I can only go by my own experiences in life. My experience has show me that when someone (person A)makes a conclusive comment about something or someone of a political or personal nature, and then another person (person B) takes issue with that statement made by person A and calls the issue to question in a reasonable manner, if person A responds to person B in the form of name calling rather than a sound objective argument, then my experience is that person A is not open minded about the issue or issues at hand. Person A has drawn a conclusion, and is not interested in hearing different points of view on the issue. They have already judged, and sit in judgment, and don't question their own opinions as they have concluded that no further information, ideas, or points of view have any validity. Wild, in my experience is a type A personality. Famous type A personalities include Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, Castro, Napoleon, and I am sure the list goes on an on. Individuals that were/are totalitarian in their thinking, unable to carry on a reasonable dialogue. Yes, they are entitled to their opinion, however it is difficult to gain respect for those who are not able to converse in a civilized manner, and fall into the name calling posture. I have had passionate yet civil discussions with many people of differing opinions in my life, but when someone begins the name calling strategy (that is different that saying you think someone's thinking is stupid. You can think someone's thinking is stupid, but yet not think the person is stupid---there is a subtle but important difference), I know either I have won the argument, or the argument, learning, communication, and discussion process has ended.
. Where are you from and don't you have any pride in your own country? Excessive flattery and servility only makes you look like the British, a once proud nation that had colonies around the globe, now reduced to a "minion" status singing background to the lead vocals of the mighty U.S.A.
Our civil liberties, - ie freedom of speech, assembly and privacy; equality before the law; due process; and freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures -, are the single most important differentiating point between us and totalitarian regimes we professed to be fighting for, amongst others, their lack of civil liberties. "The USA Patriot Act gives law enforcement agencies nationwide extraordinary new powers unchecked by meaningful judicial review." That is not the hallmark of a free and democratic society, but of a totalitarian police state. Patriot Revolution? Cities From Cambridge to Berkeley Reject Anti-Terror Measure Cities across the country have been quietly staging a revolt against the USA Patriot Act, saying it gives law enforcement too much power and threatens civil rights. http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/usapatriot020701.html Next: THE USA PATRIOT ACT AND THE US DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE: LOSING OUR BALANCES? ...George Orwellâs 1984, and not only because Orwellâs âBig Brotherâ has become such a pervasive metaphor for expansive governmental surveillance. The people in Orwellâs totalitarian state Oceania (Orwellâs prescient amalgam of Britain and America?), knew that their state was engaged in a murky foreign war, against some enemy or other â either Eastasia or Eurasia. The war had become wallpaper, and there wasnât much point in trying to understand what the war was about, or evaluating the governmentâs claims of victory. Information about the war was no more specific and no more reliable than the Newspeak about domestic affairs. I donât know whether we have lost our balance, but I do know that power is careening in one direction. That, combined with the extent of what I donât know, is reason enough to worry. ------------- Susan Herman is a Professor at Brooklyn Law School, where she teaches Constitutional and Criminal Law.University School of Law. She welcomes comments on this essay at JURIST@law.pitt.edu. December 3, 2001 http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/forum/forumnew40.htm The above was just a tiny excerpt, the full article is definitely worth reading. Thoreau on civil disobedience: "Men make an arbitrary code, and because it is not right, they try to make it prevail by might. The moral law does not want any champion. Its asserters do not go to war. It was never infringed with impunity." "The law will never make men free; it is men who have got to make the law free. They are the lovers of law and order, who observe the law when the government breaks it. " Call it the fourth branch of power, if you will, namely, We, The People, who have to step in when things get out of hand: The Declaration of Independence establishes the supremacy of the People and the Right and Duty to defend the Rights of the People over the Acts of the Government. Our Constitution provides for as many protections as possible to ensure that the Government is subservient to the People and only exists for the purpose of serving the People. However, should these protections fail it is up to the People to rise up against the Government and to put the Government back in it's place. In this capacity, the People act as the fourth branch of government to take control and to override their decisions that violate the Fundamental Rights of the People to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. By what means do the People exercise their authority over the Government? That depends on how resistant the Government is to complying with the Will of the People. In the case of the Declaration of Independence, it meant declaring war on the Government and overthrowing them. This is obviously a last resort after taking other steps less harsh. But clearly the Right and the Duty to overthrow the Government in order to restore the United States as a government to serve the People is clearly established in historical precedent. The People Exercise their Powers There are several examples where the People have risen up against the Government in order to reestablish the supremacy of the Will of the People over the interests of the Government. The most memorable event in recent history is the Vietnam War. The Government got us involved in a useless war and got stuck there. It was a war that was clearly wrong, the People didn't support the war, and the Government refused to serve the interests of the People and allowed themselves to be controlled by the interests of those who were profiting from the war. In fairness, there was a national pride factor involved as well. America wasn't ready to admit that we were wrong and to conceal the truth from the People. It was a time when the Government served it's own interests and the interests of people who put their personal profits ahead of the good of the people. In this case the people rose up against the Government and we fought them. We protested, we rioted, we broke the laws, and we forced the Government to be subservient to the People and to get out of Vietnam. We put the Government back in its place to serve us, and not to rule us. We let the Government know that they can not order us into battle to die against our will to fight a war that served no public purpose. When the Government violates the Constitution, it is the duty of the People to rise up against the Government to bring the Government into compliance with the Constitution. On a local level, here in Springfield Missouri, the City Council decided to take the farm of a farming family, who had a well run dairy farm, for the purpose of building an industrial park. The location of the park was chosen so as to be inside the city limits so that Springfield Schools would get the taxes instead of Strafford Schools. Legally, the City had the powers of Eminent Domain to take the land. There was no procedure to stop the City from running the farmers off this 100-year-old family farm. But the People rose up against the City Council and through the sheer force of will the People let the City Council of Springfield Missouri know that the People, acting as the 4th branch of Government, were going to prevent it from happening. http://www.google.com/search?q=cach...&hl=de&ie=UTF-8[/url]
First of all, I can see where people in other countries could harbor some resentment or jealousy toward America. Bottom line is we have a very good lifestyle, even our poor have it pretty good. And we don't really want to share. Let a few jobs go to Mexico and people are up in arms. As if Mexican children shouldn't be able to drink potable water and live a decent life. But instead of just getting an other job (plenty available) they lobby congress or go in and shoot up the old office. Just ridiculous at times. As for free speech, if we want it to be free, we have to put up with things we don't like. For instance, it was recently decided that Virtual Pornographic images of children having sex is protected as free speech. This pisses me off, and I would like to personally kill all pedophiles. However, who is to say the someone doesn't feel the same about Adult Porn? I am not a big fan of flag burning. But if we take that away then do we have to accept everything our government does? If I don't like the decision on Stem Cells, do I just say ok, the ruler has spoken? This nation was founded by criminals escaping oppressive leadership, in the name of freedom. I think the bottom line is that any liberty that we have is bound to conflict in some way with someone's elses liberty or belief system.