Quote:
Originally Posted by Tedminator
Actually you do. Why is it I've never heard you critisize the iraqis?
|
Really? You make this assumption because YOU PERSONALLY HAVE NEVER HEARD ME CRITISIZE IRAQIS? JEEZ MAN IVE ONLY BEEN HERE FOR ABOUT 4 WEEKS! GIVE ME A BREAK! I only give the Iraqis leave way because Ive seen the enemy murder their faimilys because of there service to there country. What American has EVER had to endure that? However you dodged my responce! Iraqis ARE Fighting for themselves in BASRA! Try and tell me otherwise!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tedminator
Come to think of it, so far the only thing I've read from your postings is how stupid Americans are. But never a bad word about iraqis, some who kill American soldiers, and most of whom approve of Americans being killed.
|
Are you trying to say that I Place Iraqis above the American People? Certainly NOT! I simply know that it is vital to our national security that the Iraqis continue to succeed!
As far as my comments on the anti war crowd,
YOU CANT TELL ME THAT THESE PEOPLE HAVE AMERICAS BEST INTEREST IN MIND!!!!!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tedminator
Now why is that? Is it because the far-right care more for iraqis than they do Americans?
|
What? Because they know the consequences of handing a victory over to Al-Quieda? Im willing to bet that you would be fine with that! Right?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tedminator
mazing, isn't it? Those decorated vets want to deliver a non-partisan message.. and the first thing our far-rightwingnuts do is call their own countrymen "stupid" and accuse Americans of being traitors.
|
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schenck_v._United_States
LOOK LOOOONNNGGG AND HARD AT THOES ANTI WAR PROTESTORS! TELL ME THAT THEY ACTUALLY CARE ABOUT OUR AMERICAN DEMOCRACY! TRAITORS? ABSOLUTLY! YOU CANT TELL ME THAT THOES PEOPLE LOVE AMERICA!
AHHH THE GOOD OLD DAYS!
Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919), was a United States Supreme Court decision
concerning the question of whether the defendant possessed a First Amendment right to free speech against the draft during World War I . Charles Schenck was the Secretary of the
Socialist party and was responsible for printing distributing and mailing 15,000 leaflets to men eligible for the draft that advocated opposition to the draft. These leaflets contained statements such as; "Do not submit to intimidation", "Assert your rights", "If you do not assert and support your rights, you are helping to deny or disparage rights which it is the solemn duty of all citizens and residents of the United States to retain." Ultimately, the case served as the founding of the "clear and present danger" rule.
The opinion
The Court, in a unanimous opinion written by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., held that Schenck's criminal conviction was constitutional. The First Amendment did not protect speech encouraging insubordination, since, "when a nation is at war many things that might be said in time of peace are such a hindrance to its effort that their utterance will not be endured so long as men fight, and that no Court could regard them as protected by any constitutional right." In other words, the court held, the circumstances of wartime permit greater restrictions on free speech than would be allowable during peacetime.
In the opinion's most famous passage, Justice Holmes sets out the "clear and present danger" standard:
"The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent."
This case is also the source of the phrase "shouting fire in a crowded theater," a misquotation of Holmes' view that "The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic."
As a result of the 9-0 decision, Charles Schenck spent six months in prison.