And PLEASE Don't quote me in reply here in this thread as if I am defending Ed and that NOT what this thread is about. Though you can use Eds reply in the Drudge Report: Christopher Reeve is dead as an EXAMPLE.

I am defending Constitutional rights to express ourselves as individuals in our own way.

If you reply to my post in the Drudge Report: Christopher Reeve is dead then you have violated the protocal YOU have sought to defend.
What I'm getting at is IF you do not agree with Ed's reply in the Drudge Report: Christopher Reeve is dead thread because you felt it was unwaranted then you (by creating a reply to Ed) have turned that memorial thread into a mud slinging contest. If you TRUELY respect Mr. Reeves passing then you MUST respect the way others have done so, even Ed!

If you don't like it you can open another thread (that is NOT a ban Ed or "rate me" thread) to take up the discussion or issue Ed started. I don't think Cliff would mind if you were to do that. In fact I would love to read a civil discussion (as if that were possible) on the very topic.

Anyway... read on and comment.

I pledge allegiance to the Flag
of the United States of America,
and to the Republic for which it stands:
one Nation indivisible,
With Liberty and Justice for all.

In a Constitutionl Republic (which we all have pledged our allegiance to) every individual has exclusive rights guaranteed under the Constitution of the United States of America. The United States Constitution allows for each individual to represent and express him or herself in any way he or she feels without the fear of persecution so long as the individual does not infringe on the Constitutional rights of another individual.

That means in the case of public opinion ALL people have the freedom to express themselves in any way they wish regardless of popular view. This means that each individual can express himself (without violating anothers Constitutional rights) and be free of ALL persecution from other individuals. This includes the opinions of other individuals who do not find agreement. It is OK to disagree with anothers RIGHT to express themselves but it is NOT RIGHT to persecute them (by condeming their status as a free citizen) or cause detrement to ther person, belongings or freedoms. To revoke a freedom without proper representation and due process in civil court is a VIOLATION of the Constitution of the United States of America. In a civil matter ALL jurors who hear a case MUST unanimously agree to prosecute an individual. If ONE juror disagrees and does not find infavor of a guilty verdict then the case is dismissed.

In a Democratic society, the majority rules. An individual can be prosecuted even if 4 out of 7 people find a person guilty of a crime. This means that in a public setting all those NOT in favor of hanging an individual for expressing an opinion are not taken into consideration and the individual is condemned. It is then possible to justify the condemnation of those who sided with the condemned. This is not an example of due process and the majority rule can and will eliminate ALL who oppose the popular verdict. In a democratic scociety of majority rules and the other 49% are forced to submit or be persecuted for speeking out, thus restricting freedom. Democracy is nothing more than 51% having 100% ruling authority over 49%

------------------
When extraordinary power and extraordinary pay are allotted to any individual in a government, he becomes the center, round which every kind of corruption generates and forms. Give to any man a million a year, and add thereto the power of creating and disposing of places, at the expense of a country, and the liberties of that country are no longer secure. What is called the splendour of a throne is no other than the corruption of the state. It is made up of a band of parasites, living in luxurious indolence, out of the public taxes.

When once such a vicious system is established it becomes the guard and protection of all inferior abuses. The man who is in the receipt of a million a year is the last person to promote a spirit of reform, lest, in the event, it should reach to himself. It is always his interest to defend inferior abuses, as so many outworks to protect the citadel; and on this species of political fortification, all the parts have such a common dependence that it is never to be expected they will attack each other

Thomas Paine

--------------

Democracy is the most vile form of government... democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention: have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property: and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.

James Madison

[This message has been edited by 84Bill (edited 10-12-2004).]

Well said. Does this mean you're voting Rebublican?

But seriously, remember the U.S.A. is neither a total Democracy nor a total Constitutional Republic. It's an amalgamation of both. It may not have started that way, but that's how it is today.

[This message has been edited by Formula88 (edited 10-11-2004).]

not well said:

I pledge allegiance to the Flag
of the United States of America,
and to the Republic for which it stands:
one Nation, UNDER GOD, indivisible,
With Liberty and Justice for all.

quote Originally posted by Formula88: Well said. Does this mean you're voting Rebublican? But seriously, remember the U.S.A. is neither a total Democracy nor a total Constitutional Republic. It's an amalgamation of both. It may not have started that way, but that's how it is today.

Yes, today it is an amalgamation of both due mostly to the enacting of laws that smother Constitutional rights. In the early years it was a Constitutionaly based Republic with a Democratic elections process. Today it prodominently democratic except for the some spots in the judicial process. Even then democracy rears its ugly head.

quote Originally posted by Toddster: not well said: I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands: one Nation, UNDER GOD, indivisible, With Liberty and Justice for all.

UNDER GOD was not in the orginal pledge.

In June of 1954 an amendment was made to add the words "under God".

http://www.usflag.org/pledgeofallegiance.html

^ I was going to say that.

84Bill: excellent post. Whenever anyone mistakenly refers to the USA as a democracy, he/she should be pointed to this thread.

i dont pledge allegiance to a piece of cloth, no matter how deeply symbolic. might as well pledge to the dollar bill.

here's how i say it, with pauses in the appropriate places.

"i pledge allegiance to the united states of america, and to the republic,
one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all." (ideally).

the pledge was originally created by a flag salesman. his purpose? to increase sales of flags.

[This message has been edited by lurker (edited 10-12-2004).]

quote Originally posted by lurker: i dont pledge allegiance to a piece of cloth, no matter how deeply symbolic. might as well pledge to the dollar bill. here's how i say it, with pauses in the appropriate places. "i pledge allegiance to the united states of america, and to the republic, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all." (ideally). the pledge was originally created by a flag salesman. his purpose? to increase sales of flags.

Works for me.
To me, the flag represents the Constitution of the United States. It's more like the more durable and colorfull copy of the Constitution, paper doesn't hold up all that well outside so the flag is a stand in.

When I was in school I was forced into saying the pledge and I kinda didn't like that. I always thought if I was free to choose then I should be able to choose not to... Yeah I was the smartass rebel type.. Alot of times I just skipped out until after that who haha was over.

[This message has been edited by 84Bill (edited 10-12-2004).]

I've been screaming about this for years. We're SUPPOSED to live in a republic-not a democracy. In general conversation, written and oral, people use the terms interchangeably. Most Americans are so ill-educated they don't know the difference. Governments generally degrade along the same lines. Republics rot into democracy, democraies rot into socialism(where we are now) and socialism morphs into some sort of vile opressive dictatorship. Rome went all the way from a republic to a decadant socialist dictatorship before it fell from it's own corruption. Most of the rest start at the socialist phase and decay from there. Examples; National Socialist, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics(what an oxymoran!) Peoples Republic of China(another oxymoran). I forgot who said; "democracies only last until the people discover that they can vote themselves a part of the public treasury". We are there now; Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, welfare(corporate and individual) thousands of pork-barrell projects. THAT is why we have high taxes and budget defecits-not because we don't tax rich people enough. Now some half-wits want to get rid of the electorial college-the last vestages of the great republic the Founders left us. What a shame.

Republics rot into facism.
Any of these qualitys of facism sound familiar?

Dr. Lawrence Britt has examined the fascist regimes of Hitler (Germany), Mussolini (Italy), Franco (Spain), Suharto (Indonesia) and several Latin American regimes. Britt found 14 defining characteristics common to each:

1. Powerful and Continuing Nationalism - Fascist regimes tend to make constant use of patriotic mottos, slogans, symbols, songs, and other paraphernalia. Flags are seen everywhere, as are flag symbols on clothing and in public displays.
2. Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights - Because of fear of enemies and the need for security, the people in fascist regimes are persuaded that human rights can be ignored in certain cases because of "need." The people tend to look the other way or even approve of torture, summary executions, assassinations, long incarcerations of prisoners, etc.
3. Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause - The people are rallied into a unifying patriotic frenzy over the need to eliminate a perceived common threat or foe: racial , ethnic or religious minorities; liberals; communists; socialists, terrorists, etc.

4. Supremacy of the Military - Even when there are widespread domestic problems, the military is given a disproportionate amount of government funding, and the domestic agenda is neglected. Soldiers and military service are glamorized.
5. Rampant Sexism - The governments of fascist nations tend to be almost exclusively male-dominated. Under fascist regimes, traditional gender roles are made more rigid. Divorce, abortion and homosexuality are suppressed and the state is represented as the ultimate guardian of the family institution.
6. Controlled Mass Media - Sometimes to (sic) media is directly controlled by the government, but in other cases, the media is indirectly controlled by government regulation, or sympathetic media spokespeople and executives. Censorship, especially in war time, is very common.
7. Obsession with National Security - Fear is used as a motivational tool by the government over the masses.
8. Religion and Government are Intertwined - Governments in fascist nations tend to use the most common religion in the nation as a tool to manipulate public opinion. Religious rhetoric and terminology is common from government leaders, even when the major tenets of the religion are diametrically opposed
to the government's policies or actions.
9. Corporate Power is Protected - The industrial and business aristocracy of a fascist nation often are the ones who put the government leaders into power, creating a mutually beneficial business/government relationship and power elite.
10. Labor Power is Suppressed - Because the organizing power of labor is the only real threat to a fascist government, labor unions are either eliminated entirely, or are severely suppressed.
11. Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts - Fascist nations tend to promote and tolerate open hostility to higher education, and academia. It is not uncommon for professors and other academics to be censored or even arrested. Free expression in the arts and letters is openly attacked.
12. Obsession with Crime and Punishment - Under fascist regimes, the police are given almost limitless power to enforce laws. The people are often willing to overlook police abuses and even forego civil liberties in the name of patriotism. There is often a national police force with virtually unlimited power in fascist nations.
13. Rampant Cronyism and Corruption - Fascist regimes almost always are governed by groups of friends and associates who appoint each other to government positions and use governmental power and authority to protect their friends from accountability. It is not uncommon in fascist regimes for national resources and even treasures to be appropriated or even outright stolen by government leaders.
14. Fraudulent Elections - Sometimes elections in fascist nations are a complete sham. Other times elections are manipulated by smear campaigns against or even assassination of opposition candidates, use of legislation to control voting numbers or political district boundaries, and manipulation of the media. Fascist nations also typically use their judiciaries to manipulate or control elections.

All a Republic means is theres a head of state that is not from herditary bloodline. Basically meaning that there is a President that is the head of state. Many countries are Republics. Even Iraq under Saddam and North Korea under Kim. China is a Republic also.

They all select their presidents under different circumstances. China for instance, selects a President by having elections in the party. They choose on merit and creditials. Not by popularity. This system is working great for them. Every President since Mao has been pretty decent.

We select ours under an electorial college system.

Many countries have a two head system, meaning they have a Prime Minister and a President. Presidents are for ceremonial purposes, and the Prime Minister does the real work in Parliment.

Just depends. Yes! The United States is a Republic. We have an electorial college system to select that President. We have a bicarmal legislative system, and we select representatives based on a representative democracy system in either a state wide vote or a representative district vote based on population.

The only thing we can say about the United States that is different than any other nation, is that we have more elected offices in this nation by far (Federal, State, Local) There is tens of thousands of elected positions. Even coreners and dog catchers.

We also, with the exception of Mexico (but Mexico system is quite weak) have a Primary system to narrow choices down to only a single party candidate for the general. I believe Louisanna is the only state that is different. I beleive they do run-offs.

Democracy is what you have when two wolves and one lamb vote on what's for dinner. (a.k.a. mob rule)

quote Originally posted by Wichita: All a Republic means is theres a head of state that is not from herditary bloodline. Basically meaning that there is a President that is the head of state. Many countries are Republics. Even Iraq under Saddam and North Korea under Kim. China is a Republic also. Dictatorships all They all select their presidents under different circumstances. China for instance, selects a President by having elections in the party. They choose on merit and creditials. Not by popularity. This system is working great for them. Every President since Mao has been pretty decent. Their leaders are chosen on the basis of their ruthlessness, political skills, and ability to intimidate others. China is not a republic. Many countries have a two head system, meaning they have a Prime Minister and a President. Presidents are for ceremonial purposes, and the Prime Minister does the real work in Parliment. The famework for socialist tyranny which will degrade into a form of dictatorship. Just depends. Yes! The United States is a Republic. We have an electorial college system to select that President. We have a bicarmal legislative system, and we select representatives based on a representative democracy system in either a state wide vote or a representative district vote based on population. The U.S. USED TO BE a republic. This is no longer true and it is rapidly rotting into socialist dictatorship. The only thing we can say about the United States that is different than any other nation, is that we have more elected offices in this nation by far (Federal, State, Local) There is tens of thousands of elected positions. Even coreners and dog catchers. Like I said; a socialist dictatorship. The ONLY REASON for our strength and wealth was a free market economy. That is being rapidly destroyed. Our government educated citizens think their employer is their enemy. The real enemy is the government which strangles the economy with taxes and useless regulation-all demanded by ignorant citizens who could not fathom economics 101. We also, with the exception of Mexico (but Mexico system is quite weak) have a Primary system to narrow choices down to only a single party candidate for the general. I believe Louisanna is the only state that is different. I beleive they do run-offs. Mexico is a socialist country. Why do you think they're so poor? The only reason the U.S. has been so strong and Mexico so weak is a Republican government which promoted a free market economy. We share the same continent. The same natural resources. Similar climate. The Mexican people are just as smart and capable as we are. The difference is, of course, our republican government. Unfortunately It has been rotted into a democracy and is now corroding into a socialist tyranny. Exactly the same comparisons can be made with our neighbors to the north.

[This message has been edited by larryemory (edited 10-12-2004).]

quote Originally posted by 84Bill: I am defending Constitutional rights to express ourselves as individuals in our own way.

Actually, the First Amendment limits the scope of government only. Let me explain...

Cliff owns this forum. It is within his right, as owner of the bandwidth, to set rules that may include limiting what people say on his forum. That is not censorship. It is the owner of property (intangible though it may be) exercising his right to use that property the way he wishes.

Tyranny would be a non-owning entity (such as a government) trying to set such rules in lieu of Cliff's wishes.

quote That means in the case of public opinion ALL people have the freedom to express themselves in any way they wish regardless of popular view. This means that each individual can express himself (without violating anothers Constitutional rights) and be free of ALL persecution from other individuals. This includes the opinions of other individuals who do not find agreement.

Incorrect.

The First Amendment affords individuals the right to say and think what they wish, but it does not protect them from being ignored, chastised or lambasted from other individuals who find their comments deserving of such reaction.

Everyone has the right to speak. No one has the right to be heard, and credibility is not a given.

Again, limits in the First Amendment are on government, not individuals.

quote Democracy is nothing more than 51% having 100% ruling authority over 49%

Not necessarily. Suppose there are two groups in this country. Group A is 51%, and Group B is 49%. Suppose there is a vote, and group A decides to pass legislation removing the right to vote from Group B.

Now, suppose Group A splits up into three groups, called C, D, and E. Group C is 40% of the former Group A, and Groups D and E are 30% each. Another vote occurs, with groups C and D passing similar legislation against Group E, stripping them of their voting rights.

Do you see where this is going? In a pure Democracy, people would be too willing to vote themselves power, or a piece of someone else's wealth or property. It would be easy to fall into an "Apartheid" system, where a small minority are able to oppress the majority.

------------------
Veritas

[This message has been edited by fogglethorpe (edited 10-12-2004).]

Fogglethorpe is right. The Constitution describes the powers and responsibilities of the federal government, not everyone.

The right to free speech, as described in the First Amendment, is actually a mandate for the federal gov't to recognize that right. It also is specifically the right to speak freely, not the right to be heard, nor the right to be tolerated by other citizens. If someone doesn't want to listen to you, he/she doesn't have to. If that person doesn't like what you're saying, he/she has the right (more free speech) to jeer, talk over you, give you the finger, etc.

Furthermore, the right to free speech does not confer a right to "be in the spotlight" so to speak. You don't have the right to dictate to the media, or hold their bandwidth hostage, per se. If the publisher, radio station, TV station, or whatever doesn't want to print/broadcast your message, they don't have to.

And if you're on private property, then you're at the mercy of the property owner. The federal gov't has no jurisdiction over private property, except in cases of emminent domain or federal crimes.

In my mind, the right to free speech taken to the extreme (i.e. the right to make people listen to you without interruption or rebuttal) is borderline fascism. It reminds me of a dictator standing at the podium preaching to a captive audience.

[This message has been edited by Blacktree (edited 10-12-2004).]

Not to mention that with regards to this forum, The U.S. Constitution doesn't apply because it's hosted and owned in Holland.

quote Originally posted by Formula88:

I know what you are saying but I never said this forum was a constitutional republic. Nor did I demand that "all" people on here should treat Ed with respect. I just said the tiff with Ed was an example to be used to demonstrate the difference between a democracy and a Constitutional Republic.

It just seemd a good example of a how democracy works.

Because I am an American citizen I bring that "baggage" with me when I engage people on this forum. In other words I am much more tolorant (of other peoples views and "lliberal" in my views) because of my constitutional values and I have no problem with Ed making his remarks. To me it is a Constitutional right that is engrained in my head that follows me even into the hellish bowels of a democracy such as this forum. Trust me, I don't always agree with ED but I do defend his constitutional rights as an American.

As I have found, I must muzel my defense of Constitutional rights on this forum because it is a hostile environment where democracy rules.

At the same time it also demonstrates how intolorant Americans in general have become because oddly enough 90% of those who oppose Ed are Americans who have pledged their allegence to the Constitutional Republic and it's values.
That can only mean one of two things. Either most Americans don't understand their Constitutional rights OR they enjoy having the freedom to be part of a democratic lynchmob because a Constitutional Republic bans such activities because it is a violation of the Constitutional values that protect Ed.. and incidentally the individuals engaged in such activities who may soon be lynched themselves IF they don't go along with the democratic program. This is where the term "politicaly correct" comes in. Being politcly correct OR not even engaging in a topic of discussion (particularly if a person fears reprisal) is a protection from persecution in a democratic environment. In other words in a democracy those who fear persecution yet oppose popular view must suffer in silence, where in a Constitutional Republic they would not fear reprisal or persecution.

But no, I was not refering to this board as I am well aware what .NL means.

[This message has been edited by 84Bill (edited 10-12-2004).]

quote 84Bill said: As I have found, I must muzel my defense of Constitutional rights on this forum because it is a hostile environment where democracy rules.

We don't have any Constitutional rights in this forum. Our rights and responsibilities are described in the posting guidelines.

This forum is not reality. Actually, for many of us, it is an escape from reality. You should try to keep them seperate in your mind. I would advise against trying to instill real-life values into the forum, and vice versa. It'll save you alot of grief.

I can understand talking about real-life Constitutional issues on the forum. And I'm all for a healthy discussion. But keep in mind that we'd be discussing something that exists in a different reality... like talking about your personal life with people at work.

OK, Bill, I'm not following you. I don't want to turn this into another "Ed thread", but since you've used him as an example, I'll do the same. It's also easier at times to debate things with a concrete example, instead of vague generalities.

While I agree that Ed (or anyone else) is free to express his opinions, I'm confused by your seeming belief that no one should be able to respond to those comments in a negative fashion. It's not a muzzling of free speech to disagree with a person's views (or more specifically in this case, how that person presents their views). It's not even a muzzling if Ed is banned from the forum; as others have pointed out, it's private property. Ed can say whatever he wants (within the rules of the forum), and other members are free to respond to him as they see fit. Isn't it free speech if I choose to hand out a negative because I disagree with a person's behavior?

Unless I'm just entirely missing your point, you seem to be saying we shouldn't be critical of any opinions. Another example: should we be allowed to be critical of Bush, or Kerry, or any other politician? If we disagree with them in any public medium, isn't that an attempt to contain their rights, according to your logic? Is a political cartoon an expression of free speech, or an example of repressing someone else's speech?

quote Originally posted by Blacktree: We don't have any Constitutional rights in this forum.

I believe I stated that in my previous post.

quote Originally posted by Blacktree: Our rights and responsibilities are described in the posting guidelines.

Yes... again I was not discussing the issue AS IF this forum were a Constitutional Republic.. it's merely an example of contrast between the two workings.

quote Originally posted by Blacktree: This forum is not reality. Actually, for many of us, it is an escape from reality. You should try to keep them seperate in your mind. I would advise against trying to instill real-life values into the forum, and vice versa. It'll save you alot of grief.

Again my values are important TO ME as an individual. I'm not you so I value things differently. I also understand that there are people who like to play and as a matter of fact I am one of them. However, MY underlying feeling is the internet is a resource and I use it as such. It is a place to play and it is a tool for information.. Hell, the internet IS information.

quote Originally posted by Blacktree: I can understand talking about real-life Constitutional issues on the forum. And I'm all for a healthy discussion. But keep in mind that we'd be discussing something that exists in a different reality... like talking about your personal life with people at work.

That's what took me so long to create this thread. I had to weigh the value of posting it but I decided to do so because I happen to enjoy "real life" discussions with others. I understand there are people who will not take it seriously and that is not an issue with me. I just want to discuss what I feel is a very interesting topic with those who are interested.... Thats what I like to do so I did it... Anyone can call me an A hole for creating this thread if they want, I'm just not going to reply to it.

Alright, I get it. I didn't realize this was a theoritical discussion. The way you mixed real life, forum events, and theory together was confusing.

[This message has been edited by Blacktree (edited 10-12-2004).]

quote Originally posted by fogglethorpe: Do you see where this is going? In a pure Democracy, people would be too willing to vote themselves power, or a piece of someone else's wealth or property. It would be easy to fall into an "Apartheid" system, where a small minority are able to oppress the majority.

Don't you understand? That's what we have now. Gay marrage will soon become the law of the land. About 70% of the people do not approve. We have corporate welfare, individual welfare, all kinds of government giveaways. Most people do not approve of those. When the American people realize what a fraud Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid is they are going to be very angry. When the boomers(my generation) realize there is no money to pay their Medicaid, Social Security, etc. they are going to be PISSED! I talk to people my age and they don't believe it. They are in for a shock! Discrimination against Caucasions & Asians in favor of Blacks & Hispanics is legal in this country. Most people at least say they are against that. Rich people are discrininated against in the tax codes. Some people pay 50% or more and others pay nothing. I can't imagine a worse discrimination. The so-called campaign finance law puts severe restrictions on free speech of the people. These things are clearly wrong, but they are the law of the land. We already have a democracy and it's failing rapidly-as they ALWAYS do.

[This message has been edited by larryemory (edited 10-12-2004).]

quote Originally posted by larryemory: Don't you understand? That's what we have now. Gay marrage will soon become the law of the land. About 70% of the people do not approve. We have corporate welfare, individual welfare, all kinds of government giveaways. Most people do not approve of those. When the American people realize what a fraud Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid is they are going to be very angry. When the boomers(my generation) realize there is no money to pay their Medicaid, Social Security, etc. they are going to be PISSED! I talk to people my age and they don't believe it. They are in for a shock! Discrimination against Caucasions & Asians in favor of Blacks & Hispanics is legal in this country. Most people at least say they are against that. Rich people are discrininated against in the tax codes. Some people pay 50% or more and others pay nothing. I can't imagine a worse discrimination. The so-called campaign finance law puts severe restrictions on free speech of the people. These things are clearly wrong, but they are the law of the land. We already have a democracy and it's failing rapidly-as they ALWAYS do.

I didn't necessarily agree with all of Larry's first post but this one is right on the money. I am so sick of hearing people say tax the rich more, when the rich are already paying a much higher % of tax than anyone else. Discrimination is alive and well in this country.. It just doesn't go well with Affirmative Action or 'politically correctness' for anyone to talk about. Caucasions, heterosexuals, Christians, and rich folks are the target of anyone who has a complaint about their life situation. Heaven forbid if a well-to-do white straight Christian has anything to say. He might be burned at the stake because he has no rights at all in this country anymore.

Hard to believe that this thread started from someone worrying about Ed's rights to say anything he pleases in any abusive way he pleases... And even harder to believe that some think we are taking away his rights if we have a negative response to it... Just one more example of how the 'rights' have been twisted in the favor of small groups instead of the majority. Sound sorta like a reverse democracy to me.

quote Originally posted by Blacktree: Alright, I get it. I didn't realize this was a theoritical discussion. The way you mixed real life, forum events, and theory together was confusing.

LOL

Just a FYI.
The Constitution is not a theory, it's a way of (real) life.... Atleast it should be for us Americans

quote Originally posted by 84Bill: Same with Ed. I may not agree with him but I respect his right to say what he wishes in public so long as I don't disrespect him. He WILL respect me. I will not jump on a lynch mob bandwagon an persecute anyone EVEN though I disagree.... Now I have done it in the past but it is not a habbit with me. In fact I rated myself negativly for doing just that.

That's all well and good, Bill.. But your example has nothing to do with Ed. Ed doesn't respect anyone or anything. In case you missed the thousands of times it has been said, the problem with Ed is not what he says. It is how he says it. Ed doesn't respect anyone or anything and that is what you say you ask for. This is not about Ed's opinions. Good thing too since they seem to change depending on how he can cause the most problems.

Go ahead with your lynch mob story if that is what you choose to call it. One day you will have to face the facts that when a single person (or group of people) continue to think that that rules of respect and ettiquete don't apply to them, the MAJORITY will tire of it and get rid of it. It is a sad fact that you think the majority not taking any more crap equals a lynch mob. If you want to talk about a lynch mob, maybe you should look at this red bar brigade. I can guarantee that they give negatives to people who stand up for good values and respectability. And in that case, it is not HOW they say something, it is just simply that they say it at all... Now that is a lynch mob.

What you are descibing is what I was raised to believe are good manners... I don't think it has anything to do with the Constitution.

quote Amendment 1 Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

The restriction on not limiting speech (press or religion too) is a restriction only on Congress (federal law). In fact, it is the only one of the bill of rights that specifically limits itself to Congress. Freedom of speech, press and religion has already gone way beyond anything actually written in the Constitution to include virtually any government authority. How long until the Libriarian can't "shhh" people?

quote Amendment X The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

Since the power to tell someone to STFU was not delegated to the United States... it's in the hands of the states or the people.

quote Originally posted by 84Bill: I respect YOUR right to exercise an opinion on a particular subject even though strongly I disagree with you. As an observer and exerciser of the Constitution "I" must RESPECT your right as a private citizen to voice your greivences. However, I can not... rather I should not make a personal attack or slander you or your name in a public setting for voicing your opinion. If I were to do this to you it is technically a violation of YOUR Constitutional rights to speek in a public setting WITHOUT the fear of being attacked personally by me or anyone who opposes your opinion OR better known as persecution. As private citizens who observe and respect the Constitution and the Constitutional Republic we SHOULD (and I say we should because if you don't respect Constitutional values then you are not offorded the protections of it.) respect each others RIGHT to voice an opinion in a public setting without fear of persecution.

Sorry to quote only part of your post, but the paragraph above is what I want to focus on. As much as I agree that everyone has a right to their opinions, and that everyone has a right to express them, I'm not agreeing with the last part of your assertion. I don't think that you have a constitutional right to not be attacked for your opinion. Yes, there are legal protections against physical assault, and there are protections against libel/slander. But if someone calls me an idiot or jack@ss because they disagree with me, I don't feel they've violated my constitutional rights. I agree name-calling is not the best way to voice an opinion (and we've all done it ), but I don't think it's illegal, or unconstitutional. As I understand the 1st Amendment, it prevents the government from restricting an individual's right to expression. I don't think it applies to you and I having a disagreement, for example, unless the government was trying to silence one or both of us.

quote Originally posted by GT86: Sorry to quote only part of your post, but the paragraph above is what I want to focus on. As much as I agree that everyone has a right to their opinions, and that everyone has a right to express them, I'm not agreeing with the last part of your assertion. I don't think that you have a constitutional right to not be attacked for your opinion. Yes, there are legal protections against physical assault, and there are protections against libel/slander. But if someone calls me an idiot or jack@ss because they disagree with me, I don't feel they've violated my constitutional rights. I agree name-calling is not the best way to voice an opinion (and we've all done it ), but I don't think it's illegal, or unconstitutional. As I understand the 1st Amendment, it prevents the government from restricting an individual's right to expression. I don't think it applies to you and I having a disagreement, for example, unless the government was trying to silence one or both of us.

I understand what you mean by name calling not being a violation of constitutional "rights". It more a violation of Constitutional "values"

If you understand and respect that the Constitution is a set of "protections" that limit the governments power to impose and persecute citizens then you will understand how it also limits you (as a citizen) the power to impose and persecute another private citizen. It's not so much that you CAN'T it more like a code of public conduct. This includes public persecution of another privat citizen.. IE name calling and general slander.
The Constitution was drafted to LIMIT the "democratic mob" or more spacificaly the government. There is nothing stopping you from joining the "mob" except for the respect and understanding of the Constitution and it's "values" that ALL "private" citizens are to be respected and protected regardless of their opinion. It is a VERY different story if you are a "PUBLIC" representive or CANDIDate who is supposed to OPEN and willing to accept criticism.

quote Originally posted by 84Bill: I understand what you mean by name calling not being a violation of constitutional "rights". It more a violation of Constitutional "values" If you understand and respect that the Constitution is a set of "protections" that limit the governments power to impose and persecute citizens then you will understand how it also limits you (as a citizen) the power to impose and persecute another private citizen. It's not so much that you CAN'T it more like a code of public conduct. This includes public persecution of another privat citizen.. IE name calling and general slander. The Constitution was drafted to LIMIT the "democratic mob" or more spacificaly the government. There is nothing stopping you from joining the "mob" except for the respect and understanding of the Constitution and it's "values" that ALL "private" citizens are to be respected and protected regardless of their opinion. It is a VERY different story if you are a "PUBLIC" representive or CANDIDate who is supposed to OPEN and willing to accept criticism.

OK, I'm seeing what you're saying. I don't entirely agree, but at least now I'm understanding you .

quote Originally posted by 84Bill: It's not so much that you CAN'T it more like a code of public conduct.

By the same token, there's a code of conduct for HOW we express our opinions. Sometimes how we express opinions is almost as important as the opinion itself. Someone who's rude, combative, and condescending will attract more hostility than someone who understands the importance of courtesy. That may be a mob mentality, but I don't think it's a reaction to the opinion, it's a reaction to the method of expression. Or in other words, it's a reaction to a violation of a "code of public conduct". In fact, sometimes an opinion can be completely eclipsed by the choice of words used to voice it. That can be unfortunate, but as you mentioned, there ARE codes of conduct.

quote Originally posted by GT86: By the same token, there's a code of conduct for HOW we express our opinions. Sometimes how we express opinions is almost as important as the opinion itself. Someone who's rude, combative, and condescending will attract more hostility than someone who understands the importance of courtesy. That may be a mob mentality, but I don't think it's a reaction to the opinion, it's a reaction to the method of expression. Or in other words, it's a reaction to a violation of a "code of public conduct". In fact, sometimes an opinion can be completely eclipsed by the choice of words used to voice it. That can be unfortunate, but as you mentioned, there ARE codes of conduct.

Not really, because I can call George Bush a freaking retarded bafoon because of his stance on the Iraq war and I should not be "lynched" because of it. However if I call YOU a retarded bafoon.... you get the picture.

While it IS true that this forum has what can be termed a "constitution" of sorts the same mob mentality can exist if it is not respected. In fact that is one of my biggest gripes (up till recently) when it seemed that no matter what my opinion was on a SUBJECT and no matter what thread I was posting in there were particular individuals that would follow me around with a rope. It was a constant and open slamfest of my "persoanly" credibility. I mean it was almost to the point that if I said "my favorite color was green" someone would say "that is because I was nothing more than a pile of snott." I had two choices in that matter go on the offensive or call Cliff my usual course was to go on the offensive. Now... I just push a little button that says rate this member AND I send a PM to the authority.

quote Originally posted by 84Bill: Not really, because I can call George Bush a freaking retarded bafoon because of his stance on the Iraq war and I should not be "lynched" because of it. However if I call YOU a retarded bafoon.... you get the picture. While it IS true that this forum has what can be termed a "constitution" of sorts the same mob mentality can exist if it is not respected. In fact that is one of my biggest gripes (up till recently) when it seemed that no matter what my opinion was on a SUBJECT and no matter what thread I was posting in there were particular individuals that would follow me around with a rope. It was a constant and open slamfest of my "persoanly" credibility. I mean it was almost to the point that if I said "my favorite color was green" someone would say "that is because I was nothing more than a pile of snott." I had two choices in that matter go on the offensive or call Cliff my usual course was to go on the offensive. Now... I just push a little button that says rate this member AND I send a PM to the authority.

Well, I wasn't referring specifically to the forum, but codes of conduct apply here just as they do in real life. And no, I don't think you should be lynched because of your opinion. But again, your opinion could be overshadowed by how you voice it. It's not really a mob when people react badly to rudeness and hostility. Not saying you've been rude or hostile, I'm just saying that rudeness is generally answered with rudeness.

Case in point, this thread vs. the last thread you and I participated in. In the last thread, we both got ruder than we should have. Well, at least I feel that I should have been less of an @ss. That thread quickly ended up in the trash, but all we were doing is voicing our opinions. It's how we voiced them that killed the thread. Same thing here, just voicing opinions, but this thread is much more civil and enjoyable, and isn't emanating that "headed for the Can" vibe .

quote Originally posted by GT86: Well, I wasn't referring specifically to the forum, but codes of conduct apply here just as they do in real life. And no, I don't think you should be lynched because of your opinion. But again, your opinion could be overshadowed by how you voice it. It's not really a mob when people react badly to rudeness and hostility. Not saying you've been rude or hostile, I'm just saying that rudeness is generally answered with rudeness.

Not really, because if you were to say "this is all a bunch of crap" I would merely post a simple smiley face that looks like this

I MAY ask why you feel the way you do so that I can better understand your position, I MAY even say "I disagree with you because XXXXX" But no, I wouldn't take your opinion and make it more than it is because it was not a persoanl attack... it was just an opinion.

quote Originally posted by GT86: Case in point, this thread vs. the last thread you and I participated in. In the last thread, we both got ruder than we should have. Well, at least I feel that I should have been less of an @ss. That thread quickly ended up in the trash, but all we were doing is voicing our opinions. It's how we voiced them that killed the thread. Same thing here, just voicing opinions, but this thread is much more civil and enjoyable, and isn't emanating that "headed for the Can" vibe .

Funny.. because I thought alot about that before I posted my FIRST post. I knew by the looks of that thread that it was headed to the can so it didn't matter to me, I just joined in the lynchmob attitude BUT went after you and a few others and not Donk.

If you know how donk is you know what he will do and it will seem crude and rude.. Case and point.

I had seen donk's posts in a few other threads, I found them to be kinda ... "spirited" for a lack of a better word. Though by first appearences he CAN be really crude, I knew exactly how to say "hello" to him in a way he would understand and I KNEW exactly the kind of response I would get. But I did it anyway because it really didn't bother me, he is predictable in that way and actually it kinda cracked me up. Of coarse the PC police were not all that happy but to me, no harm no foul.

Read this thread, 24th post down

quote Originally posted by larryemory: Don't you understand? That's what we have now. Gay marrage will soon become the law of the land. About 70% of the people do not approve. We have corporate welfare, individual welfare, all kinds of government giveaways. Most people do not approve of those. When the American people realize what a fraud Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid is they are going to be very angry. When the boomers(my generation) realize there is no money to pay their Medicaid, Social Security, etc. they are going to be PISSED! I talk to people my age and they don't believe it. They are in for a shock! Discrimination against Caucasions & Asians in favor of Blacks & Hispanics is legal in this country. Most people at least say they are against that. Rich people are discrininated against in the tax codes. Some people pay 50% or more and others pay nothing. I can't imagine a worse discrimination. The so-called campaign finance law puts severe restrictions on free speech of the people. These things are clearly wrong, but they are the law of the land. We already have a democracy and it's failing rapidly-as they ALWAYS do.

Good post.