| We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| "we'll get the baddies no matter how long....." | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Sep 21 2003, 10:03 PM (721 Views) | |
| ImpulseEngine | Sep 22 2003, 01:28 PM Post #16 |
|
Admiral
|
She went to Iraq to protest the war. Protesting comes under "speech" in this country. Although she went to another country, it is still relevant to free speech in this country because it was this country who said it was not allowed for her to do so. :angry: She only violated the restriction because the restriction was imposed in the first place. That's what I am criticizing. I don't think the restriction should have been placed to begin with. :angry: No we don't have the right to go anywhere and do anything we please, but I wouldn't call this doing "anything we please". That has a negative connotation. It's not like she was destroying property or robbing or killing people. She was just protesting the war. Big deal. :rolleyes:
That's a crock! The KKK don't even think about morals. The statements they make are about who is superior and who is inferior.
|
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| nztrekkie | Sep 22 2003, 03:57 PM Post #17 |
|
Lieutenant
|
and no one went near the fact that the Reagan Administration sold WEAPONS to Iran - if that's not breaking the law, what is - against it own embargo. Who was accountable for that action ? Was anyone ever prosecuted ? damn activists - always getting in the way ! |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| nztrekkie | Sep 22 2003, 04:03 PM Post #18 |
|
Lieutenant
|
there does seem to be a rather large body of recent graphic evidence to the contrary...... :lol: sorry, couldn't resist. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Swidden | Sep 22 2003, 04:12 PM Post #19 |
|
Adm. Gadfly-at-large; Provisional wRench-fly at large
|
Frankly Impulse as soon as you go beyond the borders of our nation many of your rights stop. Whether it is a result of our military or other nations laws you do not have a reasonable expectation of the same protections. Try standing on the 5th in another country.... |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| ImpulseEngine | Sep 22 2003, 04:31 PM Post #20 |
|
Admiral
|
Everything you said is correct, assuming the travel ban is reasonable. But that's where I disagree. I don't believe we should be telling people where they can and can't travel. We can tell them where they "shouldn't" travel with the intention of informing them of dangerous situations, but whether they choose to travel to those places anyway should be up to each individual IMO. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| ImpulseEngine | Sep 22 2003, 04:38 PM Post #21 |
|
Admiral
|
I don't disagree but it's beside the point. She's not in trouble for what she did there except as it violated the travel ban. And she's in trouble with the U.S., not Iraq. You're talking about what other countries say about a person's actions once he/she is standing on their soil. What I'm discussing is what the U.S. says about people traveling there to begin with. My comment meant that the U.S. should not ban her from traveling there. If that was the case, she would have been able to go there and express her views even if that meant getting in trouble with Iraq once there. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Dandandat | Sep 22 2003, 06:38 PM Post #22 |
|
Time to put something here
|
She could have protested here - and would have been fine - her Speach is not in question. Where she did it is, and she did it in a place she should not have been. Prove to me that the KKK don’t have morals. They clame they do and are working from them, just as this woman clams she does and did. "who is superior and who is inferior" is a moral for them. Why are their morals aloud to be trampled on? Yet we must all bow to this woman’s morals? |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Dandandat | Sep 22 2003, 06:39 PM Post #23 |
|
Time to put something here
|
Good question - but has nothing to do with this woman |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Dandandat | Sep 22 2003, 06:44 PM Post #24 |
|
Time to put something here
|
If you have a simple way of thinking maybe, but there is more to do with it. And I never said the US shouldn’t be held accountable for its actions (who has?), The US is responsible for what happens in Iraq- have been from day one. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| nztrekkie | Sep 22 2003, 09:05 PM Post #25 |
|
Lieutenant
|
I thought it was a good question too. Why hasn't anyone attempted an answer ? I think the two examples are completely related actually. Haven't you ever noticed that small business owners or wage and salary earners are hounded to death sometimes, by the IRS, over very trifflingly small sums of money - whereas huge corporations like Enron and many others seem to get away scott free by comparison. The moral seems to be if you are going to infringe the law, do it big time and you'll be better off comparatively. In the case of granny and the Reagan administration, we have the same example. The treasury will prosecute a 62 year old woman for "trading" in Iraq - ie: buying food and clothes presumably for her own daily survival. It will be interesting to see what penalty she gets if found guilty. Treasury already offered a fine of $20,000 and she rejected it. (BTW - isn't Ashcroft saying today he wants LESS plea bargaining ??) On the other hand, the Reagan adminstration gets off scott free, and not just for buying food for themselves, but for SELLING MILITARY WEAPONS TO IRAN FOR GOD'S SAKE !!!!! ie : they were breaking the law BIG TIME !!!!!!!!!! and what happened ????? nothing it seems. Presidents ARE above the law it seems. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Dandandat | Sep 22 2003, 09:29 PM Post #26 |
|
Time to put something here
|
so then the law must change to get the big fish too, not lessen to free the little fish. Again in Granys (my mom is 60 and she no Grany why skew the facts to make a point, if the point is valid it doesn’t need skewing) case she broke the law so she will have to stand trial for it. Just because the Reagan administration got away with it does not men she should. What it means is the Reagan administration should have to stand trill if it is warranted. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| nztrekkie | Sep 22 2003, 09:51 PM Post #27 |
|
Lieutenant
|
don't think there's anything wrong with the law - it just needs enforcing without DOUBLE STANDARDS !
|
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Dandandat | Sep 22 2003, 09:53 PM Post #28 |
|
Time to put something here
|
Ok fine - so what is your point, what does this have to do with this lady? She got caught and thats fine, now we need to fix the corruption of the big fish. and ... |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| nztrekkie | Sep 22 2003, 09:54 PM Post #29 |
|
Lieutenant
|
it's called having a sense of humour :rolleyes: |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Admiralbill_gomec | Sep 22 2003, 09:57 PM Post #30 |
|
UberAdmiral
|
No it isn't... this is just trying to belittle another nation. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Politics and World Events Forum · Next Topic » |


) who CHOSE her actions? Nope, all we hear about is the "big-bad government is beating up on the poor widdle wady". I am embarrased for my gender to hear this woman claim moral ground but refuse to the consequences of her actions. Don't get me wrong - it's her right to refuse the plea - but then don't bitch because people won't just make it "all go away".
2:31 PM Jul 11