America's #1 Online Cigar Auction
first, best, biggest!

Last post 21 years ago by Cigarick. 13 replies replies.
Rights are sometimes wrong
Jump to Bottom | Previous Topic | Next Topic
tailgater Offline
#1 Posted: Wed, Mar 26 2003, 8:34 AM EST
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,185
If an old lady trips and a group of teens laugh, do you congratulate them for having the "right" to do it?

If your neighbor puts up an ugly fence along your common border, do you make a toast to his bold enthusiasm of expression?

When a lawyer gets millions for his client who has burned their lap with hot coffee, do you argue in favor of his right to do it?


Why then do many "support" Moore's outlandish lack of Patriotism? Why have many been more than casually vocal regarding his "rights"?

The exploitation of Freedoms in this country is too commonplace. And those that justify this exploitation are just as guilty as those that do it.

Should pediphiles be allowed to form support groups?
Because by using the reasoning of some on this board, they have that "right".

cwilhelmi Offline
#2 Posted: Wed, Mar 26 2003, 9:00 AM EST
Joined: 07-24-2001
Posts: 2,739
Are you F*cking serious??? You must have no conception of Freedom, because you sure seem quick to usurp it when it is contrary to your "beliefs".

There are laws in our country, laws that lay out what our rights are, as well as what they are not. These laws are not based solely on morality, but on social norms and conventions that have evolved over time. Yes, just because something is legal, doesn't make it right to everyone in this country. That's why there is a delineation between law and morals, most people do not share all of the same morals hence why the courts steer clear of regulating morality. Many of the social norms are products of morals, but have become social norms due to widespread agreement over time, and therefore evolve into law.

Until these actions that you speak against have laws put in place to stop them, then yes these people have the right. No matter what you think or feel to the contrary that’s how it is. You as well have the right to speak against them and their actions, in whatever forum you choose, but posing these weak at best scenarios in order to vindicate yourself only illustrate your naivety.

The simple fact that our great nation doesn't force your beliefs on me makes me even more proud to be an American!!
tailgater Offline
#3 Posted: Wed, Mar 26 2003, 9:25 AM EST
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,185
So you're proud that child molestors have a forum to discuss tactics.

Yes, this is the most vile example I could give, but it's being offered to make a point. Common sense can prevail if we only let it.
Nobody is suggesting that our freedoms be taken away. Simply that when somebody abuses them that the masses unite against the offender.

Why am I so upset over a peon like Moore?
Becasue he used a World Wide forum to plant seeds of insecurity in the minds of our young soldiers. Soldiers that need support and love will instead hear about a "fictitious mission". Is that how we rally our troops?
This isn't a game in Iraq. Lives will be lost. Atempting to demoralize our troops is the exact opposite of what being American is all about.
Mr Moore's agenda (and his right to express it) is not more important than the lives of our soldiers. Why don't you understand that?

So when your neighbor puts up an ugly fence to the legal height limit, don't complain. Don't try to fight it in court. Instead rejoice in his freedom.
cwilhelmi Offline
#4 Posted: Wed, Mar 26 2003, 9:27 AM EST
Joined: 07-24-2001
Posts: 2,739
The point will have to continue to be completely missed I guess...
xrundog Offline
#5 Posted: Wed, Mar 26 2003, 9:39 AM EST
Joined: 01-17-2002
Posts: 2,212
None of the examples you listed are even close to apt analogies to Mr. Moores statement of opinion. Yes, I support his right to say what he did. He made no mention of the military. Didn't use the words "baby killers". Didn't try to spit on anybody. He voiced his opinion of the President, motives for the war, and the validity of the war. What would be the alternative to allowing him to say it? Halfway through his rant clap him in irons and throw him in the pokey? That's what they do in the country we are fighting against. GWB keeps saying it is peoples right to criticize their government in America. Are you contradicting the CIC? Your attitude is exactly what the Bill of Rights protects us from! Pant, Pant! Okay I feel better now.
Spiny Norman Offline
#6 Posted: Wed, Mar 26 2003, 9:39 AM EST
Joined: 09-04-2002
Posts: 899
"""""Becasue he used a World Wide forum to plant seeds of insecurity in the minds of our young soldiers. Soldiers that need support and love will instead hear about a "fictitious mission". Is that how we rally our troops? """"

I'm sure they are way smarter then you believe them to be.
tailgater Offline
#7 Posted: Wed, Mar 26 2003, 9:48 AM EST
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,185
Guys, I don't suggest that the war will turn based on **** Moore's comments.
But it is one more piece of the puzzle.
I know he has the right to do what he did. And my problem with him isn't solely based on the fact that I disagree with him.
Let's face it, the Oscars are broadcast the world over. You may giggle because one of our hollywood leftists was able to lash out, but I find it embarrassing.
Abusing a right simply because you can does not strengthen the resolve of our great country.

But when the troops see hundreds of thousands gather in NYC for a protest, and then see hundreds of thousands more in London, and Paris. And then hear this dickhead dribble both IQ points out of his pie-hole, well it doesn't take much more negativity to make these guys and gals second guess their mission.
And second guessing for even a split second can mean the difference between life and death.

Spiny Norman Offline
#8 Posted: Wed, Mar 26 2003, 10:05 AM EST
Joined: 09-04-2002
Posts: 899
"""And second guessing for even a split second can mean the difference between life and death. """

I'm no expert, but I think it's safe to assume that far more servicemen will be lost to friendly fire then to wayward thoughts concerning the statements of Michael Moore.

xrundog Offline
#9 Posted: Wed, Mar 26 2003, 12:19 PM EST
Joined: 01-17-2002
Posts: 2,212
Okay 'gater, I see your point. I disagree though. Our military is comprised of highly trained professionals. None of this debate and protest will sway their focus. This isn't the 'Nam era military. Nothing anyone says makes a difference. Orders have been issued and will be executed. They will persevere.
Cigarick Offline
#10 Posted: Wed, Mar 26 2003, 6:03 PM EST
Joined: 07-28-2002
Posts: 3,078
It's amazing enough that an inaccurate opinion piece like "Bowling For Columbine" could win for best documentary, but what's really astounding is that a child molester can win for best director. And just look who's keeping him safe!
RICKAMAVEN Offline
#11 Posted: Wed, Mar 26 2003, 6:50 PM EST
Joined: 10-01-2000
Posts: 33,248
tailgater

your comparisons do not stand any test of logic so any conclusion drawn would be without merit.
you can't establish a conclusion ie. moore had no right to speak, because if he does then it follows that pedophiles have a right to molest.

that cow is brown
all cows are brown
this animal here, is brown
therefore this animal is a cow.


"The exploitation of Freedoms in this country is too commonplace" by golly, you are correct, and you are no longer free to exercise your "right" (pun intended, if you missed it, and i bet you did)to post your opinions on this board and irritate me. if you wish to continue, you must only post ideas i find acceptable.

ie







no it's a brown horse.
RICKAMAVEN Offline
#12 Posted: Wed, Mar 26 2003, 7:13 PM EST
Joined: 10-01-2000
Posts: 33,248
Cigarick

if you are refering to polanski as a child molester, you might want to look into the case more fully. there was so much bs what with the mother sending her child to him with a plan to improve her career by the very nature of her actions.

there was never any indication of pedophilia in his background and reason shows he was probably "setup"

of course polanski is a moron, and did molest that
young girl illegally and should have and was convicted.

having agreed with you as far as his guilt, what does that have to do with the oscars, an invention of the hollywood crowd, to reward each other for doing what they consider a better job acting then someone else
did, taking into consideration more then the acting itself, but do they like the person nominated.

the oscars are a farce, a play, a show, it's
"HOLLYWOOD."
tailgater Offline
#13 Posted: Thu, Mar 27 2003, 4:19 AM EST
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,185
Rick,
Nope.
I didn't imply that since Moore can profess Anti-American bull on the worldwide stage that pedophiles can molest.
My analogy was simply to debunk the argument that Moore is allowed to do what he did because Free Speech is all encompassing. "no gray area" is a concept with which I disagree.
And I've never said that Moore didn't have the right to do what he did. Simply that he should not have, and he should be met with swift justice by means of public persecution.
So you see, not all cows are brown.
Cigarick Offline
#14 Posted: Thu, Mar 27 2003, 4:42 AM EST
Joined: 07-28-2002
Posts: 3,078
> there was so much bs what with the mother sending her child to him
> reason shows he was probably "setup"

How she came to be there is beside the point. Young girls are alone with adult males all the time. Most of us manage to restrain ourselves. Opportunity is not an excuse.

> what does that have to do with the oscars

Just further proof of how screwed up Hollywood's leftist elite really are.
Users browsing this topic
Guest
Back to Top