It really disappoints me to see that...
It really disappoints me to see that...
disappoints me to see that people aren't defending their freedom. Do you honestly think that we would be OK without wars?
Our country is founded on freedom, and we defend that freedom or else it'll get taken away.
Discuss.
How can you hate Bush when he's defending our freedom. How can you protesters sit on your asses at home and go rally'ing once, twice, thrice a week and say that you're actually doing a purpose or have a purpose towards a better initiative?
First and foremost, our freedom to do whatever we want needs to be protected. Second, we need to protect ourselves, and we need to protect the environment. We need to work towards a better world.
http://www.bolt.com/sonic1988001/vid...ysrsfr/3105571
The anti-war concept is historically naive. I can understand people who are anti-THIS-war, although I don't really agree. But to be patently anti-war is just ignorance.
Quotes from another thread... (my response below)
Whinning on a message baord? Look the facts are out there and the fact is people do NOT care. It is ok to kill other people just as long as you leave them alone. They live their lives everyday with NO thought at all for the human race. You can be in denial all you want, but it is a sick world when people do not value others lives. O I can take the stand that they are Iraqa, who cares! But the fact of the matter is they are people too and it is does not even stop with the Iraqs. Thousands of Africans are killed by their own militant government, thousnds of Chinese kids are forced into child slavery by their government and yet we support these things.
You tell people to stop killing inocent people and they laugh and mock or call you a conspiracy nut. Pure denial! Dogmatic views. And you talk like a little girl.
The reality is that we care about ourselves first. Read this post:
"First and foremost, our freedom to do whatever we want needs to be protected. Second, we need to protect ourselves, and we need to protect the environment. We need to work towards a better world."
When that is rule is broken, I do not care about any others freedom. I care about MY freedom first, and yours second.
That's common sense. If someone comes at you with a knife, you're not going to let him stab you because it's his fredom to, you're going to protect yours first.
Your views are barbaric from a freedom perspective. This is REALITY. This is not your reality. This is how reality works.
You **** with me, you take away my freedom, you're going to get stabbed, shot, and have your neck rang so that I can have my freedom. I am protective, I am smart, I am the way it works.
disappoints me to see that people aren't defending their freedom. Do you honestly think that we would be OK without wars?
Our country is founded on freedom, and we defend that freedom or else it'll get taken away.
Discuss.
How can you hate Bush when he's defending our freedom. How can you protesters sit on your asses at home and go rally'ing once, twice, thrice a week and say that you're actually doing a purpose or have a purpose towards a better initiative?
First and foremost, our freedom to do whatever we want needs to be protected. Second, we need to protect ourselves, and we need to protect the environment. We need to work towards a better world.
http://www.bolt.com/sonic1988001/vid...ysrsfr/3105571 Defending freedom in the context of George Bush means giving up freedom.
Defending freedom in the context of George Bush means giving up freedom. I believe that's only temporary.
I believe that's only temporary. Temporary because he'll be out of office soon or are you saying a temporary necessary price to be paid for security right now?
Bush really is in a no-win situation. He could stand on the moral high ground and defend freedoms but we probably would've been attacked again. And he'd get blamed. Or he could take a strong stand, do what is "necessary", maybe cross that line but we're safer, and he still gets blamed.
I think a lot of Americans think he should take the moral high ground - and I think I agree because I worry about the precedent being set here....which is why if you're saying you think these abuses are temporary I hope you're right but I worry that it'll come back to bite us (give an inch, take a mile).
And while a lot of Americans probably see the implications and believe we'd be better off with our freedoms even if we were a little more at risk, I certainly don't think that's the majority. Even those who would say that, I believe, are speaking out of principle and not being realistic about what that "risk" really is. So I think, politically and practically, Bush really has had no choice but to take the stronger stand.
He'd have had a lot more to lose by taking the high road and incurring the risk. But I fear that the opposite may be true in the long run - we might be risking more now by securing ourselves now.
Sorry to keep going on BUT, there's another side too...I also think Bush is only securing what he needs to secure for appearances sake. For all the supposed freedoms we're sacrificing, we're not all that safe. Our own borders aren't secured - nothing but lip service and not even much of that on this issue!! This is also what makes me believe the Bush Administration is acting purely out of expediency. I used to think Bush saw the big picture and was more concerned with the future than with his own popularity here and now . . . that's obviously not the case.
Temporary because he'll be out of office soon or are you saying a temporary necessary price to be paid for security right now?
Bush really is in a no-win situation. He could stand on the moral high ground and defend freedoms but we probably would've been attacked again. And he'd get blamed. Or he could take a strong stand, do what is "necessary", maybe cross that line but we're safer, and he still gets blamed.
I think a lot of Americans think he should take the moral high ground - and I think I agree because I worry about the precedent being set here....which is why if you're saying you think these abuses are temporary I hope you're right but I worry that it'll come back to bite us (give an inch, take a mile).
And while a lot of Americans probably see the implications and believe we'd be better off with our freedoms even if we were a little more at risk, I certainly don't think that's the majority. Even those who would say that, I believe, are speaking out of principle and not being realistic about what that "risk" really is. So I think, politically and practically, Bush really has had no choice but to take the stronger stand.
He'd have had a lot more to lose by taking the high road and incurring the risk. But I fear that the opposite may be true in the long run - we might be risking more now by securing ourselves now.
Sorry to keep going on BUT, there's another side too...I also think Bush is only securing what he needs to secure for appearances sake. For all the supposed freedoms we're sacrificing, we're not all that safe. Our own borders aren't secured - nothing but lip service and not even much of that on this issue!! This is also what makes me believe the Bush Administration is acting purely out of expediency. I used to think Bush saw the big picture and was more concerned with the future than with his own popularity here and now . . . that's obviously not the case. Sometimes you have to put your money where your mouth is. Wire tapping the phones of US citizens and things of that nature set a bad precedent going forward. What's the point of fighting for freedoms you are not going to have when the fighting is over. It sounds like people only want freedom when it's easy to do.
These same authorities have abused their power and it's been proven which is why they should never have been allowed to intrude on another person's freedoms.
Defending freedom in the context of George Bush means giving up freedom. x2. The Patriot Act, the Real ID Act, listening in on our phone calls and regulating the internet, are you kidding me?
How can you hate Bush when he's defending our freedom. Sometimes you have to put your money where your mouth is. Wire tapping the phones of US citizens and things of that nature set a bad precedent going forward. What's the point of fighting for freedoms you are not going to have when the fighting is over. It sounds like people only want freedom when it's easy to do.
These same authorities have abused their power and it's been proven which is why they should never have been allowed to intrude on another person's freedoms. If I thought Bush was taking somewhat Draconian measures in the name of freedom, I would disagree with the methods (because I think it'll do more harm than good in the long run). But I could respect that he thought that was what is necessary. But if he was concerned for a minute about real security, he wouldn't be playing around with our own borders and sovereignty at home. I just have a hard time putting any faith even in the intentions and that's what disappoints me.
"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." -Ben Franklin
You don't know anything about freedom. We are not protecting freedom at home by fighting abroad. What we are doing is hitting the bee's nest with a broom shaft.
Without wars we wouldn't be okay? My bad, I forgot, Vietnam and Korea sure did a lot of good. Killing fine young men for neither freedom or security is good for America. You're a false patriot, get out of my country please your the reason guys like George Bush and Cheney get in office and defend the agendas of his good ol' boys he met in his days of the oil business and Skull & Bones.
When we fight essential wars I will be the first guy signing up to protect the country I love.
"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." -Ben Franklin
You don't know anything about freedom. We are not protecting freedom abroad. What we are doing is hitting the bee's nest with a broom shaft.
Without wars we wouldn't be okay? My bad, I forgot, Vietnam and Korea sure did a lot of good. Killing fine young men for neither freedom or security is good for America. You're a false patriot, get out of my country please your the reason guys like George Bush and Cheney get in office and defend the agendas of his good ol' boys he met in his days of the oil business and Skull & Bones.
When we fight essential wars I will be the first guy signing up to protect the country I love. QFT, Mr. Bad Boy, you cannot protect freedom while taking it away (see patriot act, thomas jefferson would shit bricks if he saw this)
"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." -Ben Franklin
You don't know anything about freedom. We are not protecting freedom at home by fighting abroad. What we are doing is hitting the bee's nest with a broom shaft.
Without wars we wouldn't be okay? My bad, I forgot, Vietnam and Korea sure did a lot of good. Killing fine young men for neither freedom or security is good for America. You're a false patriot, get out of my country please your the reason guys like George Bush and Cheney get in office and defend the agendas of his good ol' boys he met in his days of the oil business and Skull & Bones.
When we fight essential wars I will be the first guy signing up to protect the country I love. Great post.
We are losing more and more freedom on a daily basis. Sure, we aren't in a state of poverty but that is a whole other story.
disappoints me to see that people aren't defending their freedom. Do you honestly think that we would be OK without wars?
Our country is founded on freedom, and we defend that freedom or else it'll get taken away.
Discuss.
How can you hate Bush when he's defending our freedom. How can you protesters sit on your asses at home and go rally'ing once, twice, thrice a week and say that you're actually doing a purpose or have a purpose towards a better initiative?
First and foremost, our freedom to do whatever we want needs to be protected. Second, we need to protect ourselves, and we need to protect the environment. We need to work towards a better world.
http://www.bolt.com/sonic1988001/vid...ysrsfr/3105571
Answer:
The anti-war concept is historically naive. I can understand people who are anti-THIS-war, although I don't really agree. But to be patently anti-war is just ignorance.
Answer:
Quotes from another thread... (my response below)
Whinning on a message baord? Look the facts are out there and the fact is people do NOT care. It is ok to kill other people just as long as you leave them alone. They live their lives everyday with NO thought at all for the human race. You can be in denial all you want, but it is a sick world when people do not value others lives. O I can take the stand that they are Iraqa, who cares! But the fact of the matter is they are people too and it is does not even stop with the Iraqs. Thousands of Africans are killed by their own militant government, thousnds of Chinese kids are forced into child slavery by their government and yet we support these things.
You tell people to stop killing inocent people and they laugh and mock or call you a conspiracy nut. Pure denial! Dogmatic views. And you talk like a little girl.
The reality is that we care about ourselves first. Read this post:
"First and foremost, our freedom to do whatever we want needs to be protected. Second, we need to protect ourselves, and we need to protect the environment. We need to work towards a better world."
When that is rule is broken, I do not care about any others freedom. I care about MY freedom first, and yours second.
That's common sense. If someone comes at you with a knife, you're not going to let him stab you because it's his fredom to, you're going to protect yours first.
Your views are barbaric from a freedom perspective. This is REALITY. This is not your reality. This is how reality works.
You **** with me, you take away my freedom, you're going to get stabbed, shot, and have your neck rang so that I can have my freedom. I am protective, I am smart, I am the way it works.
Answer:
disappoints me to see that people aren't defending their freedom. Do you honestly think that we would be OK without wars?
Our country is founded on freedom, and we defend that freedom or else it'll get taken away.
Discuss.
How can you hate Bush when he's defending our freedom. How can you protesters sit on your asses at home and go rally'ing once, twice, thrice a week and say that you're actually doing a purpose or have a purpose towards a better initiative?
First and foremost, our freedom to do whatever we want needs to be protected. Second, we need to protect ourselves, and we need to protect the environment. We need to work towards a better world.
http://www.bolt.com/sonic1988001/vid...ysrsfr/3105571 Defending freedom in the context of George Bush means giving up freedom.
Answer:
Defending freedom in the context of George Bush means giving up freedom. I believe that's only temporary.
Answer:
I believe that's only temporary. Temporary because he'll be out of office soon or are you saying a temporary necessary price to be paid for security right now?
Bush really is in a no-win situation. He could stand on the moral high ground and defend freedoms but we probably would've been attacked again. And he'd get blamed. Or he could take a strong stand, do what is "necessary", maybe cross that line but we're safer, and he still gets blamed.
I think a lot of Americans think he should take the moral high ground - and I think I agree because I worry about the precedent being set here....which is why if you're saying you think these abuses are temporary I hope you're right but I worry that it'll come back to bite us (give an inch, take a mile).
And while a lot of Americans probably see the implications and believe we'd be better off with our freedoms even if we were a little more at risk, I certainly don't think that's the majority. Even those who would say that, I believe, are speaking out of principle and not being realistic about what that "risk" really is. So I think, politically and practically, Bush really has had no choice but to take the stronger stand.
He'd have had a lot more to lose by taking the high road and incurring the risk. But I fear that the opposite may be true in the long run - we might be risking more now by securing ourselves now.
Sorry to keep going on BUT, there's another side too...I also think Bush is only securing what he needs to secure for appearances sake. For all the supposed freedoms we're sacrificing, we're not all that safe. Our own borders aren't secured - nothing but lip service and not even much of that on this issue!! This is also what makes me believe the Bush Administration is acting purely out of expediency. I used to think Bush saw the big picture and was more concerned with the future than with his own popularity here and now . . . that's obviously not the case.
Answer:
Temporary because he'll be out of office soon or are you saying a temporary necessary price to be paid for security right now?
Bush really is in a no-win situation. He could stand on the moral high ground and defend freedoms but we probably would've been attacked again. And he'd get blamed. Or he could take a strong stand, do what is "necessary", maybe cross that line but we're safer, and he still gets blamed.
I think a lot of Americans think he should take the moral high ground - and I think I agree because I worry about the precedent being set here....which is why if you're saying you think these abuses are temporary I hope you're right but I worry that it'll come back to bite us (give an inch, take a mile).
And while a lot of Americans probably see the implications and believe we'd be better off with our freedoms even if we were a little more at risk, I certainly don't think that's the majority. Even those who would say that, I believe, are speaking out of principle and not being realistic about what that "risk" really is. So I think, politically and practically, Bush really has had no choice but to take the stronger stand.
He'd have had a lot more to lose by taking the high road and incurring the risk. But I fear that the opposite may be true in the long run - we might be risking more now by securing ourselves now.
Sorry to keep going on BUT, there's another side too...I also think Bush is only securing what he needs to secure for appearances sake. For all the supposed freedoms we're sacrificing, we're not all that safe. Our own borders aren't secured - nothing but lip service and not even much of that on this issue!! This is also what makes me believe the Bush Administration is acting purely out of expediency. I used to think Bush saw the big picture and was more concerned with the future than with his own popularity here and now . . . that's obviously not the case. Sometimes you have to put your money where your mouth is. Wire tapping the phones of US citizens and things of that nature set a bad precedent going forward. What's the point of fighting for freedoms you are not going to have when the fighting is over. It sounds like people only want freedom when it's easy to do.
These same authorities have abused their power and it's been proven which is why they should never have been allowed to intrude on another person's freedoms.
Answer:
Defending freedom in the context of George Bush means giving up freedom. x2. The Patriot Act, the Real ID Act, listening in on our phone calls and regulating the internet, are you kidding me?
Answer:
How can you hate Bush when he's defending our freedom. Sometimes you have to put your money where your mouth is. Wire tapping the phones of US citizens and things of that nature set a bad precedent going forward. What's the point of fighting for freedoms you are not going to have when the fighting is over. It sounds like people only want freedom when it's easy to do.
These same authorities have abused their power and it's been proven which is why they should never have been allowed to intrude on another person's freedoms. If I thought Bush was taking somewhat Draconian measures in the name of freedom, I would disagree with the methods (because I think it'll do more harm than good in the long run). But I could respect that he thought that was what is necessary. But if he was concerned for a minute about real security, he wouldn't be playing around with our own borders and sovereignty at home. I just have a hard time putting any faith even in the intentions and that's what disappoints me.
Answer:
"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." -Ben Franklin
You don't know anything about freedom. We are not protecting freedom at home by fighting abroad. What we are doing is hitting the bee's nest with a broom shaft.
Without wars we wouldn't be okay? My bad, I forgot, Vietnam and Korea sure did a lot of good. Killing fine young men for neither freedom or security is good for America. You're a false patriot, get out of my country please your the reason guys like George Bush and Cheney get in office and defend the agendas of his good ol' boys he met in his days of the oil business and Skull & Bones.
When we fight essential wars I will be the first guy signing up to protect the country I love.
Answer:
"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." -Ben Franklin
You don't know anything about freedom. We are not protecting freedom abroad. What we are doing is hitting the bee's nest with a broom shaft.
Without wars we wouldn't be okay? My bad, I forgot, Vietnam and Korea sure did a lot of good. Killing fine young men for neither freedom or security is good for America. You're a false patriot, get out of my country please your the reason guys like George Bush and Cheney get in office and defend the agendas of his good ol' boys he met in his days of the oil business and Skull & Bones.
When we fight essential wars I will be the first guy signing up to protect the country I love. QFT, Mr. Bad Boy, you cannot protect freedom while taking it away (see patriot act, thomas jefferson would shit bricks if he saw this)
Answer:
"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." -Ben Franklin
You don't know anything about freedom. We are not protecting freedom at home by fighting abroad. What we are doing is hitting the bee's nest with a broom shaft.
Without wars we wouldn't be okay? My bad, I forgot, Vietnam and Korea sure did a lot of good. Killing fine young men for neither freedom or security is good for America. You're a false patriot, get out of my country please your the reason guys like George Bush and Cheney get in office and defend the agendas of his good ol' boys he met in his days of the oil business and Skull & Bones.
When we fight essential wars I will be the first guy signing up to protect the country I love. Great post.
Answer:
We are losing more and more freedom on a daily basis. Sure, we aren't in a state of poverty but that is a whole other story.