Total Posts:41|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Why does America interferes in EVERYTHING?

gerrandesquire
Posts: 1,258
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2011 8:51:25 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
http://www.deccanherald.com...

We know our limits, and we can (surprisingly) support our democracy without American help, as we have been doing for the last 65 years (minus 1 day). So, please, support your country, stop interfering.
marcuscato
Posts: 738
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2011 9:26:13 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
It was in response to a question asked by him, not something voluntarily offered.
Also they have not really interfered.
Your point is valid in general but not in this case.
gerrandesquire
Posts: 1,258
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2011 10:06:26 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/12/2011 9:26:13 AM, marcuscato wrote:
It was in response to a question asked by him, not something voluntarily offered.

What happened to the tried and tested, 'it is an internal matter, we would not like to comment'. It's global politics, everything said has a meaning deeper than they like to believe. And some internal matters, when commented on by global entities = interference.

Also they have not really interfered.

Commenting on an internal matter,( which is not a big deal anyway), is interference. It is rude,in a prudish language.

Your point is valid in general but not in this case.
Indophile
Posts: 1,414
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2011 10:52:37 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/12/2011 8:51:25 AM, gerrandesquire wrote:
http://www.deccanherald.com...

We know our limits, and we can (surprisingly) support our democracy without American help, as we have been doing for the last 65 years (minus 1 day). So, please, support your country, stop interfering.

I take it you read Indian newspapers. Don't you see there is a tendency to take pride in being patted on the back by "advanced" nations? A kind of sputtering indignation at any appearance of slight? I still feel there's a huge colonial hangover. A feeling of "let's show these westerns".

If you don't want interference on each and every thing, don't go asking for opinions on each and every thing.

As my username suggests, I have a great liking for Indian culture, but the modern Indian media seems childish to me.
You will say that I don't really know you
And it will be true.
gerrandesquire
Posts: 1,258
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2011 11:10:07 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/12/2011 10:52:37 AM, Indophile wrote:
At 8/12/2011 8:51:25 AM, gerrandesquire wrote:
http://www.deccanherald.com...

We know our limits, and we can (surprisingly) support our democracy without American help, as we have been doing for the last 65 years (minus 1 day). So, please, support your country, stop interfering.

I take it you read Indian newspapers. Don't you see there is a tendency to take pride in being patted on the back by "advanced" nations? A kind of sputtering indignation at any appearance of slight? I still feel there's a huge colonial hangover. A feeling of "let's show these westerns".

I actually don't think there is. And have no idea where you're getting this from. America is viewed in a positive light by most Indians, as compared to , say, Pakistan or actually any of our neighbors, so there is this comparative putting down by them, I agree, but even then there is this general consensus that US is to India what China is to Pakistan.

If you don't want interference on each and every thing, don't go asking for opinions on each and every thing.

That is exactly the point. We didn't. The remarks were made during a daily news conference. http://www.indiatvnews.com...

As my username suggests, I have a great liking for Indian culture, but the modern Indian media seems childish to me.

It is childish, we know. And it runs and stays in business because we have a liking for the 'childishness'.
Indophile
Posts: 1,414
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2011 11:21:42 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/12/2011 11:10:07 AM, gerrandesquire wrote:
At 8/12/2011 10:52:37 AM, Indophile wrote:
At 8/12/2011 8:51:25 AM, gerrandesquire wrote:
http://www.deccanherald.com...

We know our limits, and we can (surprisingly) support our democracy without American help, as we have been doing for the last 65 years (minus 1 day). So, please, support your country, stop interfering.

I take it you read Indian newspapers. Don't you see there is a tendency to take pride in being patted on the back by "advanced" nations? A kind of sputtering indignation at any appearance of slight? I still feel there's a huge colonial hangover. A feeling of "let's show these westerns".

I actually don't think there is. And have no idea where you're getting this from. America is viewed in a positive light by most Indians, as compared to , say, Pakistan or actually any of our neighbors, so there is this comparative putting down by them, I agree, but even then there is this general consensus that US is to India what China is to Pakistan.

Oh well, the US is not the only advanced country out there. But I'm glad to be disproved and there is not actually any such mindset.

If you don't want interference on each and every thing, don't go asking for opinions on each and every thing.

That is exactly the point. We didn't. The remarks were made during a daily news conference. http://www.indiatvnews.com...

Hmm. This looks hardly important enough to get all huffed up about :)

As my username suggests, I have a great liking for Indian culture, but the modern Indian media seems childish to me.

It is childish, we know. And it runs and stays in business because we have a liking for the 'childishness'.

Ah, so it is true then :)
You will say that I don't really know you
And it will be true.
marcuscato
Posts: 738
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2011 11:48:07 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
In response to your original question- greed.
I dont think commenting on internal matters amounts to interference. Interference is what is happening in libya. Its not like they are putting any pressure on the Anna Hazare movement. They cant. Hell, even we havent been able to put enough pressure.
There is a limit to the kind of pressure america can put on our country, the can interfere with our justice system but as far as the government is concerned, corruption is king. They are not going to do anything unless they can profit of it-e.g. Nuclear deal.
vbaculum
Posts: 1,274
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2011 11:50:15 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
Expressing an opinion or stating a position is not "interfering". If it were, it would be right to say that DDO members interfer with each other whenever we discuss issues or debate one another.

You don't like what that spokesperson said, therefore, you conflate the concept of expressing of an opinion with the the concept of interference in order to say that he ought not have expressed that position.

This is a trick people use to try to keep people from saying things. It violates the principles of free speech.
"If you claim to value nonviolence and you consume animal products, you need to rethink your position on nonviolence." - Gary Francione

THE WORLD IS VEGAN! If you want it
gerrandesquire
Posts: 1,258
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2011 11:51:54 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/12/2011 11:21:42 AM, Indophile wrote:
At 8/12/2011 11:10:07 AM, gerrandesquire wrote:
At 8/12/2011 10:52:37 AM, Indophile wrote:
At 8/12/2011 8:51:25 AM, gerrandesquire wrote:
http://www.deccanherald.com...

We know our limits, and we can (surprisingly) support our democracy without American help, as we have been doing for the last 65 years (minus 1 day). So, please, support your country, stop interfering.

I take it you read Indian newspapers. Don't you see there is a tendency to take pride in being patted on the back by "advanced" nations? A kind of sputtering indignation at any appearance of slight? I still feel there's a huge colonial hangover. A feeling of "let's show these westerns".

I actually don't think there is. And have no idea where you're getting this from. America is viewed in a positive light by most Indians, as compared to , say, Pakistan or actually any of our neighbors, so there is this comparative putting down by them, I agree, but even then there is this general consensus that US is to India what China is to Pakistan.

Oh well, the US is not the only advanced country out there. But I'm glad to be disproved and there is not actually any such mindset.

If you don't want interference on each and every thing, don't go asking for opinions on each and every thing.

That is exactly the point. We didn't. The remarks were made during a daily news conference. http://www.indiatvnews.com...

Hmm. This looks hardly important enough to get all huffed up about :)

It is a pretty touchy subject, and an internal matter. The debate has been on for months, and is totally an inside matter. So, in the words of Kapil sibbal, it was needless. And kind of presumptuous.

As my username suggests, I have a great liking for Indian culture, but the modern Indian media seems childish to me.

It is childish, we know. And it runs and stays in business because we have a liking for the 'childishness'.

Ah, so it is true then :)

Very true. And the funny fact is, the people in India like it in an exasperated kind of way. We have every stupid thing you can imagine, stupid songs behind news pieces, stupid catchphrases, but then, the discussions are always healthy, and the background sensationalism keeps the people hooked.

But, then it does has it's share of problems, the most important one being that it is easily blamed for everything that goes on internationally. Like, while indulging in some 'healthy discussion' with some Pakistanis (Lol), the blame always comes down on the Indian media. It always is, 'You hate us because of your media'. Well, not exactly. We hate you because you bombed us.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2011 11:57:28 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/12/2011 10:06:26 AM, gerrandesquire wrote:
At 8/12/2011 9:26:13 AM, marcuscato wrote:
It was in response to a question asked by him, not something voluntarily offered.

What happened to the tried and tested, 'it is an internal matter, we would not like to comment'.
It's a discredited trope?

Commenting on an internal matter,( which is not a big deal anyway), is interference.
Good god, what a fascist sentiment.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
gerrandesquire
Posts: 1,258
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2011 11:59:08 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/12/2011 11:50:15 AM, vbaculum wrote:
Expressing an opinion or stating a position is not "interfering". If it were, it would be right to say that DDO members interfer with each other whenever we discuss issues or debate one another.

You don't like what that spokesperson said, therefore, you conflate the concept of expressing of an opinion with the the concept of interference in order to say that he ought not have expressed that position.

This is a trick people use to try to keep people from saying things. It violates the principles of free speech.

You are comparing two poles. What I say (or you, or anyone say) about any other person is not equal to what a spokesperson says about another country. Principles of free speech applies to people, not countries.
gerrandesquire
Posts: 1,258
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2011 12:09:03 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/12/2011 11:57:28 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 8/12/2011 10:06:26 AM, gerrandesquire wrote:
At 8/12/2011 9:26:13 AM, marcuscato wrote:
It was in response to a question asked by him, not something voluntarily offered.

What happened to the tried and tested, 'it is an internal matter, we would not like to comment'.
It's a discredited trope?

But appropriate.

Commenting on an internal matter,( which is not a big deal anyway), is interference.
Good god, what a fascist sentiment.

I could make this an semantic argument, but not really in the mood to type that much.
vbaculum
Posts: 1,274
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2011 12:11:28 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/12/2011 11:59:08 AM, gerrandesquire wrote:
At 8/12/2011 11:50:15 AM, vbaculum wrote:
Expressing an opinion or stating a position is not "interfering". If it were, it would be right to say that DDO members interfer with each other whenever we discuss issues or debate one another.

You don't like what that spokesperson said, therefore, you conflate the concept of expressing of an opinion with the the concept of interference in order to say that he ought not have expressed that position.

This is a trick people use to try to keep people from saying things. It violates the principles of free speech.

You are comparing two poles. What I say (or you, or anyone say) about any other person is not equal to what a spokesperson says about another country. Principles of free speech applies to people, not countries.

Countries are a collection of people. Therefore, the principles of free speech apply to a spokesperson of a country, i.e., a representive (in theory) of its people.
"If you claim to value nonviolence and you consume animal products, you need to rethink your position on nonviolence." - Gary Francione

THE WORLD IS VEGAN! If you want it
marcuscato
Posts: 738
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2011 9:14:19 PM
Posted: 5 years ago

I actually don't think there is. And have no idea where you're getting this from. America is viewed in a positive light by most Indians, as compared to , say, Pakistan or actually any of our neighbors, so there is this comparative putting down by them, I agree, but even then there is this general consensus that US is to India what China is to Pakistan.

No there isnt any consensus of the sort. We do not get handouts from U.S., they dont build infrastructure for us. We are not bankrupt. Its wrong to say that US is to India what China is to Pakistan. China and Pakistan are united only by their hate of India.

Oh, and we hate Pakistan for terrorist bombs and the problems we had during partition.This of course is completely off topic.
Christopheratheist
Posts: 29
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2011 5:35:00 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
As for this specific new article I can say very little as I do not know the situation in its entirety. As for the thread question to explain it, I think its important to put it in to a simpler situation. The world political landscape can be imagined as a play ground, with each nation as a kid in the playground, and the organizations such as the EU, UN, Nato the various teachers watching over it.

Now in this playground groups obviously form, groups of friendly countries who don't like that girl group over there, because they don't believe the same they do, then you have countries such as Israel who are surrounded by other children that just wants to attack them, and any friendly person is on the other side of the playground, various positions evolve and options open. Now put America as one of the top dogs, the child who everyone is afraid of although not openly so.

Suppose your Israel and your stuck behind closed lines have really three options.

1. Act aggressive, scream and shout, and challenge anyone and everyone around you to fight you, show physical strength in the hopes no one will take the offer up.

The main problem with this method is that if you do this, you have to be prepared for one or more of the unfriendly children around you to attack you, and this can be seen from the Palestinian wars, Syrian wars that have gone Israel in the past year.

2. Go to the teachers or call for there help, in the hopes they arrive in time to put something in place to stop the unfriendly children from striking at you.

The issue with this is often the teacher can act to slowly, or can work to a detrimental affect to both the child who is threatened and that who is doing the threatening. They may also punish you also as the other children may begin to spout that you did so and so. So ultimately its not always the best option.

3. Go to the top dogs, or the bully's and cast up some form of protection deal so that those around you who hate you fear the repercussion of the bully.

Now this is the best option to take, all you need to do is spit his name and the other children will become wary and are a lot less likely to attack. In return you give the bully and his retinue of countries which consider him "Friendly" and feed freely of his protection, for example UK, France and so on, some form of payment in this case your daily lunch money.

So the strongest child profits over offering protection to the weaker and/or threatened child, so in this sense America interferes due to greed and profit. As for internal affairs, The children can go with issues that are not relevant to the playground (World Stage) and the bully aides them for some other form of gain, recognition from their retinue of friends and so on. The other reason is the bully may forcefully comment on something to "Threaten without actual words or physical actions" to reinforce in the weaker child, "Hey... You need me, don't forget that" to ensure the future payments.

So in reality America interferes because they have the power to, they can profit of the situation in esteem, renown, financially, and even to better themselves in the eyes of the teacher to avoid scrutiny to give him a reign that is relatively unwatched.
gerrandesquire
Posts: 1,258
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2011 10:15:14 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/12/2011 9:14:19 PM, marcuscato wrote:

I actually don't think there is. And have no idea where you're getting this from. America is viewed in a positive light by most Indians, as compared to , say, Pakistan or actually any of our neighbors, so there is this comparative putting down by them, I agree, but even then there is this general consensus that US is to India what China is to Pakistan.

No there isnt any consensus of the sort. We do not get handouts from U.S., they dont build infrastructure for us. We are not bankrupt. Its wrong to say that US is to India what China is to Pakistan. China and Pakistan are united only by their hate of India.

I guess the last quote wasn't entirely clear. I meant to say that we don't look at US for approval of everything as was implied in the post I was replying to.

Oh, and we hate Pakistan for terrorist bombs and the problems we had during partition.This of course is completely off topic.

Yeah, I know. Can't understand why terrorist is emphasized though.
gerrandesquire
Posts: 1,258
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2011 10:20:45 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/12/2011 12:11:28 PM, vbaculum wrote:
At 8/12/2011 11:59:08 AM, gerrandesquire wrote:
At 8/12/2011 11:50:15 AM, vbaculum wrote:
Expressing an opinion or stating a position is not "interfering". If it were, it would be right to say that DDO members interfer with each other whenever we discuss issues or debate one another.

You don't like what that spokesperson said, therefore, you conflate the concept of expressing of an opinion with the the concept of interference in order to say that he ought not have expressed that position.

This is a trick people use to try to keep people from saying things. It violates the principles of free speech.

You are comparing two poles. What I say (or you, or anyone say) about any other person is not equal to what a spokesperson says about another country. Principles of free speech applies to people, not countries.

Countries are a collection of people. Therefore, the principles of free speech apply to a spokesperson of a country, i.e., a representive (in theory) of its people

Of course it doesn't. This is grossly simplifying the problems, you haven't taken ANY variable into consideration. The spokesperson is speaking for the whole country, Not for himself. Which means he has to take the national stand, which restricts his freedom of speech.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2011 12:29:30 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/12/2011 12:09:03 PM, gerrandesquire wrote:
At 8/12/2011 11:57:28 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 8/12/2011 10:06:26 AM, gerrandesquire wrote:
At 8/12/2011 9:26:13 AM, marcuscato wrote:
It was in response to a question asked by him, not something voluntarily offered.

What happened to the tried and tested, 'it is an internal matter, we would not like to comment'.
It's a discredited trope?

But appropriate.
From the standpoint of a country that would rather not have such things see the light of day perhaps.

The spokesperson is speaking for the whole country, Not for himself. Which means he has to take the national stand, which restricts his freedom of speech.
If a spokesperson employed by a government has to take "The national stand," there is no point in hiring him as he will never say a word if he has an ounce of integrity.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
gerrandesquire
Posts: 1,258
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2011 12:14:48 AM
Posted: 5 years ago

The spokesperson is speaking for the whole country, Not for himself. Which means he has to take the national stand, which restricts his freedom of speech.

If a spokesperson employed by a government has to take "The national stand," there is no point in hiring him as he will never say a word if he has an ounce of integrity.

Meaning that the nation does not have a stand against popular international happenings?
gerrandesquire
Posts: 1,258
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2011 12:22:45 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/12/2011 11:48:07 AM, marcuscato wrote:
In response to your original question- greed.
I dont think commenting on internal matters amounts to interference. Interference is what is happening in libya. Its not like they are putting any pressure on the Anna Hazare movement. They cant. Hell, even we havent been able to put enough pressure.
There is a limit to the kind of pressure america can put on our country, the can interfere with our justice system but as far as the government is concerned, corruption is king. They are not going to do anything unless they can profit of it-e.g. Nuclear deal.

I don't think it was their place to say something.

But regarding the movement, I guess it's not over yet. Government is doing all it can to resist, but this has started. And the people are seeing, and more involve than anything I've seen. So I guess IF this goes wrong, it would be ONLY if Anna dies (worst case scenerio) and the consequences would be disastrous. In any case, be it my optimism, but I see the bill passing in the near future.

Basically because I have faith in Anna and Anna =/= Ramdev
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2011 12:25:30 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/14/2011 12:14:48 AM, gerrandesquire wrote:

The spokesperson is speaking for the whole country, Not for himself. Which means he has to take the national stand, which restricts his freedom of speech.

If a spokesperson employed by a government has to take "The national stand," there is no point in hiring him as he will never say a word if he has an ounce of integrity.

Meaning that the nation does not have a stand against popular international happenings?

No nation has any stand on anything.

Spokespeople of the government might offer the present administration's stand, but that is not a "nation's" stand.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
TheBaldKnobbers
Posts: 92
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2011 12:33:02 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/12/2011 8:51:25 AM, gerrandesquire wrote:
http://www.deccanherald.com...

We know our limits, and we can (surprisingly) support our democracy without American help, as we have been doing for the last 65 years (minus 1 day). So, please, support your country, stop interfering.

It's not a democracy if most women have absolutely no say and are not allowed to handle money.
gerrandesquire
Posts: 1,258
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2011 12:50:18 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/14/2011 12:33:02 AM, TheBaldKnobbers wrote:
At 8/12/2011 8:51:25 AM, gerrandesquire wrote:
http://www.deccanherald.com...

We know our limits, and we can (surprisingly) support our democracy without American help, as we have been doing for the last 65 years (minus 1 day). So, please, support your country, stop interfering.

It's not a democracy if most women have absolutely no say and are not allowed to handle money.

What?
gerrandesquire
Posts: 1,258
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2011 1:26:51 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/14/2011 12:33:02 AM, TheBaldKnobbers wrote:
At 8/12/2011 8:51:25 AM, gerrandesquire wrote:
http://www.deccanherald.com...

We know our limits, and we can (surprisingly) support our democracy without American help, as we have been doing for the last 65 years (minus 1 day). So, please, support your country, stop interfering.

It's not a democracy if most women have absolutely no say and are not allowed to handle money.

If it means what I think it does, you are wrong. Our president is a woman, the president of the ruling congress party is a woman, Lok sabha speaker is a woman, leader of opposition in Lok sabha is a woman, CM of the capital of India, AND Mamata Benerjee emerged as the 'giant killer' for ending the 34-year-old Left front rule in West Bengal on the single plank of doing away with the 'misrule' of Marxists. Jayalalitha in Tamil Nadu, I could go on and on, but I have to ask - 'What were you thinking?'
gerrandesquire
Posts: 1,258
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2011 1:29:13 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/14/2011 12:25:30 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 8/14/2011 12:14:48 AM, gerrandesquire wrote:

The spokesperson is speaking for the whole country, Not for himself. Which means he has to take the national stand, which restricts his freedom of speech.

If a spokesperson employed by a government has to take "The national stand," there is no point in hiring him as he will never say a word if he has an ounce of integrity.

Meaning that the nation does not have a stand against popular international happenings?

No nation has any stand on anything.

Spokespeople of the government might offer the present administration's stand, but that is not a "nation's" stand.

So the spokesperson offers the 'present administrations' stand, and hence does not have a freedom to speech.
marcuscato
Posts: 738
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2011 11:08:11 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/14/2011 12:50:18 AM, gerrandesquire wrote:
At 8/14/2011 12:33:02 AM, TheBaldKnobbers wrote:
At 8/12/2011 8:51:25 AM, gerrandesquire wrote:
http://www.deccanherald.com...

We know our limits, and we can (surprisingly) support our democracy without American help, as we have been doing for the last 65 years (minus 1 day). So, please, support your country, stop interfering.

It's not a democracy if most women have absolutely no say and are not allowed to handle money.

dumass
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2011 1:10:12 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/14/2011 1:29:13 AM, gerrandesquire wrote:
At 8/14/2011 12:25:30 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 8/14/2011 12:14:48 AM, gerrandesquire wrote:

The spokesperson is speaking for the whole country, Not for himself. Which means he has to take the national stand, which restricts his freedom of speech.

If a spokesperson employed by a government has to take "The national stand," there is no point in hiring him as he will never say a word if he has an ounce of integrity.

Meaning that the nation does not have a stand against popular international happenings?

No nation has any stand on anything.

Spokespeople of the government might offer the present administration's stand, but that is not a "nation's" stand.

So the spokesperson offers the 'present administrations' stand, and hence does not have a freedom to speech.

Not necessarily. He can be free to speak and yet still fired if the present administration disagrees sufficiently with him.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
gerrandesquire
Posts: 1,258
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2011 1:12:26 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/16/2011 1:10:12 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 8/14/2011 1:29:13 AM, gerrandesquire wrote:
At 8/14/2011 12:25:30 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 8/14/2011 12:14:48 AM, gerrandesquire wrote:

The spokesperson is speaking for the whole country, Not for himself. Which means he has to take the national stand, which restricts his freedom of speech.

If a spokesperson employed by a government has to take "The national stand," there is no point in hiring him as he will never say a word if he has an ounce of integrity.

Meaning that the nation does not have a stand against popular international happenings?

No nation has any stand on anything.

Spokespeople of the government might offer the present administration's stand, but that is not a "nation's" stand.

So the spokesperson offers the 'present administrations' stand, and hence does not have a freedom to speech.

Not necessarily. He can be free to speak and yet still fired if the present administration disagrees sufficiently with him.

Which is same as saying that his right to speech isn't protected, ain't it?
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2011 1:13:26 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/16/2011 1:12:26 PM, gerrandesquire wrote:
At 8/16/2011 1:10:12 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 8/14/2011 1:29:13 AM, gerrandesquire wrote:
At 8/14/2011 12:25:30 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 8/14/2011 12:14:48 AM, gerrandesquire wrote:

The spokesperson is speaking for the whole country, Not for himself. Which means he has to take the national stand, which restricts his freedom of speech.

If a spokesperson employed by a government has to take "The national stand," there is no point in hiring him as he will never say a word if he has an ounce of integrity.

Meaning that the nation does not have a stand against popular international happenings?

No nation has any stand on anything.

Spokespeople of the government might offer the present administration's stand, but that is not a "nation's" stand.

So the spokesperson offers the 'present administrations' stand, and hence does not have a freedom to speech.

Not necessarily. He can be free to speak and yet still fired if the present administration disagrees sufficiently with him.

Which is same as saying that his right to speech isn't protected, ain't it?

A right to speech, not a right to a job. He won't be executed for speaking or anything silly like that.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
gerrandesquire
Posts: 1,258
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2011 1:13:44 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/16/2011 1:12:26 PM, gerrandesquire wrote:
At 8/16/2011 1:10:12 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 8/14/2011 1:29:13 AM, gerrandesquire wrote:
At 8/14/2011 12:25:30 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 8/14/2011 12:14:48 AM, gerrandesquire wrote:

The spokesperson is speaking for the whole country, Not for himself. Which means he has to take the national stand, which restricts his freedom of speech.

If a spokesperson employed by a government has to take "The national stand," there is no point in hiring him as he will never say a word if he has an ounce of integrity.

Meaning that the nation does not have a stand against popular international happenings?

No nation has any stand on anything.

Spokespeople of the government might offer the present administration's stand, but that is not a "nation's" stand.

So the spokesperson offers the 'present administrations' stand, and hence does not have a freedom to speech.

Not necessarily. He can be free to speak and yet still fired if the present administration disagrees sufficiently with him.

Which is same as saying that his right to speech isn't protected, ain't it?

Because then having no freedom of speech would mean that he's free to speak but can be put into jail, 'if the present govt. disagrees sufficiently with him'.