|
|
|
Regular Joe
 
Group: Past PNET Supporter
Last Login: 11/3/2006 1:00 PM
Posts: 185,
Visits: 218
|
|
| Yeah, I know plenty of Nam vets, including some family members, and calling them names had zero effect. Same as Gulf War Vets, and same as my buddies in OIF and OEF. Nah. Doesn't bother them. I understand if it does to some, though. Cheers.
|
|
|
|
|
Hard Charger
Group: Past PNET Supporter
Last Login: 10/27/2008 12:30 PM
Posts: 2,220,
Visits: 1,120
|
|
Res Ipsa (7/28/2006)
All that "beatdown" talk sure makes me wonder whether we actually are headed to be more like the Chinese than we think. Certainly more so than our forefathers ever feared. That talk sounds more like a threat to our way of life than anything else I've heard. "Agree or be pummeled." Tragic.I think you're overstating the case here. I wasn't at the Constitutional Convention in 1787, but I'm pretty sure nobody was sitting around musing about their fears of the United States becoming like China. I'd be surprised if China was mentioned at all.  Okay, I've got that out of my system. In all seriousness the right to free speech prevents the government from censoring speech, or punishing those who speak out against the government. This is vastly different from a situation in which one citizen is enraged enough by another's speech to be moved to physical violence. I'm not condonng that violence, nor am I saying that someone who commits an illegal violent act shouldn't be punished. I am saying that someone being pissed off enough to threaten somebody for speaking their mind doesn't threaten the constitutional foundation of our republic. The founding fathers wanted to be sure the government didn't violently censor an individual's speech. They didn't say individuals wouldn't disagree, sometimes violently. One of the framers of the constitution, Alexander Hamilton, was killed in a duel against Aaron Burr. The cause of the duel? Burr was offended by Hamilton's "despicable opinion" of him. Okay, so what's my point? The government is not going to be running down anti-war protestors with M1s on the Washington Mall because some people disagree with Sheehan, and think she should shut up.
"EBO isn't a strategy. It's a sales pitch." - Ralph Peters
|
|
|
|
|
Regular Joe
Group: Past PNET Supporter
Last Login: 11/3/2006 1:00 PM
Posts: 185,
Visits: 218
|
|
Excellent points and well taken. No, they didn't envision the Chinese example then specifically. In the abstract, though, that can certainly be seen. Still, "mob rule" is a concern that transcends government action or inaction, as relates to foundational premises of the government. I see your points clearly, I think. Yet I'm reminded of such times when dissent was not so easily dismissed as going unpunished by either the government, or its citizens. Civil rights, for example. There should be a continual watch for when the slope slips back to less secure times for said liberties.
How does that affect the individual absent state action? In the aggregate. If the government is ruled for and by the people, then the people have the first responsibility.
Perhaps the issue can be seen through a different prism: if terrorism and the fight to destroy it creates division throughout our civil society, then it would be doubly tragic if we let its threat divide us more acutely through belligerence. One belligerent actor is easily discredited through his/her belligerence. Two, however, leave none to be the wiser.
|
|
|
|
|
Beekeeper
Group: Community Supporter
Last Login: 11/11/2008 9:01 AM
Posts: 3,636,
Visits: 13,895
|
|
| I'll get to the bare bones of the issue here, real quicklike. Your opening statements went a little something like this: Everybody pounces on Cindy Sheehan like she's some momster.
Simply said, she is. No question about it, she IS.
She doesn't deserve to be demonized
I'm going to go out on a limb here and make an educated guess that, well, she DOES. But, "WHY?Why, ROS?" you might ask. I'll spell it out for you: It's the AMERICAN thing to do. Any patriot will do just that, due to the simple fact that we LOVE our country and, more importantly, the freedoms maintained by those who fight for it. We lash out at those who would belittle a cause for which our men are dying. You can't talk crap about a war and not lessen the morale of those fighting it. Much like you say she shouldn't be demonized, I could say the same about her demonization of POTUS. Or does that double standard come into play again?  I leave you with this concerning my tendency toward physical violence and penchant for el talking de trash: facetious adj : cleverly amusing in tone; "a bantering tone"; "facetious remarks"; "tongue-in-cheek advice" [syn: bantering, tongue-in-cheek]
-
- IMO
- SFC Richard J. Lacey
LLDS,RCG 1st Sig Bde.
31JAN1968
104535N 1063940E(XS816898)
"The young dead soldiers do not speak. Nevertheless, the are heard in the still houses...We were young, they say. We have died. Remember us." Archibald MacLeish
|
|
|
|
|
Stare Master
Group: Community Supporter
Last Login: Yesterday @ 12:25 PM
Posts: 9,796,
Visits: 51,511
|
|
So, I take issue with the concept that people who have experienced such tragedy have no greater right than the rest of us who may have not experienced that particular tragedy. Let me introduce you to the concept of equality under the law. The fact is that she does not have a greater right to express her opinions than I do. In fact, you could argue that her grief interferes with her logic and we should give less weight to her opinion. Does the fact that I had an uncle murdered mean that my opinion on gun control carries more weight? When it comes to the issues facing us do we then start segregating society based on our personal experiences and only allow those who have some personal connection with those issue to speak out? If you take the time to look into Cindy Sheehan's background you will find that her views now are not much different than her views when her son was alive. She is just using her son's death to advance her views and the media is publicizing that. The amazing thing is that her son was able to overcome his upbringing and serve our Country.
Only two defining forces have ever offered to die for you, Jesus Christ and the American GI. One died for your soul, the other for your freedom.
"History teaches that when you become indifferent and lose the will to fight someone who has the will to fight will take over." COLONEL BULL SIMONS
|
|
|
|
|
Regular Joe
Group: Past PNET Supporter
Last Login: 11/3/2006 1:00 PM
Posts: 185,
Visits: 218
|
|
I realize that the notion that we are all equal under the law to speak on issues is sound, which is why I took the argument. And I realize that it has become quite popular recently, this concept of "just because your uncle was murdered doesn't give you any more right to speak on gun control than the rest of us." Which, I think, is kind of a bunch of bullsh*t if looked at more closely. The fact of the matter is that experience is how we navigate through the world. The operative word is "right". It doesn't give you more right, that is true. But it does give you the less legally operative word "weight", in this context. So, while you have no greater right, you do (or should) have greater weight, because of your experience.
I can speak on and on about wanting to send a mission to Mars, and that's great. But my opinion is only as valuable as my desire, and nothing more, because I have no experience to weigh the many pros and cons about why such a mission would either succeed or fail. I think that can be attached to any argument. And while you are right about the "right", I think you ignore the "weight".
Now, that doesn't mean you have to act on that weight. It is but an additional consideration, but that's the point -- "consideration."
|
|
|
|
|
Stare Master
Group: Community Supporter
Last Login: Yesterday @ 12:25 PM
Posts: 9,796,
Visits: 51,511
|
|
| I don't ignore the weight issue, which brings up the other point I made. It's possible that our experiences in these matter gives us an inherent bias on those issues and would be an argument for giving less weight to on the issues which we have personal experiences with, which shoudln't be done either. Arguing about going to Mars is not a good example since that would be less about our personal experiences than our scientific knowledge of what it takes to do that. Certain issues require a technical expertise which is not present in the discussion of this topic.
Only two defining forces have ever offered to die for you, Jesus Christ and the American GI. One died for your soul, the other for your freedom.
"History teaches that when you become indifferent and lose the will to fight someone who has the will to fight will take over." COLONEL BULL SIMONS
|
|
|
|
|
Regular Joe
Group: Past PNET Supporter
Last Login: 11/3/2006 1:00 PM
| | | |