It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."
Originally posted by ceci2006
Does being a "good" American mean that we are supposed to take everything the government tells us lying down for the preservation of the nation?
Said Bauer: "Many of you are not listening to the people. You are here to represent the people. They're calling you; they've been calling me. They've been calling all of us. They're saying: 'Don't do it.' "
Bosma, meanwhile, challenged lawmakers to buck public opinion.
"A thermometer shows the temperature; a thermostat sets it," Bosma said. "Do you want to be a thermometer . . . or do you want to be a thermostat and turn Indiana in a new direction?"
Originally posted by Stratrf_Rus
I think the problem with dissent these days is most people are too stupid to be right; and you can't have the wrong challenging the right.
Originally posted by Two Steps Forward
The merit to allowing free dissent has nothing to do with words like "right," "best," or "smartest." Rather, it has to do with words like "corrupt," "dishonest," and "crooked." A leader who cannot be criticized is all too likely to be the last three, and that completely trumps the first three.
Originally posted by BlueTile Spook
Congressman Mike Pence (R) - Indiana stated last summer in a local town hall meeting that he uses the following priorities on how he votes:
(1) his conscience
(2) public opinion
(3) his peer's views
When questioned about #1 and #2 possibly conflicting with one another and that he was "elected to voice the will of the people of Indiana", he admitted that there are times when he does vote or act in opposition to the will of the people of Indiana because of his personal stance on individual issues.
I found his honesty to be refreshing, but should he be voting his personal ideals or should he only be a mouthpiece for the people of Indiana?
Originally posted by Two Steps Forward
Originally posted by Stratrf_Rus
I think the problem with dissent these days is most people are too stupid to be right; and you can't have the wrong challenging the right.
That has ALWAYS been true. People are no stupider today than they have been in the past.
The merit to allowing free dissent has nothing to do with words like "right," "best," or "smartest." Rather, it has to do with words like "corrupt," "dishonest," and "crooked." A leader who cannot be criticized is all too likely to be the last three, and that completely trumps the first three.
Originally posted by Stratrf_Rus
People are no stupider today than in the past?
Try again.
In the 1900 and before citizens were well educated in politics; men were fairly active in politics because politics usually never left the local governments (which were the largest purse holders in expenditures).
Only since the Federal Government expanded and Schools focused on hard sciences have the populous become a bunch of ignorant sheep.
Originally posted by ceci2006
Sometimes I see that even with the First Amendment Rights guaranteed for all Americans, it seems that we are not supposed to be "critical" of our government.
Which type of America is better?
Originally posted by grover
I remember having obscenities shouted at us as we stood in protest to this Iraq fiasco and we had eggs thrown at us and told to shut up. When opposing voices cannot be heard, or more importantly silenced, it becomes the silent death pell of a free society.
Originally posted by jsobecky
Let me start off by saying that you don't have the right to dissent, you have the responsibility to dissent when you feel aggrieved in some way.
Having said that, I am sadly disappointed in the Democratic party these days. It's not the same party that I grew up with. I'm actually surprised that it still has as large a membership as it does, other than to think that it's the lesser of two evils for some people.
Why do I bring the Democrats into this? Because, imo, they have degraded into nothing more than an anti-Republican slogan machine. The only contribution they have is to constantly remind us of what Bush has done wrong, not what they can do right.
Originally posted by grover
When opposing voices cannot be heard, or more importantly silenced, it becomes the silent death pell of a free society. There is an old adage that sorely needs to be remembered in these dark days..."I may disagree with what you say but I will defend to the death the right to say it. " A far more profoundly American sentiment than the claim that when you object to what we are doing, you are giving aid and comfort to the enemy, or some other bullhooey to that effect.
Originally posted by ceci2006
The way I think about it, American citizens do have the right to free speech.
But think about the idea of "redressing grievances". Isn't "redressing a grievance" synonymous with "dissent"? If the American people can petition the government to "redress a grievance" or "right a wrong" unjustifiably occurring to them, I think that we do have a right to dissent.
Part of my support of the Democrats is because of their modern historical roots which brought about an end to social injustice from the 1930's to the modern day. That is the some of the reason why I continue to be part of the party.
Democrats have to stop using character assasination and begin to put together a platform.
Originally posted by jsobecky
The Democrats are often given credit for civil rights legislation, but the Republicans have also had a strong hand in passing civil right laws. As a matter of fact, southern Democrats like Howard Smith worked actively against equal rights for blacks.
This current crop of Democratic "leadership" is a disgrace to the name of the party, imo. They need to be removed before any meaningful change can happen in the party.