Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Old August 6th 04, 02:21 PM
 
Posts: n/a
Default US Hypocrites: "Polgars had Fischer at their house. So?"


Claudia says...

In 1997 Fischer had not applaused the events of September 11. I don't
believe that the US had ever tried to get hold of him without those
interviews. I also don't believe that Fischer's antisemitism and ideas
had developed that far in 1997. So the only thing that spoke against
Fischer in 1997 was his match against Spasskij and his issues with the
IRS.


So it's OK to selectively prosecute based on whether someone
expresses unpopular opinions? What happened to equal protection
under the law and unbiased jurisprudence?

Can I please have my Constitution back? The people who have it
now don't seem to be using it...

  #2   Report Post  
Old August 7th 04, 01:39 AM
Claudia
 
Posts: n/a
Default US Hypocrites: "Polgars had Fischer at their house. So?"

wrote:

Claudia says...


In 1997 Fischer had not applaused the events of September 11. I don't
believe that the US had ever tried to get hold of him without those
interviews. I also don't believe that Fischer's antisemitism and ideas
had developed that far in 1997. So the only thing that spoke against
Fischer in 1997 was his match against Spasskij and his issues with the
IRS.



So it's OK to selectively prosecute based on whether someone
expresses unpopular opinions? What happened to equal protection
under the law and unbiased jurisprudence?

I didn't say that at all. But seriously, when during the last 50 years
did the US ever tolerate unpopular opinions?

However I don't think that Bobby Fischer's problem is expressing
unpopular opinions. He has totally lost any form of common sense and
reason. Bobby Fischer is a pitiable character. I believe he has turned
into this madman because he utterly hates himself. He was so brillant
and then he did the worst what you can do in any combative sports. He
surrendered without fighting. Of course there were good reasons why he
did it, but judging from the result those reasons don't matter at all,
at least I'm sure not for him. His provocations sound like someone who
wants to be punished - a bit like a child you is nasty to attract the
attention of her parents or a neglected housewife who turns into a
klepto. It the same pattern.

Can I please have my Constitution back? The people who have it
now don't seem to be using it...

Maybe it's too complicated for some of them.

  #3   Report Post  
Old August 9th 04, 10:58 PM
Nick
 
Posts: n/a
Default US Hypocrites: "Polgars had Fischer at their house. So?"

Claudia wrote in message
...(to ):
wrote:
So it's OK to selectively prosecute based on whether someone expresses
unpopular opinions? What happened to equal protection under the law
and unbiased jurisprudence?


I didn't say that at all. But seriously, when during the last 50 years
did the US ever tolerate unpopular opinions?
(snipped)


Unlike in Germany, for instance, extremely 'unpopular opinions' such as
neo-Nazi 'hate speech' seem more or less legally protected in the United
States by the US Constitution. A neo-Nazi may freely express in the
United States something that would be considered criminal in Germany.

But Claudia seems right in observing that the United States has been less
tolerant of unpopular opinions, particularly when expressed by members of
minority communities, than most 'patriotically correct' Americans would
like to believe about their beloved country.

In the chess newsgroups, particularly in rec.games.chess.politics
(which has long been a de facto United States political newsgroup),
many, if not most, of the American writers seem quite intolerant
of any criticisms (even when they have been made by carefully citing
some well-respected American sources) of the United States.

"I find the intolerance of differing opinions here disturbing.
The citizens of the U.S. do not have a monopoly on the truth but
from external appearances it seems like most of them think they do.
Before you ask, I am an American citizen but this does not change my opinion."
--David Bohm (5 August 2004, in rec.games.chess.politics)

--Nick
Reply
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
US Hypocrites: "Polgars had Fischer at their house. So?" Fifiela rec.games.chess.politics (Chess Politics) 28 August 8th 04 01:48 AM
Fischer -new appeal, refugee claim, 1st asylum offer (press release) banana rec.games.chess.politics (Chess Politics) 6 August 5th 04 03:07 AM
US Hypocrites: "Polgars had Fischer at their house. So?" Nick rec.games.chess.misc (Chess General) 4 August 3rd 04 07:20 AM
latest Reuters wire on R Fischer banana rec.games.chess.misc (Chess General) 5 July 30th 04 06:08 AM
latest Reuters wire on R Fischer banana rec.games.chess.politics (Chess Politics) 1 July 28th 04 09:48 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:07 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2019 ChessBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Chess"

 

Copyright © 2017