Norad45:

Trying to infringe on first amendment rights again?

Would you have written the ditty about response to political detours if Kerry had won?

Would you even be on this forum if Kerry had won?

No need to answer me as I won't believe it, but let the others decide on any answer you give.

Regards,

Pete <img src="/images/graemlins/tongue.gif" alt="" /> (aka Bountyhunter)

bounty,

The first amendment only applies to the government. Also, it only guarantees free speech- it doesn't guarantee you an audience. Freedom to not listen is a part of it.

Goatrider:

I know what you say is true and the First Amendment does not apply to this media.

It is just that those who want to control plant their seeds everywhere so as to make it the norm. In my youth when there were multiple super powers, we never went through the types of searchs that our leaders say are necessary today, nor were attempts to muffle us made. Today, people think it is normal and most older men like me are either too tired or too scared to fight. I'm tired, but I know my parents came to this country so that they wouldn't have to be scared, and so I continue to pursue what I believe is justice.

You have the right to disagree and dispute my beliefs, but my extended history has shown me more than those without my history.

Bountyhunter

My dear bountyhunter,

I too am a very strong believer in the first amendment. It's the most important, and it's why it's first. Remember that our founding fathers had just overthrown a corrupt government and were quite concerned about making sure it doesn't happen again. The most important part of keeping government under control is the ability to talk about it. And I too am aghast and appalled at the way our current administration is trampling this and many other of our rights. It's speech that the government doesn't want to hear that is the most in need of protection, and it's not getting that now.

However, that has nothing to do with why we choose to stay away from certain topics on this forum. This forum has a specific focus, and anything outside that scope belongs elsewhere. Plus, certain topics have a tendency to become uncivil rather quickly. I'm trying hard to be polite here so this discussion doesn't go that route. In the interests of keeping civility around here, I'm quite in favor of the moderators locking a wayward thread, and repeat offenders warned. If you don't like that, you have the freedom to find another forum, or even start one of your own.

Do you really think Doug and Chris lock threads because the Bush administration told them to? Does the Attorney Generalissimo have Doug and Chris on speed-dial? I don't think so.

"Trying to infringe on first amendment rights again?"

No. I believe I was asked my opinion and I gave it. If this bothers you--well frankly, too bad.


"Would you have written the ditty about response to political detours if Kerry had won?
Would you even be on this forum if Kerry had won?"

Please explain what Kerry has to do with dividing this forum up into more sections? Wait, never mind--I'm sure it will involve some sort of fanciful conspiracy and there are a multitude of other websites devoted to that sort of thing.


Regards, Vince

Vince, Pete, Benton, et al -

Perhaps because of this divergence from the subject, it may be another section to suggest - Amendment Debates.

Rena

Rena:

I have to admit if it weren't for women, men would probably have gone the way of the dinosaur.

A little steam never hurt anyone, and as far as I can tell we are done with this burp of steam.

Bountyhunter <img src="/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

Goatrider:

Sorry if I misspoke or wasn't clear.

Never said the Bush administration, but said those who would make it the normal behavior of never straying into politics on a non-political forum.

My response would have been the same if a pro-Kerry individual had said straying into politics on this forum should result in censure or banishment.

Bountyhunter

(P.S. If you check some past posts, you will find "someone" mentioned the 1.5 BILLION cut from the Veterans Administration at a time when more and more Vets need help. That is a political statement and was valid in its context and within the parameters posted.)

Funny thing... up til now, I thought you two were on good terms with one another <img src="/images/graemlins/shocked.gif" alt="" />. I'll keep my thoughts to myself, or it'll surely be another locked thread <img src="/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />. Any body got a suggestion where we can meet to verbally "duke it out"? Just joking about the duking, but seriously, I'd kind of like to get some political education/entertainment without stepping on any toes, and having common interests otherwise has always helped me out when getting into a friendly debate. There are a few of you who might be able to enlighten me (I've never been afraid to learn/change), or at least validate-by-agreement a few of my thoughts.

Troy

Hey... maybe that's a thought in itself, a separate, enter at your own risk section for the "hotter" topics... Nah, maybe not

>> a separate, enter at your own risk section for the "hotter" topics <<

Sasha did that at CPF - the CPF Underground. I found it amusing for a short while and it probably is good for a number of the heavy posters over there. I don't have time to even keep up with the forums that interest me greatly at CPF <img src="/images/graemlins/frown.gif" alt="" /> ... and I'm visiting there VERY infrequently as a result.

FWIW