Gibe Home
Annoy.com
Message Forum
Search
Log into your account
Create an Identity
Moments
Terms of Use
|
| Topic: Media Muck: Watchdog of the People... Hah. | | Pii | Posted: 3/6/1997 9:02:00 AM - View this Thread |
I come from a broken home. My parents divorced when I was 10 years old, and since
that time, due to his abuse of alcohol, and his long periods of unemployment, I have only
seen my father about 8-10 times. I don't talk to him much, especially now, as he doesn't
have a phone. Fortunately, my father didn't wait until I was old enough to understand
before teaching me the single greatest thing any member of a society can be taught. What
was this great lesson?
Question Authority.
Ask real questions. Demand real answers. Be suspect to thier validity.
Traditionally, this was the role of the Press, the self annointed "Watchdog of the People."
Anyone with an open mind can only conclude that the Press simply does not perform this
role anymore. More often than not, in thier quest for "Newsworthy" stories, and
increased ratings, and fulfilling thier role as (get this) a part of Government (explained later),
today's Press misses the real news entirely, and tramples the rights of the very people it
claims to look out for.
The latest evidence, certainly reasonable to anyone who was taught how to think, rather
than what to think, is the Dallas Morning News's decision to print an alleged confession
made by Timothy McVeigh regarding his alleged involvement in the bombing of the
Federal Murrough Building in Oklahoma City. Maybe you remember that story. If you
do, understand that it was the intent of the Media that you remember, and that it was the
intent of the Goverment that you remember.
Personally, if McVeigh did have a hand in that bombing, I think that he should pay for it,
and forfieture of his life doesn't seem unreasonable to me. If he did it, he initiated force
against other human beings, but it was sloppy, misdirected force, harming a great many
innocents, rather than solely those guilty of miseeds against him. The problem here, is
that unlike the Criminal Justice system that is currently in operation, and unlike the news
media organizations that are currently in operation, I will not simply pay lip service to
two of the most basic fundamentals that went into the creation of the American system of
Justice.
Those two fundamentals are:
- You are innocent until proven guilty, the burden of proof being the State's responsibility, and
- You have the right to a fair trial.
I would contend that the Media has already conducted its own trial; McVeigh was not
given the opportunity to prove his innocence (As ludicrous as that may sound); and by
poisoning the potential Jury pool, the Dallas Morning News (esteemed member of the
Press, self-proclaimed Watchdog of the People) has eliminated any possibility of
McVeigh getting a real, live, Constitutionally guaranteed, fair trial in a (Kangaroo) court
of law.
Oddly enough, the biggest outcry indicting the Press for negligence is coming from
criminal defense attorneys... Civil Rights sometimes make for strange bedfellows.
It's par for the course, just ask the horse, he'll give you the answer that you endorse...
This is the Press that let all of America know what wierdos were holed up in Waco,
essentially minding thier own business, which was a very dangerous thing. (Even though
they had extended the olive branch, and offered early, and repeatedly, to accomidate the
authorities, right up until the very end, when they were murdered. Whoops. No news story
there.)
This is the same Press that let all of America know what kind of hooligans those Ruby
Ridge Weavers were, who were also minding thier own business, which we've established
as being a dangerous thing. (Somehow they missed the story about how the authorities
committed acts leading to entrapment, and then attempted to coerce compliance with a plan
to get another group entirely. Whoops. No news story there.)
This is the same Press that spews forth exactly the right spin, as dictated by the White
House Minister of Disinformation, and the other spin-meisters that are on the
Governments payroll.
Geraldo said it best the other night. "The Press is the 4th Estate," he said, and using his
fingers, he counted off the "Legislative, Executive, Judiciary," one, two, three.
Afterward, he held up his hand triumphantly, with four fingers raised an announced what
we've all known all along, that "the Press is the 4th Estate." Just another branch of
Government.
This phenomena can be attributed to either one of two things.
- Either the Press has abandoned its role as a check, for the people, against Government,
electing instead to be a part of the system, and consequently, the problem, or
- the Press really Sucks at finding the story, and doing it's job, the job it still claims
(through denial, no doubt) to be doing.
Maybe it's both... It occurrs to me that the two possibilities are not mutually exclusive.
So much for "Watchdog of the People." More like "Lapdog of the Establishment."
Question Authority.
Ask real questions. Demand real answers. Be suspect to thier validity.
| | Topic: Gun Control: Empire State Building scenario doesn't wash | | Pii | Posted: 3/5/1997 7:11:00 AM - View this Thread |
Professor John R. Lott, Jr. and David B. Mustard, of the University of Chicago,
have concluded that "allowing citizens to carry concealed weapons deters violent
crimes, and it appears to produce no increase in accidental deaths. If those states
which did not have right-to-carry concealed gun provisions had adopted them in
1992, approximately 1,570 murders; 4,177 rapes; and over 60,000 aggravated
assaults would have been avoided yearly. . . . [T]he estimated annual gain from allowing
concealed handguns is at least $6.214 billion. . . . [W]hen state concealed handgun
laws went into effect in a county, murders fell by 8.5%, and rapes and aggravated
assaults fell by 5% and 7%." ("Crime, Deterrence, And Right-To-Carry Concealed
Handguns," 1997)
States with right-to-carry laws have lower overall violent crime rates, compared
to states without right-to-carry laws. Total violent crime is 18% lower; homicide is
21% lower; robbery is 32% lower; and aggravated assault is 11% lower. (FBI)
Less than two one-hundredths of 1% of Florida carry licenses have been revoked
because of firearm crimes committed by licensees. (Florida Dept. of State)
Survey research by criminologist Gary Kleck indicates at least 2.5 million protective
uses of firearms each year in the U.S., more than four times the reported number of
violent crimes committed with firearms. Most protective uses do not involve discharge
of a firearm. In only about 0.1% of protective gun uses are criminals killed, and in only
1% are criminals wounded. A Dept. of Justice survey found that 40% of felons chose
not to commit at least some crimes for fear their victims were armed, and 34% admitted
being scared off or shot at by armed victims. (James D. Wright, Peter H. Rossi, Armed
and Considered Dangerous, 1986)
I really liked the one about the 20% of Law Enforcement dying with thier
own weapons... So naturally, for thier own protection, we should in fact
disarm the Police.
Have you seen the Florida statistics?
Since Florida adopted right-to-carry in 1987, its homicide, firearm homicide, and handgun
homicide rates have decreased 36%, 37%, and 41%, respectively, while the national
homicide rate decreased 0.4% and firearm and handgun homicide rates increased 15% and
24%, respectively. (FBI)
| | Topic: Gun Control: Suppose you were fond of Books | | Pii | Posted: 3/5/1997 6:25:00 AM - View this Thread
Thank you, and I look forward to it. I'd have been very
disappointed had you withdrawn. I'm actually surprised
that more people haven't joined the fray.
| | Topic: Gun Control: Empire State Building scenario doesn't wash | | Pii | Posted: 3/4/1997 8:56:00 AM - View this Thread |
Piper asked:
>btw, can I assume from your posted legal finding that
>the fragment "To Serve and Protect" plastered on all
>of my hometown's police cars is nonsense?
It's not nonsense. That is clearly the purpose of Police.
What is nonsense is the assumption that alot of people
make, that being that the Police are held
responsible for protecting them, and thier families.
Basically, the outcome of Warren v. District of Columbia
was this: If you or your family are the victims of a crime,
you cannot sue the Police Department for allowing that
crime's occurrance. I'm not a lawyer, but that is my take.
And I don't think that's unreasonable, either. We can't
possibly hold the Police responsible if bad things happen
to us or our families. They have a tremendous job to do,
and for the most part, I think they do an admirable job.
The fact remains though... They can't be everywhere at
all times. The ultimate responsibility for the safety of you
and your family lies with you. If you agree with that, then
you can also see that there is a justifiable need for you
to be able to have near immediate access to the tools
that will allow you to keep yourself, and your family, safe.
| | Topic: Gun Control: Suppose you were fond of Books | | Pii | Posted: 3/4/1997 8:40:00 AM - View this Thread |
Ven, if I have taken things out of context, or am missing
the point of underlying principles of rendered decisions
made by the courts, I hardly feel that it is my responsibilty
to disprove them. I am not making things up. It's true my
findings could be wrong, but the burden of disproving my
argument lies with you, as you have the differing view.
I could easily go through any post you've made thoughout
this entire website, and say that you've taken something
out of context, and ask you to go back and disprove your
position. That would not be a good strategy for making my
case though, would it?
If you can find convincing evidence, and present it in a
way that is meaningful enough to change my opinion, then
I will change my opinion. It's happened in the past. I used
to be dreadfully opposed to the legalization of drugs, but
after sorting out many compelling arguments both for and
against, I was swayed. This isn't so different. Convince
me if you can. I'm not so rigid that I would cling to a position
that I thought was wrong. I'm a young man, and I've been
wrong about alot of things. I'm certain to be wrong about
many more.
Pretend I'm from Missouri. Show me.
(Btw, congrats on the new girlfriend, but don't pretend you
can't be bothered. You are an addict. You love to argue.
I suspect you'll be here till you're blue in the face, and then
you'll be back after you've caught your breath.)
| | Topic: Gun Control: Suppose you were fond of Books | | Pii | Posted: 3/4/1997 8:16:00 AM - View this Thread |
Catty said:
>However I know you get that Guns are the cause of
>more immediate problems than Books are.
Actually, I don't think guns are the problem at all.
Criminals, or those that would employ a gun in a
criminal manner are, and have always been the
problem.
No gun ever caused a problem any more than any
ladder ever caused a fall. You simply cannot blame
the circumstances caused by a misused tool on the
tool. Blame rightfully resides where it should, on the
individual that misused the tool. When someone is
involved in an alcohol related vehicular homicide,
we cannot blame the alcohol, nor can we blame the
vehicle. Responsibility lies solely with the individual.
There's no question that a gun is a dangerous tool.
Even used properly (some would say that especially
when used properly), the fact is, someone is going to
get hurt, and could possibly die. That's a reality.
The question that must be left to each individual is
whether or not they would feel justified in retaliating to
some form of aggression with that type of violence. I
leave that to you. For me, there are certainly cases
where I would feel justified in ending someone's life.
I'm a husband, and a father. In some cases, the choice
would be very clear, and I would not hesitate.
The problem is not caused by guns. The problem is
caused by individuals that employ guns in a dispicable
manner. It is irresponsible to recognize otherwise.
| | Topic: Gun Control: Empire State Building scenario doesn't wash | | Pii | Posted: 3/4/1997 7:17:00 AM - View this Thread |
Our point of contention, assuming we have one (which,
I'm not sure we really do), is setting up the boundaries
for that "well-regulated" system.
I don't like grouping folks together, but it seems as though
neither you, nor Ven, are trying to prevent me from owning
as many guns as I like, of whatever type I choose. The
both of you just want to keep guns out of the hands of
violent, career criminals, or the mentally incompetant.
Believe me, I don't want to allow violent career criminals
to purchase weapons either. But no regulatory law has
been concieved, or will be concieved, that will do that.
Criminals, by definition, do not obey the law. How can
you possibly legislate guns out of the hands of criminals?
Laws that prevent Criminals from obtaining weapons through
legal channels will surely result in Criminals obtaining weapons
through illegal channels. Legislation can only effectively
disarm the law-abiding. That is clearly not where the problems
of gun related violence originates.
A five day waiting period may cost a law-abiding citizen
his or her life. If someone is prevented from legally obtaining
a gun for purposes of self-defense at the instant that person
feels they need it, any harm that comes to that person during
the course of that waiting period is innocent blood on the
hands of the state.
I can get access to my bank account instantaneously from
nearly anywhere in the world through the use of an ATM
machine. Why can't a background investigation (which I
am not opposed to) be conducted within a relatively similair
time period? As Criminals are subject to forfieture of a number
of thier rights, wouldn't the best course of action, the best
compromise, be to maintain a national database of criminals
that have been convicted of crimes that would disallow the
purchase of legal firearms? Why wasn't this enacted instead
of a waiting period?
That, in my opinion, would be a far better solution than
anything the "opposition" has suggested so far. Every
piece of legislation thus far has been restrictive to the
wrong group of people. Punish the Criminals, not good
citizens.
| | Topic: Gun Control: Empire State Building scenario doesn't wash | | Pii | Posted: 3/3/1997 2:03:00 PM - View this Thread |
>Okay, let's deal with the constitution first. In so much as
>slavery was not considered a violation of the unwillingly
>imported African's right to liberty, I think it is safe to assume
>that ceteris paribus applies to the time in which our founding
>fathers spoke their piece. Let's not become wholly dependent
>upon a 200+year old document when trying to solve the
>complexities of our age.
Don't underestimate the power of a 200+ year old document
in it's application to our modern age. While it was drafted
in a manner that allowed for flexibility should the need arise,
there are aspects that remain inviolate. The slavery issue
cannot be compared to the provisions of the Second Amendment.
The Framers valued the right to bear arms not merely
for collective defense against invaders but for individual
defense against both criminals and oppressive government.
It is the use of personal weapons against oppressive government
that was first, and foremost, on their minds. They had just
finished a war with such an oppressive government, and this
provision was important to them, as it should be to all of us.
>I admit I don't own any guns and, other than the mechanical
>beauty of weaponry, I don't understand their appeal.
Regarding your not seeing thier appeal, see my post about
books.
>I can however read a newspaper, and I can't ignore what
>people do with guns. Maybe not you, maybe not your
>friends-hell, maybe not even that moron down the
>street wearing a NRA cap and "burn this flag, faggot"
>T-shirt, but there are alot of pre-postal maniacs out
>there and I just want a little piece of mind.
How many of the violent acts committed with guns are
committed by the criminal element, and how many are committed
by home-owners, and self-defense advocates? Your peace
of mind is not more valuable than every American's liberty.
Would it interest you to know that the Police have no legal
obligation to protect you as an individual citizen?
Warren v. District of Columbia - Police have "no duty" to
protect. It does not say that won't or don't protect. It is a
statement of legal non-reliance. You can't rely on police
to protect you. That is what the whole Concealed Carry
movement is about for many people. If the police are not
to be relied upon to be there when needed than the average
citizen needs to provide for their own protection. It is not
a knock on police. It is kind-of-like a statement of physics.
Cops can't be everywhere at all times. The residents of
this country have a long history of relying on themselves for
their own protection. The concept that police are here
to "protect" you is a recent occurance. Probably should
be tied to the idea that the government needs to "protect"
people from the cradle to the grave.
Would it surprise you that I don't own a gun either? It's true.
But I resent deeply that the annointed "protectors" have no
obligation to protect me, or my family, and that the government
seems all too happy to restict my options to do so myself. And
yes, I am leery about any government that seeks ways to
disarm it's citizenry.
You are familiar with the concept of "checks and balances"
I presume. An armed citizenry is the "people's" check against
the government.
| | Topic: Gun Control: Empire State Building scenario doesn't wash | | Pii | Posted: 3/3/1997 8:31:00 AM - View this Thread
Nobody has ever walked into the Empire State Building and
proceeded to shoot up the place with a copy of "Catcher in
the Rye."
In the city of New York, nobody is allowed to carry a weapon
either concealed, or in the open. No guns at all among the
general law-abiding populace. If 1 person at the Empire
State building were carrying a weapon that day, just one
person, would the death toll have climbed like it did? If one
good citizen had been allowed to carry a concealed pistol,
wouldn't that person have been able to put an end to the
killing? Even better, had one good citizen had been able to
carry a weapon in the open, would the shooting have
even started?
| | Topic: Gun Control: Suppose you were fond of Books | | Pii | Posted: 3/3/1997 8:02:00 AM - View this Thread |
You miss the forest dispite the trees...
The gradual erosion of your rights is the real danger.
Just as ideas, books, the press, thinking as you choose,
and publically stating your opinion are basic human
rights, not provided by the Constitution, but affirmed by
it, the right to keep and bear arms is also a basic human
right.
The Constitution doesn't give anyone any specific rights.
The rights affirmed by the Constitution are basic. Every
person has them. You are born with them. The Constitution's
purpose is simply to reaffirm those inalieable rights, and
specifically deny the government opportunity to take them
from you.
And yet our lawmakers do exactly that.
Ven, I saw an arguement you made earlier about the second
amendment allowing for a well regulated militia, not the
right of the general populace to keep and bear arms. You
couldn't be more wrong, not only in that the Second
Amendment can indeed be applied to individuals, but
that all guns (assualt weapons, and even machine guns)
are in fact protected.
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security
of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear
arms, shall not be infringed."
The Framers valued the right to bear arms not merely
for collective defense against invaders but for individual
defense against both criminals and oppressive government.
They understood the "well regulated militia" to consist of
all citizens capable of bearing arms.
Notwithstanding the Claims of gun-control advocates,
the Supreme Court has never denied this view of the
Second Amendment. In the most frequently cited case,
United States v. Miller (1939), the Court upheld a provision
of the National Firearms Act regulating interstate transportation
of sawed-off shotguns. But the decision was based on
the plaintiff's failure to demonstrate that such a firearm
"at this time has some reasonable relationship to the
preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia"
(which the Court recognized to be "all males capable
of acting in concert for the common defense").
By implication, the plaintiffs might have prevailed had
they shown that a sawed-off shotgun is a weapon
suitable for militia use. Hence the reasoning behind
Miller runs directly counter to conventional gun-control
wisdom, i.e., that it's okay to ban "military-style"
weapons. Under the Miller test, such firearms, including
"assault rifles" and machine guns, are clearly covered
by the Second Amendment.
The Supreme Court has also undermined the old
gun-control canard that the Second Amendment does
not apply to individuals. In the 1990 case United States
v. Verdugo-Urquidez, a unanimous Court made it clear
that the phrase "the people" means the same thing in the
Second Amendment as it does in the First, Fourth, and
Ninth amendments: "a class of persons who are part of
a national community." (Not, as the ACLU would have
it, "the collective population of each state for the
purpose of maintaining an effective state militia.")
So, your arguements bebunked not by myself, but by the
framers of the Constitution, and by the Supreme Court,
where now would you like to continue this debate? Do
you purport yourself to be wiser than they who drafted
the Constitution? Do you purport yourself to be more
learned than they who sit on the Supreme Court?
The fact that lawmakers have restriced your right, and
mine, to own any weapon of your choosing is an un-
mitigated slap in the face, and can be equated to them
making the statement that 1) You can't be trusted to make
your own decisions, and 2) They know what's best for
you, and finally 3) The State will provide for your best
interests, as you are clearly incapable of doing so on
your own.
Frankly, I do not accept those statements. I'd like to
think that I'm capable of making my own decisions,
knowing what's best for me, and providing for my own
best interests, and the best interests of my family. Would
you not say the same things about yourself?
| | Topic: Gun Control: Suppose you were fond of Books | | Pii | Posted: 3/2/1997 4:20:00 PM - View this Thread |
an essay for The Libertarian Enterprise
by L. Neil Smith
Suppose you were fond of Books...
You liked their leather bindings, their fancy endpapers, the
way they speak to you of other times and places, the way
they feel in your hand.
You even liked the way they smell.
Naturally you were aware that books are dangerous. They
give people ideas. Over the long, sad course of history,
they've resulted in the slaughter of millions -- books like
Uncle Tom's Cabin, Das Kapital, Mein Kampf, even the
Bible -- but you had too much intelligence, too much regard
for the right of other people to read, write, think whatever
they please, to blame the books themselves.
Now suppose somebody came along who agreed with you:
books are dangerous -- and something oughta be done about
it! Nothing you couldn't live with: numbers could be stamped
inside them, a different number, not just in each kind of book,
each title or edition -- but in each and every individual book.
"We can keep track of 'em better that way -- it'll help get 'em
back if they're stolen."
But wait .... Isn't the right to freedom of expression, the right to
create, exchange, and collect books -- without a trace of
government harassment -- to read, write, and think whatever
you please, supposed to be guaranteed by the First Amendment
to the U.S. Constitution? No matter who thinks it's wrong? No
matter how "sensible" their arguments may sound for taking
that right away?
You tried to defend your rights, but nobody listened. You appealed
to the media; they were even more dependent on the Bill of
Rights than you were, and American journalism always gloried
in its self-appointed role as watchdog over the rights of the
individual. But the sad truth was, that during its long, self-
congratulatory history, it was more like a cur caught bloody-
muzzled time after time, savaging the flocks it had been trusted
to protect.
You were alone. You insisted that books don't kill people, people
kill people. They laughed and told you that people who read
books kill people.
Time passed .... Still they weren't satisfied. They wanted the
serial numbers written down in record books. Then they wanted
your name written down beside the numbers, along with your
address, your driver's license number, your age, your race,
your sex: "'Cause we gotta right to know who's reading all these
books!"
Soon they were demanding that bookstores be licensed. They
forbade you to buy books by mail or in another state and
required that your dealer report you if you bought more than
one book in a five day period. They forbade you to buy more
than one book a month. They demanded that you wait five
days, a week, three weeks before you could pick up a book
you'd already paid for -- at a store subject to unannounced
warrantless inspections and punitive closure by heavily-armed
government agents. In Massachussetts and New Jersey, the
mere possession of a book meant an automatic year in jail. At
one point they offered to spend tax money to buy your books:
"You've got too many. This is a purely voluntary measure -- for
the time being."
Now they want to confiscate any of your books they think are
too long: "No honest citizen needs a book with that many
pages!"
Your taxes will be spent to burn them, and somehow you have
a feeling that it's just the beginning, that some dark midnight,
no matter how peaceable or agreeable or law-abiding you are,
you're going to hear that knock on your door ...
Yes, books are dangerous. They start holy wars, revolutions,
and make people dissatisfied with their lives.
But this is ridiculous!
Is it a nightmare? Another Gulag horror story? A bloodsoaked
page from the history of fascism?
No, it's just the commonplace oppression people suffer every
day when they feel about guns the way you feel about books.
Okay, maybe that feeling's hard to understand. But just try
justifying your own love of books to a Pat Robertson or an
Ayatollah Khomeini. The very requirement that you must, in
violation of your basic human rights, will make you inarticulate
with rage.
Gun owners laugh at the notion of human rights, because they
have none.
Guns are dangerous. Like books. Like books, the right to create,
exchange, and collect them without a trace of government
harassment, is supposed to be guaranteed. No matter who thinks
it's wrong. No matter how "sensible" their arguments may sound
for taking your rights away.
So what makes you think your books are any safer than your
neighbor's guns? Whether you like books or guns, the issue's
the same: when anybody's rights are threatened, everybody's
rights are threatened.
| | Topic: The Military: Lose the fucking academies | | Pii | Posted: 2/27/1997 6:20:00 AM - View this Thread
Can't get rid of the Marines Ernie. They are, by law, the
only branch of service that the President can deploy at a
moment's notice. They can be sent for upto 90 days without
the President having to get Congressional approval.
You really want to get rid of America's force in Readiness?
Next.
| | Topic: Environment: Man or Beast: who deserves the crown? | | Pii | Posted: 2/26/1997 10:10:00 AM - View this Thread
Shut down the nuclear plants, and bomb factories? Is this bait?
Nuclear is the cleanest, most efficient source of power we have
devised to date. It ain't perfect, but it's better by far than it's
predecessors. Once we discover the secrets of cold fusion, it'll
be damn near a perfect process.
Now my question: How on earth will we wage War if you shut
down the bomb factories?? Puh-leeze.
| | Topic: Censorship: With * * * * from Singapore | | Pii | Posted: 2/24/1997 11:08:00 AM - View this Thread
Ven writes:
[...deletia]
I hate to admit this, but it made me
feel lucky to be an American.
[deletia...]
Why is that so hard to admit? By all accounts, you are
damned lucky.
| | Topic: The Military: Punch Drunk | | Pii | Posted: 2/24/1997 9:43:00 AM - View this Thread
When I first heard that he'd enlisted, I thought it was cool.
But, having completed boot camp at Parris Island, seeing
the former Heavyweight Champion of the World drop out is
even cooler.
| | Topic: The Military: This is for my third-grade teacher... | | Pii | Posted: 2/12/1997 11:21:00 AM - View this Thread
If you think that the Constitution would stand up for itself, and
potential enemies would abstain from taking away the things
that we have in this country simply because of it's very
existance, you are a fool. It's a strong document only because
of the military's ability, and willingness, to defend it.
If not for the military, the British would still be in control of
a good portion of North America, and the Constitution would
never have existed.
Had the military disappeared after the United States had gained
it's independance, your rights could have been easily stripped
by the next Imperial nation that came down the pike looking for
a new source of raw materials, or slave labor.
Remain deluded if you like. The fact of the matter is that it is
the military that makes good on the promises made to you by
the Constitution. If not for them, you'd have no rights at all.
| | Topic: The Military: This is for my third-grade teacher... | | Pii | Posted: 2/5/1997 10:29:00 AM - View this Thread |
Yet another ignorant outburst from someone that takes
his/her entire exitance for granted, with nary a concern
of how things "got to be that way."
Who gave you the right to be critical of the military, or
government, or anything else for that matter? Ironically,
it was that same military and government that gave you
that right. It's a right that was bought and paid for by
brave, selfless individuals. The cost was high (freedom
often is), but it was paid without complaint by people
far better than yourself.
Tell me, were the patriots that won America's independence
from the British 200+ years ago the same group of murderers
and thugs you are referring to, or was that different? These
would be the people who gave you the right to speak your
mind (or just speak, in your case), and have beliefs of your
choosing.
As for being revolted by someone who is proud of his/her
accomplishments: Perhaps one day, should you ever
accomplish anything of note, that feeling may diminish. Till
then, continue to watch your almighty television, and rest
assured that there will always be someone willing to defend
your right to do so, no matter how ungrateful you are.
Semper Fi
|
|
Back ~ Post New Topic ~ Post a Reply
Black and White Version
Full color Version
Copyright © 2006 Innoventions, Inc. All rights reserved.
Gibe and Gibe.com are trademarks of Innoventions, Inc.
|
