Comments on: Americans Hate America for Its Freedom

By: rpk

rpk — Tue, 23 Sep 2008 10:46:23 +0000

In view of the nature of Islam and is efforts to impose Sharia law in the US, this is not a good sign for the health of this country.

By: tom p

tom p — Tue, 23 Sep 2008 01:54:27 +0000

Well, so far... I have yet to read that anyone has the right to not be offended...

By: Steve Verdon

Steve Verdon — Mon, 22 Sep 2008 22:30:37 +0000

The First Amendment begins “Congress shall make no law” not “Nobody should criticize” or “Everybody should feel good”.

Well there is no law yet, and given how places like D.C. got away for decades by ignoring the Constitution....

By: Dave Schuler

Dave Schuler — Mon, 22 Sep 2008 20:49:44 +0000

There is nothing opposed to freedom in deriding someone with stupid ideas. It might be rude but it's not illiberal.

The First Amendment begins “Congress shall make no law” not “Nobody should criticize” or “Everybody should feel good”.

By: just me

just me — Mon, 22 Sep 2008 19:20:19 +0000

I tend to agree that this poll would likely look very different if the question included jailing or other government sanction. I actually think the poll might be interesting if it asked both legal oriented opinions on this issue and social norms, because I do think the gap would be interesting to compare. But then I think a lot of polls are flawed when it comes to questions. I often get frustrated with political oriented online polls (knowing the non online ones probably aren't any better in question structure) because of the questions. For instance questions about immigration rarely cover the opinion between open borders and build a fence and don't let anyone in. And even a question about stem cell research often blows it, because it misses the fact that there are some people in favor of private funding for the research-ie they don't believe in banning it or prohibiting it, they just don't favor federal funding for it, but 9 times out of 10 the question asks "Do you support stem cell reasearch?" or something along those lines.

By: Steve Verdon

Steve Verdon — Mon, 22 Sep 2008 19:19:37 +0000

Big shock. Here is how Sartwell put it,

We want the government to guarantee our health, deflect hurricanes, educate our children and license us to drive; we want to be told what to eat, what to smoke and whom to marry. We are justly proud of the fact that no enduring society has ever incarcerated more of its people. Noting that the policeman has a pistol, a club, a stun gun, a can of pepper spray and a database that includes us, we feel happy and secure.

Our submission is absolute: We want to be operated like puppets and provided for like pets.

The terrorists hate our freedom. But we should be comfortable with that. We hate our freedom, too.

So it is all part of the same mentality.

We are a nation of wimps, crybabies and children. We can't conceive of the notion of doing things for ourselves. We have to have Uncle Sam holding our hand and making sure everything is safe.

By: Bootlegger

Bootlegger — Mon, 22 Sep 2008 17:50:24 +0000

Your interpretation is correct. People are defining "should" in normative, not legalistic, terms. Most people probably believe it is rude to insult someone in public and thus think its wrong to do so. But I guarantee you support would drop precipitously if the question were asked in legalistic terms.

By: sam

sam — Mon, 22 Sep 2008 17:45:02 +0000

I think the head of Clouseau is more apt.

By: charles austin

charles austin — Mon, 22 Sep 2008 17:35:22 +0000

The pernicious influence of Rousseau rears its ugly head yet again.