President Mugabe, the infamous president of Zimbabwe has gone on record comparing himself to Hitler and saying that America is not the model of democracy in the world. President Mugabe is notorious for atrocities commited against homosexuals, kicking white farmers off their land, and his goons are known to rape without hesitation.
While I do not agree at all with Mugabe's tactics or his presidential rule, I do feel that his is entitled to his opinions just like Bush is entitled to his opinion on that Zimbabwe is not the model of democracy for the world. I agree with Mugabe about America not being the model of democracy, we are anything but. We're more of a model for democracy turned imperialism. Besides America was founded as a constitutional republic, not a democracy like it seems almost everyone believes. Unless Mugabe has broken one of the two fundamental laws with his speech, 1) Do all you have agreed to do, and 2) do not encroach on other people or their properties, then he has every right to say what he wants. Now he has broken the two fundamental laws with his actions but not his speech about America not being a good role-model for democracy.
Even the worst people are entitled to whatever opinions they hold, and they have to right to say them even if no one agrees with them. In Mugabe's case, most might not agree with his presidency and dare I say, reign, but I think constitutional scholars can agree that America is not the model of democracy for the world. Some would even argue in my favor of us turning more and more into a empire.
What do you think?
Disclaimer* I am in no way supporting Mugabe's actions, but I am supporting his right to criticize the American government's belief that we're the best role model for democracy.*
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
Though you may believe that the United States isn't the model of democracy it claims to be, that isn't any reason why some voices deserve to be silenced. I just don't think you provide a sufficient reason why everyone's opinion is necessary even though it may lead to human rights violations.
So you're against free speech then? Because if Mugabe should be silenced then where do you stop? People have the right to free speech no matter what. If I said I think George Bush is fascist, then should I be silenced as well? No, so neither should Mugabe when he's pointing something out that most of the world already knows.
I wasn't providing reason I was providing my opinion. How is Mugabe being quiet going to make him any less dangerous? No matter what he'll commit human rights violations. I'm not a fan of Mugabe either but I agree with what he says, and what he says does not break the two natural laws, so I see no problem with him giving an opinion.
You seem to expect me to just agree with you right off the bat. I'm just saying that I have no reason to agree with your opinion unless you provide a sufficient reason. I believe in free speech to an extent. There is a point where your opinions, like in the case of Hitler, become destructive. When you start to convince people that the Jewish peoples are a contaminating and inferior race, you've gone too far.
I'm not saying you should agree. But by saying that certain people should stay silent is against free speech. I put down when free speech can be considered destructive and Mugabe hasn't broken those two laws.
"When you start to convince people that the Jewish peoples are a contaminating and inferior race, you've gone too far."
But Mugabe isn't doing that, he's just saying the US isn't a role model, he isn't saying the US is inferior. And if we follow that sentence you wrote then I'll assume that you don't agree with zionists because their whol goal is that the Jewish people are the chosen race, just like Hitler said that Germans were the chosen race.
I'm for productive free speech and against the opposite, that's it. It shouldn't count against my character just because I believe that too far is actually too far.
I don't align myself with either the Nazis or the Zionists, or any schools of thought for that matter.
I never counted it against you character, I counted it against your argument.
But just the same, I'm for productive free speech that doesn't break the two fundamental laws that all religions and philosophies are founded on. I am for what Mugabe said because I agree with it and it didn't break those two laws. We can't count out what a person says because they are "evil." Hitler was evil, yet he brought Germany out of the depression and then decended back into his "evil" ways.
Please use the reply button as not doing so will cause a lot of users (namely and most improtantly, me) to become very frustrated with you.
Nicholas Aden
Self-Promotion
Click to send Hate Mail
Choice Picks
You tried, dear. Points for effort...
--Mike
Check out the Topic of the Week
http://www.progressiveu.org/weeklytopic
It's just not worth it some days, you know?
Nicholas Aden
Self-Promotion
Click to send Hate Mail
Choice Picks
Please explain how he hasn't crossed your precious lines that make Mugabe's opinions legitimate.
1) Do all you have agreed to do
Sure, he has. In the way of killing innocent people. Rules have limits.
2) Do not encroach on other people or their properties
I'd like to hear you explain this one. How are his human rights violations within this 'law of free speech.'
Good God pay attention. I'm talking about his speech right now, not his actions. I'll gladly agree with you on his actions. But I am talking about him saying that America isn't a role model...there is nothing wrong with him saying that, it crosses no laws.
I am talking about what he said about our ideological view that American democracy is the best when it really isn't. I said nothing about the atrocities he's commited because those are actions and not speech.
I'll gladly debate this with you when you've actually read what I've written. I didn't think I'd need to explain to anyone over age five, the difference between speech and actions.
But until you realize I am not talking about his actions right now, then this conversation we're having is pointless because you're bringing up actions which are intirely irrelevant to one thing he said about American democracy.
I didn't think that you needed to be catty to win a debate. You asked what I thought and I told you. Now I'm done with your immaturity. Goodbye, son of disaster.
I asked what you thought about him saying that about the US, not his actions. Is it that hard to understand the difference? You seem to have the immaturity to not understand the difference in what I was talking about. I've countless times said that I agree that his actions break the two laws, but his speech does not and I support his right to say that about the US. You went into a speel about his actions, which I wasn't even talking about.
I probably came off immature because I wouldn't let go, but neither would you, and if ticks me off when people are discussing a point I wasn't even talking about. I was talking about one thing and that was what he said about the US as a role-model, I however was not talking about his human rights violations.