02-07-2008, 01:05 PM | #46 | ||||||||||||
Goon Squad Leader
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Seattle
Posts: 27,063
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Actually, the creation of a militia *does* get more ink later, and none of it discusses the role of local governments and their responsibilities to offer up the first fruits to a higher authority, not even the Marines. Perhaps you've confused this issue with another well known text. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
You're clearly upset about the actions of the BCC. You've called the actions immoral, unpatriotic. You've suggested the same about the citizens of the city. What you haven't done is offer any reason why it should be different than it is. I haven't heard anything from you (or others here) that has given me reason to agree with your opinions as to the morality and patriotism of the BCC. Neither have I heard anything to persuade me that their actions are illegal or even improper. But I have learned much from you in the past, and I keep an open mind on this subject, in the hopes that I can learn from you again.
__________________
Be Just and Fear Not. |
||||||||||||
02-07-2008, 01:47 PM | #47 |
Super Intendent
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 249
|
|
02-07-2008, 01:52 PM | #48 |
Goon Squad Leader
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Seattle
Posts: 27,063
|
Hey, aimeecc. I'm not ignoring you. I'm not disrespecting you. I .. um... just haven't yet set aside enough time to answer you properly. Sorry.
Preview: I think you're on the wrong track, with the comparisons you've made. My longer answer will be better thought out and better supported, I hope.
__________________
Be Just and Fear Not. |
02-07-2008, 03:22 PM | #49 | |
Radical Centrist
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Cottage of Prussia
Posts: 31,423
|
Can you see how something can be both unpatriotic and immoral without there being a necessary connection between the two adjectives?
No? Well can you see how a person can be both left-handed and alcoholic without there being a connection between the two adjectives? What is patriotism? Take the first dictionary definition you come to. Dictionary.com: "Feeling, expressing, or inspired by love for one's country" If one is against the troops, without which the country can't exist... I find that to be plainly and obviously unpatriotic. That's fine, their choice, and frankly they should be comfortable with their label. It is accurate and it is what they asked for. I also find it to be immoral, as a government action, because these United States created a common government in part to provide for the common defense. Says so right up front. It's one of the top six reasons, and even Libertarians agree -- even Libertarians! -- that defense is one of the only acceptable "common goods", to be Federally managed. If this little sector wants to hold the troops in contempt, that's one thing, but they then become "free riders", because the entire country can't be defensed minus their little sector. They benefit from that defense, whether they care to admit it or not. But they also have an impact of the defense of the entire country, so their will is infringing on you and I as well. Some R congresspeople have floated the idea that Berkeley should face the loss of a few monetary earmarks in return. Sounds fair to me. Quote:
Send them MREs. |
|
02-07-2008, 03:42 PM | #50 |
still says videotape
Join Date: Feb 2001
Posts: 26,813
|
My question about this is whether the BCC is doing this to oppose the unpatriotic war in Iraq or the patriots who were conned into fighting it? I've done my part to try to convince kids not to serve and die during this unpatriotic regime. I believe that makes me a patriot.
__________________
If you would only recognize that life is hard, things would be so much easier for you. - Louis D. Brandeis |
02-07-2008, 03:45 PM | #51 | |
still says videotape
Join Date: Feb 2001
Posts: 26,813
|
Quote:
__________________
If you would only recognize that life is hard, things would be so much easier for you. - Louis D. Brandeis |
|
02-07-2008, 05:07 PM | #52 | |
barely disguised asshole, keeper of all that is holy.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 23,401
|
but but but... "The Best Defense is a Strong Offense"
Quote:
__________________
"like strapping a pillow on a bull in a china shop" Bullitt |
|
02-07-2008, 09:35 PM | #53 | |
Franklin Pierce
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 3,695
|
Quote:
If the troops do the job that they are suppose to do, defend the country, yes they should be supported because there is very little doubt that they are doing what is best for the country but once, keep in mind this is opinionated, they start going past their duties and start attacking other countries on reasons that I find immoral, I find it very difficult to support them. What the army is doing right now is not necessary for America's survival and is blatant imperialism, which I do not support so naturally I cannot support the war or the troops that are fighting this war. Do I want those troops to die, of course not, but I will not support their goal as long as they are out there. If they come back and start doing their job of defending the country, then yes, I will go back to supporting. Showing love for one's country is very subjective and to put a single stance on what a patriotism is not only wrong, but very threatening. I show my love for for my country by speaking out against what I see are flaws in our policy. Another person may show love by supporting the troops no matter the situation. Neither of us our wrong, we are just patriotic in different ways.
__________________
I like my perspectives like I like my baseball caps: one size fits all. |
|
02-07-2008, 10:18 PM | #54 | |
Radical Centrist
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Cottage of Prussia
Posts: 31,423
|
The troops have zero responsibility for any decision about how they are used.
Once a person decides to join the US Armed Forces, that is said to be the last free decision they can make about their future for two years. If you don't believe that armed forces are the only reason we can have this conversation, then I'm not sure what to say. Don't like the current conflict? Shit, then, just reduce the number and effectiveness of the troops, then just wait. I'm sure you'll find validation for them soon enough. Or maybe, if you don't have that long of a memory, ask why Bush had a 90% approval rating in November 2001 (and the Marines probably 95%). Ask what would happen to the BCC if we had another attack on this soil. Unthinkable, well it certainly was. But even more unthinkable is giving today's troops the same treatment as the those that returned from Vietnam, to be treated with derision and disrespect after having done the hardest job ever required of them. One big reason there is "support the troops" thinking despite how things turn out, is because people looked back on their own behavior post-Vietnam and blanched. Don't be like that in a few decades, don't look back at your own behavior with shame. Quote:
|
|
02-07-2008, 11:07 PM | #55 |
The future is unwritten
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 71,105
|
Don't confuse supporting the troops with supporting the war.... too many people do.
__________________
The descent of man ~ Nixon, Friedman, Reagan, Trump. |
02-07-2008, 11:53 PM | #56 |
Radical Centrist
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Cottage of Prussia
Posts: 31,423
|
Perhaps the BCC prefers fighting war without the troops. If you really do *need* to fight a war, and you don't have a strong enough Marines, there are other ways to go about it.
And so as NATO weakens from Europe's lack of interest in a military, the top NATO Generals are planning other ways to get the job done, if it should come to that. Not exactly what the BCC would have intended, one suspects. |
02-08-2008, 05:49 AM | #57 | |
still says videotape
Join Date: Feb 2001
Posts: 26,813
|
Quote:
__________________
If you would only recognize that life is hard, things would be so much easier for you. - Louis D. Brandeis |
|
02-08-2008, 05:51 AM | #58 |
still says videotape
Join Date: Feb 2001
Posts: 26,813
|
When was last time we needed to fight a war?
__________________
If you would only recognize that life is hard, things would be so much easier for you. - Louis D. Brandeis |
02-08-2008, 07:48 AM | #59 |
Radical Centrist
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Cottage of Prussia
Posts: 31,423
|
2001.
|
02-08-2008, 11:01 AM | #60 | |||
Person who doesn't update the user title
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 6,674
|
For a few years, yes he was. Experience of these converted him away; hence, Orwell's work amounts to an inoculation against socialist totalitarianism and to some degree against socialist niceguyism too.
Quote:
Quote:
B. This proposition is illogical. I doubt I could both disagree and think it good -- not about an overall social order, which seems to be the context you intend. I'm sure on consideration you'll agree. Quote:
*** DanaC, what you want me to stop doing is precisely what I must keep on doing. Humanity is served by democracy. Humanity is trammeled by anything lesser -- have you noticed our opposition being about anything but trammeling? You should be downright rabid against them for that sin. I certainly am. You know humanity is very well served by democracy, from your own experience living in a constitutional monarchy and within a tradition of limited government beginning at Runnymede with the Magna Carta -- and the Charter of Liberties, ref'd and linked here. Too little government is dangerous, and too much is destructive and impoverishing. These extremes are not bipolar conditions, binary states, but a continuum. In a fluid political order, the balance first tilts one way, then the other.
__________________
Wanna stop school shootings? End Gun-Free Zones, of course. Last edited by Urbane Guerrilla; 02-08-2008 at 11:46 AM. |
|||
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
|
|