PC should not exist at all

MontyB-

I guess the line is drawn at causing physical harm or emotional harm since that does and can go hand and hand with physical harm. But I guess I am kind of confusing morals with that. Then again defamation of character is also against the law so the line is pretty fuzzy. DO NOT get me wrong I feel everyone should be allowed to protest and to say what they want to say. However people need to assert more self control and think things through a little more.

People that protest at a funeral are low life scum bags, seriously how disrespectful and hurtful could one be. No matter how you look at it no matter what your view is that is WRONG period.

A great moral to live by would be to treat others as you would like to be treated; I bet those people would not want their families put through that at their funeral.

Then also I recall an adage that is fitting; Sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me....WTF happend to that????????

Originally Posted by mmarsh

Where on earth does it say one cannot criticize the POTUS? That is completely contrary to the tenents of the First Amendment, and frankly sounds more like rules that would be applied under a dictatorship. And yes, that means I respect every rightwing blowhard right to criticize Bill Clinton.

Teddy Roosevelt once wrote (I'm paraphasing here, but its something like)
"Its is the patriotic duty of every American to criticize ones government"

I have a question for you:

Where in the world did you get the idea that MY personal opinion about how we should speak, or not speak about the President, has anything to do with criticizing the First Amendment?

You need to get your head out of the clouds and realize that every one in the country doesn't think it's cool to slam the leader of the most Free country in the world. You are not attacking the man, you are attacking the office and the country when you do that.

You are free to do so, but I still feel it is not correct. You paraphrased TR by saying:

Its is the patriotic duty of every American to criticize ones government.

How about giving us the actual comment so we can interpet it as he probably meant it.

Your stand point is disturbing at the least.

Originally Posted by mmarsh

Where on earth does it say one cannot criticize the POTUS? That is completely contrary to the tenets of the First Amendment, and frankly sounds more like rules that would be applied under a dictatorship. And yes, that means I respect every right-wing blowhard's right to criticize Bill Clinton.

Teddy Roosevelt once wrote (I'm paraphrasing here, but its something like)
"It's is the patriotic duty of every American to criticize ones government"

Sorry Senior
I agree with MM on this one ... I have a Constitutional right to disagree with my political leaders (and that includes POTUS). Where you and I have a problem is ... Is the man the office (or) is the office the man?

I agree the office SHOULD be respected, but when the President hides behind the office, then sometimes you have no choice but to treat the office with the disrespect that the holder of the office has earned.

Sometimes you can't separate the two.

*Edit* corrected misspelled words in quote.

Senior

You seem to think the president (any president) is to be shielded to criticism simply because he is the president. As I said, that is the arguement of any two-bit dictator around the world. There is no free democracy in the world that bans criticism of the head of state. To list a few that do; North Korea, China, Syria, Cuba, Myanmar, Burma are all places where it is illegal to criticize the Head of State. Do you really want us to join their company? How much of a 'free country' would we be if we did? Do you really think you can keep a free democracy by silencing political dissent? I'm sorry to say that you have no clue how democracy really works.

But if you really are after people desrespecting the Office of President then you should start with George W Bush. I am not talking about his policies. I'm talking about how he acts as the President. For example, his ignoring of the system of checks and balances, by his contempt of the US Constitution, and for the disregard he holds for Congress and U.S and International Law, I think he is an absolute disgrace.

Originally Posted by mmarsh

Senior

You seem to think the president (any president) is to be shielded to criticism simply because he is the president. As I said, that is the arguement of any two-bit dictator around the world. There is no free democracy in the world that bans criticism of the head of state. To list a few that do; North Korea, China, Syria, Cuba, Myanmar, Burma are all places where it is illegal to criticize the Head of State. Do you really want us to join their company? How much of a 'free country' would we be if we did? Do you really think you can keep a free democracy by silencing political dissent? I'm sorry to say that you have no clue how democracy really works.

But if you really are after people desrespecting the Office of President then you should start with George W Bush. I am not talking about his policies. I'm talking about how he acts as the President. For example, his ignoring of the system of checks and balances, by his contempt of the US Constitution, and for the disregard he holds for Congress and U.S and International Law, I think he is an absolute disgrace.

Guys,

There is a difference between criticism and hatred. From what I've read and seen in the media as well as on this board it is less criticism and more from the "I've been programmed by the media" hate mongering.

As far as an absolute disgrace, the fact that most of the laws that you have inferred as the president breaking are allowed under the constitution and or were written into law by other administrations.

It seems as if revisionist history lives in your head.

I guess you are both saying that I don't have a constitutional right to my belief. That seems like a very left wing comment from you both!

Wow, getting rather defensive arn't we? Thats usually the sign of a weak arguement.

Where did Chief Bones or I state your arn't entitled to your opinion?

What you fail to understand (or tolerate), is that while your are entitled to your opinion, we too have have the right to ours. This includes our opinion that you are wrong. Nor are we going to stop criticizing the President just because you don't think we should. If you dont wish to criticize the President thats your business, but don't expect that others (Bones and I) share or honor your values.

If you think one man, G.W. Bush in this case, runs the USA....Well I just don’t know what to say.....If you think we are not still seeing repercussions that have finally come around from previous administrations....Well again I don’t know what to say....

But you are def smoking some good (expletive)

Originally Posted by Senior Chief

Guys,

There is a difference between criticism and hatred. From what I've read and seen in the media as well as on this board it is less criticism and more from the "I've been programmed by the media" hate mongering.

As far as an absolute disgrace, the fact that most of the laws that you have inferred as the president breaking are allowed under the constitution and or were written into law by other administrations.

It seems as if revisionist history lives in your head.

I guess you are both saying that I don't have a constitutional right to my belief. That seems like a very left wing comment from you both!

What he said.

All that comes from attacking any President personally is adding fuel to the fire for your country's enemies. The North Vietnamese often spoke of the protesters who blamed President Johnson for the ongoing war and used every film clip and headline to bolster the confidence of their own soldiers and demoralize our own, effectively causing more deaths of our own forces.

Originally Posted by mmarsh

Wow, getting rather defensive arn't we? Thats usually the sign of a weak arguement.

Where did Chief Bones or I state your arn't entitled to your opinion?

What you fail to understand (or tolerate), is that while your are entitled to your opinion, we too have have the right to ours. This includes our opinion that you are wrong. Nor are we going to stop criticizing the President just because you don't think we should. If you dont wish to criticize the President thats your business, but don't expect that others (Bones and I) share or honor your values.

I think it's best if you read what you wrote and look at the context of how it reads. You are slamming me for "taking away your right to b***h about the president and at the same time telling me that it is against your civil rights.

Just for the sake of argument, it's not Bones, it's CHIEF Bones.