Volconvo is a debate forum for the discussion of political, religious, and news-based topics.

Impenitent · Oct 23, 2003, 09:08 am

Gary

"but he has the right to say whatever he wants when he's not wearing the uniform and speaking in public about US policy."

in other words, he has no freedom of speech...

sorry, but he didn't give up that right as much as you would like to strip him of it because his view is not yours... if he was speaking out against the war you would have no trouble...

and the churches and prayer breakfasts were private

Section 8 · Oct 23, 2003, 10:57 am

Impenitent, I don't want this war too turn into another crusade. This is the reason I think that he should be removed.

Impenitent · Oct 23, 2003, 11:48 am

so you launch a crusade against the crusade?

the crusades have nothing to do with it... the US is not the catholic church...

but ANYTHING can be turned into a crusade... your crusade for communism (or whatever you happen to call it this week) for example...

fedfem · Oct 23, 2003, 01:06 pm

I suggest you all read this and then decide whether 'Prayer Breakfasts' are private or a matter of national security.

http://www.harpers.org/online/jesus_plus_n...thing.php3?pg=1

Gary · Oct 23, 2003, 02:47 pm

Impenitent, stop twisting my words.

If he made anti-war statements in that uniform, he would be reflecting the US policy, if US policy was contrary that, he would possibly be condemned. He would be saying it as a representative of government.

When he speaks of religious crusades in that uniform, he is also representing the US Army and Government.

That's the point.

Like I said, had he not been in uniform, and speaking from his experiences as an intelligence director for the War on Terror, then calling it from his experience a war against Satan, I would have no problem.

However, he was in uniform, speaking as his position. Private prayer breakfast or not, he's representing the government.

Impenitent · Oct 23, 2003, 08:23 pm

Gary

how far do you go? what are the limits of governmental uniforms? police? all military?

how about representatives and senators? what uniforms do they wear? when senator boxer or represenative pelosi opens her mouth and bad mouths bush and the iraq conflict she is representing the government... how about good ol murdering ted? kennedy that is... what of his uniform? why teddy can lie about bush whenever it strikes him... and teddy can lie from the floor of the senate... but teddy represents the government... where is your outrage over that? hypocrisy... silence one but not the other? your bias is showing...

fedfem · Oct 23, 2003, 09:28 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Impenitent,)
Gary

how far do you go? what are the limits of governmental uniforms? police? all military?

how about representatives and senators? what uniforms do they wear? when senator boxer or represenative pelosi opens her mouth and bad mouths bush and the iraq conflict she is representing the government... how about good ol murdering ted? kennedy that is... what of his uniform? why teddy can lie about bush whenever it strikes him... and teddy can lie from the floor of the senate... but teddy represents the government... where is your outrage over that? hypocrisy... silence one but not the other? your bias is showing...<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Congress represents the PEOPLE!

Gary · Oct 23, 2003, 09:59 pm

Impetient, there is a differnce between a government OFFICIAL and a representative. Furthermore, there's a difference between a POLICY DIFFERENCE, and equating our war on terror to a "WAR AGAINST SATAN".

He's in the military, he's held to a higher standard. He's in chrage of intelligence and is telling these people not about the policy, but about his religious views, in a position that shows him as the government. Not as the people's representative.

The point is when they lie, I'll get mad about it, either side of the aisle. This isn't lying, this is racism from a government offical. Where do I draw the line? Not all military, military in the position of not only leadership but policy influence, in fact I'd say the line is the same for most people. If you're going to shoot your mouth off in a way that he did you should be reprimanded.

Had he said the war was great, we were making advances quashing islamists extremsists, that'd be a different story, he directly linked our military policy to a crusade.

Impenitent · Oct 24, 2003, 02:28 am

ff... and who do you think the government IS?!?

Gary

is a senator or representative a government official or not? get out your dictionaries...

" and is telling these people not about the policy, but about his religious views, in a position that shows him as the government. "
as the quoted congressman said "I am disappointed at the level of intolerance being shown to the general for speaking about his faith in a church"

the general didn't reveal any military information, he stated his opinion about the enemies we are currently fighting... he is spouting his religious views in a church! what law is there against that?!? some idiots equate all evil acts as coming from satan, he is obviously equating the terrorists as satanic... do I think the general is right? not at all... am I mature enough to understand when he is blowing off steam? am I mature enough to understand the FREEDOM of speech is to protect all speech ESPECIALLY UNPOPULAR SPEECH?!?

racism from a government official? you get more racism from jackson or farrakan...give me a break... read your first ammendment again... he is free to speak as he wants, he did not reveal state secrets and if his speech offends you, tough. he has the right to say what he did. and the left is worried about ashcroft taking away rights...

political correctness has overrun society and we are unable and afraid to say what we mean... it is CENSORSHIP of the most vile type

G. Adams · Oct 24, 2003, 07:33 am

The sensible thing for Bush to do would not be to condemn him, but to say 'he has every right to say those things as a private citizen. which he is now because he's fired.'

Gary · Oct 24, 2003, 10:57 am

I've explained this far too long. He was a prayer breakfasts, we already talked about that.

He was wearing his uniform, speaking as an official, making comments about his view on he war on terror. Unfortunatley, he made these statemens while using his position, that's the problem with it, as I've said.

And no, senators and representatives are NOT governmental APPOINTED OFFICIALS. They are elected REPRESENTATIVE of the PEOPLE

Impenitent · Oct 24, 2003, 12:23 pm

appointed officials now? elected officials... they are both government officials... it seems you have trouble with some government officials exersizing their freedom of speech and not others... where do the speech police start?

fedfem · Oct 24, 2003, 01:14 pm

In our republic, some states have the "Right to Revolution' against the US Government in our constitutions. My Senator represents the people of my state. He or she is to speak the will and views of the People not the government. If we disagree with what our Reps say, we can refuse to re-elect them. An appointed official, representing the US, as a whole, is different.

Impenitent · Oct 24, 2003, 02:30 pm

ff... no, only texas retains that right because it was a nation before becoming a state... the civil war settled the succession question, there is no right to revolution...

you forget in america, the people ARE the government

speech police... mind police.... where is the freedom?

Gary · Oct 24, 2003, 02:44 pm

Good Lord, no one is saying that he can't say it, we're saying he shouldn't say it. That the adminisration, AS IT HAS ALREADY DONE, should distance itself from these ridiculous comments made by the general.

No, appointed officials are officals of the government, executive branch with the exception of the President and his Cabinet.

The Legislature is the elected representatives, not governmental officials.

A Represenative or a Sentor is that first, not an agent of government, an agent for their state.

G. Adams · Oct 24, 2003, 03:37 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Impenitent,)
ff... no, only texas retains that right because it was a nation before becoming a state... the civil war settled the succession question, there is no right to revolution...

you forget in america, the people ARE the government

speech police... mind police.... where is the freedom?<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

No right to revolution? What the hell do you think the 2nd amendment is for? Any time someone has their rights infringed by the government they have the right to revolt, be it at the individual, state or national level.

Impenitent · Oct 24, 2003, 04:30 pm

individuals may revolt... if they don't over power the state they are treated as criminals... so there is no "right" to revolt... break the law and be punished...

the second ammendment is to make sure the others are kept, yes I know that... but as far as states having the right to revolt, that was settled in 1865

Impenitent · Oct 24, 2003, 04:34 pm

if someone is allowed to speak as they wish, there should be no penalty for speaking that way... if you start penalizing certain speech, that is taking his right to free speech away...

fedfem · Oct 24, 2003, 05:09 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Impenitent,)
ff... no, only texas retains that right because it was a nation before becoming a state... the civil war settled the succession question, there is no right to revolution...

you forget in america, the people ARE the government

speech police... mind police.... where is the freedom?<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

You are wrong. My state of NH--Article 10

[Art.] 10. [Right of Revolution.] Government being instituted for the common benefit, protection, and security, of the whole community, and not for the private interest or emolument of any one man, family, or class of men; therefore, whenever the ends of government are perverted, and public liberty manifestly endangered, and all other means of redress are ineffectual, the people may, and of right ought to reform the old, or establish a new government. The doctrine of nonresistance ag ainst arbitrary power, and oppression, is absurd, slavish, and destructive of the good and happiness of mankind.

Other states retain the right as well.

Impenitent · Oct 24, 2003, 08:30 pm

ff

no, the people of new hampshire can revolt against the federal government and the us army will decimate the state... have fun on your revolution... the federal government will not allow new hampshire to seceed, hense you have no right to revolution... all the other states save texas are subject to federal authority that prevents secession... texas specifically has the right because it was a condition that the nation of texas secured before becoming a state... chances are that the federal government would not allow texas to seceed either, just another federal treaty that is meaningless, but the point is that the federal government does have an agreement with texas whereas the feds have no treaty as such with any other state...

Oct 23, 2003, 09:08 am	#21 (permalink) (top)
Impenitent Hot Lava Posts: 1,859	Gary "but he has the right to say whatever he wants when he's not wearing the uniform and speaking in public about US policy." in other words, he has no freedom of speech... sorry, but he didn't give up that right as much as you would like to strip him of it because his view is not yours... if he was speaking out against the war you would have no trouble... and the churches and prayer breakfasts were private "I really like this jacket, but the sleeves are much too long..." insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results...

Oct 23, 2003, 11:48 am	#23 (permalink) (top)
Impenitent Hot Lava Posts: 1,859	so you launch a crusade against the crusade? the crusades have nothing to do with it... the US is not the catholic church... but ANYTHING can be turned into a crusade... your crusade for communism (or whatever you happen to call it this week) for example... "I really like this jacket, but the sleeves are much too long..." insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results...

Oct 23, 2003, 02:47 pm	#25 (permalink) (top)
Gary aspiring dictator Location: Washington DC Posts: 14	Impenitent, stop twisting my words. If he made anti-war statements in that uniform, he would be reflecting the US policy, if US policy was contrary that, he would possibly be condemned. He would be saying it as a representative of government. When he speaks of religious crusades in that uniform, he is also representing the US Army and Government. That's the point. Like I said, had he not been in uniform, and speaking from his experiences as an intelligence director for the War on Terror, then calling it from his experience a war against Satan, I would have no problem. However, he was in uniform, speaking as his position. Private prayer breakfast or not, he's representing the government. visit the red arm chair

Oct 23, 2003, 08:23 pm	#26 (permalink) (top)
Impenitent Hot Lava Posts: 1,859	Gary how far do you go? what are the limits of governmental uniforms? police? all military? how about representatives and senators? what uniforms do they wear? when senator boxer or represenative pelosi opens her mouth and bad mouths bush and the iraq conflict she is representing the government... how about good ol murdering ted? kennedy that is... what of his uniform? why teddy can lie about bush whenever it strikes him... and teddy can lie from the floor of the senate... but teddy represents the government... where is your outrage over that? hypocrisy... silence one but not the other? your bias is showing... "I really like this jacket, but the sleeves are much too long..." insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results...

Oct 23, 2003, 09:28 pm	#27 (permalink) (top)
fedfem Igneous Magma Location: Northeastern, USA Posts: 606	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Impenitent,) Gary how far do you go? what are the limits of governmental uniforms? police? all military? how about representatives and senators? what uniforms do they wear? when senator boxer or represenative pelosi opens her mouth and bad mouths bush and the iraq conflict she is representing the government... how about good ol murdering ted? kennedy that is... what of his uniform? why teddy can lie about bush whenever it strikes him... and teddy can lie from the floor of the senate... but teddy represents the government... where is your outrage over that? hypocrisy... silence one but not the other? your bias is showing...<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Congress represents the PEOPLE!

Oct 23, 2003, 10:57 am	#22 (permalink) (top)
Section 8 Hot Lava Location: Spokane, WA Posts: 782	Impenitent, I don't want this war too turn into another crusade. This is the reason I think that he should be removed.

Oct 23, 2003, 01:06 pm	#24 (permalink) (top)
fedfem Igneous Magma Location: Northeastern, USA Posts: 606	I suggest you all read this and then decide whether 'Prayer Breakfasts' are private or a matter of national security. http://www.harpers.org/online/jesus_plus_n...thing.php3?pg=1

Oct 23, 2003, 09:59 pm	#28 (permalink) (top)
Gary aspiring dictator Location: Washington DC Posts: 14	Impetient, there is a differnce between a government OFFICIAL and a representative. Furthermore, there's a difference between a POLICY DIFFERENCE, and equating our war on terror to a "WAR AGAINST SATAN". He's in the military, he's held to a higher standard. He's in chrage of intelligence and is telling these people not about the policy, but about his religious views, in a position that shows him as the government. Not as the people's representative. The point is when they lie, I'll get mad about it, either side of the aisle. This isn't lying, this is racism from a government offical. Where do I draw the line? Not all military, military in the position of not only leadership but policy influence, in fact I'd say the line is the same for most people. If you're going to shoot your mouth off in a way that he did you should be reprimanded. Had he said the war was great, we were making advances quashing islamists extremsists, that'd be a different story, he directly linked our military policy to a crusade. visit the red arm chair

Oct 24, 2003, 02:28 am	#29 (permalink) (top)
Impenitent Hot Lava Posts: 1,859	ff... and who do you think the government IS?!? Gary is a senator or representative a government official or not? get out your dictionaries... " and is telling these people not about the policy, but about his religious views, in a position that shows him as the government. " as the quoted congressman said "I am disappointed at the level of intolerance being shown to the general for speaking about his faith in a church" the general didn't reveal any military information, he stated his opinion about the enemies we are currently fighting... he is spouting his religious views in a church! what law is there against that?!? some idiots equate all evil acts as coming from satan, he is obviously equating the terrorists as satanic... do I think the general is right? not at all... am I mature enough to understand when he is blowing off steam? am I mature enough to understand the FREEDOM of speech is to protect all speech ESPECIALLY UNPOPULAR SPEECH?!? racism from a government official? you get more racism from jackson or farrakan...give me a break... read your first ammendment again... he is free to speak as he wants, he did not reveal state secrets and if his speech offends you, tough. he has the right to say what he did. and the left is worried about ashcroft taking away rights... political correctness has overrun society and we are unable and afraid to say what we mean... it is CENSORSHIP of the most vile type "I really like this jacket, but the sleeves are much too long..." insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results...

Oct 24, 2003, 07:33 am	#30 (permalink) (top)
G. Adams Fyrdman Location: Middlesbrough UK Posts: 4,152	The sensible thing for Bush to do would not be to condemn him, but to say 'he has every right to say those things as a private citizen. which he is now because he's fired.' Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery. Winston Churchill

Oct 24, 2003, 10:57 am	#31 (permalink) (top)
Gary aspiring dictator Location: Washington DC Posts: 14	I've explained this far too long. He was a prayer breakfasts, we already talked about that. He was wearing his uniform, speaking as an official, making comments about his view on he war on terror. Unfortunatley, he made these statemens while using his position, that's the problem with it, as I've said. And no, senators and representatives are NOT governmental APPOINTED OFFICIALS. They are elected REPRESENTATIVE of the PEOPLE visit the red arm chair

Oct 24, 2003, 12:23 pm	#32 (permalink) (top)
Impenitent Hot Lava Posts: 1,859	appointed officials now? elected officials... they are both government officials... it seems you have trouble with some government officials exersizing their freedom of speech and not others... where do the speech police start? "I really like this jacket, but the sleeves are much too long..." insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results...

Oct 24, 2003, 01:14 pm	#33 (permalink) (top)
fedfem Igneous Magma Location: Northeastern, USA Posts: 606	In our republic, some states have the "Right to Revolution' against the US Government in our constitutions. My Senator represents the people of my state. He or she is to speak the will and views of the People not the government. If we disagree with what our Reps say, we can refuse to re-elect them. An appointed official, representing the US, as a whole, is different.

Oct 24, 2003, 02:30 pm	#34 (permalink) (top)
Impenitent Hot Lava Posts: 1,859	ff... no, only texas retains that right because it was a nation before becoming a state... the civil war settled the succession question, there is no right to revolution... you forget in america, the people ARE the government speech police... mind police.... where is the freedom? "I really like this jacket, but the sleeves are much too long..." insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results...

Oct 24, 2003, 02:44 pm	#35 (permalink) (top)
Gary aspiring dictator Location: Washington DC Posts: 14	Good Lord, no one is saying that he can't say it, we're saying he shouldn't say it. That the adminisration, AS IT HAS ALREADY DONE, should distance itself from these ridiculous comments made by the general. No, appointed officials are officals of the government, executive branch with the exception of the President and his Cabinet. The Legislature is the elected representatives, not governmental officials. A Represenative or a Sentor is that first, not an agent of government, an agent for their state. visit the red arm chair

Oct 24, 2003, 03:37 pm	#36 (permalink) (top)
G. Adams Fyrdman Location: Middlesbrough UK Posts: 4,152	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Impenitent,) ff... no, only texas retains that right because it was a nation before becoming a state... the civil war settled the succession question, there is no right to revolution... you forget in america, the people ARE the government speech police... mind police.... where is the freedom?<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> No right to revolution? What the hell do you think the 2nd amendment is for? Any time someone has their rights infringed by the government they have the right to revolt, be it at the individual, state or national level. Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery. Winston Churchill

Oct 24, 2003, 04:30 pm	#37 (permalink) (top)
Impenitent Hot Lava Posts: 1,859	individuals may revolt... if they don't over power the state they are treated as criminals... so there is no "right" to revolt... break the law and be punished... the second ammendment is to make sure the others are kept, yes I know that... but as far as states having the right to revolt, that was settled in 1865 "I really like this jacket, but the sleeves are much too long..." insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results...

Oct 24, 2003, 04:34 pm	#38 (permalink) (top)
Impenitent Hot Lava Posts: 1,859	if someone is allowed to speak as they wish, there should be no penalty for speaking that way... if you start penalizing certain speech, that is taking his right to free speech away... "I really like this jacket, but the sleeves are much too long..." insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results...

Oct 24, 2003, 05:09 pm	#39 (permalink) (top)
fedfem Igneous Magma Location: Northeastern, USA Posts: 606	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Impenitent,) ff... no, only texas retains that right because it was a nation before becoming a state... the civil war settled the succession question, there is no right to revolution... you forget in america, the people ARE the government speech police... mind police.... where is the freedom?<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> You are wrong. My state of NH--Article 10 [Art.] 10. [Right of Revolution.] Government being instituted for the common benefit, protection, and security, of the whole community, and not for the private interest or emolument of any one man, family, or class of men; therefore, whenever the ends of government are perverted, and public liberty manifestly endangered, and all other means of redress are ineffectual, the people may, and of right ought to reform the old, or establish a new government. The doctrine of nonresistance ag ainst arbitrary power, and oppression, is absurd, slavish, and destructive of the good and happiness of mankind. Other states retain the right as well.

Oct 24, 2003, 08:30 pm	#40 (permalink) (top)
Impenitent Hot Lava Posts: 1,859	ff no, the people of new hampshire can revolt against the federal government and the us army will decimate the state... have fun on your revolution... the federal government will not allow new hampshire to seceed, hense you have no right to revolution... all the other states save texas are subject to federal authority that prevents secession... texas specifically has the right because it was a condition that the nation of texas secured before becoming a state... chances are that the federal government would not allow texas to seceed either, just another federal treaty that is meaningless, but the point is that the federal government does have an agreement with texas whereas the feds have no treaty as such with any other state... "I really like this jacket, but the sleeves are much too long..." insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results...