Flare Sci-fi Forums
Flare Sci-Fi Forums Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile | directory login | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Flare Sci-Fi Forums » Community » The Flameboard » The Benevolent Dictatorship? (Page 3)

  This topic comprises 4 pages: 1  2  3  4   
Author Topic: The Benevolent Dictatorship?
capped
I WAS IN THE FUTURE, IT WAS TOO LATE TO RSVP
Member # 709

 - posted      Profile for capped     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Of course not. I am well aware of the fact that Bill is routinely run through the ringer by his employers and the rest of the media for running his mouth. I didnt say anywhere that he is completely un-responsible for anything he said.

And the President's staff, when standing behind a podium with the Great Seal of The President of The United States of America are not expressing their individual expressions. They are being the mouthpiece of the executive branch of our government.
And I am thankful this is a purely academic issue and that it is only the words of the administration to bill we are discussing. If they had taken action against him, then we would be in a whole other world of shit.

--------------------
"Are you worried that your thoughts are not quite.. clear?"


Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
First of Two
Better than you
Member # 16

 - posted      Profile for First of Two     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The executive branch has freedom of speech as a whole, just as any organization does.

Since no threat was made, i.e. "Watch your mouth or you'll go to jail." There is no grounds for assuming that restrictions were being placed on anybody's freedom of speech. What was said could simply be taken as 'a word to the wise.'

There are nutballs out there, you know, who might decide to 'get' Bill if he speaks too much like a sympathizer with the enemy. Such an act should NEVER be condoned, but a wise man would still accept the possibility.

It's no more a threat than say, if the government official had said to you "Watch what you say about First of Two's gf."* The government won't do anything to you if you say anything bad... but someone else (me) just might remove some of your vital organs without benefit of anesthetic.

*just an example. I know you haven't said a thing.

--------------------
"The best defense is not a good offense. The best defense is a terrifyingly accurate and devastatingly powerful offense, with multiply-overlapping kill zones and time-on-target artillery strikes." -- Laurence, Archangel of the Sword


Registered: Mar 1999  |  IP: Logged
Malnurtured Snay
Blogger
Member # 411

 - posted      Profile for Malnurtured Snay     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I wasn't aware Sears and FedEx were the media, First of Two. You can reach Sears at 1-800-549-4505 and FedEx at 1-800-463-3339. ABC can be bitched at through [email protected] or you can sign the petition at www.petitiononline.com/promaher/petition.html.

Now, if Rush Limbaugh were to get on the radio (apparently, in an unrelated bit, he's got some sort of ear problem, so he can't hear his callers, but he can still talk to them, convenient) and say, "Americans need to watch what they say!" people would dismiss him as the hot bag of racist, homophobic air he is. If Ari Fleisher stands up behind the podium in the press room and says the same thing, it gives a sense of legitimacy to what he's [Fleisher, not Limbaugh] saying. People will pay more attention to the exact same quote [mind you, I'm not saying Limbaugh said for Americans to watch what they say, but it wouldn't surprise me if he did, last time I tuned in he was bitching out the peace movement] from a respectable source. I'm not advocating censorship of government officials ... just that they think about what they say and how it can be interpreted. They've got a greater responsibility then the average joe does. Wasn't that one of the gripes about Clinton? He wasn't "responsible"?

[ October 09, 2001: Message edited by: Malnurtured Snay ]



--------------------
www.malnurturedsnay.net

Registered: Sep 2000  |  IP: Logged
First of Two
Better than you
Member # 16

 - posted      Profile for First of Two     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Telling people to choose their words carefully IS responsible.

Telling people they cannot speak is not.

"Loose lips sink ships" was responsible.


Registered: Mar 1999  |  IP: Logged
Malnurtured Snay
Blogger
Member # 411

 - posted      Profile for Malnurtured Snay     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
"Loose lips sink ships" was responsible.

I need you to clarify something. Are you saying Bill Maher's statements could lead to the destruction of the U.S., or that Fleisher didn't think before he spoke?

Speaking of which, what do you think of what Maher said? Which essentially boiled down to (and I'm paraphrasing): "It's more cowardly to attack a target by firing a missile from an off-shore ship, then to boarding a plane and dying in order to blow something up"

--------------------
www.malnurturedsnay.net


Registered: Sep 2000  |  IP: Logged
First of Two
Better than you
Member # 16

 - posted      Profile for First of Two     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I think I could have eaten him alive (metaphorically speaking) if i'd have been on his show.

I think Maher has confused courage with fearlessness, when there's a huge difference. Suicide bombers are fearless, not courageous. Courage is being afraid, but doing the job anyway.
Courage is NOT murdering unarmed children, no matter if you die doing it.

Maher is more of a comedian than a social scientist, and he'd be better off keeping his day job. Even Howard Stern razzed on him, when he was a call-in guest on his show. "Admit it, Bill, you said a stupid thing."

I think the government official's statements were probably off-the-cuff, and have been blown out of proportion. (Typical.)

--------------------
"The best defense is not a good offense. The best defense is a terrifyingly accurate and devastatingly powerful offense, with multiply-overlapping kill zones and time-on-target artillery strikes." -- Laurence, Archangel of the Sword


Registered: Mar 1999  |  IP: Logged
The_Tom
recently silent
Member # 38

 - posted      Profile for The_Tom     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:

courage n : a quality of spirit that enables you to face danger of pain without showing fear

I'm afraid that the Lexical Gods are smiling upon Bill, not you, First.

--------------------
"I was surprised by the matter-of-factness of Kafka's narration, and the subtle humor present as a result." (Sizer 2005)


Registered: Mar 1999  |  IP: Logged
Malnurtured Snay
Blogger
Member # 411

 - posted      Profile for Malnurtured Snay     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
cour�age (k�rj, kr-)
n.
The state or quality of mind or spirit that enables one to face danger, fear, or vicissitudes with self-possession, confidence, and resolution; bravery.

fear�less (f�rls)
adj.
Without fear; brave.

In other words ... they mean essentially the same thing.

--------------------
www.malnurturedsnay.net


Registered: Sep 2000  |  IP: Logged
Sol System
two dollar pistol
Member # 30

 - posted      Profile for Sol System     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
In one sense. Not to toss my hat any further into this little dust up, but Aristotle might define courage as the ability to perform right actions when faced with fears of pain, punishment, or death.

Of course, you could argue that this definition of courage exists solely to promote a certain moral viewpoint, and you'd be right. So, uh, yeah.


Registered: Mar 1999  |  IP: Logged
The_Tom
recently silent
Member # 38

 - posted      Profile for The_Tom     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Ari Fleischer elaborates the government's position

--------------------
"I was surprised by the matter-of-factness of Kafka's narration, and the subtle humor present as a result." (Sizer 2005)

Registered: Mar 1999  |  IP: Logged
First of Two
Better than you
Member # 16

 - posted      Profile for First of Two     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"Without SHOWING fear" is not the same as "without HAVING fear," just as not SHOWING your underwear is different from not HAVING underwear.

--------------------
"The best defense is not a good offense. The best defense is a terrifyingly accurate and devastatingly powerful offense, with multiply-overlapping kill zones and time-on-target artillery strikes." -- Laurence, Archangel of the Sword

Registered: Mar 1999  |  IP: Logged
Malnurtured Snay
Blogger
Member # 411

 - posted      Profile for Malnurtured Snay     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Nice little rant, First, but you've yet to explain the difference.

Is it "better" to be fearless then to be courageous?

How do you know the terrorists were one but not the other?

What were the firefighters, fearless or courageous?

--------------------
www.malnurturedsnay.net


Registered: Sep 2000  |  IP: Logged
First of Two
Better than you
Member # 16

 - posted      Profile for First of Two     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
It is better to be courageous.

A man who is fearless is generally one or more of three things: insane, a fanatic, or a fool.

If you want a good example... the Jem'Hadar are fearless. The Starfleet Officers who face them are courageous.

Being without fear leads one into making decisions that are more likely to get one killed unnecessarily.

The fearless man will wrestle the crocodile because he can.

The courageous man will wrestle the crocodile only to save his friend, and will still take care to avoid the jaws.

--------------------
"The best defense is not a good offense. The best defense is a terrifyingly accurate and devastatingly powerful offense, with multiply-overlapping kill zones and time-on-target artillery strikes." -- Laurence, Archangel of the Sword


Registered: Mar 1999  |  IP: Logged
Malnurtured Snay
Blogger
Member # 411

 - posted      Profile for Malnurtured Snay     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Ok ... that was part of it ...

But why are the terrorists fearless and not courageous? Why are the fire-fighters courageous and not fearless?

--------------------
www.malnurturedsnay.net


Registered: Sep 2000  |  IP: Logged
Omega
Some other beginning's end
Member # 91

 - posted      Profile for Omega     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Generally, courageous people don't go on suicide missions with no legitimate purpose.

The firefighters were there to save lives. The terrorists were there to take them.

--------------------
"This is why you people think I'm so unknowable. You don't listen!"
- God, "God, the Devil and Bob"


Registered: Mar 1999  |  IP: Logged
  This topic comprises 4 pages: 1  2  3  4   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.

Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


© 1999-2024 Charles Capps

Powered by UBB.classic™ 6.7.3