rights of each man has only those borders which assure other members of the society the enjoyment of these same rights."

Does using the f-word harm anyone? No. Be a snob, but do so in private.

You forgot the smilie.

The smilie? You mean :upyours:?

Sophistry.

An act is either right and moral, or it is something to be penalised, criminalised, and marginalised.

Morality and law should be kept as far apart as possible in a free society.

http://groups.myspace.com/fuckthetroops

... members-1? If its only membership is one guy, then why bother kicking up such a fuss? I got the impression from a petition and all that it was a large group of people.

Morality and law should be kept as far apart as possible in a free society.

Not possible. Under such a situation, murder, robbery and any number of other immoral acts would no longer be illegal. (Yes, the word "morality" is often used to refer only to specific things like foul language, sex, etc. However, such a use is incorrect. Law exists for the express purpose of enforcing a given set of moral rules. That the vast majority in a given society agree on particualr rules, like those against murder or robbery, does not change this).

Whether you like a word or not has no bearing on whether a person or group should be able to use it. That is the hallmark of a free society. The declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen puts it nicely: "Liberty consists of doing anything which does not harm others: thus, the exercise of the natural rights of each man has only those borders which assure other members of the society the enjoyment of these same rights."

Does using the f-word harm anyone? No. Be a snob, but do so in private.

It does you no harm if I were to swing an axe just above your head.

May I?

... members-1? If its only membership is one guy, then why bother kicking up such a fuss? I got the impression from a petition and all that it was a large group of people.

By actually reading, I figured it's a group start to see if such groups are actually allowed, likely because the first was deleted.

It does you no harm if I were to swing an axe just above your head.

May I?

Yes, actually, as long as you don't accidentally injure me or threaten to injure.

As far as legality goes anyways. Personally, I don't trust you enough to let you.

... members-1? If its only membership is one guy, then why bother kicking up such a fuss? I got the impression from a petition and all that it was a large group of people.
I looked into it. The reason it has one member is that it's already been shut down five times, but the guys keeps recreating it.

Not possible. Under such a situation, murder, robbery and any number of other immoral acts would no longer be illegal. (Yes, the word "morality" is often used to refer only to specific things like foul language, sex, etc. However, such a use is incorrect. Law exists for the express purpose of enforcing a given set of moral rules. That the vast majority in a given society agree on particualr rules, like those against murder or robbery, does not change this).

That's why I said as far apart is possible - and I was talking generally about the "incorrect" definition you gave.

It does you no harm if I were to swing an axe just above your head.

May I?
A word harms you?

How?

It does you no harm if I were to swing an axe just above your head.

May I?

False comparison/analogy. Swinging an axe while intending to miss still represents a real and extreme danger of physical injury, should you slip or otherwise not miss for instance. Saying "fuck" represents no even remotely comparable chance of such danger.

An act is either right and moral, or it is something to be penalised, criminalised, and marginalised.That's silly. First of all something may be amoral rather than immoral. The act of eating bread rather than say porridge, is amoral. It is neither 'right' nor 'wrong' (well, ok, some cult might have dietary prescription declaring porridge evil, but you get the point).
Aside from that, which morality do you go by? There is no general consensus on morality. Some say prayer is right and moral, but it's ludicrous to propose not doing so should be penalised, criminalised, and marginalised. There's a large gray area between morals and societal norms.

Originally posted by Barrygoldwater
I do not believe in the concept of a "war on terror". Terrorism is a tactic. World war one was not a war on German trenches, WWII was not a war on the blitz. Vietnam was not a war on Guerilla tactics. This is not a war on terror. It is a war on fundamentalist Islam.
It has been stated many times by our administration that this is a "war on terror." If it is, as you say, a war on fundamentalist Islam, then I suppose we're dealing with a much larger issue: freedom of religion. All this is not the work of Muslims following the teachings of their religion. This is the work of people who take those teachings and misinterpret them, then follow those misinterpretations to the extreme.

Originally posted by Barrygoldwater
I never request forum bans, If I did , though, you would need to keep an eye over your shoulder...all the time.
Lovely, let's resort to threats if we can't convince them to join our side.

Originally posted by Barrygoldwater
During times of war you cannot undermine the war effort. Criticize all you want. Do not undermine. If people do not support American interests in a time of war they are in Leauge with the enemy. If they act on it they are treasonous.
I thought your entire point was that this instance of criticism was undermining. All these people are doing is expressing an opinion that they don't care about the troops. I see no action involved. Also, I disagree with your third sentence. It is possible to not agree with either side.

Originally posted by BogMarsh
That is isn't a turn of phrase of decent people. (in response to the usage of the word "fuck")
"Decent people" by whose standards? The only reason words like this have power is because we let them. If we didn't make a bloody racket every time they came up, they would lose their appeal for those trying to bring attention to their opinions. The choice of making "fuck" barbaric and "screw" at least marginally acceptable is simply a game of semantics which should be unnecessary.

As far as I see it, free speech gives anyone the right to express their opinions, no matter how offensive others may find it. Yes, you also have the right to try to change their minds, but I don't think you have the right to keep them from simply expressing an opinion.

That is isn't a turn of phrase of decent people.

It may be 'free' or 'democratic' but it has no place whatsoever in society.

So should we make the word "fuck" illegal, or saying "fuck" a particular group that you like illegal?

Decent - by the standards used by polite society.

Or to paraphrase Eminem:
'if you don't understand, don't even bother to ask me.'

So should we make the word "fuck" illegal, or saying "fuck" a particular group that you like illegal?


Either way, sounds good to me.

Either way, sounds good to me.
Fuck that.

Ok, so it's like opposing abortion but supporting the doctors who perform them.
<I demurred>
It doesn't make sense: "I hate hate hate what you're doing, but I hope you succeed".

Sorry to be tardy in getting back to you on that. Stuff to do.

Thanks for being gradual about it. Doctors are an excellent example, being highly qualified professionals with a lot of power over others. And regulated by laws.
(Some would immediately have leapt to "So you oppose crime, but don't believe in punishing criminals.)
You I like.

If we believe in the law as the dictate of what individuals may or may not do, we have the right to protest them doing anything which is within the law, but not impeding it by unlawful means. We can buy out their unethical (as we see it) company, set up a medical practice with friendlier doctors across the road, picket their premises in a peaceful manner. We can agitate to have it outlawed. But making the individuals who work there feel personally threatened is beyond our rights of free speech.

So, waving a placard with a picture of a preterm baby on it, and yelling "doctors murder the unborn" is free speech. Doing that outside a doctor's home (making it personal) isn't.
And setting up a website is a much less confrontational way. No-one has to look at it.

I haven't seen the "Fuck the troops" site. So I won't take the analogy any further. Sorry, but I disagree with the name, and don't want to put another digit on their hit counter.
That is how I protest their childish protest and it's counter-producive means to oppose a war I oppose.

I looked into it. The reason it has one member is that it's already been shut down five times, but the guys keeps recreating it.

Sorry, sorry, I'm myspacially challenged. Never used the damn site before. But do you know how many members it had before it was shut down?

It does you no harm if I were to swing an axe just above your head.

May I?

That is an excellent analogy, because everytime I say "fuck" there is a very strong chance your head will become detached from your body.


Fuck, Fuck, Fuck, Fuck. Is it still there?

Either way, sounds good to me.
While we're at it, why don't we decide to make the word hippy illegal? I'm sure some people find that word quite offensive.

If we made laws against using words that some members of society found distasteful, we'd have a pretty damn small dictionary.

Sorry, sorry, I'm myspacially challenged. Never used the damn site before. But do you know how many members it had before it was shut down?
No way of telling, unless you can find a Google cache of the page or something.

EDIT: I think it speaks volumes that the anti-group petition has 13 signatures. 13! This is a load of trollop droppings about absolutely fuck-all. It's fucking stupid.

doesn't mean I can't petition against them


No, it means you shouldnt.

Look, aside from them having every right to express what they feel, even if what they feel makes them complete douchebags, this is like Fred Phelps, or the KKK.
The more attention you give them, the more they like it.

In fact, thats exactly what they want, and you....are doing exactly what they want you to.
They want you to make as much noise about it as you can, and to alert whomever you want to...becuase the more people who hear about THEM..

They better they like it.

In this case, the best policy, is to ignore them...and they will eventually go away.

While we're at it, why don't we decide to make the word hippy illegal? I'm sure some people find that word quite offensive.

If we made laws against using words that some members of society found distasteful, we'd have a pretty damn small dictionary.

Make spelling bees easier.

That is an excellent analogy, because everytime I say "fuck" there is a very strong chance your head will become detached from your body.


Fuck, Fuck, Fuck, Fuck. Is it still there?


*swings axe* how about your head?

While we're at it, why don't we decide to make the word hippy illegal? I'm sure some people find that word quite offensive.

If we made laws against using words that some members of society found distasteful, we'd have a pretty damn small dictionary.


And?

And?
I find every word that comes out of your mouth repulsive and offensive. I hereby ban you from speaking, ever.

Close your mouth now, so I can sew it up.

*swings axe* how about your head?

You must have swung it above someone else's head, as I would be pressing charges.

I find every word that comes out of your mouth repulsive and offensive. I hereby ban you from speaking, ever.

Close your mouth now, so I can sew it up.

Yep, there are gentlemen and there are trash.

I find every word that comes out of your mouth repulsive and offensive. I hereby ban you from speaking, ever.

Close your mouth now, so I can sew it up.


*tosses a grenade at you*

Dreadfully sorry.

Decent - by the standards used by polite society.

Or to paraphrase Eminem:
'if you don't understand, don't even bother to ask me.'

You're an Eminem fan? I like you more every day ...

Yep, there are gentlemen and there are trash.
If you are calling me trash for abstractly deciding that BogMarsh's words are offensive, then I'm as trashy as their reasoning for banning words since they themselves find them offensive.

You're an Eminem fan? I like you more every day ...


I liked and agreed with Mosh.
Except for that one word. *shrug*

If you are calling me trash for abstractly deciding that BogMarsh's words are offensive, then I'm as trashy as their reasoning for banning words since they themselves find them offensive.

I was agreeing with you. That is what the "Yep." at the beginning was for.

Originally Posted by BogMarsh
Decent - by the standards used by polite society.

Or to paraphrase Eminem:
'if you don't understand, don't even bother to ask me.'
There was originally a comment here, but I realized later it was ill-advised, poorly thought out, and a mistake to have let it escape my fingers.

Originally Posted by BogMarsh
It does you no harm if I were to swing an axe just above your head.

May I?
As the point was made earlier, there is a definite chance of mistake and accidental decapitation with the axe swinging. If this were comparable, think of all the people who could get away with murder.

"Gee, I dunno officer, he said I could point this gun inches above his head and fire, but right as I pulled the trigger he jumped! It wasn't my fault he died, it was his!"

Words have no power. Axes do.

Originally Posted by BogMarsh
And?
I'd like to see someone go an entire week without using a single word that everybody in America would find perfectly acceptable.

I was agreeing with you. That is what the "Yep." at the beginning was for.
Ah, I wasn't certain, hence my retort began with "if".

No way of telling, unless you can find a Google cache of the page or something.

EDIT: I think it speaks volumes that the anti-group petition has 13 signatures. 13! This is a load of trollop droppings about absolutely fuck-all. It's fucking stupid.

Hey, trollop droppings is better than troll droppings. Stinks for sure, but at least it doesn't weld itself to the stony ground of the thread!

Really, if it's one person perpetrating these sites ... er, posting these sites on Myspace, we ought to invite him over here. An anti-war dumbass. Either he stops being a dumbass, or stops being anti-war, or both. Someone's going to be happy.
And it's gotta be better than creating trouble for Myspace. Myspace is busting boundaries! It's free speech on a skateboard! Here's a clip from their TOS:
Your MySpace.com profile may not include the following items: telephone numbers, street addresses, last names, and any photographs containing nudity, or obscene, lewd, excessively violent, harassing, sexually explicit or otherwise objectionable subject matter. Despite this prohibition, information provided by other MySpace.com Members (for instance, in their Profile) may contain inaccurate, inappropriate, offensive or sexually explicit material, products or services, and MySpace.com assumes no responsibility or liability for this material.

Poetry! I am but a sucker on the tit.

There was originally a comment here, but I realized later it was ill-advised, poorly thought out, and a mistake to have let it escape my fingers.


As the point was made earlier, there is a definite chance of mistake and accidental decapitation with the axe swinging. If this were comparable, think of all the people who could get away with murder.

"Gee, I dunno officer, he said I could point this gun inches above his head and fire, but right as I pulled the trigger he jumped! It wasn't my fault he died, it was his!"

Words have no power. Axes do.


I'd like to see someone go an entire week without using a single word that everybody in America would find perfectly acceptable.

If words have no power, than I wonder why e.g. racist comments are punishable by law.
Let me add that I support that Law.

I'm still responding to your deleted comment.
I blogged the MOSH-song while replacing the F-word by the Dash-word -since I agree with what he was saying ( as in: vote Bush out, and end the War in Iraq) while taking strong umbrage to his wording at times.

I'd like to see someone go an entire week without using a single word that everybody in America would find perfectly acceptable.
Going on an entire week while using only words that at least someone in America would find offensive would strike me as a remarkable achievement - but hardly meritious. Meretricious, rather.

<snip>

As the point was made earlier, there is a definite chance of mistake and accidental decapitation with the axe swinging. If this were comparable, think of all the people who could get away with murder.

"Gee, I dunno officer, he said I could point this gun inches above his head and fire, but right as I pulled the trigger he jumped! It wasn't my fault he died, it was his!"

Words have no power. Axes do.

<snip>

Strong words, Togashi!

Are you really new here? Your post count is 3?

Strong words, Togashi!

Are you really new here? Your post count is 3?


Then why is using e.g. racist terms punishable under Law?

Then why is using e.g. racist terms punishable under Law?

I didn't say "strong words, Togashi" meaning I supported his/her position. It's probably indefensible. Just, it was either ballsy, or someone else with a new name.

I see racial vilification laws (sorry, what we call them in Oz) as bad law. I obey them, of course, but that's easy for me, because I don't racially abuse people. h-hem, where, were we?

Racial vilification laws seriously get in the way of talking about race. The restrict sensible debate, as well as Nazi ravings. Problem.

Twits. They're Liberal and ungrateful morons. "Princes and Republics which do not have their own Armed Forces are highly reprehensible" - Niccolo Machiavelli.
And please, let's not have any Anti-Machiavelli talk unless you speaker has read The Discourses. However, if it's a I understand correctly, then I say let 'em keep the site. Sure, it stinks, but freedom of speech and all that.

I didn't say "strong words, Togashi" meaning I supported his/her position. It's probably indefensible. Just, it was either ballsy, or someone else with a new name.

I see racial vilification laws (sorry, what we call them in Oz) as bad law. I obey them, of course, but that's easy for me, because I don't racially abuse people. h-hem, where, were we?

Racial vilification laws seriously get in the way of talking about race. The restrict sensible debate, as well as Nazi ravings. Problem.


Well, words either have power, or they don't.

If words have power, then strong words would be expected to have strong power, and weak ones weak power.

If words have no power, then strong words still have no power.

But as for the assertions that words have no power: claptrap and blarney.
( I always knew that Schopenhauer would be useful ;) )

"Princes and Republics which do not have their own Armed Forces are highly reprehensible" - Niccolo Machiavelli.

A single statement by a 500 year old political philosopher does not make a good argument.

A single statement by a 500 year old political philosopher does not make a good argument.
Lol. Silly person. Even if it did it wouldn't be recognized. No-one cares about arguments anymore. It's just fun to quote some long-dead guy who agrees with me. It's not an argument, just using his statement as my own, and sounding posh because some-one who is recognized said it, not just a nerd on his computer.

Lol. Silly person. Even if it did it wouldn't be recognized. No-one cares about arguments anymore. It's just fun to quote some long-dead guy who agrees with me. It's not an argument, just using his statement as my own, and sounding posh because some-one who is recognized said it, not just a nerd on his computer.

Hey, I read "the Prince" twenty years ago. Nothing else.

Is Osama a prince ?

Go on, stick your head in it.

I don't see this as much different to the "fuck welfare" sites out there. They're just ranting against a different government department.

They can say whatever they want, and they have a RIGHT TO.

But that doesn't mean we will sit back and have our sensibilites violated. We have a RIGHT to do something about it too ;)

I'm exercising that right
No, you don't have the right to remove others peoples' free speech rights.

they've got at least 3 groups for that too
Sex with soldiers, for peace?

What if there was a war, but no soldiers turned up because they were too busy geting laid? rofl

Seems like we are now getting back to the old vietnam mentality of throwing rocks and piss balloons at combat veterans.
There's difference there. "Fuck the Troops" is merely speech. Throwing rocks and piss balloons is assault and should be illegal.

No, hatespeech directed at...
Watch out for the PC mob!

Your name is an oxymoron
And your opinions don't resemble those of Barry Goldwater, but who bugs you over that?

Whether a specific terrorist sees it is besides the point. Making treasonous statements in a time of war does not require that the enemy hear it.
How can the enemy be comforted by that which he doesn't hear?

I wish we could go back to the days of Palmer raids. But that is the history lover in me speaking.
It's not the American lover of freedom speaking, at least.

I guess, in the fantasy land in which that works, we could bad mouth the soldiers in harms way all day long and never face a consequence.
That's not fantasy, that's reality. The "Fuck the Troops" fringe say that all day without consequence.

I am for protecting the freedoms found in the Constitution of the United States.
Except the first one?

First of all let me say thank you. You are the reason the Democrats keep losing. Thanks. your arrogant and irritating liberalism grates like nails on a chalk board where I come from.
The Democrats keep losing because of the speech of people like Free Soviets, who are expressly, not Democrats?

This is not a war on terror. It is a war on fundamentalist Islam.
So why go to war against a secular country like Iraq?

So if it was up to you Hussein would still be in power. There would be no free elections in Iraq. Mass graves would still be being filled.
Thanks to the US war, tens of thousands of graves are being filled.

Saddam did an orderly, if evil, job of running Iraq. How long has it been since he committed a massacre? 12 years?

translation: I never want a liberal President in the white house. I can't wait to lose in 08'.
What has "fuck the troops" got to do with "liberal president"?

Once again you misread. During times of war you cannot undermine the war effort. Criticize all you want. Do not undermine.
Meaningless when the line between criticism and undermining is arbitrarily drawn by you depending on how you feel.

No, you don't have the right to remove others peoples' free speech rights.

He's got the right to try! Within the law. And petitioning MySpace is within the law.
Unless you count the laws of common-sense :D

He's got the right to try! Within the law. And petitioning MySpace is within the law.
Unless you count the laws of common-sense :D

The laws of common sense dictate against even being on Myspace.

They can say whatever they want, and they have a RIGHT TO.

But that doesn't mean we will sit back and have our sensibilites violated. We have a RIGHT to do something about it too ;)

I'm exercising that right
You have a right to take away other people's freedom of speech?

<I demurred>


Sorry to be tardy in getting back to you on that. Stuff to do.

Thanks for being gradual about it. Doctors are an excellent example, being highly qualified professionals with a lot of power over others. And regulated by laws.
(Some would immediately have leapt to "So you oppose crime, but don't believe in punishing criminals.)
You I like.

If we believe in the law as the dictate of what individuals may or may not do, we have the right to protest them doing anything which is within the law, but not impeding it by unlawful means. We can buy out their unethical (as we see it) company, set up a medical practice with friendlier doctors across the road, picket their premises in a peaceful manner. We can agitate to have it outlawed. But making the individuals who work there feel personally threatened is beyond our rights of free speech.

So, waving a placard with a picture of a preterm baby on it, and yelling "doctors murder the unborn" is free speech. Doing that outside a doctor's home (making it personal) isn't.
And setting up a website is a much less confrontational way. No-one has to look at it.

I haven't seen the "Fuck the troops" site. So I won't take the analogy any further. Sorry, but I disagree with the name, and don't want to put another digit on their hit counter.
That is how I protest their childish protest and it's counter-producive means to oppose a war I oppose.

Don't worry about the hectic answering. I'm at work myself and I reply when things quiet down so I apologize too.

I'm not sure of the doctor anology though. Doctors take an oath to preserve life, while soldiers take an entirely different oath. Also there is a big controversy on wether or not what US troops are doing over there is, in fact, "legal" (But that, like abortion, is an entirely different discussion).
I'm from a country that doesn't have an army, so I don't have much insight or understanding of the reverence held for military or the role it plays in society.

I understand where you're coming from, and that you disagree with the site. I haven't looked at it either (mainly because it's Fox's myspace and sounds like childish drivel).
What's confusing to me is the word "support". Supporting someone in doing something you oppose seems like a contradiction to me. Or maybe it's because supporting them in spite of opposing the war in a way implies that their lifes are worth more than other "foreign" lifes.

There is a group on myspace now called Fuck Our Troops. There has been a petition set electronically. This will end tomorrow. Anyway it has over 300 replies, I was number 313, that we're going to petition to Tom, the creator of Myspace, to remove the group. I mean, even if I don't support the war I'll still support the troops. I really hope we're able to put a stop to them. That's just my opinion, what do you guys think?
I think you're acting like a bunch of jackasses.

No matter how much you dislike what they have to say, nobody is forcing you to click their links. Nobody is forcing you to view what they've posted. You're choosing to do something that makes you pissed off, and then you're whining about how pissed off it makes you.

If you're going to live in the grown-up world, one of the most important lessons you can learn is to get the hell over yourself. People around you are going to say and think and do a whole lot of things that you don't like. If you can't handle it, then consider a nice, cozy hermitage.

Freedom of speech.

As much as I hate to say this, I completely agree with you. Freedom of speech means freedom of ALL speech, even if it's as despicable, hypocritical and selfish as that group.

And this is coming from someone who is joining the Marines in 1 year.

Also, I am for the war (I think we should bring the draft back and send like 1 million guys in there), I am for the brave men and women serving in Iraq, and I was also for the invasion, although I was 13 at the time and probably didn't understand the full political implications of what Shrubby was getting us into.

What about freedom of petition?

Yeah, if you find something within a business offensive you have the right to petition to the manager or the guy who runs it too remove it, thats their right to.

Tangential question: do you think that the F-word is acceptable?

I think that the use of the F-word all by itself is sufficient reason to pull the plug.
Wow, I think it this the most militantly PC person I have ever found. Taking legal action against people for using bad words?

I'll never understand that concept.... "I oppose the war, but I support fighting"
That's not what it means. It means that you support the welfare of the troops.

Wow, I think it this the most militantly PC person I have ever found. Taking legal action against people for using bad words?

Personal pet peeve of mine:

Wanting to censor the "f-word" is not "PC." Political correctness relates to broad social, political, and educational change, especially to redress historical injustices in matters such as race, class, gender, and sexual orientation. Stopping people from using curse words is not "political correctness," unless the curse word in question is a racial, religious, classist, or gender-based slur.