Local efforts are under way to help Oklahoma tornado victims. Find out how you can help here.
Schools have always inculcated patriotism, but the terms of allegiances are often narrowly conceived. The fact that loyalty to the nation requires loyalty to all subgroups within the nation is seldom pointed out.
What’s on your mind today?
View our commenting policy and standards | Commenting FAQ | Report a problem
92 COMMENTS
Name is required
A valid email is required (test@test.com)
Comment is required
Your email address will not be published.
All fields are required to comment.
http://www2.wsls.com/news/2013/jan/28/charlottesville-kroger-scare-when-man-carries-load-ar-2494036/
CHARLOTTESVILLE, Va. (AP) – Charlottesville police say a man who brought a loaded semi-automatic rifle into a Kroger store won’t be charged.
Police tell media outlets that the unidentified 22-year-old man didn’t break any laws. He legally owns the AR-15 rifle and he didn’t conceal it.
Permits are required in Virginia to carry concealed firearms. There are no restrictions on firearms that aren’t concealed.
Police say the man entered the store unarmed around 5 p.m. Sunday, then returned to his vehicle and got the rifle. He carried the weapon into the store and then left again.
Police believe the man was demonstrating his Second Amendment rights.
Kroger managers banned the man from the property.
#1 – Your point being?
1 – first, no laws were broken. None.
2 – Kroger (and any other business or individual) has the right to ban anyone for any reason (or no reason).
I don’t see a problem.
Lord, help us….
It’s being reported that economic growth was flat in the 4th qtr…OK actually DOWN by a tenth of a percent. On it’s own, not good news.
But the Bureau of Economic Analysis, an agency of the US Commerce Dep’t added GDP growth was better than in 2011. GDP growth in 2011 was 1.8% and 2.2% in 2012….REALLY?
2012 quarterly growth rates were: 2.0% 1st qtr.// 1.3% 2nd qtr.// 3.1% 3rd qtr. and -0.1% in the 4th qtr..which ends up being LESS than 1.6% annually.
BEA….show your work.
“I don’t see a problem.”
The problem, 89Hoo, is a jerk who obviously went into Kroger with nothing more in mind than trying to prove some vague inane point by frightening children and other shoppers. The guy didn’t even buy anything. And the reality is that HE (or some innocent bystanders) could have been shot if some wild west yahoo had pulled his own gun or if a poorly trained security guard has decided to play hero. Reasonable, civilized people simply don’t do this type of thing simply because they can legally.
I wonder why brave armed guy has remained anonymous. This is his chance to get his “viewpoint” out there in public.
There’s no law against being a jerk, gdad, or even against being a jerk to prove a point.
When I hear about people like this guy with the gun in Krogers I’m actually reminded of Howard Stern.
People used to call Howard up and tell him his raunchy filthy show had no place on the public airwaves. Think of the kids the parents would say. I can’t monitor my child’s behavior all the time and she might stumble across this sort of thing on the radio and I don’t want them to.
Stern would come back with something like “You have a responsibility. You don’t like Free Speech. Turn the channel. Remove your radio. I have a right.” etcetera.
If I had the chance to respond to Howard Stern, I’d tell him just 4 words. I shouldn’t have to.
That’s all. We need to discuss hard issues and adult themes but what he was doing was just over the top. I shouldn’t have to remove the radios from my house. I shouldn’t have to change the channel. I shouldn’t have to monitor my child or worry every time they turn on the radio.
I think the same thing applies here.
I should be able to go to Kroger and other places and not have to worry about jackasses like Mr. 2nd Amendment bringing his gun to a store where there is clearly no need.
This guy SHOULD have been arrested and charged with Disorderly Conduct or Being A Public Nuisance or some such. Maybe he’d learn his lesson. Maybe he’d consider another way to express himself, like, writing a Letter To The Editor for example.
And forgive me but you guys who defend his actions make yourselves sound foolish. And you shouldn’t have to.
And I said nothing about there being a law against it, 89Hoo. In fact, at the end of my first paragraph I mentioned that it was legal — just not very bright.
Let me clarify, gdad. While I say that “I don’t see a problem” I mean it from a strictly legal, constitutional perspective. Yes, they guy was being a jerk, and was properly banned from the store.
This is one extreme. The other is perhaps illustrated by the Bronx elementary school that was locked down, alert status, with heavily armed police, etc. over a 12-year old mentioning to one of his classmates that he had a NERF gun at home.
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/bronx/cops_searching_bx_elementary_school_crTwkO8rGz3BiByUMyvRkI
That situation is not only silly, stupid and laughable, it detracts from any meaningful discussion.
I think we can agree that reason finds ground somewhere between those two extremes.
BUT…given the choice between everyone walking around armed (which at least encourages civility) and everyone being afraid to mention a toy gun…I’ll take the former.
#7 – “I shouldn’t have to.”
That’s right, Scott. Your rights trump everyone elses, correct?
As far as bringing a gun somewhere there is no need, you have absolutely no idea if and when a gun may be needed.
I’m not defending the guy. In fact I think what he did was pretty dumb. But the fact remains, he had the right to do what he did.
http://anticap.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/tmw-29-01.jpg
Tom Tomorrow was reading my mind.
In furtherance of this discussion (or not), slippery slope arguments.
1) Can he bring a toy gun strapped to his back?
2) Can he bring realistic looking dynamite strapped to a vest into the store?
3) Can he bring a real suicide vest into the store?
4) How about a samurai sword?
12 – there are no prohibitions against 1,2 and 4.
As for 3, if he wants to blow himself up, he should do it on his own time. If he wears a suicide vest into Kroger and threatens to detonate, it’s actually a homicide vest, and he should be stopped and charged with attempted murder. Just as waving a pistol around threatening to shoot becomes attempted murder. Incidentally, the cleanest way to stop him in either of those circumstances is a head shot, but someone else would have to be armed to make that happen.
EXCELLENT #11!
Michael, in this particular case did not the gun toting “rights” advocate with the note in his pocket believe his right trumped everyone else’s? Is there a gun advocate in this country unaware of the recent massacre and why such a gun in public might cause a stir, regardless of his right to do so?
There are plenty of guns for personal protection in public that would not cause such a reaction, this was a stunt and it was callous, arrogant, wrong and anti-social on several levels.
Wanting us to support the “gun rights” POV is not won by fear, intimidation or stunts.
#11 – So those of us who believe in our Constitutional rights are sociopaths, Scott?
How about those of us who swore to die defending that Constitution? What name do you have for us?
#15 – “Michael, in this particular case did not the gun toting “rights” advocate with the note in his pocket believe his right trumped everyone else’s?”
What note are you talking about?
“Police say he was cooperative and did nothing illegal. Officers did find a note in his pocket spelling out his intent to express his 2nd Amendment rights. Police say they could not release man’s name because he was not arrested.”
http://www.nbc29.com/story/20755619/kroger-gun-stunt-sparks-2nd-amendment-debate
Are you saying the military requires you to swear an oath to die defending the Constitution? I am well aware that people die while serving in the military but I am not aware that you “swore to die defending that Constitution”.
Oh Michael come off it, we all believe in our Constitutional rights. But that cartoon was showing a sociopath. “I can mimic that response, this is my “sad face”… If you did not get that, maybe there is a problem.
Michael,
I would venture to say that the guy who is still holding a 6 yr old student hostage in southeast AL probably fits the description of a sociopath.
Actually, I would probably even go a little stronger to say that he’s simply a lunatic that should never have a right to possess a gun of any description.
But in good old AL…all you have to do is breath and you can get one.
@16 Michael, of course not. Most people who are protective of 2nd Amendment rights are NOT sociopaths but the reverse isn’t true. Some sociopaths will also be defenders of 2nd Amendment rights.
But since you say, “How about those of us who swore to die defending that Constitution? What name do you have for us?” I’ll ask another question. I was going to ask earlier but decided not to.
This is NOT intended to be a trap or anything. I am asking just out of point of information.
How do you feel about burning the American flag? Freedom of Speech? Would you defend that?
#18 – You know damn well that those of us who took the oath of enlistment were (and are) willing to give our lives.
#22 – “How do you feel about burning the American flag? Freedom of Speech? Would you defend that?
Honest answer, Scott? Burning an American flag within arms reach of me would be a serious mistake.
Michael, you did not say How about those of us who took the oath of enlistment were (and are) willing to give our lives. Which we all appreciate and honor. You said “How about those of us who swore to die defending that Constitution?” After taking Feinstein apart for what she said, one would think you would be more careful with what you say.
I do not think this nation asks anyone to swear to die defending that Constitution and I don’t believe we should. The majority of all troops survive and come back to society. And in all truth, not all of them will uphold anything in the Constitution they do not agree with. The disrespect of the COC is an oft displayed issue. The Constitution is very clear on who that is, why and how that is to be served.
Thanks to “The Bush Doctrine” we have spent over a decade fighting a conflict that has NOTHING to do with our Constitution.
Frankly, I would not stand by and watch someone burn the US Flag either. It might be a piss poor fight, but I would not stand and watch or support such disrespect for the many great things that flag stands for. I do not sit and converse with friends when The Colors are presented either.
@23 Michael, so you’re willing to defend someone’s right to bear arms but not someone’s right to free speech?
#26 – I spent a career in the military so you could have free speech.
Where were you?
I fully support free speech. But desecrate the flag that represents what my friends died for would not be smart.
25 – Sandi, that’s twice in one day I find myself agreeing with you. What’s next? The Cubs win the world series?
#25 Mrs. Saunders….no cheap shots here. Honest discourse.
I disagree entirely. The burning of the national ensign is protected free speech.
It is but fabric. The symbolism lies in the ideas represented, very much including the Bill of Rights.
If you “would not stand and watch” one wonders your reaction.
You have called me “reactionary”, within the context of protecting my 2nd Amendment rights. Yet here you seem rather hyperbolic in your defense of a piece of cloth.
I find this quite ironic.
Disagree as you like, call it what you will.
I did not say that burning our flag was not “free speech”.
And I do not know what I “would do” only what I would not do. I am big on symbolism after all.
I am hardly advising we take up arms against the government over my definition of “free speech”. Or that we are “supposed to”. Nothing ironic about the not comparable IMO.
Michael, we all appreciate your service, but get real. At no time in the last 100 years has our free speech been in any danger. Heck, maybe it should have been… Both sides of the aisle have used our military for their “doctrines”, world domination, exploitation and less worthwhile missions for far too long. I can appreciate that you believe that was what your career was, but I disagree. I met a career military guy once, as I was thanking him for his service, he explained he mainly TAD and deserved no thanks for it.
Michael, I probably shouldn’t wind you up like that. Sorry.
But you do raise a couple of questions that need to be addressed.
You say, “I spent a career in the military so you could have free speech. Where were you?”
1) I didn’t ask you to spend a career in the military for me. Please don’t think you can lay an obligation on me for something for which I didn’t ask. I’m perfectly capable of defending my own free speech rights.
2) Where was I? I was treating cancer patients and saving lives.
3) I tried to join the military, twice, but was turned down due to health issues. It’s probably too bad. They really wanted me to join. I placed at the 98% percentile on the ASVAB.
You say, “I fully support free speech. But desecrate the flag that represents what my friends died for would not be smart.”
Thanks for the heads up. I’ll be sure to bring an AR-15 to the next flag burning.
On a more serious note, can you think of a better way to celebrate our right to freedom of speech than burning a flag. We should all do that the next 4th of July. Treat it like a wake. At a funeral you can mourn your loss or celebrate the life of the deceased. The same with the flag. Remind people that in other countries who don’t guard their rights as closely as we do that burning the national flag would land them in jail. Let’s show those other countries what freedom really is by burning an American flag. It’s the patriotic thing to do.
I want to know why the guy had a note in his pocket. That’s the part that really fascinates me.
I take your point Scott, but I think it is hooey. If you have anything that you revere, you do not “burn it” to prove anything other than you do not revere it. I would no more burn the flag than a picture of my dad. In fact once someone is gone you realize you did not have, maybe could not have enough pictures or mementos of them. You sure wouldn’t burn one to prove some point.
Sandi…
While you may not like the act of burning the flag…it is indeed one of those “freedoms” that one is guaranteed through free speech. The act of burning the flag does not physically harm anyone (provided they’re not wrapped in it).
What should be revered is the fact that one has the freedom to do so without fear of reprisal from your government.
What was it that Ben Franklin was supposed to have said,,,”I will vigorously defend your right to disagree with me.” The passion for the object can’t cloud the vision for which it stands for. Much in the same way Jim holds the passion for his guns…whatever firing capabilities they may have.
#35, exactly. It was Voltaire who said “I do not agree with what you have to say, but I’ll defend to the death your right to say it.” In the U.S, free speech under the First Amendment has also been interpreted and defined as symbolic speech, including the right to burn the American flag. While I would not participate in such an action, it seems those who claim “Burning an American flag within arms reach of me would be a serious mistake” or that they’d bring an AR-15 to the next flag burning, with the implied threats of some physical/violent intervention, is unAmerican and in open defiance of our Constitution.
I do not deny that burning the flag, speaking ill of ethnic, racial or cultural differences, burning the Bible, Qu’ran or Torah, preaching on street corners, protesting at soldiers funerals, or just being a lying lunatic is all “free speech”. That does not mean I will stand by without protest or uphold such behavior around me. Remember the point Michael made and I seconded was “Burning an American flag within arms reach”. I would not simply stand there and watch or even agree that it should be done and I would not just walk away. I won’t.
#32 – You didn’t wind me up at all, Scott.
Go ahead and burn your flag if it makes you important.
Just don’t do it around me.
As far as it just being a piece of cloth. Fine. But if that’s the case and it really means nothing, then why do ya’ll get so upset over the Confederate flag?
It’s just a piece of cloth. Right?
#36 – “it seems those who claim “Burning an American flag within arms reach of me would be a serious mistake” or that they’d bring an AR-15 to the next flag burning, with the implied threats of some physical/violent intervention, is unAmerican and in open defiance of our Constitution.’
Un-American, E?
Nice try.
Like I said earlier, I’ll stand by and let someone burn the flag…I respect their First Amendement right to do so.
A lesson in respect will follow once their done, though.
Oops…should have been “they’re”.
I haven’t had my coffee yet.
“I want to know why the guy had a note in his pocket. That’s the part that really fascinates me.”
I’m just speculating since, as far as I know, Mr. I Want to Make a Pubic Statement Guy hasn’t come forward, but I suspect he out it there in case he WAS arrested, or even in case somebody shot him, which certainly could have happened. Such a bright guy.
The Flag is not just a piece of cloth. The First Amendment gives you the right to burn it, but someone who burns it just for the hell of it, or just to prove he can, is a classless jerk. Same for walking into Kroger with a rifle for no apparent reason other than to prove you can get away with it.
#42 – “The First Amendment gives you the right to burn it, but someone who burns it just for the hell of it, or just to prove he can, is a classless jerk. Same for walking into Kroger with a rifle for no apparent reason other than to prove you can get away with it.”
Agreed.
“The First Amendment gives you the right to burn it, but someone who burns it just for the hell of it, or just to prove he can, is a classless jerk. Same for walking into Kroger with a rifle for no apparent reason other than to prove you can get away with it.”
Absolutely.
Look at us all agreeing! Brings a tear.
#39, yeah, unAmerican.
“A lesson in respect will follow once their [sic] done, though” Sounds like a thinly veiled threat to me. But I’m not worried about it; anybody can talk tough from behind their keyboard.
Being an American means respecting the Constitution and citizens’ exercise of rights under it, even if you disagree with the legal actions they take under the protection of those rights. Saying or implying you’d attempt to keep them from exercising their rights or that you’d attempt to punish them for their exercise of their rights is unAmerican. Pretty simple concept.
42, 43, 44 – agreed.
The claim is made that, ““The First Amendment gives you the right to burn it, but someone who burns it just for the hell of it, or just to prove he can, is a classless jerk. Same for walking into Kroger with a rifle for no apparent reason other than to prove you can get away with it.””
I can see how walking into a Kroger with an AR-15 strapped to your back is jerky. It goes beyond me disagreeing with the need to have one of these guns. There is the possibility of real deadly violence there. Combine that with the fact you don’t need to hunt in a grocery store, then the perception of the threat is a legitimate one.
Would someone please explain how burning a Stars and Stripes flag is jerky in a way that doesn’t reduce to simply disagreeing with the sentiment?
48 – it’s being a jerk because the only reason is to draw attention and make a spectacle of yourself. Much like walking into a grocery store with a rifle.
IMO, it goes beyond “jerky” because a lot of us, for a lot of diverse reasons, value and revere the symbol of our nation. It is NOT just a protest against America (which again, is us) but a protest against the very thing that is granting you the right to do so. It is fouling the home of your host IMO.
I am certainly not able to physically make much of any kind of “punishment” but I would not just stand by while such a thing was happening. If that is “unAmerican” then so be it.
#48 – “Would someone please explain how burning a Stars and Stripes flag is jerky in a way that doesn’t reduce to simply disagreeing with the sentiment?”
Do you really have to ask?
Really?
#46 – “46.#39, yeah, unAmerican.”
That’s your opinion.
I feel the same way about anyone who would stand idly by and allow someone to burn our flag.
I guess it’s a draw.
#52, first of all, the fact that you see this as some sort of a game (“I guess it’s a draw”) is troubling. Secondly, when you say you think it’s unAmerican to “stand idly by and allow someone to burn our flag” then by implication you mean you think anyone has the right to try stop them from doing so, which they don’t. The right to burn the flag, while an ugly and disrespectful act, is protected by the Constitution. To try to stop them from doing so would be to try to deny them their Constitutional right, which is unAmerican. As I said, a simple concept.
#53 – No, E, I don’t see this as some sort of game. I take disrespect for our flag very seriously.
You, apparently, do not.
And I will not stop someone from burning the flag as it is their Constitutional right to do so.
What happens afterward is a different matter.
That, too is a simple concept.
#50, Sandi, I generally respect your thoughtful and informed posts here. I think you and I stand on the same side of the ideological fence.
However, I just don’t agree with your sentiment. You create a paradox: to demonstrate your love of your country, you would take action to deny someone their Constitutional right. The Constitution is what creates this country; it is the foundation of our system of laws. To deny, or attempt to punish, someone for their free exercise of the their Constitutional rights.
I don’t like the burning of the flag either. My grandfathers, my father, and my uncles fought for the principles this country represents, and I work hard to teach my students about the formation and development of this country, and their responsibilities as citizens to the nation. But I realize it is not my place to try to deny someone their Constitutional rights. In doing so, I would be no better than those who lynched Blacks during the Jim Crow Era.
oops, incomplete thought. To complete it: To deny, or attempt to punish, someone for their free exercise of the their Constitutional rights is UnAmerican.
Michael, again with the threats? You say, “And I will not stop someone from burning the flag as it is their Constitutional right to do so. What happens afterward is a different matter.” Come on man. It’s because of responses like that, people like me think people like you shouldn’t have guns. I own guns but don’t think I’ve made veiled threats here.
Anyway, 89Hoo says it’s jerky to draw attention to one’s self. OK. I think that reduces to “he doesn’t like people who draw attention to themselves”. I still think there’s a qualitative difference between not liking someone who draws attention to themselves and the appearance of a military style weapon in a place where it’s clearly not needed. You don’t need a gun to buy groceries and you don’t need a gun to talk to people about gun rights. That goes beyond jerky to being menacing.
Burning a flag isn’t menacing unless you threaten to do it at the gas station or in a warehouse filled with explosive.
But Michael, do you have any reasons other than “I don’t like that”? Responding to a question with another question doesn’t answer the question.
Mr. Williams….I agree (here) with your perspective. I can only assume, in general, & now especially post Heller & McDonald….that you have the same perspective for the 2nd Amendment as the 1st.
#54, ” I will not stop someone from burning the flag as it is their Constitutional right to do so. What happens afterward is a different matter.” Thanks for proving my point. Hopefully someone of authority is monitoring these comments and has taken note of your thinly veiled threat of violence against someone who would be exercising their Constitutional right.
#57 – I’ve made no veiled threats at all, Scott. You asked a question and I gave you an honest answer.
I feel very strongly about people desecrating our flag, while you apparently do not.
To you it’s a piece of cloth. Me? I see so much more.
Personally, I’m not sure if you are incapable of understanding where I’m coming from or simply refuse to. Either way, it really doesn’t matter much to me.
#54, and to follow up, of course I take burning the flag very seriously. I do not, however, think I have the right to attempt acts of violence against them for exercising their Constitutional right.
#54, AND…if you don’t see it as a game, why did you choose to use language that is most often associated with games? (” a draw”) Perhaps you didn’t think it through…
Great! I am unAmerican and a hypocrite, quite possibly an Authoritarian, a gun grabber and now a Jim Crow lyncher. Maybe I should run for office.
Sandi, NOT what I said. Go back and re-read my post. Geez.
#62 – Whatever, e.
#63 – Don’t feel bad, Sandi. According to many here, I’m unamerican, unpatriotic, racist, a potential homegrown terrorist (since I’m a veteran), and that as a Conservative, I am the reason this country is in the mess it’s in.
Oh, wait…it was the government that said the part about potentially being a homegrown terrorist.
My bad.
63 – Keynesian…you forgot Keynesian.
Just to clarify, I do not think I have the right to attempt acts of violence against anyone, for any reason. I fully recognize that to attempt to stop a flag burning, or even to forcefully argue and dissuade them might well be a crime. I am not naive in addition to my above mentioned faults.
#65, excellent response; you’ve certainly demonstrated your intellectual prowess and rationally supported your stance re: individual’s Constitutional rights and the free exercise thereof. (Can you comprehend the sarcasm?)
#67, actually, you have every right and responsibility “to forcefully argue and dissuade them [verbally]” from burning an American flag. But I think you know that…Keep fighting the good fight!
You either agree with the exercise of free speech or you don’t. And if you would try and prevent said exercise pre-emptively, or try and somehow punish it’s exercise after the fact, then you don’t.
The real test of your commitment to the ideal of free speech is whether you will defend or punish the expression of an idea which you may personally find distasteful. And if you can’t defend that expression, you may want to rethink your idea of patriotism.
#59 You preach about Constitutional rights, yet you hope “someone of authority is monitoring these comments…..”.
In any context, but but especially as transpired here.
Unbelievable. (I wish).
@69…Painless
I think you have perhaps hit on the real crux of the matter.
There may indeed be a real paradox in trying to be both a patriot in the most sincere sense of the word while at the same time trying to be a staunch supporter of the Constitution. There are times that defending the premises of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, one may very well be at odds with the concept of patriotism and love of country and vice versa.
I can see how in some cases it would be extremely difficult to be on the same side at all times.
#59 – “Hopefully someone of authority is monitoring these comments and has taken note of your thinly veiled threat of violence against someone who would be exercising their Constitutional right.:”
Jeeze…I just about choked on my soda.
You hope Big Brother is watching. How typically Liberal.
No actual was theatened, and I seriously doubt if I’d be anywhere even close to someplace where some idiot is burning a flag.
But thanks for the laugh, e.
Have a good night.
#59 Mr. Williams…to express a specific desire that the authorities monitor this blog….and that they take note of and list* the posts of Michael…is anathema to everything the Constitution stands for. I find your POV (here) personally disgusting & exceedingly dangerous.
To claim the right of 1st Amendment expression in burning the flag….yet state as you do reference someone else’s expressions is IMO patently hypocritical.
I wonder if you confuse the Constitution for your mommy.
* gun registration?
No worries e. william, I know that is not what you meant. I was being facetious. I am well aware that my reaction is on the wrong side of “agree with the exercise of free speech” on some level, and I think we all know it is not the first time.
How about if I promise to refrain from violence while I protest their “free speech”? I think that is a fair compromise because nothing in the First Amendment says your “speech” will be welcomed.
I think e williams meant someone at the RT in a position of authority is taking note of Michael’s veiled threats. I don’t think he meant the police, etc.
I hope no one assumes their internet postings are private communications. I don’t think e. william was necessarily saying he hopes someone is paying attention, so much as saying we should think about who might be. If the keyboard I looked at on Staples website starts following me around…who else does?
Suppose Michael or I do indeed face that “moment of truth” in the next few days and you all read about it in the local paper. If I plead “temporary insanity” say it was a complete lapse in judgement, very unlike me (which it would be), and something I would never have thought of doing, would you not remember my words here? You know you would.
But of course let’s do argue semantics and “what” was said and “meant” for a few hours.
#72, why am I not surprised you were sipping on soda? “No actual was theatened” Ummm, what? Maybe proof read a bit before hitting “post.” And I’m having an excellent evening! Thanks for the well wishes, I hope you too have a good evening. May peace be with you.
#75 – A post to make you happy:
I’m done. As in done with this website.
I’ve been contemplating it for a while now and the mindset expressed today has finally convinced me that I am done.
Y’all have a nice life.
75 & 76 Baloney.
It is clear what he said. Any clarification should come from the source.
While on this general thread, I personally find remarks by some on this blog disparaging Michael’s military service to be equally disgusting. (Maybe the “authorities” should note).
#75 Of course Scott….everyone knows the RT(EB) is here to intervene against threats of violence.
911
This is the RT, what is the nature of your emergency?
Homeland Security
I wish to report an out of control blogger…it’s my Constitutional duty.
Time Out! Go to your rooms and think about your OWN words instead of whining about the words of others. I think He originally used “logs” and your “eyes” but the point is the same!
Sandi wrote, “Look at us all agreeing! Brings a tear.”
That is what happens when one takes a moderate, conciliatory approach in a discussion instead of lashing out with whatever invective first occurs to you.
By the way, disparaging Michael’s military service is also protected by the First Amendment. Such disparagement also complete dissolves whatever credibility one might have had.
Michael, I did the same thing, for 6-7 months a while back. I also made the mistake of messing around with another RT blog briefly….swore off it & will never be back.
This is not a bad forum.. Please do as you see fit. Hope to see you back. God bless.
#82 I never said such expression was not “legitimate”. I expressed my opinion as to it’s merit. IMO, you seem to base your idea of the right of expression on whether you agree.
#77 Mr. Williams, “sipping soda” (egad, call the “authorities”) & snarky comments reference a typo.
I fear more than ever for our students.
I know this conversation left the rails and I take my share of responsibility for that but I do not see where anyone was “disparaging Michael’s military service”. I do not believe that happened.
@71
Not sure I understand the paradox. One can support someone’s freedom of expression without necessarily agreeing with them. That’s the real test after all, since everyone supports the right of those who agree with them to express themselves freely.
The flag is a symbol of American ideals, of which free speech is one of supreme importance. Paying homage to the symbol while ignoring the ideals it symbolizes, there’s the paradox, my friend. And I would hope that it’s obvious where true patriotism lies.
@87…
I think you and I just said the same thing. Pardon me if my version was somewhat without eloquence.
I still believe that one can indeed have a conflict of conscience in choosing between patriotism in the symbolic sense of the word and an unabridged alligience to the Constitution or more particularly the Bill of Rights.
#86 Mrs. Saunders, your #31; ”Michael, we all appreciate your service, but get real. At no time in the last 100 years has our free speech been in any danger. Heck, maybe it should have been… Both sides of the aisle have used our military for their “doctrines”, world domination, exploitation and less worthwhile missions for far too long. I can appreciate that you believe that was what your career was, but I disagree. I met a career military guy once, as I was thanking him for his service, he explained he mainly TAD and deserved no thanks for it.”
Jim Lucas, that is not “disparaging Michael’s military service” and I think you saying it was only shows you wanted to disparage someone yourself.
Michael and many others have “disparaged” whatever symbolism I have found in laws, policies and politics, loudly and often and then to claim that his own service was symbolic of “so you could have free speech” was just too much.
If you, or anyone else thinks I was “disparaging Michael’s military service” that is on you, not me.
I was talking with my wife about Michael leaving this forum, apparently because of me. I jokingly asked her should I classify that as a “win”?
I married her because she’s smarter than I am. She responded to the effect, “He decided he’s got something better to do than arguing with you on the internet? I’d say he won.”
Best wishes Michael.
#84 My point was that you can express whatever opinion you want, but nobody has to take you seriously.