NationStates Jolt Archive

It is the VETERAN, not the preacher,
who has given us freedom of religion.

It is the VETERAN, not the reporter,
who has given us freedom of the press.

It is the VETERAN, not the poet,
who has given us freedom of speech.

It is the VETERAN, not the campus organizer,
who has given us freedom to assemble.

It is the VETERAN, not the lawyer,
who has given us the right to a fair trial.

It is the VETERAN, not ! the politician,
Who has given us the right to vote.!

Um, no, the veteran hasn't. He may have protected those rights and freedoms at times in certain countries, but given and caused them all? Please. Let's not get carried away in one's idolatry.

Um, no, the veteran hasn't. He may have protected those rights and freedoms at times in certain countries, but given and caused them all? Please. Let's not get carried away in one's idolatry.

Agreed.

No, he is correct.

Without the action of veterans the Declaration, Bill of Rights, and Constitution would all be just pieces of paper, likely lost long ago.

No, he is correct.

Without the action of veterans the Declaration, Bill of Rights, and Constitution would all be just pieces of paper, likely lost long ago.

This may come as a news flash to some, but those ideas did not start with the US, and would not have ended with it either.

It is the VETERAN, not the preacher,
who has given us freedom of religion.

It is the VETERAN, not the reporter,
who has given us freedom of the press.

It is the VETERAN, not the poet,
who has given us freedom of speech.

It is the VETERAN, not the campus organizer,
who has given us freedom to assemble.

It is the VETERAN, not the lawyer,
who has given us the right to a fair trial.

It is the VETERAN, not ! the politician,
Who has given us the right to vote.!

Heh, my housemate's in the army, and he's got that up on his door. It never fails to draw a reaction...

This may come as a news flash to some, but those ideas did not start with the US, and would not have ended with it either.


They would have ended if no one fought for them.

They would have ended if no one fought for them.

This may come as a news flash to some, but a lot of countries didn't need wars for those ideas to prevail.

This may come as a news flash to some, but a lot of countries didn't need wars for those ideas to prevail.

Like where? Iraq? Germany?

Like where? Iraq? Germany?

Sweden, for one.

Edit: 3000 posts! That's only slightly depressing.

No, he is correct.

Without the action of veterans the Declaration, Bill of Rights, and Constitution would all be just pieces of paper, likely lost long ago.

I'm all for honoring veterans, but this is silly in multiple respects.

Which veterans?

British redcoats?

Goering's Luftwaffe?

And without politicians, lawyers, etc., the Declaration, Bill of Rights, and Consitution would not exist at all. They would never have been written.

Sweden, for one.

Edit: 3000 posts! That's only slightly depressing.


Yep, I'm sure if Europe fell to the Nazis the wonderful Swedes would be left entirely alone.

(I call immunity to Godwins Law since that was relavent.)

Yep, I'm sure if Europe fell to the Nazis the wonderful Swedes would be left entirely alone.

(I call immunity to Godwins Law since that was relavent.)

If you think it's relevant, then you need to read my first post in this thread again. Something I wrote about "sometimes protecting".

Anyway, Sweden was never involved in that war, nor did we need a war to become a free democracy. We were that a long time before WWII, through gradual reforms.

Anyway, Sweden was never involved in that war, nor did we need a war to become a free democracy. We were that a long time before WWII, through gradual reforms.

Please try to use comprehension skills.

The veteran? Here I thought it was the Constitution that gave us those rights...

This may be controversial, but as far as I know my history (speaking as a non US citizen), it has only been in the War of Independence and WWII that these rights were defended by US soldiers. In no other actions have the US been threatened with invasion.

If you can prove me wrong, plz do :)

Furthermore, this is not to disparrage the sacrifices made by the serving men and women who gave their lives following orders, though some of these orders given by the administrative branch of government seem moronic to me

Please try to use comprehension skills.

Please, try to actually say something before you demand that it be understood. So far you have said nothing to prove your stance, and nothing that even becomes relevent when my first post is taken into consideration.

Um, no, the veteran hasn't. He may have protected those rights and freedoms at times in certain countries, but given and caused them all? Please. Let's not get carried away in one's idolatry.

Actually I agree with you. I was just being nice. Honest. I kind of feel that way about WWII Vets, but that's about all.

This may be controversial, but as far as I know my history (speaking as a non US citizen), it has only been in the War of Independence and WWII that these rights were defended by US soldiers. In no other actions have the US been threatened with invasion.

If you can prove me wrong, plz do :)

Furthermore, this is not to disparrage the sacrifices made by the serving men and women who gave their lives following orders, though some of these orders given by the administrative branch of government seem moronic to me
I'd stick with the war of Independence. And that wasn't more soldiers per se in the sense of the term used today, it was a bunch of citizens who wanted to get rid of Great Britian. In time, we would have had independence anyway, this just speeded things along.

When I posted this I sort of only meant WWII vets. I guess I should of stated that. Sorry for the confusion.

This may come as a news flash to some, but those ideas did not start with the US, and would not have ended with it either.

So what's your point?

The authors corectly points out that these ideas would be meaningless without the sacrafices of the veterans.

This may come as a news flash to some, but a lot of countries didn't need wars for those ideas to prevail.

This may come as a news flash to you, but 'this may come as a newsflash' is really not so thoughtful a lead that you need to start every post with it.

and your statement is of considerable ignorance. I don't think that Washington, Franklin and Hancock sat around one day and said "Hey, rather than fly kites today Ben, why don't we start a war for some rights!"

Sweden, for one.

Edit: 3000 posts! That's only slightly depressing.

LOL!

Sweden owes their Europen neighbors BIG TIME for taking care of that whole 'Hitler' thingy. They really deserve no congratulations for their neutrality on that occasion.

This may come as a news flash to you, but 'this may come as a newsflash' is really not so thoughtful a lead that you need to start every post with it.

and your statement is of considerable ignorance. I don't think that Washington, Franklin and Hancock sat around one day and said "Hey, rather than fly kites today Ben, why don't we start a war for some rights!"

The aftermath of the American Revolution only gave that new freedom the white males. I guess it was a start though...

This may come as a news flash to some, but a lot of countries didn't need wars for those ideas to prevail.

Consdering Sweden's bloody history, it's a wonder you can say that.

(ship)

...And without politicians, lawyers, etc., the Declaration, Bill of Rights, and Consitution would not exist at all. They would never have been written.

LOL. Few of the signors of the declaration were politicians or lawyers. They may have written the declaration, but without veterans it would have been no more valueable than the paper you use to wipe your arse with.

The veteran? Here I thought it was the Constitution that gave us those rights...

Wrong.

The declaration of independance makes it clear that there are 'certain inalienable rights' meaning that there is no document which grants them at all, only ones which can infringe on them. Not all rights are, but many in the declaration, constitution and BOR are - all of which (as has been expressed quite well already if you took the time to notice) would be meaningless wihtout the sacrafices of veterans.

So what's your point?

The authors corectly points out that these ideas would be meaningless without the sacrafices of the veterans.

No, he doesn't. He even himself later admits that he doesn't believe them.

My point is that "veterans" didn't give or create those freedoms and rights. You fail to claim that they did.

There are several military forums that are organizing road trips for "monkey stomps" right now. I might be going to New York to watch.

LOL. Few of the signors of the declaration were politicians or lawyers.

Um. Sure they were. But nice bait-and-switch on the Declaration versus the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

They may have written the declaration, but without veterans it would have been no more valueable than the paper you use to wipe your arse with.

Wow.

Now that you have repeated the exact same conclusory statement in a more vulgar manner it is much more true. :rolleyes:

This may come as a news flash to you, but 'this may come as a newsflash' is really not so thoughtful a lead that you need to start every post with it.

Look into literary instruments. I propose starting with Homer.

and your statement is of considerable ignorance. I don't think that Washington, Franklin and Hancock sat around one day and said "Hey, rather than fly kites today Ben, why don't we start a war for some rights!"

Wow, you seem to think the whole world revolves around the US.

This may be controversial, but as far as I know my history (speaking as a non US citizen), it has only been in the War of Independence and WWII that these rights were defended by US soldiers. In no other actions have the US been threatened with invasion.

If you can prove me wrong, plz do :)

Furthermore, this is not to disparrage the sacrifices made by the serving men and women who gave their lives following orders, though some of these orders given by the administrative branch of government seem moronic to me

Without bothering with the incorrectness of your statement, I will point out instead that you incorrectly consider only combat veterans. That would be inconsistent with the more important nature of a military, which is to server as a deterrent. There is no telling what wars were prevented in that manner. Hell, we might all be saluting the Maple Leaf by now! (shudder)

Wrong.

The declaration of independance makes it clear that there are 'certain inalienable rights' meaning that there is no document which grants them at all, only ones which can infringe on them. Not all rights are, but many in the declaration, constitution and BOR are - all of which (as has been expressed quite well already if you took the time to notice) would be meaningless wihtout the sacrafices of veterans.

I really should rephrase since it was the Bill of Rights that gave us our laid out freedoms and the Bill is not actually part of the Constitution but added on later. Good to be exact.

LOL!

Sweden owes their Europen neighbors BIG TIME for taking care of that whole 'Hitler' thingy. They really deserve no congratulations for their neutrality on that occasion.

Trying to claim that the establishment of our democracy and freedom has anything to do with WWII is deeply ignorant of Scandiavian history.

Our neutrality doesn't need congratultions from others, as it is our own.

Consdering Sweden's bloody history, it's a wonder you can say that.

Yes, considering our history, would you like to point out which of our wars had to do with democracy and freedom within the country?

memorial day isnt about veterans

its about those who gave their lives to keep us free

those young men and women who never came home. who never lived the life they paid for.

we live it.

because they didnt.

Wrong.

The declaration of independance makes it clear that there are 'certain inalienable rights' meaning that there is no document which grants them at all, only ones which can infringe on them. Not all rights are, but many in the declaration, constitution and BOR are - all of which (as has been expressed quite well already if you took the time to notice) would be meaningless wihtout the sacrafices of veterans.

LOL.

If the rights are "inalienable," then they exist without the sacrifices of veterans, correct?

I am not denigrating the sacrifices of veterans or the importance of their service, but your grade-school hyperbole is silly and self-contradictory.

(And you nicely ignore that, for every example of veterans defending rights in combat there were other veterans they were fighting against. ;) )

Yes, considering our history, would you like to point out which of our wars had to do with democracy and freedom within the country?

You had to go through all those wars, killing off the most aggressive in each generation, until all that was left was people who were tired of it.

Otherwise, it wouldn't have happened.

Trying to claim that the establishment of our democracy and freedom has anything to do with WWII is deeply ignorant of Scandiavian history.

Our neutrality doesn't need congratultions from others, as it is our own.

Let me draw the lines for you then. You cowards didn't have to defend your freedoms because the rest of free Europe did for you. Without that you would not have it and you could not smugly sith there claiming some sort of superiority for 'not fighting a war' to defend your rights - instead you'd be singing Nazi fight songs.

Let me draw the lines for you then. You cowards didn't have to defend your freedoms because the rest of free Europe did for you. Without that you would not have it and you could not smugly sith there claiming some sort of superiority for 'not fighting a war' to defend your rights - instead you'd be singing Nazi fight songs.

Well, they are blond. I'm not sure they would really mind.

LOL.

If the rights are "inalienable," then they exist without the sacrifices of veterans, correct?

I am not denigrating the sacrifices of veterans or the importance of their service, but your grade-school hyperbole is silly and self-contradictory.

(And you nicely ignore that, for every example of veterans defending rights in combat there were other veterans they were fighting against. ;) )

No, but if calling me 'grade school' is good for your self esteem then do carry on.

Inalienable rights exist, but they, like many other rights, can be infringed. Is that too hard to understand? Would you prefer I use gradeschool words for you?

No, he doesn't. He even himself later admits that he doesn't believe them.

My point is that "veterans" did give or create those freedoms and rights. You fail to claim that they did.
You may want to edit your post since as it stands I pretty much agree with you.

There's evidently going to be an interesting time in Syracuse, New York. Small group of veterans getting together for a good time at Michael Crook's house.

You had to go through all those wars, killing off the most aggressive in each generation, until all that was left was people who were tired of it.

Otherwise, it wouldn't have happened.

Yes, I'll take as a sign of your failure to back up what you were claiming.

Let me draw the lines for you then. You cowards didn't have to defend your freedoms because the rest of free Europe did for you.

Oh, boohoo. If you think your feeble attempts at insults have any sort of merit, or are pertinent in any way, you are mistaken.

Without that you would not have it and you could not smugly sith there claiming some sort of superiority for 'not fighting a war' to defend your rights - instead you'd be singing Nazi fight songs.

Yes, no pertinence in that what so ever.

You may want to edit your post since as it stands I pretty much agree with you.

It was edited befor you answered. You also could have understood what I meant, but probably purposefully chose not to. I wonder why?

Um. Sure they were. But nice bait-and-switch on the Declaration versus the Constitution and Bill of Rights.



Wow.

Now that you have repeated the exact same conclusory statement in a more vulgar manner it is much more true. :rolleyes:

You are incorrectly the pronoun 'they' to lawyers instead of the correct subject, the signors. Sorry you didn't pay more attention in Englisn class, though the sentence was poorly structured also.

It is the Declaration which first describes 'certain inalienable rights' (life, liberty, pursue happiness), the constitution which sets the framework of the USA government, and the BOR which limits the governments ability to infringe on rights (not, as many incorrectly assume, assigning rights)

if you present that paper in a court in China it won't buy you anything. Why? Because it is only paper. It only has meaning in America because of the sacrafices of our veterans.

I really find it incredulous that you cannot cras this simple fact.

Yes, I'll take as a sign of your failure to back up what you were claiming.

I'm claiming that violence is necessary. Not that it necessarily produces democratic results directly.

But in the end, everyone gets really tired of the bloodshed.

I've been consistently taught that the bloodiest episodes and decades in European history - the source of most of the starvation, oppression, and misery, was brought on by Sweden.

Were they wrong?

It was edited befor you answered. You also could have understood what I meant, but probably purposefully chose not to. I wonder why?

Because as it stood it was just too easy of a target.

No, but if calling me 'grade school' is good for your self esteem then do carry on.

Inalienable rights exist, but they, like many other rights, can be infringed. Is that too hard to understand? Would you prefer I use gradeschool words for you?

Let's look at the argument that got you so worked up:

Um, no, the veteran hasn't. He may have protected those rights and freedoms at times in certain countries, but given and caused them all? Please. Let's not get carried away in one's idolatry.

You and Fass are now in complete agreement.

Veterans did not "give" us our rights. They have protected those rights on some occasions.

That is one of the reasons we should honor some veterans and we should honor veterans in general.

As you've conceded the error in your rhetoric are you done fussing? Or is it nap-time?

without men and women willing to fight and die for our rights how would we have any chance to have kept them this long?

I'm claiming that violence is necessary. Not that it necessarily produces democratic results directly.

But in the end, everyone gets really tired of the bloodshed.

I've been consistently taught that the bloodiest episodes and decades in European history - the source of most of the starvation, oppression, and misery, was brought on by Sweden.

Were they wrong?

You are still failing, and irrelevantly at that.

I'm claiming that violence is necessary. Not that it necessarily produces democratic results directly.

But in the end, everyone gets really tired of the bloodshed.

I've been consistently taught that the bloodiest episodes and decades in European history - the source of most of the starvation, oppression, and misery, was brought on by Sweden.

Were they wrong?


I would disagree, violence is not necessary for the creation of democracy, it is necessary for the perpetuation of tyrrany- which is why most of the wars wer fought, including the war for independance.

You are still failing, and irrelevantly at that.
Well, I'll be sure to video the party at Michael Crook's house, and send you the file, so you can post it on the web.

Well, I'll be sure to video the party at Michael Crook's house, and send you the file, so you can post it on the web.

I don't know who that is. Also, I have no VCR.

Let's look at the argument that got you so worked up:



You and Fass are now in complete agreement.

Veterans did not "give" us our rights. They have protected those rights on some occasions.

That is one of the reasons we should honor some veterans and we should honor veterans in general.

As you've conceded the error in your rhetoric are you done fussing? Or is it nap-time?

Well spanky, next time your daddy gives you a shiney new toy you can call the factory that made it and thank them. By your logic your father's role was only in delivering the toy to you, not the toy itself. You would owe him no thanks for providing anything.
Now, clean up your attitude or I'll report you for flaming.

That is one of the reasons we should honor some veterans and we should honor veterans in general.

Why should they be honoured? They were paid for their labours, no?

I don't know who that is. Also, I have no VCR.

Michael Crook put up a website that blasted US troops. It turns out, from a little investigation (a lot of police are veterans, so it isn't hard to find out something in the US inside of an hour), that he had tried to be in the infantry and failed out of basic training. Turns out he had a lot of other failed projects in life and wanted to take out some of his anger on the military.

But rather than be up front about it, and say what had happened, he just turned his website into a flaming trollfest of psuedo-political statements.

Then, he tried to fake his own death - saying the military had killed him - but the local news was all over him.

Then he was pwned on national television here.

Now, it's entirely possible that thousands of veterans are going to be showing up in Syracuse, to ask a few questions.

memorial day is not about veterans

its about those who died in service of our country

do y'all really have a problem with honoring our war dead??

memorial day is not about veterans

its about those who died in service of our country

do y'all really have a problem with honoring our war dead??

Interesting: the war dead are far from the only ones who died in service of your country. Are civilian dead excluded?

Michael Crook put up a website that blasted US troops. It turns out, from a little investigation (a lot of police are veterans, so it isn't hard to find out something in the US inside of an hour), that he had tried to be in the infantry and failed out of basic training. Turns out he had a lot of other failed projects in life and wanted to take out some of his anger on the military.

But rather than be up front about it, and say what had happened, he just turned his website into a flaming trollfest of psuedo-political statements.

Then, he tried to fake his own death - saying the military had killed him - but the local news was all over him.

Then he was pwned on national television here.

Now, it's entirely possible that thousands of veterans are going to be showing up in Syracuse, to ask a few questions.


Apparently, it has spawned an Internet-wide search for people claiming to be veterans who most certainly are not.

You are incorrectly the pronoun 'they' to lawyers instead of the correct subject, the signors. Sorry you didn't pay more attention in Englisn class, though the sentence was poorly structured also.

Nice try.

Here is the post where you make the bait-and-switch to which I referred:


(ship)

...And without politicians, lawyers, etc., the Declaration, Bill of Rights, and Constitution would not exist at all. They would never have been written.

LOL. Few of the signors of the declaration were politicians or lawyers. They may have written the declaration, but without veterans it would have been no more valueable than the paper you use to wipe your arse with.

I referred to the Declaration, Bill of Rights, and Constitution -- as had you.

They (the Declaration, Bill of Rights, and Constitution) were written by politicians, lawyers, etc.

And they in my sentence included not just the Declaration, but also to the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Thus, as I said, your response was a bit of a bait-and-switch.

My sentences made and make perfect sense. Either you did not understand them or you have deliberately misconstrued them. Regardless, the failure is on your part, not mine.

Interesting: the war dead are far from the only ones who died in service of your country. Are civilian dead excluded?
yes they are

although many people use memorial day to remember all their family dead and to tend to family graves.

My sentences made and make perfect sense. Either you did not understand them or you have deliberately misconstrued them. Regardless, the failure is on your part, not mine.

Most of the Founding Fathers appear to have been legislators with guns. Not necessarily soldiers, and not necessarily lawyers.

Landed gentry (and a few polemics) who drew up some ideas, and then raised an Army to make it happen.

Had not the documents been drafted, nothing would have happened.
Had not the Continental Army been formed, led, and fought against the British, nothing would have happened.

Happy everyone?

You are incorrectly the pronoun 'they' to lawyers instead of the correct subject, the signors. Sorry you didn't pay more attention in Englisn class, though the sentence was poorly structured also.

I'm sorry, but I just have to butt in here and ask if anyone else saw anything horendously ironic in this attempt at mockery.

Basically, this sentence is suggesting that in the eyes of lawyers (but not of signors, which basically excludes any Italian gentlemen; I'm guessing you meant "signers"), The Cat-Tribe is a pronoun (specifically, third-person plural), albeit an incorrect one.

Sorry. I just had to.

yes they are

So why do the military dead get a special day? - unless they were (unpaid) volunteers they were already paid for their services and the dangers they faced.

Most of the Founding Fathers appear to have been legislators with guns. Not necessarily soldiers, and not necessarily lawyers.

Landed gentry (and a few polemics) who drew up some ideas, and then raised an Army to make it happen.

Had not the documents been drafted, nothing would have happened.
Had not the Continental Army been formed, led, and fought against the British, nothing would have happened.

Happy everyone?

It is worth noting that all of the signors of the declaration also ended up as veterans.

Also, I don't respond to grammar nazi's. As I see it they are trying to change the subject from their own weak argument to one of grammar and symantecs. I made the necessary post to clarify my intent.

Well spanky, next time your daddy gives you a shiney new toy you can call the factory that made it and thank them. By your logic your father's role was only in delivering the toy to you, not the toy itself. You would owe him no thanks for providing anything.

I'm not sure which is worse your strawman or your analogy. I'll give them each the respect they deserve.

1. I've made perfectly clear I believe in honoring and thanking our veterans.

2. If I went around telling people that daddy made me the shiny new toy, I would be incorrect. No matter how big a tantrum I threw or to what name-calling I resorted, I would still be wrong.

3. Did a veteran deliver your rights in a box with a pretty bow? I thought they were inalienable.

4. Are you under the impression that veterans deliver presents to good little boys and girls? Methinks you have your childhood tales confused.

5. I hope your daddy didn't have to kill people to keep them from taking your shiny toys. That would be protecting your toys, not giving them.

Now, clean up your attitude or I'll report you for flaming.

Nice to meet you Mr. Pot. I'm Mr. Kettle.

BWO, money is not nearly enough of a reward for those who died in the service of our nation. Honor and respect must be given to these men.

So why do the military dead get a special day? - unless they were (unpaid) volunteers they were already paid for their services and the dangers they faced.

This is the second time you've asked so I have to presume you really mean it and are not trolling.

A memorial and gratitude is not the same as compensation.

So why do the military dead get a special day? - unless they were (unpaid) volunteers they were already paid for their services and the dangers they faced.
*gives bwo the look*

because only an asshole isnt grateful for the sacrifice they made. no PAY makes up for giving your life. no PAY eases the grief of their family and friends. no PAY is enough to make anyone risk their life for their country

so one freaking day a year we stop to remember that those men and women are the reason why we can enjoy our freedom and prosperity

you got a problem with that?

I'm not sure which is worse your strawman or your analogy. I'll give them each the respect they deserve.

1. I've made perfectly clear I believe in honoring and thanking our veterans.

2. If I went around telling people that daddy made me the shiny new toy, I would be incorrect. No matter how big a tantrum I threw or to what name-calling I resorted, I would still be wrong.

3. Did a veteran deliver your rights in a box with a pretty bow? I thought they were inalienable.

4. Are you under the impression that veterans deliver presents to good little boys and girls? Methinks you have your childhood tales confused.

5. I hope your daddy didn't have to kill people to keep them from taking your shiny toys. That would be protecting your toys, not giving them.

Nice to meet you Mr. Pot. I'm Mr. Kettle.

I'm getting a vauge memory of a SCOTUS decision from 1876, which mentioned that the rights we have under the Constitution would exist even if the government passed laws against them. Then they mentioned something about "inalienable".

Doesn't mean that you "get" those rights - just that they exist, unless you fight to keep them.

There are, of course, different ways to fight for your rights. Not all of which involve being a veteran.

I'm not sure which is worse your strawman or your analogy. I'll give them each the respect they deserve.

1. I've made perfectly clear I believe in honoring and thanking our veterans.

2. If I went around telling people that daddy made me the shiny new toy, I would be incorrect. No matter how big a tantrum I threw or to what name-calling I resorted, I would still be wrong.

3. Did a veteran deliver your rights in a box with a pretty bow? I thought they were inalienable.

4. Are you under the impression that veterans deliver presents to good little boys and girls? Methinks you have your childhood tales confused.

5. I hope your daddy didn't have to kill people to keep them from taking your shiny toys. That would be protecting your toys, not giving them.



Nice to meet you Mr. Pot. I'm Mr. Kettle.

That's more like it. Thanks. Much as I'd like to reply, I am out of time for the evening. I have some responsibilities to tend to. I'll be back tomorrow. I did post twice about the difference between rights and inalienable rights. I'm a bit tired and the meaning may not have been clear. I'll be back tomorrow.

Also, nobody said veterans made or defined the freedoms and rights, they simply, and correctly said, they gave them to you, the same as your daddy gave you the shiny toy. Methinks we are stuck on symantecs.

So why do the military dead get a special day? - unless they were (unpaid) volunteers they were already paid for their services and the dangers they faced.

Gratitude.

If a firefighter or police officer saves your life, would you thank them?

(There are many flaws in your assumptions and "logic," but the bigger point defies your logic altogether. It is not a zero-sum equation.)

Now, clean up your attitude or I'll report you for flaming.Who's gonna be doing the reporting again?Let me draw the lines for you then. You cowards didn't have to defend your freedoms because the rest of free Europe did for you.
B0zzy, The Cat-Tribe, and Fass, your little ego trips have taken a fairly decent topic and run it right into the ground. Way to handle a memorial topic.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v488/frisbeeteria/lock/crusade.jpg