HOME | POLITICS | SPORTS | LIFE | SCI/TECH | OPEDS | HELPFUL TIPS
|
June 29, 2005 Okay Fred after this you may have all the last words you need. “Welp the Bobsey Twins of “virtue”, nationalism and fundamentalism are at it again. Free speech is ok, as long as it doesn't offend. Offend what group? That folks, is up to the twins. Sort of invalidates the idea of free speech, no?” This is how you opened your column: “Free Speech is Fine, If The Twins [Ken And Mac] Approve”, June 21. This set the whole tone of your argument which struck me as childish; which is why I did not bother to respond. But you wanted a response. So here you are. ”Reminds me of Iran - elections, sure, reform, ok – as long as the ruling clerics don't object. See folks? What have I just said? To the mind of a nationalist, I have just wrongly compared the US of A to Iran; I should be publicly flogged for my treasonous speech. Or, strung up on a tree or blacklisted, depending on the type of “offense” and the era, and how much the public at large is willing to let the Right-wingers get away with.” That paragraph is overreaction to comments concerning the slander of a certain Senator against certain American citizens. It is a gross exaggeration against statements made concerning those who support such slander. “I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it.” -- Thomas Jefferson Fred, you were the one who wrote that you agreed with Durbin against the forces that attend to your liberty. ”Every citizen should be a soldier. This was the case with the Greeks and Romans, and must be that of every free state.” -- Thomas Jefferson What was your point other than to make our point for us? ”Ken, Mac – assume you are both NY City police men. Assume that a peaceful, but disgusting protest is attracting an angry mob. Lets say that I am marching down 5th Avenue, dressed like Bin Laden, holding torches made to look like skyscrapers, and that I toss down little American flags in front of me, which I purposely step on as I continue. Further, lets assume that some of the mob was closing in on me, punching me with angry fists. If either of you would do anything other than arrest those individuals, then you are both disgraces to your, or any, uniform. The constitution doesn't use words like “trashed” when granting the right of Free Speech. Don't like that? Then don't volunteer to wear a uniform, or move to Iran.” Here is where you tried to draw us into a sophomoric discussion based in assumptions. Okay; I will assume I went through the rigors of training to be a NYC Police officer. I will also assume I took my training and my responsibilities at public protection just as seriously as I took my 30 years of military duty in defense of the nation and your right of free speech. Then let me assume that everything in your hypothetical arguments which, I assume is supposed to prove your point in some way is happening on my watch. All my training, education, and dedication to duty allows me to do is save your idiotic radicalism from the ravages of your opposition. I do my job. But you had already determined in your assumption; to prove a point that only you wanted made, that our reaction would be different and unconstitutional. This is not only asinine but it is neglecting the 30 years of military duty I completed in the protection of your freedom to be asinine. I wore the uniform. ”Those willing to give up a little liberty for a little security deserve neither security nor liberty.” -- Benjamin Franklin That’s right, probably. But Ben Franklin wasn’t dealing with British Arabs who were beheading POW’s. Scumbags like our current enemies deserve no quarter, and to let vigilance go by the wayside so we don’t hurt the feelings of Radical Islamist Murderers is idiocy only a liberal can fathom. The point is, you must be able to prove to me my liberties are being rationed at the cost of constitutionalism. There have been countless investigations into the worth of the Patriot Act and none of these investigations have discovered any lessening of American liberties among anyone American. American Liberty is for Americans; not for our enemies, and especially not for radical Islamic murderers. ”And I feel like an evil son of a female dog thinking that these folks are being denied their basic rights in the name of security. We are better than this; we can have our cake and eat it too. I'm not in favor of closing gitmo, but there are rational alternatives.” I will give you a scenario. You have just been captured by any 5 of these “folks” being held at Gitmo. Your friends are taking bets on how many days it will be until your headless corpse is found in some Baghdad back alley. Jessie Jackson is not trying to negotiate your release. You are still crying tears for Gitmo detainees. You are right though about rational alternatives. Jimmy Carter’s back yard is big enough for these guys. So is the Clinton house in Chappaqua, NY and I am sure Joe Biden’s Delaware has a few available prison cells. What might your “rational alternatives” be in the light of the latest reports coming from the most current congressional delegation on site that Gitmo isn’t all that bad a place? “Michael, you are correct here, “Amnesty International begins comparing the United States to the former Soviet Union where over 30 million died in a real 'gulag'.” When a respected international group makes this type of comparison, you aren't worried about America? What kind of patriot are you, anyway?” Your “respected international group” has gone liberal. They have also gone stupid. No, prisoners have died at Gitmo. They get better health care than American Veterans. They get better food than is being served in American public school lunchrooms. They get 5 prayer times a day. They get brand new Korans that Christians are being forced to handle with more devotional respect than their own Holy Bible. You ask me what kind of Patriot I am when it is you that cry for enemies that are already being treated better than our own soldiers at the hands of our own politicians? What the hell kind of a question is that coming from…………..never mind. I should have expected that. “Senators stand in chamber and declare the American Armed Forces no better than those of Nazi Germany, or Pol Pot’s Khmer Rouge. That was 16 million and 2 million killed respectively.” No, Michael, that's in fact not what Durbin said. He said that if the US tortures and mistreats prisoners, then we are acting, in that case, as “evil” regimes acted, in those cases. And he is right.” You have got to stop whitewashing Durbin’s slanderous remarks. He knew what he was saying because he made it up. He said those words were his words. He still has not retracted those words nor has he produced the supposed FBI memo that he embellished. He is only “sorry” for hurting himself politically. The whole freaking world except you know exactly what he said and he meant every word. That is why Al Jazeera is getting so much play over here with words from one of our own U.S. Senators to continue bashing America and American policy. Durbin’s words have aided our enemies, and you are on record as agreeing with Durbin’s slander. “The new face of terrorism comes from the magazine and newspaper pages of American media. It is also seen in the faces of American lawmakers, pundits, and their supporters who agree that slander against Volunteers in America’s Armed Forces is an acceptable form of free speech.” “On behalf of those others which forgot to submit their articles to the Committee for the Approval of Acceptable Forms of Free Speech, chaired by the twins, I apologize. I didn't happen to see that in the constitution...” Again, from your own keyboard, it is you who agree that slander against American forces is acceptable. Man; then why any apology at all? Why is Durbin backpedaling? Because, he has been hurt politically. That is the only reason. It is not because he is sorry for what he said. He makes this crap up and you agree with it. Have you bothered to read any of the recent findings of the latest congressional delegation to visit Gitmo? No! And neither has Durbin even bothered to visit there. ”If Durbin is going to compare America with Nazi Germany as a matter of free speech, then I suppose I would be within my right to compare all Durbin’s supporters with bin Laden and the rest of the Islamic, radical, murdering scum currently fighting against freedom and peace; all in the name of free speech of course.” “Well, yes and no, Michael. Yes, you can say anything you want, but no, Durbin didn't compare America to Nazi Germany. He didn't call women feminazis, or suggest that Liberals should be killed to show that “Liberals can die too”, as your friend Ann recommends. He merely said that if we torture our prisoners like Nazis would, then, well, we are acting a little bit like Nazis did, when it comes to torturing prisoners. See, it's so black and white that even a fundamentalist can understand it ;)” How many times do I have to go back and find instances where liberals have labeled conservatives “Nazis”? Including that one “MoveOn.org” morph of Bush to Hitler? You have no clue what Rush Limbaugh means by the term “feminazis”. I suggest you read his books to enlighten yourself. I can also tell you have not read any of Ann Coulter’s books; but that just stays with your inability to hear anyone but Dick Durbin. You will believe an unproven FBI memo before you will accept the documented historical references contained in Ann Coulter’s “Treason” and “Slander”. Durbin lied about the memo. Even should he produce the memo, we will have found that he lied about the content. That is so “black and white” that even an atheist can understand it. “In any case, why worry about little ol' me and my rights, boys?” Dear Fred; I will never worry about you. You are a big man and you can take care of yourself. If you live in America you have all the rights of an American, secured by the soldiers you support slander against. There is no need for me to worry about you. You do enough worrying about yourself, yourself. ”Michael, you think the end is upon us, right? It won't be long before you vanish into bliss, while I stay behind and suffer?” Well, I’m no date setter; but if the Rapture happens tomorrow? I’ll say my good-bye to you today. “Boys, if these things are true, then you have all but won anyway – why not leave the rest of us poor civil rights loving folk in peace to adhere to the rule of law? Please?” Fred, you are really a disrespectful person. It is no wonder the younger generations have no respect for their elders. You call us “Boys” out of disrespect that just drips from your keyboard. It would be wonderful if liberals “adhered to the rule of law” but they do not. They make law by smashing at the separation of powers. When that doesn’t work, then the spirit of anarchy tells them to go out and get illegally married to each other. One Christian dares to challenge and……well, we see. “Oh, alright. I'll respond. You pulled my teeth, Michael, sheesh!” Again you are wrong. Fred, if you never bothered to answer even one of my paragraphs I could care less. But, I know atheists. They accept everything as a personal affront and feel they must respond to every supposed slight. The point is; you will never leave me alone. You have taken me on as a personal MOBY to your DICK Durbin. Flail away Fred; you may have all the last words. “Teddy (the killer) Kennedy has to take the liberal stick out of his butt and stop drinking away what’s left of his alcohol preserved cranium.” “Let me be brutally honest. Usually, that gets one into trouble, but here goes. Michael claims to despise political correctness – we all say we do, don't we? I would rather have Kennedy as a drunk than someone who ditches the bottle with the help of Jesus, and then wants to force the rest of us to share in his personal cure ;) Tom Delay thinks the government is here to make more of us pray. Michael, you mix politics with religion when you write. If the Bible is a source for your political leanings, then the Bible and what your faith preaches are also on trial. I think this is fair, no?” This is an ideological debate; not a theological one. I do not debate the acceptance of God in government. I do not call for Bible study in the halls of Congress. I do not ascribe to a singular religion and I do not advise anyone to do that. The ideology is that of morality against immorality, to be sure. Law used to be able to distinguish between the two. Law has so much gray matter in it now that mass murderers are allowed to walk out of prison on technicality, or if the gloves don’t fit. Law is being made from judicial fiat when it is supposed to be coming from elected officials representing the people. Conservatism isn’t perfect, but it calls for less government intrusion into the personal life. That is the aspect that most influences me toward it. Conservatism does nothing for the individual spiritual worth of anyone as a political standing. Liberalism does even less. Liberalism enslaves the individual to the whims of the state. At least Conservatism allows for people to take responsibility for their own actions. Ted Kennedy is a liberal who desires America to fail. I do not desire that. Tom Delay, I have written, is no better or worse than all the liberal democrats who had their hands in the same cookie jar. I believe I ended that column with a call for all of them to be allowed to resign. It is very true that I understand the Bible. I know how to read English and I believe I have a wide enough vocabulary that I am not making too many mistakes in my literal understanding of the words as they appear on a page in context. Let me be “brutally honest”. In my opinion, based in what I have literally understood of scripture; I am going to heaven because I am a believer in Jesus and he is my Lord and God. If you continue in unbelief, you will go to hell. That has nothing to do with politics, and everything to do with your eternal soul. “ More below.” “You don’t think that last comment will cause a debate; do you? “ “Indeed you are powerful, having the ability to manipulate me ;)” “And I admire Fred Smith’s continual attempts to pick a debate.” When Liberals, Democrats, atheists/humanists get trashed, I tend to respond, yes [and I'd wager that if I counted, I'd find that they get trashed in at least 2/3 of your 400+ articles]. Liberals are often cast as wimps when we don't respond, and cast as being Nazis or anti-American when we do. I'm here to bring balance to the Force ;)” I don’t trash atheists. I tell the truth about them. The truth is you will not leave believers alone to their faith and you continually discredit everything we put forth in a debate. Once we decide to stop turning cheeks and return fire, my e-mail would prove “You can’t handle the truth.” Now, to be fair to you Fred; your e-mails are not in any way vulgar. There are many of your persuasion however that could use an “Emily Post” guidebook. “I don't take you out of context, Michael, but I don't feel like quoting your whole piece either. You seemed to realize in that article that most Americans are Christians – this weakened your case to blame humanists, but you tried anyway, and for that, I gave you credit – twice now. You speak truth – there aren't enough atheists/humanists to be a political force or to account for all of the missing fathers. You can't gloat at the lack of political might that free thinkers have, while at the same time, attempt to blame them for the ills in the nation. Further, you can't ignore that in some parts with more secularism, these social issues are better. Finally, you can't ignore the fact that church-going Christians are more likely to get divorced, no matter how that fact may rattle you. If you want to deduce from this that all atheists are grand, be my guest ;) That would be contrary to my attempt at classifying secularists, but, whatever works for you..” Without context, I believe you lose the reader. To refer to past columns without the proper context confuses even me. I will not pretend I understand everything in the above paragraph. My point was that atheists cannot absolve themselves from the cited numbers. Yet, you surely did that. Now, that is dishonest. But it does absolve atheists from having to do anything to help correct the cited deficiencies. You didn’t cause the problems, so you don’t have to be part of any solution. So I understand why you would rather the entire burden of Fatherless ness in America be upon the Christian Community. My statement was never a “gloat” nor was it intended to be. I tried to stave off your denial of any culpability in the problems addressed. You are the dishonest one to suggest it is all the fault of Christians. “In the Atheistic Half-Truth of the Week Category Mr. Smith wrote: “Arrogant atheists such as myself want to let everyone believe what they will, provided none of us step on each other's toes.” Mr. Smith is “arrogant” he even emphasized that with italics and I heartily appreciate that. But Mr. Smith will not allow me to believe what I want to believe. He wants everything I believe to be trashed and disregarded simply because what I believe steps on his precious toes. Clever ;) This is a good example of taking someone out of context, perhaps instead you can give an example of where you were taken out of context. For those not familiar with the piece, found here, I explained not only why I italicized that word, but also why I chose that word. Now, all in all, not a bad attempt on your part, but if you would have combined that with a real example of where I took you out of context, it would have made some readers say, “OOOH!”. I believe I just gave you your example. You suggested I tried to lay all blame on atheism. I did not. ”He is so blinded by his various hatreds he does not see that I agree that religion and government do not mix. He totally and completely ignores the fact that faith is completely an individual exercise. Faith in God and eternal salvation is not gained through any religious exercise; nor is it gleaned by creating any sort of theocracy.” “Actually, the geographic area into which you were born is the primary factor determining 'faith in God'. And that might be according to which sociological study I might be permitted to read that does not come from any atheistic web site? So which “geographical area” produces atheists? So why again do all nations have Christians in them? You have peaked my curiosity. “You agree that they should not mix – couldn't tell from your articles, but, great! We need more like you. Take this quiz:” I appreciate Dr. Brooks Mick for standing in as my “quiz” surrogate. I surely would have failed the quiz. My answer was going to be: “Who is Moore?” “Back to the point - maybe you can give me an example yourself of a specific policy point where you side with secularism?” I believe secularism agrees with enforcing seat belt laws. I side that. ”Since you think I somehow wanted to bring you into a debate, why not pick the “debate” up where it left off? I'd like a response to my hypothetical police officer thought experiment in this article, and why you feel that your ilk should be allowed to censor free speech. Would you defend that bastard, as he spews insulting speech, if in uniform? If no, explain, if yes, explain.” Been there, done that. “Finally, taking a page from Mr. Smith’s template; in the spirit of free-thinking, atheistic, liberal democratic left-wing so-called Christian religionists; as your leader Howard Dean or Dick Durbin might say: “I hate you.” “None of you have ever done an honest day’s work in your life.” “You are all socialistic Nazis.” Have a nice day.” “The real quotes I gave from you and others on that side of the isle in my recent ”...Nazi...” piece I thought were more clever, but, all in all, not a bad attempt.” Actually these quotes of mine were plagiarized from Dean and Durbin latest diatribes against conservatives. “Now, is this the part where we both write more articles about non-political topics for a while in an attempt appear less extreme to the UK regulars? Whatever the current mood is, just send me a memo in case I can't pick up on it ;) Being a bit of a dork, I sometimes don't tune in to these kinds of things right away...” Nope. I’m done with you Fred. You may have all the last words. Like I said, “flail away”. ------------ About the Author: Michael John McCrae has contributed over 300 articles to Useless-Knowledge.com. Email: macswordV@hotmail.com Tell a friend about this site! ------------ All articles are EXCLUSIVE to Useless-Knowledge.com and are not allowed to be posted on other websites. ARTICLE THIEVES WILL BE PROSECUTED! |
||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
