NationStates Jolt Archive

You are welcome to take a position on it.

But you keep arguing for one position and then -- whenever backed into a corner -- saying it isn't your position.

You can't validily take at the same a position for and against a special case for soldiers' funerals, but you keep trying.
Ohh-kayy, let me spell it out for you: under ideal conditions ( eg: a law proposed on it ), I would much prefer to have all funerals protected.

The only law that I know of on the table just now is one which proposes that the funerals of soldiers be protected.

That's not my primary preference, but neither will I oppose it.

Make sense now? :)

Ever hear the saying "half a loaf is better than none?" :)

The problem is that you want to ask for half a loaf and only give it to soldiers. If you are going to declare that protests should be limited at funerals it MUST be all funerals. You are asking for priveleges for ONLY soldiers even if you claim you're not.

Ohh-kayy, let me spell it out for you: under ideal conditions ( eg: a law proposed on it ), I would much prefer to have all funerals protected.

The only law that I know of on the table just now is one which proposes that the funerals of soldiers be protected.

That's not my primary preference, but neither will I oppose it.

Make sense now? :)

So kind of like saying I think all people deserve the privelege of voting but if a law only gives it to white people I'll support it because half a loaf is better than none.

1. I don't think so.

2. I'm talking about cases where exemptions or exceptions are made for selected groups.

3. Under FLSA, as I indicated above, certain groups of people are granted exemption from the law because of the sort of work they do, yes???

Ehem. You said:
Well, let's do this then: you pick a group of people who are easily identifiable by race, religion, ethnicity, region, age, sex, employment category under the FLSA, etc., and I'll check to see if they've been granted some exception or exemption where no one has screamed "unconstitutional." Affirmative action for selected groups was only one example.

Pursuant to your challege, I picked such a group: blacks. You do not point to any "exception or exemption" granted to this group identifiable by race or ethnicity. Instead, you bring up a bizarre example of how salaries are treated under minimum wage laws.

Keep tap-dancing.

The problem is that you want to ask for half a loaf and only give it to soldiers. If you are going to declare that protests should be limited at funerals it MUST be all funerals. You are asking for priveleges for ONLY soldiers even if you claim you're not.
What would you have me do then? I've already placed a call to the representative from my district asking her to support a law that would impose distance and noise limitations on "protests" at ANY funeral. What else can I do, storm Congress with a baseball bat??? :rolleyes:

What would you have me do then? I've already placed a call to the representative from my district asking her to support a law that would impose distance and noise limitations on "protests" at ANY funeral. What else can I do. storm Congress with a baseball bat??? :rolleyes:

Yes, but it'd have to be a wooden one, so it wouldn't be detected at the metal detectors.

Seriously though, you could stop defending here the idea of "settling" for a law that only protects YOUR group, for starters, at least so you'd have a semblance of coherence.

What else can I do. storm Congress with a baseball bat??? :rolleyes:

Hey, I had that dream last night! I have that one almost as much as I have the "punch Paris Hilton in the non-existant brain" dream.

So kind of like saying I think all people deserve the privelege of voting but if a law only gives it to white people I'll support it because half a loaf is better than none.
Hardly! Voting is specifically addressed in the Constitution, several times, as a right. Being free to grieve for your departed family member at their funeral is not.

Hey, I had that dream last night! I have that one almost as much as I have the "punch Paris Hilton in the non-existant brain" dream.
LOL! I would hope you might find something else to do with her before you punch her! :D

Ohh-kayy, let me spell it out for you: under ideal conditions ( eg: a law proposed on it ), I would much prefer to have all funerals protected.

The only law that I know of on the table just now is one which proposes that the funerals of soldiers be protected.

That's not my primary preference, but neither will I oppose it.

Make sense now? :)

Still equivocating. Not opposing something is not the same as supporting it. You keep arguing for the law. (And then, when that position becomes uncomfortable, whining that it is "not [your] primary preference.)

I oppose a law that infringes freedom of speech by limiting some speech on the basis of content (i.e., anti-military). I would support a law that is content-neutral.

Pursuant to your challege, I picked such a group: blacks. You do not point to any "exception or exemption" granted to this group identifiable by race or ethnicity. Instead, you bring up a bizarre example of how salaries are treated under minimum wage laws.

Keep tap-dancing.
"Tap-dancing?" WTF are you talking about NOW? You said you didn't like the example I gave about affirmative action, so I brought up another one. Exceptions are made for each of the groups listed, one based on race or ethnicity, the other based on employment status. :confused:

What would you have me do then? I've already placed a call to the representative from my district asking her to support a law that would impose distance and noise limitations on "protests" at ANY funeral. What else can I do, storm Congress with a baseball bat??? :rolleyes:

I would have you not support ANY law that gives special priveleges. Otherwise I think you're doing the right thing. Congress needs to know that we want an all inclusive law or no law. What good does it do to make a law that simply ends up being struck down other than making the politicians seem like they give a crap.

Hardly! Voting is specifically addressed in the Constitution, several times, as a right. Being free to grieve for your departed family member at their funeral is not.

That's not the point. Many rights are not touched upon in the Constitution, as well as many priveleges. I was making a comparison.

Are you saying that the only rights that have to applied equally are those specifically enumerated?

Still equivocating. Not opposing something is not the same as supporting it. You keep arguing for the law. (And then, when that position becomes uncomfortable, whining that it is "not [your] primary preference.)

I oppose a law that infringes freedom of speech by limiting some speech on the basis of content (i.e., anti-military). I would support a law that is content-neutral.
I never would have imgained that you would be unable to understand this.

I've learned on here that if I don't constantly remind people of my primary position on issues, they will sieze on any subsequent statement I make and try to beat me over the head with a side-issue. I have done the best I can to explain both my primary postion on this issue ( protect all funerals ), and what I'll "settle for" ( the only proposed law I know of currently on the table ).

What part of this do you not understand???

The evil and horrible crimes committed by Heikoku:

The following is just from this thread alone:

definition of socialism: total equality of everything and everyone.

Heikoku has repeatedly claimed that all jobs are absolutely equal in value.
How about policemen then? They aren't military and can be killed in duty. How about postal workers? They dedicate their lives to a public service. And executives, that keep the Economy going by working? Then there are scientists, that dedicate their lives to finding out cures for diseases, and so on, and so forth. Don't they deserve respect, too?

This doesn't sound socialist?

Yet, in soccer, they all get paid the same wages and not one of them gets to punch the other in the face without repercussions. Also, are they so coward that they can't take criticism now? Furthermore, what "contribution" do you speak of, exactly? The last just war was WWII. post 121

Here he bashes American troops:

Quote:
Originally Posted by USMC leathernecks
I challenge you to find where i said he was drugged. I just said that that happens to occur when you do smoke marijuana.

I bet you also make that kind of "I just pulled the trigger, he happened to be in front of it" excuses to yourself when you think about any civilians you may have murdered. post 150

Some trolling on his part:

Go live in Burma and you'll see how great the Military in power is, moron. post 166

he made the following anti-american comment with some trolling:
So, let's see here. Eut and the other moron are the only nuts that actually favor a Samurai-style "military=nobleman" system, which was, by the way, abolished in the 1880s. Quite frankly, you'd just as soon support a dictatorship. Of course, you'll assume that the US Military never did anything wrong, right? Well, if Eut can whine about some protesters spitting on his face after the Hanoi Bloodfest 30 years ago, I, too, can "remember". The US military helped dictatorships in power in all of Latin America. It helped the Taliban, Saddam, and, basically, whoever fit their interests, not ever giving a damn about human rights. But, you'll argue, they also saved the world from Nazism. True enough, but, then, you'll also agree with me that scientists saved the world from ignorance, from dawn of mankind, and on. And a much smaller number of innocents died at the hands of scientists. The military puts its ass on the line of fire, but kills innocents too. Scientists do neither. Scientists create things that tend to help, not harm, humanity. The same can't be said for the military. Yet here I see you proposing privileges to them, creating a priviledged class within a country. Read up on History and you'll see it's the first step towards a dictatorship. Read up on History and you'll see that, yes, it can happen to any country, including one with democratic tradition. You're supposed to be 62, Eut, thus you must have lived right after McCarthyism. Did that look democratic to you? Paranoia in a country that prized itself on its democratic traditions? Yet you claim it can't happen? Yet you claim, against all evidence, that they can be granted privileges? With all the historical, logical, moral, pragmatical, philosophical evidence against it? You two have no obligation to ignore all evidence just to take the side of your friends against everyone else. And yes, it IS against everyone else, because, by not being egalitarian, you're siding against all others that don't share the right "not to be disturbed". Coretta Scott King got badmouthed at her funeral, and, no, the Military is NOT better than she is. She ALSO put her ass on the line, by holding unpopular opinions at a time in which lynching was rampant in the south. Just because she wasn't firing a gun and spilling blood doesn't mean she's worse than the military. In fact, quite the opposite. Yet, against all logic, against all history, against all rational thought, you'd be happy to see SOME people get a right while OTHERS do not. I really don't want to call you two imbeciles, but I have no idea what else to call people that ignore all evidences in favor of a warped worldview. post 195

Another antiamerican comment and what appears to be defense of socialism:
You've set up dictatorships all over the world. What mental strenght? Red Scare was enough for ONE person to gain power to ignore what your forefathers wrote! Liberal groups being wiretapped, back in Nixon's time and probably now. post 234

Again, another socialist like statement;
You don't agree with me. It's better to have none than to have some and entitle, unequally, a certain group of people, at least ethics-wise post 245

two posts later:
"Originally Posted by USMC leathernecks
By that logic it would be better during a famine to have everyone starve than have everyone starve but a few" No: It would be better to share the food with everyone. post 247
In the latter post he made a utopian claim that is supported only by socialists.

Another antiamerican and anti US military comment:
In Latin America, the military has an agenda because the US helps them with it. And, if the US military is soft-spoken, then it shouldn't need a special law to KEEP THEM FROM becoming a group of coup-stagers, as you claimed in your other post.post 265

In post 308 he again bashes the US military with a frivolous claim:
The Military has been nothing but glorified by those in power

In post 330 he shows his total contempt for the American people:
The average American has the attention span of a retarded fish on drugs but hey, he'll probably deny he said that like he's denied everything else.


Another utopian socialist argument on equality:
No, I wouldn't, unless that law ALSO protected everyone else. post 388

More trolling on his part in post 390:
as opposed to tossing your shit around like the monkeys you are

Post 476 more trolling and clearly a bashing Republicans:
Yes. Because it's the REPUBLICAN AGENDA.

Moron. I would note that since Heikoku has never been to America and has never ever attended a US political party convention he really has no clue what the agendas of either the US Republican or US Democratic parties are. Here he is throwing baseless charges against the Republicans.

In post 507 he falsely calls me a murderer. Note that I have never killed anyone, and he flames:
He was ELECTED, you son of a bitch! We will not let the US dictate terms on who we elect, you murderer.

For which in post 511 Tactical Grace asked him to knock it off:
"Originally Posted by Heikoku
He was ELECTED, you son of a bitch! We will not let the US dictate terms on who we elect, you murderer" Please don't do that.

In post 510 trolling and clearly anti-americanism:
You could have said this to the guy that's proposing a coup after supporting the "liberation" of Iraq, Forrest, but, by all means, ignore the moron you have at your side...

Edit: For that matter, before you use the "Hitler was elected" card, remember that Venezuela isn't launching preemptive strikes at hapless countries, nor arresting ilegally and keeping people at camps without charges. You know, like the US and its "elected leader" is doing in Iraq amd Guantanamo.

Yep, the US is an evil empire. Sure. :rolleyes:

That's not the point. Many rights are not touched upon in the Constitution, as well as many priveleges. I was making a comparison.

Are you saying that the only rights that have to applied equally are those specifically enumerated?
Sigh. Oh comeon! You know better than that! There are quite a number of Supreme Court cases about "implied rights," such as the "right to privacy." :rolleyes:

Hardly! Voting is specifically addressed in the Constitution, several times, as a right. Being free to grieve for your departed family member at their funeral is not.

1. To be technical, you are wrong. Voting per se is not an enumerated right in the Constitution. It is not "specifically addressed ... as a right" but has been recognized as an unenumerated right under the Due Process Clauses.

2. Why should the families of veterans be "free to grieve for [their] departed family member at their funeral," but not other Americans? (I know -- that's a good question, so you'll claim not to be arguing for what you are arguing for, rather than answer it. :rolleyes: )

3. Freedom of assembly and freedom of speech are rights specifically enumerated in the Constitution, but you are willing to limit them for something that even you don't allege is a right. See the problem?

The evil and horrible crimes committed by Heikoku:
I wouldn't know. I can no longer read his inannities. :D

The only such law I would support would be like the one that Michigan (http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060419/POLITICS/604190400/1003/rss) just passed that prohibits any sort of protesting within 500ft of a funeral. Although, as much as I hate Phelps and his ilk I'm still a bit queasy on limiting a form of speech. However, since it prohibits protesting at any funeral, not just military, it's not so bad.

Those are nice words. Care to make a point or are you just spamming?

EDIT: let me guess, you're going to claim affirmative action is something it isn't and then argue that it makes people unequal.
where've you been? Affirmative Action most certainly does make people unequal. And when its funded by the federal government or the state governments, it is a clear violation of the US constitution.

:headbang:

Either you have no idea what those two words mean or your point is moot.

Affirmative action means equal rights and equal opportunities regardless of race, religion, gender, national origin, etc.

Or were you referring to affirmative action for veterans?
no affirmative action = race based qoutas. Hence, affirmative action makes people unequal.

:headbang:

Either you have no idea what those two words mean or your point is moot.

Affirmative action means equal rights and equal opportunities regardless of race, religion, gender, national origin, etc.

Or were you referring to affirmative action for veterans?
no affirmative action = race based qoutas. Hence, affirmative action makes people unequal.

1. To be technical, you are wrong. Voting per se is not an enumerated right in the Constitution. It is not "specifically addressed ... as a right" but has been recognized as an unenumerated right under the Due Process Clauses.

2. Why should the families of veterans be "free to grieve for [their] departed family member at their funeral," but not other Americans? (I know -- that's a good question, so you'll claim not to be arguing for what you are arguing for, rather than answer it. :rolleyes: )

3. Freedom of assembly and freedom of speech are rights specifically enumerated in the Constitution, but you are willing to limit them for something that even you don't allege is a right. See the problem?
1. You're a lawyer. I, thank God, am not. I cannot argue specificities with you because I'm not qualified to do so. Lucky you!

2. Sigh. I'm not going to say it again.

3. Freedom of assembly and freedom of speech, IMHO, are general rights. The specifics must be set via precedence via SCOTUS, yes?? Besides, does not the instant case imply a possible conflict between freedom of speech and assembly on one hand, and the right to privacy on the other??

I never would have imgained that you would be unable to understand this.

I've learned on here that if I don't constantly remind people of my primary position on issues, they will sieze on any subsequent statement I make and try to beat me over the head with a side-issue. I have done the best I can to explain both my primary postion on this issue ( protect all funerals ), and what I'll "settle for" ( the only proposed law I know of currently on the table ).

What part of this do you not understand???

What I don't understand is why you appear to feel we can't criticize you for saying you'll "'settle for'" an unconsitutional law because that isn't your "primary position."

What I don't understand is why you are willing to support a law that violates freedom of speech by limiting some speech on the basis of its content.

If I say my "primary position" is that everyone has the right to free speech, but that I'd "settle for" just those that support the military having a right to free speech, then I would expect some criticism. Not because I support the military, but because my position is anti-free speech.

What part of this do you not understand???

1. What I don't understand is why you appear to feel we can't criticize you for saying you'll "'settle for'" an unconsitutional law because that isn't your "primary position."

2. What I don't understand is why you are willing to support a law that violates freedom of speech by limiting some speech on the basis of its content.

3. If I say my "primary position" is that everyone has the right to free speech, but that I'd "settle for" just those that support the military having a right to free speech, then I would expect some criticism. Not because I support the military, but because my position is anti-free speech.

4. What part of this do you not understand???
LOL! :D

1. I don't feel you "can't criticise" me. That would be futile regardless. And I was under the distinct impression that you ( and to a far greater degree, others on here ) were doing that constantly anyway.

2. Perhaps because I happen to not believe that it "prohibits free speech" to any significant degree?

3. I don't see it that way, obviously.

4. The part where you feel it necessary to make me say the same thing over and over. :p

no affirmative action = race based qoutas. Hence, affirmative action makes people unequal.

This is a separate topic, but you couldn't be more wrong.

Race-based quotas are illegal under the FLSA and are unconstitutional. Affirmative action is not race-based quotas.

This is a separate topic, but you couldn't be more wrong.

Race-based quotas are illegal under the FLSA and are unconstitutional. Affirmative action is not race-based quotas.
Oh, God. Not THIS shit again! :(

Oh, God. Not THIS shit again! :(

You are the one that brought the subject up. :rolleyes:

I'd love to see you point to a law that establishes race-based quotas. SCOTUS has repeatedly overturned quotas (de jure or de facto).

US Dept. of Labor: Facts on Executive Order 11246 -- Affirmative Action (http://www.dol.gov/esa/regs/compliance/ofccp/aa.htm)

This part is particularly enlightening (emphasis added):

The numerical goals are established based on the availability of qualified applicants in the job market or qualified candidates in the employer’s work force. Executive Order numerical goals do not create set-asides for specific groups, nor are they designed to achieve proportional representation or equal results. Rather, the goal-setting process in affirmative action planning is used to target and measure the effectiveness of affirmative action efforts to eradicate and prevent discrimination. The Executive Order and its supporting regulations do not authorize OFCCP to penalize contractors for not meeting goals. The regulations at 41 CFR 60-2.12(e), 60-2.30 and 60-2.15, specifically prohibit quota and preferential hiring and promotions under the guise of affirmative action numerical goals. In other words, discrimination in the selection decision is prohibited.

You are the one that brought the subject up. :rolleyes:

I'd love to see you point to a law that establishes race-based quotas. SCOTUS has repeatedly overturned quotas (de jure or de facto).

US Dept. of Labor: Facts on Executive Order 11246 -- Affirmative Action (http://www.dol.gov/esa/regs/compliance/ofccp/aa.htm)

This part is particularly enlightening (emphasis added):
It's one thing to codify that, quite another thing to enforce it.

It's one thing to codify that, quite another thing to enforce it.

First, you appear to be granting that affirmative-action laws are not quotas. To the contrary, they forbid them.

Second, equal opportunity laws are enforced the same. It is no more allowed to discriminate against a white male than it is to discriminate against a minority. The same standard is applied.

This is a separate topic, but you couldn't be more wrong.

Race-based quotas are illegal under the FLSA and are unconstitutional. Affirmative action is not race-based quotas.
What a laugh. Ha ha ha.

I might just put that in my sig. LMAO.

Do you even know what affirmative action is? You had to study law before you got your license to practice surely? Do you know why the US Supreme Court overturned affirmative action if not for the fact that it is based on race based qoutas?

The way affirmative action works, and why the SCOTUS struck it down on several occasions:

Publicly funded school or government agency:

This group is treated unfairly. We need race qoutas.

Government funded university: We are going to redress this unfairness by:
Admitting 55 black kids
Admitting exactly 18 latinos
Admitting only 5 whites

And we are not going to base any of these admissions on actual grades or potential. Because of the unfairness that has been historically given to black and latinos we are going to base on our admissions entirely on this nice racial qouta system we call affirmative action.

Government agency: Blacks are treated badly. We are going to correct by using a race qouta for hiring. Therefore, no matter what, we will hire exactly 75 black people and only 3 whites. And if we have no positions available for the black people we will just fire however many whites or latinos we need to make room for the black people. And we won't worry about their qualifications as long as they are black.

That's affirmative action. The US Supreme Court ruled it was unconstitutional because it was "reverse discrimination". You can't discriminate in admissions or employment against one group just to correct a percieved wrong against another group.

You're the lawyer you should know that.
I'm the one who supposedly doesn't know what he's talking about, but even I know that.

Nice work at twisting, distorting, and taking my points out of context, Whittier.

Where again have I said that the US is an evil empire? When I went against YOUR idea of the US dictating terms of who we elect? Or when I claimed that what BUSH did was not a liberation? Cute. Do you deny that the American military is responsible for torture? Pointing out facts is "bashing" now? You're proposing the murder of a person in more than one of your posts. And everybody knows what the Republican agenda is. Regardless, when have I bashed America by attacking Republicans? They represent the whole country now? Equality under the law is not socialism, it's the ideal of the FRENCH REVOLUTION, which was not socialist at all. Study some history. And yes, I do claim that the average American has a short attention span. As does the average Brazilian. Why? Because it has been proven, time and again, that both do. I made no claim of value or lack of it by pointing out that the Military is glorified. I only said that it is. Pointing out what happened in McCarthyism and during the Nixon Regime is anti-american now? Then arrest all history teachers. Do you deny that the CIA helped Pinochet overthrow the Chilean government? It seems that Whittier thinks that being against turning the military into a noble class is equal to bashing it. Cute, but it doesn't work that way.

The military getting bonuses above the common man is one of the traits of fascism. Ergo, you're a fascist. You claim that pointing out unpleasant historical facts is anti-American, thus wanting to allow your government to change history as it sees fit. This goes against the wishes of your forefathers, ergo you're anti-American. You're willing and ready to overthrow elected governments you don't agree with. That ALSO goes against the wishes of your forefathers, ergo, you're even more anti-American (and a fascist revolutionary). The difference between your claims and mine is that my claims are backed by the way you behave without any need for me to twist your words to fit my interpretation.

The right to privacy was brought up by some one but the others just ignored it.

The fact is that when the right to protest violates the right to privacy, the right right to protest ends.

A funeral, if it is decided to be private, cannot be protested without the grievers right to privacy being violated.

As stated in a speech by one of the Supreme Court justices a couple years back: all rights are equal and none are above the other. Where one right would violate the rights of another person, that right ends.

First, you appear to be granting that affirmative-action laws are not quotas. To the contrary, they forbid them.

Second, equal opportunity laws are enforced the same. It is no more allowed to discriminate against a white male than it is to discriminate against a minority. The same standard is applied.
In theory, perhaps.

What a laugh. Ha ha ha.

I might just put that in my sig. LMAO.

Do you even know what affirmative action is? You had to study law before you got your license to practice surely? Do you know why the US Supreme Court overturned affirmative action if not for the fact that it is based on race based qoutas?

The way affirmative action works, and why the SCOTUS struck it down on several occasions:

Publicly funded school or government agency:

This group is treated unfairly. We need race qoutas.

Government funded university: We are going to redress this unfairness by:
Admitting 55 black kids
Admitting exactly 18 latinos
Admitting only 5 whites

And we are not going to base any of these admissions on actual grades or potential. Because of the unfairness that has been historically given to black and latinos we are going to base on our admissions entirely on this nice racial qouta system we call affirmative action.

Government agency: Blacks are treated badly. We are going to correct by using a race qouta for hiring. Therefore, no matter what, we will hire exactly 75 black people and only 3 whites. And if we have no positions available for the black people we will just fire however many whites or latinos we need to make room for the black people. And we won't worry about their qualifications as long as they are black.

That's affirmative action. The US Supreme Court ruled it was unconstitutional because it was "reverse discrimination". You can't discriminate in admissions or employment against one group just to correct a percieved wrong against another group.

You're the lawyer you should know that.
I'm the one who supposedly doesn't know what he's talking about, but even I know that.

Gee, SCOTUS has upheld affirmative action but struck down quotas. That doesn't contradict what I said at all.

And, before you assert again that SCOTUS has ruled all affirmative action unconstitutional, check your facts. Read, for example, Grutter v. Bollinger (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=000&invol=02-241), 539 US 306 (2003). Or you could read the federal affirmative action law to which I already linked.

What you attack as "affirmative action" is a mere strawman.

First, you appear to be granting that affirmative-action laws are not quotas. To the contrary, they forbid them.

Second, equal opportunity laws are enforced the same. It is no more allowed to discriminate against a white male than it is to discriminate against a minority. The same standard is applied.
1. Of course.

2. I know ... in theory, but what happens out here in the real world is another thing entirely.

Nice work at twisting, distorting, and taking my points out of context, Whittier.

Where again have I said that the US is an evil empire? When I went against YOUR idea of the US dictating terms of who we elect? Or when I claimed that what BUSH did was not a liberation? Cute. Do you deny that the American military is responsible for torture? Pointing out facts is "bashing" now? You're proposing the murder of a person in more than one of your posts. And everybody knows what the Republican agenda is. Regardless, when have I bashed America by attacking Republicans? They represent the whole country now? Equality under the law is not socialism, it's the ideal of the FRENCH REVOLUTION, which was not socialist at all. Study some history. And yes, I do claim that the average American has a short attention span. As does the average Brazilian. Why? Because it has been proven, time and again, that both do. I made no claim of value or lack of it by pointing out that the Military is glorified. I only said that it is. Pointing out what happened in McCarthyism and during the Nixon Regime is anti-american now? Then arrest all history teachers. Do you deny that the CIA helped Pinochet overthrow the Chilean government? It seems that Whittier thinks that being against turning the military into a noble class is equal to bashing it. Cute, but it doesn't work that way.

The military getting bonuses above the common man is one of the traits of fascism. Ergo, you're a fascist. You claim that pointing out unpleasant historical facts is anti-American, thus wanting to allow your government to change history as it sees fit. This goes against the wishes of your forefathers, ergo you're anti-American. You're willing and ready to overthrow elected governments you don't agree with. That ALSO goes against the wishes of your forefathers, ergo, you're even more anti-American (and a fascist revolutionary). The difference between your claims and mine is that my claims are backed by the way you behave without any need for me to twist your words to fit my interpretation.
Desperate are we? You seem to be grasping at straws now. Last night I said "I will qoute you tommorrow". Now it is tommorrow and I have qouted you as I said I would.

You should just accept responsibility for what you said.

There are people who KNOW what the Republican agenda is and there are people who falsely CLAIM to know.

Just as America is not Brazil, America is not France. Most Americans oppose turning the US into another Europe.

The military is not responsible for torture.

Whether Iraq was a liberation is up to the Iraqi people. Are you Iraqi? I don't think so.

You didn't just say the average American had a short attention span you said "The average American has the attention span of a retarded fish"
You are clearly calling the American people retarded because they don't support your positions.

Helping Pinochet was preferable to Chile becoming a communist state and a member of the USSR's Warsaw Pact. Again look at the context. And remember President Bush was not the one that had them do that. If you know anything about his positions, you would know that if he would have opposed the idea of putting in a dictator.

"The military getting bonuses is the trait of fascism". Really? Then the Veterans Home Loan Program and the GI Bill are signs of America being a fascist country.

Government Unemployment agency policies that give preference to veterans who served in the military over those who never served in the military must be signs of fascism too.

They're anti-american when you take them out of proper context and use them to bash America.

No, I'm not for that. But I am for embargoing them if they support terrorism, seek nuclear technology, or oppress their own people.

Your words speak for themselves the way they are. I don't have to do any twisting.

When I say I'm going to do something, that means I'm going to do it.

What?
Does not Heikoku have anything else to say for himself?

Word Life.

1. Of course.

2. I know ... in theory, but what happens out here in the real world is another thing entirely.

"Out here in the real world"

Cute. The remedies available to one that is discriminated against are the same whether one is black or white, male or female, etc.

Does this mean "reverse discrimination" never happens? No, but it is no more allowed that any other discrimination.

It would be nice if we lived in a perfect world where there was no racism, but we don't. We live "out here in the real world." Hence, we have anti-discrimination laws and policies, including affirmative action.

Anyway, I've been in more than one whole thread devoted to this. It isn't really on topic here.

Desperate are we? You seem to be grasping at straws now. Last night I said "I will qoute you tommorrow". Now it is tommorrow and I have qouted you as I said I would.
Whittier .. repeat after me: I will not feed the troll. :D

"Out here in the real world"

Cute. The remedies available to one that is discriminated against are the same whether one is black or white, male or female, etc.

Does this mean "reverse discrimination" never happens? No, but it is no more allowed that any other discrimination.

It would be nice if we lived in a perfect world where there was no racism, but we don't. We live "out here in the real world." Hence, we have anti-discrimination laws and policies, including affirmative action.

Anyway, I've been in more than one whole thread devoted to this. It isn't really on topic here.
Yes, it would indeed be nice to live in a world where racism was a dim memory. At least we agree on that.

I also agree that this is a somewhat abbreviated thread hijack.

Where were we??? :confused:

Whittier .. repeat after me: I will not feed the troll. :D
Just making sure people know that when I say I am going to do something, I do it.

Apparently he has no comeback.

But good point. Feeding trolls is never a nice thing to do.


At Cat: I agree with you on that is how affirmative action is NOW. But up to the mid 90's you know it meant race based qoutas. The Supreme Court ruled those unconstitional whereby forcing the government to change its affirmative action programs. I was referring to the historical affirmative action.

Yes, Whittier, you are fascist. Because you do support LAW being applied differently to the military, and because you have something against free speech. I wasn't using history to "bash America", I even pointed out that they did a good job at WWII. Chile was not about to become communist, nor socialist, get your facts straight. Allende was not oppressing his own people, neither is Chavez, whose murder you support. You are the one getting desperate here, considering you're reading the word "equality" and screaming "socialism" like a ballerina on crack. The desire to label opposition as unAmerican and "socialist" is an unAmerican, fascist desire, and you have it. Equality under the law is also written in your Constitution, but you skipped that part, it seems. Or, rather, your fascist views prevented you from noticing it.

Really, I just read the post that started off this thread and a few that followed, so I'm not entirely up on the discussion that followed. Nevertheless, it saddens me that people feel a funeral is the place to make a stand on policy. I'm against the war in Iraq and against the policies implemented by the Bush administration, but make your stand outside the White House or in another public place. It'll have a more positive effect than crashing a funeral anyway.

Whittier .. repeat after me: I will not feed the troll. :D

Cute coming from the guy that begins every response to whoever disagrees with him as an insult.

Yes, it would indeed be nice to live in a world where racism was a dim memory. At least we agree on that.

I also agree that this is a somewhat abbreviated thread hijack.

Where were we??? :confused:
I agree with you both.

I believe we was at the point where I just pawned that other guy.

Really, I just read the post that started off this thread and a few that followed, so I'm not entirely up on the discussion that followed. Nevertheless, it saddens me that people feel a funeral is the place to make a stand on policy. I'm against the war in Iraq and against the policies implemented by the Bush administration, but make your stand outside the White House or in another public place. It'll have a more positive effect than crashing a funeral anyway.

Fred Phelps, a conservative, is the only person doing it. Google his name and you'll see...

I agree with you both.

I believe we was at the point where I just pawned that other guy.

Too bad you didn't, chum. Read my reply.

Cute coming from the guy that begins every response to whoever disagrees with him as an insult.
Errr. Must.....Not......Feed.......Troll.....


:headbang:

Too bad you didn't, chum. Read my reply.
What the? What are you? The energizer bunny on steroids? :D

Errr. Must.....Not......Feed.......Troll.....


:headbang:

Also cute coming from the guy that yells "socialist anti-American" whenever someone dares to disagree with him.

What the? What are you? The energizer bunny on steroids? :D

You'll have to go back one page, but do read my reply. And trust me, you'll get tired before I do.

What the? What are you? The energizer bunny on steroids? :D
Heh! Don't mistake having hemarroids for being on steroids. Two different things, dude. :D

Heh! Don't mistake having hemarroids for being on steroids. Two different things, dude. :D

Indeed. Hemarroids is what Eutrusca has after the incident with the rifle.

The evil and horrible crimes committed by Heikoku:

The following is just from this thread alone:

definition of socialism: total equality of everything and everyone.

Herein lies your problem. You don't know what socialism is. I consider this fairly basic to calling someone a socialist. Please look it up.

Sigh. Oh comeon! You know better than that! There are quite a number of Supreme Court cases about "implied rights," such as the "right to privacy." :rolleyes:

I believe that's exactly what I said. There is a specific amendment that says than not all rights we have are enumerated in the Constitution.

What a laugh. Ha ha ha.

I might just put that in my sig. LMAO.

Do you even know what affirmative action is? You had to study law before you got your license to practice surely? Do you know why the US Supreme Court overturned affirmative action if not for the fact that it is based on race based qoutas?

The way affirmative action works, and why the SCOTUS struck it down on several occasions:

Publicly funded school or government agency:

This group is treated unfairly. We need race qoutas.

Government funded university: We are going to redress this unfairness by:
Admitting 55 black kids
Admitting exactly 18 latinos
Admitting only 5 whites

And we are not going to base any of these admissions on actual grades or potential. Because of the unfairness that has been historically given to black and latinos we are going to base on our admissions entirely on this nice racial qouta system we call affirmative action.

Government agency: Blacks are treated badly. We are going to correct by using a race qouta for hiring. Therefore, no matter what, we will hire exactly 75 black people and only 3 whites. And if we have no positions available for the black people we will just fire however many whites or latinos we need to make room for the black people. And we won't worry about their qualifications as long as they are black.

That's affirmative action. The US Supreme Court ruled it was unconstitutional because it was "reverse discrimination". You can't discriminate in admissions or employment against one group just to correct a percieved wrong against another group.

You're the lawyer you should know that.
I'm the one who supposedly doesn't know what he's talking about, but even I know that.

Nice. He posted evidence that quotas are ILLEGAL. You're response is to say he's doesn't know what he's talking about (and apparently neither does SCOTUS) while posting NO evidence. All the while you do this, you call other people trolls. Hmm....

Herein lies your problem. You don't know what socialism is. I consider this fairly basic to calling someone a socialist. Please look it up.

Actually, I think he does know what it means, but chooses to ignore it in order to further his (lack of a) point.

Actually, I think he does know what it means, but chooses to ignore it in order to further his (lack of a) point.

He defined it and defined it wrong. It's good to know that using words properly isn't necessary while calling people trolls and telling TCT he doesn't know anything about affirmative action while offering no evidence and ignoring that TCT is linking to the SCOTUS decisions.

He defined it and defined it wrong. It's good to know that using words properly isn't necessary while calling people trolls and telling TCT he doesn't know anything about affirmative action while offering no evidence and ignoring that TCT is linking to the SCOTUS decisions.

Oh, I know he defined it wrong, I'm just wondering wether that was out of ignorance or malice.

Where in my post did you see a "right to not be offended"? I did not say that.


I said there was a right to not be abused. You think people have a right to be abusive of others because its part of free speech?

The law is targeting the abuse, not the protest itself. The right to protest does not give you the right to be abusive.

As for this right to respect people claim on here, people have a right to respect in that they have a right to be free from abuse.
Yes abusive speech is still speech. Just because it is abrasive or offencive does not mean that it should be censored.

As long as it does not cross into the phisical they have a right to say it

Heh! Don't mistake having hemarroids for being on steroids. Two different things, dude. :D:D
good point.

Yes abusive speech is still speech. Just because it is abrasive or offencive does not mean that it should be censored.

As long as it does not cross into the phisical they have a right to say it
Then, by your argument, people protesting abortion have the right to rude and abrasive to doctors and to women seeking abortions.

After all, you are arguing the one for all or none for all argument.

If protestors have the "Right" to be rude and abrasive and abusive toward greiving families of military dead, then protestors have the same right to act that outside abortion clinics toward women and doctors.

Therein lies the precedent for the law against protesting military funerals.

Edit: The SCOTUS and the US Constitution would say that abusive speech is not protected free speech.

When you become abusive in your protests, then your right to protest ends.
The Constitution says "right to peacably assemble" not "right to assemble and hurl abuse".
The people protesting military funerals are not engaged in "peaceful assembly". Hence their protest is not protected by the US Constitution.

Just like making a statement or writing in a school essay that you want to kill the President, is not protected free speech.

These men died for their country, so that we can be free. When someone disrespects them with a protest at their funeral, I have the right mind to walk up to that person and punch them in the face. They can only protest because that person died for their right to do so.

I'm not for protesting anyone elses funerals, either (at my school, I could be considered a "gay rights activist" of sorts, since I'm pretty much the only guy who doesn't think being gay is a bad thing. I'm not gay myself, but that doesn't mean I can be pro-gay rights). It just sickens me that someone would want to shame someone who died for them. That's like you walking down the street, then when someone tries to mug you a stranger jumps in front of you to help, the mugger shoots that guy in the chest and kills them, then you go to their funeral and laugh at them. The only difference here is that this person died thousand of miles away, out of sight and out of mind, apparently.

Yes abusive speech is still speech. Just because it is abrasive or offencive does not mean that it should be censored.

As long as it does not cross into the phisical they have a right to say it
abusive speech is harassment and is illegal. free speech must, and does, have limits.

These men died for their country, so that we can be free. When someone disrespects them with a protest at their funeral, I have the right mind to walk up to that person and punch them in the face. They can only protest because that person died for their right to do so.

I'm not for protesting anyone elses funerals, either (at my school, I could be considered a "gay rights activist" of sorts, since I'm pretty much the only guy who doesn't think being gay is a bad thing. I'm not gay myself, but that doesn't mean I can be pro-gay rights). It just sickens me that someone would want to shame someone who died for them. That's like you walking down the street, then when someone tries to mug you a stranger jumps in front of you to help, the mugger shoots that guy in the chest and kills them, then you go to their funeral and laugh at them. The only difference here is that this person died thousand of miles away, out of sight and out of mind, apparently.
Quite true and point that quite a few people have made already. What these guys don't get is that contrary to their false belief, freedom isn't free. It has to be bought by the barrel of a gun.
People have to die, in order for us to have freedom.

The only difference here is that this person died thousand of miles away, out of sight and out of mind, apparently.
which, incidentally, is exactly how the current administration wants it, since this is the reason why they do not put the flag at half-mast every time a soldier dies. this war, and most in fact, is too political to suggest they are dying for our freedoms.

abusive speech is harassment and is illegal. free speech must, and does, have limits.
limits that are necessary for us to be able to live in a free society.

again, freedom is not free. No such thing as a free lunch.

Quite true and point that quite a few people have made already. What these guys don't get is that contrary to their false belief, freedom isn't free. It has to be bought by the barrel of a gun.
People have to die, in order for us to have freedom.

Exactly.

Tens of millions died in World War II in order to secure freedom for most of the world. In some cases, our wars aren't exactly fair and justified (Spanish American War, Vietnam War, Iraq), but the soldiers still have the nation at heart. You don't put your life on the line for something unless you actually believe in it, and while not everyone in the U.S. Military is a good citizen, they are still willing to die for the American Dream.

limits that are necessary for us to be able to live in a free society.

again, freedom is not free. No such thing as a free lunch.
the 'freedom is not free' argument is overused and blatantly rightwing. freedom is free, at least at any given time, if you don't go meddling about in others' affairs.

which, incidentally, is exactly how the current administration wants it, since this is the reason why they do not put the flag at half-mast every time a soldier dies. this war, and most in fact, is too political to suggest they are dying for our freedoms.

I don't agree with our current administrations politics; screw Bush, I say. However, to take out your anger at the president on the military is shameful. You're just looking for someone to blame that's closer than 1600 Pennsylvania Ave., and the soldiers are the closest thing.

Exactly.

Tens of millions died in World War II in order to secure freedom for most of the world. In some cases, our wars aren't exactly fair and justified (Spanish American War, Vietnam War, Iraq), but the soldiers still have the nation at heart. You don't put your life on the line for something unless you actually believe in it, and while not everyone in the U.S. Military is a good citizen, they are still willing to die for the American Dream.
oh come on, listen (watch?) to yourselves. do you even know what the American Dream is? to most of the people in the US, it is freedom to vote in American Idol, not American Elections. the American Dream, as you have so aptly capitalised it, has been butchered by two hundred years of politics and amendments.

which, incidentally, is exactly how the current administration wants it, since this is the reason why they do not put the flag at half-mast every time a soldier dies. this war, and most in fact, is too political to suggest they are dying for our freedoms.

probably not ours, but the Iraqis. But sometimes you ask if it's worth it. Like when the Iraqis start blowing up each other's mosques, or when a mortar round lands right at your foot, but fortunately doesn't go off because it's a dud. But still enough to make time standstill as happened this morning when I was standing outside. It makes you reevaluate, and you decide that it is still worth it.

I don't agree with our current administrations politics; screw Bush, I say. However, to take out your anger at the president on the military is shameful. You're just looking for someone to blame that's closer than 1600 Pennsylvania Ave., and the soldiers are the closest thing.
which is a wonderful conclusion, since i said NOTHING about the blame on soldiers.

which is a wonderful conclusion, since i said NOTHING about the blame on soldiers.

I was using you in the general term (such as "all of you"); not as in you in particular ;p

Then, by your argument, people protesting abortion have the right to rude and abrasive to doctors and to women seeking abortions.

After all, you are arguing the one for all or none for all argument.

If protestors have the "Right" to be rude and abrasive and abusive toward greiving families of military dead, then protestors have the same right to act that outside abortion clinics toward women and doctors.

Therein lies the precedent for the law against protesting military funerals.

Edit: The SCOTUS and the US Constitution would say that abusive speech is not protected free speech.

When you become abusive in your protests, then your right to protest ends.
The Constitution says "right to peacably assemble" not "right to assemble and hurl abuse".
The people protesting military funerals are not engaged in "peaceful assembly". Hence their protest is not protected by the US Constitution.

Just like making a statement or writing in a school essay that you want to kill the President, is not protected free speech.

If abrasive language is censored, then we are not free. All language should be free, but challenged. If someone is protesting a soldier's funeral, ask why. Tell them the soldier wasn't at fault, no more than anyone else doing their job is. Tell them it's good to protest things you disagree with, but make sure it's going to the right place - in this case, the president.

the 'freedom is not free' argument is overused and blatantly rightwing. freedom is free, at least at any given time, if you don't go meddling about in others' affairs.
Ah! I see now what you need: a really strong dose of reality! :p

oh come on, listen (watch?) to yourselves. do you even know what the American Dream is? to most of the people in the US, it is freedom to vote in American Idol, not American Elections. the American Dream, as you have so aptly capitalised it, has been butchered by two hundred years of politics and amendments.

I'm talking about the real American dream, not the bastardized American Dream. The dream to be able to leave your bad life behind and start anew. Kinda like the illegal immigrants in America, they are here for the American Dream. If anyone knows how valuable the American dream is, it's the Dominican immigrant who went from rags to a nice house, with 2 kids and a wife, after much hard work. It isn't the rich Texan who tried to make riches in oil.

probably not ours, but the Iraqis. But sometimes you ask if it's worth it. Like when the Iraqis start blowing up each other's mosques, or when a mortar round lands right at your foot, but fortunately doesn't go off because it's a dud. But still enough to make time stand still as happened this morning when I was standing outside. It makes you reevaluate, and you decide that it is still worth it.
Close call, dude. Had quite a few of those myself.

It looks as if the Iraquis are going for the civil war thing to me. I say we give them a deadline to get their act together or we're going to pull out.

If abrasive language is censored, then we are not free. All language should be free, but challenged. If someone is protesting a soldier's funeral, ask why. Tell them the soldier wasn't at fault, no more than anyone else doing their job is. Tell them it's good to protest things you disagree with, but make sure it's going to the right place - in this case, the president.
Then the US Constitution does not really give us free speech and the US Supreme is not really defending free speech cause it has ruled repeatedly that some forms of speech are not protected, namely speech that is abusive.

Ah! I see now what you need: a really strong dose of reality! :p
and i think you need a dose of reality outside of the US. not everyone thinks the way you do, but can still have valid opinions. despite some peoples' avowed belief that fighting in places like iraq is necessary to 'liberate those people and bring democracy, etc.', these people miss the point that many countries don't want our freedoms. afghanistan is going right back to a theocratic government, but the difference is that they have to fight for it now, because ironically, they have to throw off the oppressors... us.

if you're going to argue that the West should bring the Light to the rest of the world, at least have the sense to acknowledge you are not necessarily 'liberating'.

Close call, dude. Had quite a few of those myself.

It looks as if the Iraquis are going for the civil war thing to me. I say we give them a deadline to get their act together or we're going to pull out.
oh good idea. *dripping with sarcasm* seriously, what do you think is going to happen after a civil war? another warlord will take power, hundreds of thousands, if not millions, will die in probably the worst massacres since rwanda. i do not comment on if america should have gone into iraq, but leaving now is stupid.

and on that note, cheerio.

Quite true and point that quite a few people have made already. What these guys don't get is that contrary to their false belief, freedom isn't free. It has to be bought by the barrel of a gun.
People have to die, unless they're me, in order for us to have freedom.

There, that's fixed. Also, a cute idea, the one that "other people have to die". Prevents you from feeling guilty for being in favor of civilians in Iraq dying for Bush's oil interests. Ad baculum is a fallacy. The world does not belong to the strongest. But I should really not expect anything much better than this from you.

I'm talking about the real American dream, not the bastardized American Dream. The dream to be able to leave your bad life behind and start anew. Kinda like the illegal immigrants in America, they are here for the American Dream. If anyone knows how valuable the American dream is, it's the Dominican immigrant who went from rags to a nice house, with 2 kids and a wife, after much hard work. It isn't the rich Texan who tried to make riches in oil.
or the illegal immigrant from Mexico who risked everything, being abducted and risking enslavement by coyotes, crossing a hot dry barren desert, attempting to cross a raging river knowing they might drown. Why? Because they know what the real American dream is. Young people today think the American dream is Britney Spears and Exxon Valdez.
Ask the illegal immigrants who survived hardship and near death encounters just to come to America, they can tell you what the real American dream is. They can tell you that freedom is most certainly not free, not even for them.

In case you didn't know, that is why I support amnesty for illegal immigrants from Mexico. They put their lives on the line to come to our country and enjoy the freedoms we have. Working at Microsoft, and BMG music productions, or hanging with your friends at the mall, has nothing to do with buying freedom.
It's because they risk their very lives to come to our country that I have greater respect for illegals than I have America's liberals who go about bashing their own country. A country they gave nothing to but sure as hell see fit to mooch off of.

www.godhatesfags.com , www.godhatesamerica.com and so on and so on. Do not pretend you do not know who he is, and his rightist, Christian nutjob group are the ones doing the picketing you're all bitching about now. He picketed the funerals of gay people for years and years and you were all silent, "freedom of speech!!!" and "freedom of religion!!!" and nothing was ever done about it.

And now he pickets the funerals of soldiers because he claims they died because the US "harbours" homosexuals. And all of a sudden, what he's doing is not so much "freedom of speech and religion." Because soldiers are apparently more important than other people. The hypocrisy sickens me.


Dude, shut the FUCK UP! I voted Republican, I'm from Kansas, I was a soldier, one of my best friends on NS is gay (Sarzonia) and I fucking hate Phelps. About the only people I hate more are people like you that are so radically anti-American they make reactionaries like Lott look liberal. Pull your head out of that drug-like haze that your extremist political bias has induced to show some damned respect to the fallen. Either that or shut up.

actually, in light of my previous comment:

Bush is between Iraq and a hard place.

oh good idea. *dripping with sarcasm* seriously, what do you think is going to happen after a civil war? another warlord will take power, hundreds of thousands, if not millions, will die in probably the worst massacres since rwanda. i do not comment on if america should have gone into iraq, but leaving now is stupid.

and on that note, cheerio.

Oh, it's that "taking responsibility for your actions" idea that the conservatives so claim to espouse. Wait, wait... It isn't, it's just their old "we can do anything we want because God told us so" idea.

Sorry, my mistake.

There, that's fixed. Also, a cute idea, the one that "other people have to die". Prevents you from feeling guilty for being in favor of civilians in Iraq dying for Bush's oil interests. Ad baculum is a fallacy. The world does not belong to the strongest. But I should really not expect anything much better than this from you.

Iraq was a huge mistake, but the mantra stands true; Freedom isn't free. If we had just sat there while our good friends from Japan started overrunning the Pacific, or our good friends in Italy started swarming over Africa, or our good friends in Bulgaria started to overrun the Balkans, would we still be able to have this conversation right now? I am willing to put my life on the line so that you have the right to have these internet conversations. Are you?

Close call, dude. Had quite a few of those myself.

It looks as if the Iraquis are going for the civil war thing to me. I say we give them a deadline to get their act together or we're going to pull out.

It looks like their getting things together. It would be nice if they could speed things up though.

Yeah, My hands and feet are trembling from this morning. You remember how it is when you have a near experience and the next thing you know, for the rest of the day you are jumping at every little sound. Well, not jumping but looking around with sharp movements.

or the illegal immigrant from Mexico who risked everything, being abducted and risking enslavement by coyotes, crossing a hot dry barren desert, attempting to cross a raging river knowing they might drown. Why? Because they know what the real American dream is. Young people today think the American dream is Britney Spears and Exxon Valdez.
Ask the illegal immigrants who survived hardship and near death encounters just to come to America, they can tell you what the real American dream is. They can tell you that freedom is most certainly not free, not even for them.

In case you didn't know, that is why I support amnesty for illegal immigrants from Mexico. They put their lives on the line to come to our country and enjoy the freedoms we have. Working at Microsoft, and BMG music productions, or hanging with your friends at the mall, has nothing to do with buying freedom.
It's because they risk their very lives to come to our country that I have greater respect for illegals than I have America's liberals who go about bashing their own country. A country they gave nothing to but sure as hell see fit to mooch off of.

I used the Dominican example because the Mexican one is overused.

Dude, shut the FUCK UP! I voted Republican, I'm from Kansas, I was a soldier, one of my best friends on NS is gay (Sarzonia) and I fucking hate Phelps. About the only people I hate more are people like you that are so radically anti-American they make reactionaries like Lott look liberal. Pull your head out of that drug-like haze that your extremist political bias has induced to show some damned respect to the fallen. Either that or shut up.

But ONLY if you're criticizing the military. Everyone else has to take the heat normally, but, for the military, the criticism can be silenced.

Only... NO. You will not turn yourselves into a quasi-nobility.

Iraq was a huge mistake, but the mantra stands true; Freedom isn't free. If we had just sat there while our good friends from Japan started overrunning the Pacific, or our good friends in Italy started swarming over Africa, or our good friends in Bulgaria started to overrun the Balkans, would we still be able to have this conversation right now? I am willing to put my life on the line so that you have the right to have these internet conversations. Are you?

I'm Brazilian. We have a pretty peaceful life, here, because of a little thing called a self-defense clause. We don't attack people that didn't attack us. And guess what? Our homeland was never attacked during the republic and the only time in which we had to take up arms in the last 100 years was in WWII, in which EVERYONE had to. Not only the US. The only army that ever attacked Brazil was OURS. Which is the kind of thing that happens when a military starts feeling like a noble class with privileges above those of the common man.

But ONLY if you're criticizing the military. Everyone else has to take the heat normally, but, for the military, the criticism can be silenced.

Only... NO. You will not turn yourselves into a quasi-nobility.


You're an idiot. Nobody in the military wants anything to do with politics except the generals that have to deal with civilians on a regular basis. The military has its own politics and doesn't have time to screw around with the civilian side. Educate yourself on what you speak lest you look like an fool.

And no, if Fucking Phelps was harassing civilian funerals and Fass made a dumbass comment like that I'd still go off on him. You know why? Cause what Phelps does is wrong and it needs to be stopped. If this bill included everybody, I'd still support it.

You're an idiot. Nobody in the military wants anything to do with politics except the generals that have to deal with civilians on a regular basis. The military has its own politics and doesn't have time to screw around with the civilian side. Educate yourself on what you speak lest you look like an fool.

And no, if Fucking Phelps was harassing civilian funerals and Fass made a dumbass comment like that I'd still go off on him. You know why? Cause what Phelps does is wrong and it needs to be stopped. If this bill included everybody, I'd still support it.

That's my point! You're willing to settle for a bill that ONLY defends YOUR interests! Where's that sense of "self-sacrifice" you so prided yourself on having now? You're willing to ignore two clauses of the constitution (freedom of speech and equality under the law) which you so claim to defend just so you don't get insulted by nuts in a funeral! And you call ME an idiot? The military has PLENTY of time to interfere in civilian affairs. It's called coup d'etat, and it can happen from within or from outside (such as when Saddam was PUT INTO power, remember?).

Then the US Constitution does not really give us free speech and the US Supreme is not really defending free speech cause it has ruled repeatedly that some forms of speech are not protected, namely speech that is abusive.

Duh. When politicians say "free", they mean "free, as we see it." It's well-known, especially around this forum, that PCspeach is not the same as regular language. It says one thing and means another thing.

Though even while they defend "freedom, as we see it", the Constitution -does- give us freedom, as we see it. We define what freedom is, and if enough of us wanted to, we could wrestle the vocabulary out of the mouth of the politicians and into the dumpster where it belongs.

It's a constant battle against "freedom, what we're given" and "freedom, as we see it", and not everything is bottom-lined, some things are given a double standard, and sometimes things are just unfair. The system is built to give people only as much freedom as they are willing to fight for.

I'm Brazilian. We have a pretty peaceful life, here, because of a little thing called a self-defense clause. We don't attack people that didn't attack us. And guess what? Our homeland was never attacked during the republic and the only time in which we had to take up arms in the last 100 years was in WWII, in which EVERYONE had to. Not only the US. The only army that ever attacked Brazil was OURS. Which is the kind of thing that happens when a military starts feeling like a noble class with privileges above those of the common man.

Exactly! You had to fight for Freedom, as did the rest of us. I'm not saying that we should go to war as much as we do (the only war we got in in the last 50 years that I agree with is Afghanistan, since they attacked us first, via Osama. Korea was also a good cause, although it was a world-wide effort), I'm just saying we have to go to war eventually.

Also, the difference between Brazil and America is that America is a superpower; Brazil isn't. America fought the Cold War against the Soviet Union. Brazil didn't. Brazil and America aren't synonymous.

And another thing; I know what happens when a military gets too much power; I live in Panama, for christ's sake. Here, all the army ever did was overthrow the democratically elected government. There is a fine line that one must cross; you can't treat military men like normal citizens, since unlike normal citizens military men die daily in the name of their country, making the ultimate sacrifice. HOWEVER, you can't elevate them to the status of Gods, because then they think they run the show.

Iraq was a huge mistake, but the mantra stands true; Freedom isn't free. If we had just sat there while our good friends from Japan started overrunning the Pacific, or our good friends in Italy started swarming over Africa, or our good friends in Bulgaria started to overrun the Balkans, would we still be able to have this conversation right now? I am willing to put my life on the line so that you have the right to have these internet conversations. Are you?
Do you mean Serbia? as regards the balkans.

Yeah, maybe the dominicans. Another is the cuban refugees who risk drowning or dehydration just to get to Florida to escape the oppression of Cuban dictator Fidel Castro.

Oh wait, according to some of these guys, those refugees don't exist. Everyone in Cuba loves Castro and wants to stay under his government.

I say that anyone, from another country, who risks their very lives, and even losing loved ones while trying to enter the US has more right to be in the US than someone who bashes the US every chance they get.

Hey guys? Guys?

Remember that whole "No flaming" rule?

Yeah.