Thread: German Troops

Bear with me, I'm like deathly ill right now and you're trying to make me think...hell, that's a nono even when I'm not sick...

See, about the political protests, they were doing something RIGHT...I really haven't heard one smart thing out of one of those flag burners. It's all "Lower taxes!" and stuff...do they even know how far we're in debt? (haha, like our taxes even GO to pay off the debt )

Those kings and queens and english tea taxes were all horrendous things...name me something equaling that at the moment (in the US). I'm not saying you can't protest, but you should have good cause!

>>Do you hate hitler and the Nazis? That was a very large mass of people. Are you bad?<<

if you hadn't noticed there's a TEENSY bit of a difference between the nazis and gays, jews, etc...

> I will stop argueing now and let agree to disagree.

Wow, that's the first time I've ever heard that said online. Works for me.

> Now that I think of it this is one of the few arguments that didnt break down to "Your a poopy head" :-)

Butt face.

>> I will stop argueing now and let agree to disagree.

Wow, that's the first time I've ever heard that said online. Works for me. <<

same here...normally arguments continue until the thread is buried...

>> Now that I think of it this is one of the few arguments that didnt break down to "Your a poopy head" :-)

Butt face.<<

bite me

>Do you hate hitler and the Nazis?

No, I don't. Don't fight fire with fire. I don't hate Neo-Nazis. I think they are stupid and their actions are wrong, but hate is the not the right way. The end does not always justify the means.
Hate leads to the dark side. Doesn't matter if your victim deserves it or not.


>I am german, and we'll rule the world again.

I get the impression you have no clue what you are talking about...

>The only frightening in our country is the stupidity of the people,

...oh. I see, you do know what goes here... sorry.

<german>ich würd die kommentare über Arier allerdings hier raushalten... zuviele Missverständnisse.</german>

The price of free speech is having to listen to things you don't like or agree with.

In Aust we had a row about letting in Emim (?) for his tour as some did not agree with what he had to say.

We must fight to protect his right to say it. Same with the KKK, natzi's ect.

They are not right (in my opinion) but only by allowing ALL views to be expressed can we hope to educate others to choose right from wrong.

>> The price of free speech is having to listen to things you don't like or agree with <<

It was freedom of speech that allowed al Quada (sp?) members to hold rallies in the UK denouncing the US and most "Western" countries, long before September 11. I don't believe in freedom of speech if it is to allow such people to spread their hate and mistruths.

And let us not forget Hitler started off as just one person who was allowed to say what he liked.

Words are a dangerous thing in the hands of madmen.

They have the right to say what they believe no matter what it is.
Just as you do.
Take it away from them and you must also give up your right to free speech.

I for one will not.

>>And let us not forget Hitler started off as just one person who was allowed to say what he liked.

And so were Nelson Mandela, Lecvowenza(?) (Polish unionist), Lincon, Dali Lama(?) ect, ect.

Do you want to loose what they had to contribute?

Or is it that you do not trust the rest of us to be able to make our own decisions as to what is right and wrong?

We in the first world only have so much BECAUSE others in the third world have so little.

>>They have the right to say what they believe no matter what it is.
Just as you do.
Take it away from them and you must also give up your right to free speech. <<

Freedom of speech came about because people were being killed for speaking out against the injustices of their societies, not to allow every Tom Dick and Harry to spread racism/hatred/misogynism.

>>And so were Nelson Mandela, Lecvowenza(?) (Polish unionist), Lincon, Dali Lama(?) ect, ect.
Do you want to loose what they had to contribute? <<

That is not the same thing, and you know it. Those people stand for peace and unity, not for violence and hatred.

>>Or is it that you do not trust the rest of us to be able to make our own decisions as to what is right and wrong? <<

It is impossible to run a country without leaders. And no, people can't be trusted to make their own decisions on right and wrong, as too much conflict would occur. We need structure to hold society together othewise it just won't work. Why do you think we have laws?

Just send them in... We need help.

>>That is not the same thing, and you know it. Those people stand for peace and unity, not for violence and hatred.

No, it is the very same thing. Truth / justice is a very relative concept.

They all stated a position which was anti establishment, that is they did not agree with the status quo.

Who decides who gets to be heard?
The government? You or me? The media?

I trust none of these enough to decide what I should or shouldn't hear, do you?

>>Who decides who gets to be heard?
The government? You or me? The media?
<<

All of the above. The Government, you, me, and the media all have a role to play in deciding what is best for us as a collective group. Each is an important part of our society, and each should be responsible.

>>They all stated a position which was anti establishment, that is they did not agree with the status quo. <<

Sadly, there have been many times when governments and the media have taken it upon themselves to determine what we should or should not know or see or do on issues, to the detrement of people. People like Nelson Mandela have seen that this is wrong, and took action against it.

When you start trying to group in people who are not working for peace, who are agents for evil, that is not right. The fact is, these people don't want to build a better society, they want to build a world for themselves.

There is a fundamental difference between challenging the status quo when there are injustices going on, to challenging the status quo because you want more for yourself.

Freedom of Speech is a catch 22 - you can only have it if you truly believe that anything is allowed to be said at all about anything, against anyone. I for one, do not believe that this will ever be allowable, or possible. Freedom of Speech, take at its most literal meaning is a dangerous thing.

>>Freedom of Speech is a catch 22 - you can only have it if you truly believe that anything is allowed to be said at all about anything, against anyone.

This is my point. Some freedoms can be used against us, but we must still maintain them. Like we must accept some guilty do not get convicted so no innocents go to jail.

>>I for one, do not believe that this will ever be allowable, or possible.

Wait a second. You were saying that we should not have freedom of speech a few posts ago.
Now you are saying we don't? I'm confused.


>>All of the above. The Government, you, me, and the media
The government would not be there except for the money of the rich and the power of the media.

The media is owned by only a few and panders shamelessly to their needs (the Kerry's and Rupert here in Aust)

I don't know you and trust ME even less.