I Am An American

Sorry. I've been away a few days and have just now got into this thread.

My thoughts:

Quote:

---

What actions do you take everyday to ensure the better of your country? Must there be a war, or an article that pisses someone off to take action and 'stand'?

---

Myself, I served the US Marine Corp for 1.5 years. Released on Medical Discharge after I broke my arm and leg on the right side while on duty. I could no longer perform and was discharged. At present, I'm working toward enrollment in the Coast Guard, and if they won't accept me, I'm pretty confident I can get back in the reserves as their screening is not as stringent.


I'm not all excited that they have banned the pledge as it has been with me since childhood and the familiarity would be lost. If one does not like the pledge, then don't take part. Simple. I will continue to pay homage to those that have served before me and continue to serve. That's my choice and I live with it. I don't inflict it on any one else. Regardless or religion, you still have the right to not participate, that's your choice. You live with it. Don't complain that others are willing to.

I love this nation and the fact that there is so much diversity. I was and still am willing to lay my life on the line to defend the priveledges we have in this nation as a whole. I'm happy I'm not tortured for speaking my mind! I'm happy I'm allowed to have a mind, a home, a job, and a private life that is mine! I fear that our government may be prying and overly watchful at times, but it can be kept at bay with proper representation of the people. If you don't like what's going on, don't idly complain, call your congressman and make your voice heard.

Quote:

---

Its OUR U.S. military might that keeps Canada's citizens sleeping well at night. Remember that.

---

As a has been member of our military, I disagree w/ this. Canada has remained a fairly neutral country in comparison to its neighbor, the US. They have not put them selves out there in the same ways that the US has. This is not a bad thing. There is a lot to be said for a nation that can remain relatively neutral and leave their personal interests at home.


hurt-conveyor - you live in a free country. You can swear in public. A man michigan has recenly won the right to swear in public as he wishes provided it is not directed to another individual in an inflammatory manner. If I could find the link to prove this to you, I would. But I'm at a loss at the moment. Highway laws are there to keep the average joe safe, not to be a detriment to your personal lifestyle. You don't have to obey the laws, but when you start endangering others, you will be ticketed or arrested for doing so.

Quote:

---

IMHO, Neg and GreekGoddess are the only two that had anything decent to say.....Just an opinion. I'll go back to lurking and let you "good ol' boys" go back to telling each other you have the best country in the world....

---

Agreed in many points, but not all. 'nuff said.

Negative, Xmaddnes, GreekGoddes, P2P, I am in agreement with you all, and others here, in many different ways.

I volunteered to die for my freedoms given the chance. I'm happy they're primarily here to start with. Others die for thinking about freedoms which they have never experienced.

Strangely, I'm sorry that some will view this as a nationalist whining session or declaration of national greatnesss, though it isn't. These are merely my thoughts, my opinions, and part of what makes my life worth living.

This is for whoever is throwing around negative anti-points on this thread. This post is set up so that we can voice our opinions. If we get negs for voicing our opinions, then you are no better than the Natzis and Commies. We should have the freedom of speach to be able to voice our opinions in this thread as it is general chit-chat. As far as my post goes, I said nothing that would offend any red-blooded american. I said the truth and sometimes the truth hurts.

hey, chefer, be careful...someone is throwing around negs just for speaking your mind in this thread. Aparently, they don't like us red-blooded Americans voicing our opinions. Just a heads up. Frankly, it bothers me that someone wants to quell our freedoms to post our feelings and thoughts freely in this forum. After all, isn't this a forum for free speech about pretty much anything thats not cracking related?

Lol, stick it to 'em klutz. The problem with a community that empower its users, is that users can abuse that power, and whenever a post is made, it is risking another empowered user's wrath. Thats just how the system works. Oh well, some people agree, some don't and overall this thread is extremely positive so the negs aren't equal to the positives people are getting. P.S. And thanks chris.

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by khakisrule
The problem with a community that empower its users, is that users can abuse that power, and whenever a post is made, it is risking another empowered user's wrath. Thats just how the system works.

---

I would say good point. But I would just get Neg. Points for agreeing with you. lol. I feel that the system that JP has placed into effect is working well. . . although there are those few who just cant resist pressing that Neg. AP button every time they see my posts. I said it before and I will say it agian. . . . You cannot and willnot deture me from stating my opinion. So try as you might. . . . I will keep on going. So get over yourself. "The System" will work itself out.

Back to the matter at hand. . . Someone earlier stated that America was not founded on Christian beliefs. . . . I beg to differ. "Back in tha day". . . . kids learned to read using what? The Bible of course. All Schools and Colleges read from the Bible. Most colleges back then were used to train preachers. So. . . . . Our Country WAS founded on the Bible. And I will continue to say The Pledge. No matter what some damn judge decides.

Yeah, its wrong to change something that has stood for as long as a nation because somebody decides it alienates them from friends, well, I mean, tough. Things happen, make some new friends. That is how things work. As for america being founded on christianity, I don't believe that the main goal in the war against the british was to practice christianity.

No. . . dont get me wrong. . . . I dont think that either. But the fact of the matter is that they did come to America to get away from a religion that was being forced on them. Or thats how I took it. No?

RogueSpy> if that were indeed the case, why was "under god" added some 125+ years after the original pledge was created?

Again, as Negative has stated, the men behind the creation of the United States, as well as the Pledge of Allegicance either didn't like organized religion, or simply weren't attempting to do anything with religion in mind.

Hey, it's your perogative to dislike the founding fathers or who they were and what they were trying to do, but just make sure you have your facts straight.

Remember that The Pledge of Allegiance was not penned until 1892.

http://www.vineyard.net/vineyard/history/pledge.htm

True True. I apologize.

After more than 200 years of an American constitution with a strong bill of rights, it is a mystery that most of us don't understand or particularly care about freedom of speech. Sure, we pay lip service to it, but most people believe in exceptions so grandiose that the rule itself becomes meaningless. "Free speech" becomes an empty phrase, without any kind of scheme or topography behind it. In the end, it is used to mean that "the speech we approve of will be free." [...]

Tolerance follows from humility; it means building legal structures to protect speech with which one does not agree--even speech with which one violently disagrees. Tolerance also means promoting social acceptance of radical ideas--not substantive agreement with the ideas but a procedural recognition that it is all right to disagree. [...]

The human capacity for self-deception is very great. Most men when polled think they are handsome devils, even the ugly ones. Is our pride in the freedom of speech in America based on anything?

In fact, speech has always been less free in this country than we would like to believe. There is a spectrum of what may be styled "permissible speech", and you may say anything you like within the spectrum. When De Tocqueville made his trip to this country, he had hardly set foot on land when he saw a newspaper headline styling President Jackson a "scoundrel", and he was suitably impressed both with the freedom and the nastiness of the expression. What De Tocqueville missed was that, in a two party state, insulting the President, if he is a member of the other party, is well within the permissible range of expression.

While this may make us out to be comparatively free, compared to other countries where a statement like this may lead to harassment or death, there have always been many more ideas that it was not considered permissible to express. Few people fifty years ago, or today, would feel comfortable saying that Joe Stalin would make a good President. You can safely express yourself by waving an American flag, but not by burning one. Most people would not publicly express desire for a member of the same sex, and many who support the legality of abortion no longer care to say so. A Senator who crusades to protect free speech on the Internet backed out of a promise to provide a foreword for my book on the subject because he was afraid he would be construed to be pro-pornography. People taking any kind of principled stand in the community are used to having others tell them privately that they agree but cannot be associated with their views. A curator at the Smithsonian lost his job this year because he dared to put together a show on Hiroshima that told both sides of the story (reporting that some people think the bomb should not have been dropped.) And the hapless Library of Congress has had to cancel a show on Freud, because of the number of threatening anti-Freudians who came out of the woodwork.

Why is this happening, in a country where the First Amendment states that "Congress shall make no law....infringing the freedom of speech"? The First Amendment, even if applied broadly, only protects us against the government, but not our fellow citizen, who may have less respect for our rights even than politicians do.

Most Americans hate some form of speech or another, and wouldn't mind the government intervening to ban it. Communism, pornography, religion in the schools, secularism in the schools, Darwinism, creationism--we all have our bogeyman. If we think something is immoral, it is a natural next step to desire that the government get involved. Similarly, we will shun people who engage in the disfavored speech, and punish them by private means wherever possible.

Society is a web of relationships which work together to keep each of us average in the most banal sense of the word. Before expressing a strong opinion on anything, most of us carry out a practical inventory of possible results: how will the professor, the boss or some other authority figure react? What will the neighbors think? Will we still be accepted by our friends? Will we be thrown out of the PTA? Social obligations and needs, like financial debt, keep most of us from taking any risks. A college professor of mine once said, refusing to become incensed over President Nixon's behavior during Watergate, that it would take a lot more than that to prevent the milk from being delivered to his door each morning. Similarly, most of us feel that it would take a lot more than any given provocation to make it worth sticking our neck out.

One of the most important underpinnings of our Constitution is the idea that good speech will drive out bad, and that therefore the government need not. Your next door neighbor, indignantly reacting to your speech in the town council by making his own, is exercising the right to combat speech with speech when he calls you a Communist or homosexual, but the shame or fear that you feel may be almost as bad as if the government were threatening to intervene in your life. Yet few would disagree that your neighbor has exercised his right of free speech, just as you did yours.

Our fear to express any idea outside of an approved range does not raise a legal issue where there is no threat of government intervention. But it does raise a moral one. There appears to be a grievous difference between the rulebook and the game. The rulebook, the U.S. Constitution, says that we are a nation in which a free dialectic of issues will take place; with the most open and diverse discussion the people will have the widest range of choices and will choose truth. But the unwritten rules that may be deduced from the way the game is actually played say something very different: This is a nation of interests, not issues, and those positions which serve powerful interests may be expressed, while any others may not be. You can call President Jackson a scoundrel because you are advancing the interests of one of the powerful parties in this country. But you cannot oppose the draft, criticize U.S. entry into World War I, or call for the imposition of a Communist government because your highly disfavored speech opposes all of the powerful players in the American game.


http://www.spectacle.org/