Re: Re: Re: to dekeguy
 

Ahh...so right! But then there is that little nuance known as "discrimination". Most fraternity and sorority bylaws kinda outlaw it. Know what I mean? So yeah, you have the PERSONAL freedom to discriminate. But as an org, you are limited by your own constitution. Kind of a weird thing isn't it?

For people like damasa's brother and Blackwatch, if this country is soooo bad why don't you leave?

Though I'm not the type of person who thinks if you're not patriotic you should get out, however I do wonder why some people who despise this country wants to stay.

Re: to dekeguy
 

funny, just the other day i saw this rhetoric and diction on a shirt of a guy wearing a 'montreal skin heads' shirt (in fact it actually said "we won't back down" and featured a boot on the front)...

...not that i'm accusing your organization of replicating the actions or preaching the ideals of this particular group...just an observation.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by dekeguy

As to myself, if you as an American Citizen entitled to the constitutional protections which I swore to uphold when I was commissioned, want to exercise your rights of freedom of expression, so be it - with the understanding that I reserve the right to express myself as well.

*******

Perhaps someone would be kind enough to show me the relevance of Blackwatch's comments regarding my thoughts which he apparently believes attempt to restrict or deny his rights, and what I actually said. I believe my words are clear. I believe that any citizen is entitled to his constitutional rights and that any citizen is free to exercise these rights. If I disagree with an incidental position on a given subject then I have the right to express my disagreement.

Librasoul22, Did I miss something in this thread? You refer to "freedoms that we are allowed", since freedom under our constitution and form of government (which since it is a human organization cannot, by definition, be perfect but seems to me to be in intent and in attempt a lot more respectful of its citizens and their rights than other forms of which I am aware) is a right and not a privelege, who then is doing the allowing?

Re: Re: to dekeguy
 

Well, he certainly doesn't sound like a happy camper to me! Sure, things peeve me (yes, yes, even things about our country at times and I'm not even talking about the current prairie skirt proliferation :D) but I wouldn't flip and go neanderthal about it. Write to your congressman, register to vote.

I find fault in the WAY he would choose to express his opinion. I'm not trying to squelch it, though. I just think temper tantrums are unbecoming and I simply think some things are in poor taste. For example, dropping trou and doing a doody in public, lighting up in the no smoking section, abusing an American Flag. Gleefully participating in behavior that you know is going to shock and offend others....well, it's plain rude.

People aren't going to look at such behavior and think, "Wow, he's such a revolutionary!" or "Gee, why didn't I think of registering my displeasure in that way?". They're going to think, "His mom didn't teach him any manners."

I remember once a political science professor told my class, "A dog knows not to go to the bathroom where it eats and sleeps." I think that's a great metaphor for doing something so outrageously rude to a symbol of our country (and yes, I am aware that it is just that, a symbol. Much like the greek letters we wear) while living here and reaping the benefits of doing so.

Edited for afterthought: Did I actually write "doing a doody"??? I think I'm spending far too much time with little kids.

Re: Re: Re: to dekeguy
 

Thank you for clarifying, KillarneyRose. I actually agree 100% with this post. Although my views about America's government are mostly negative, I would never exhibit them in such uncouth fashion. I mean, I won't wave the flag, but I won't stomp on it either. That's just me.

I might be misunderstanding this question, but in my opinion, our rights as Americans seem to be GIVEN to us by this country's founders and carried out by our present leaders. Do I agree with this system? No. But again, as long as I am GIVEN the freedom to voice a dissenting opinion, I will. Just as you have every right to oppose me. I am not saying that your views are WRONG. I am simply trying to present an alternate point of view.

I think as HUMANS we should not be TOLD what rights to have. However, I acknowledge that realistically, there must be some sort of bylaws and boundaries. But tracing back to the origins of our "rights," I just do not agree with the fundamental BIAS and PREJUDICE with which they are carried out. This, I do not blame on one person, or one branch of legislation, or one political party. Hope this tangent made some sort of coherent sense, lol.

***sidebar***KillarneyRose, I do wish that the whole peasant thing would just leave already. I say we go stomp on some prarie outfits to voice our displeasure! LOL! :D ***end sidebar***

In Reading this whole thread, I am so dissapointed in many Members of GC!

Yes We as individuals have the right to speak our beleifs!

But !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

To Say Our Country SUCKS!!!!

Just where In the World can You Go and more Have More Rights than in the Good Old USA!?

There are People Out In The Real World Who Did 9-11! Why, because they Hated Americans!

Well, let me ask You a Question, What Color, Race, Or Religion are you?

It did not mean a thing to these Animals did it! Hell NO they just Killed!


The People in USA have many more rights than anyother Country!

Yes I do not agree with what is going on right now, But What the Hell do you all in your infinate wisdom suggest>????:confused:

Have you gotten out of your shadow and been to a communist country or Mexico Which beleive it or not is still an emerging Country after all of these years?:confused:

You have the right to your oppinion, yes, Why!

Dont Tread On Me! Ever study History? See That Flag?

I agree, If You Do Not Like This Country, You May Leave!:)

You are the one to make the decision! Do any of you read wht is going on in the World?

Self importance and self pity is underwhelming!

Sigh...and yet I reply...
 

Tom, and everyone else...pay careful attention...

To say that one does not like the way the USA is run IS NOT to imply comparison. Get it? It is not a qualitative statement. It does not read: The United States is WORSE than blahdy-blah. It is simply an expression of UNHAPPINESS at our government's flaws.

Tom, has there ever been a time when you have been somewhat disenchanted with your organization? Did you say, "Well, this pretty much sucks, so left me pack up and leave!" Since your letters are in your sig, I am assuming not. Instead, you probably looked to the root of the problem and dug deeper to find that sense of pride that made you join in the first place, right? Then you took action to eradicate the problem, right?

Well that would be a wonderful solution to apply to this country's problems too. The problem is that United States has disenfranchised SO many groups and created SUCH a rift between the classes that it is nearly impossible to bring about change unless you have some sort of power. That is not to say that it can't be done, but can you understand how the disenfranchised groups are somewhat more frustrated than the rest?

Did you learn anything from the past? You say that you would welcome and African American brother in to your organization with open arms. Do you think this country did the same? No, overt oppression isn't commonplace today. But the fact that it is not as apparent just makes it more dangerous, because it is no less prevalent. Take the time one day to ask that African American brother if he feels that this country welcomes him with open arms.

Drink!

Re: Re: Re: Re: to dekeguy
 

Thanks for your post, librasoul. I, for one, found it very thought provoking. Being a lawyer, however, I have to pick one nit. ;)

I would have to say that the rights in question were not given by someone, but that the citizens of this country (and yes I recognize that in the late 1700's that meant the white, male, land-owning citizens of this country) secured these rights for themselves. They did this as a result of having been denied these rights by the British crown. The Bill of Rights was not originally part of the constitution, but a few states (North Carolina and Rhode Island particularly) refused to ratify the constitution, and therefore refused to enter into the Union, until the Bill of Rights, with all of the freedoms that it guarantees, was adopted. In essence, the citizens (same disclaimer) of NC and RI, through their elected representatives, forced the adoption of the Bill of Rights.

FWIW.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: to dekeguy
 

Thanks for the info! Having family in NC (which is DEEEEP south, no matter what anyone says!), it is hard to imagine them being progressive and radical back in the day! lol.

As far as the Bill of Rights, I am pretty sure the citizens from RI and NC that ensured its inclusion pretty much mirrored the white male land owners who ratified the Constitution.

In essence what I meant was that presently we are still living by these rights, hence they were "given" to us by our forefathers. And I know that we have the power to vote, etc. but that only goes so far. Hey, I live in FL, trust me on that one, lol.

Anyway, next time I argue with my conservative NC family, I will have to point that out! :)

LibraSoul,

I think we are getting to an interesting point in this discussion. Granted, the courts have held that a US Citizen has the right to express himself in many ways including treating the flag of our country in ways which I personally find grossly inappropriate. I believe the point has been made that the right to do something may or may not demonstrate its appropriateness. Since it can reasonablly be argued that appropriateness is rather subjective may we please accept that we disagree in good conscience and move on to another point. If I understand your comments you say that while not comparing our form of government with any other, you dislike and are disappointed with what we have in place.
OK, I don't think any reasonable person would seriously argue that what we have is perfect. Any human institution is by its very nature flawed and capable of improvement. However, I would argue that at least a certain amount of comparison would appear to me to be necessary if only to see if anyone else had developed something that works better and serves the interests of the citizen better. That would allow us to examine what we have in place, compare it to alternatives and come to consensus so that we might adopt those aspects we agree would improve the status quo.
It is a bit unclear to me if your position argues for improvements to government in its current form or if it seeks a fundamental change to the form and nature of our government. In either case, I think it would be interesting if you would propose what changes and/or improvements ought to be made. We might disagree or we might well find that there are large areas where we agree completely.
I would argue against a radical change to the form and nature of our government on two points. First, of all alternative forms of government of which I am aware, ours seems to be something that works reasonably well and demonstrably better than the known alternatives (at least those known by me), is capable of improvement in response to the consensus of the electorate, and despite any of its flaws seeks to benefit its citizens. It is by no means perfect, but we can amend and improve what is as we seek what ought to be. In taking the long view it seems to me that considering where we were, we have come a long way to fixing what was not right and doing what is right. Of course we have a long way to go and many real challenges to meet and overcome, but I believe that the vehicle provided by our constitution provides the the best of the alternatives for us as a nation to get to where we should eventually be.
Second, when I was commissioned in the Army I swore to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States of America. I believe in our constitution and I take that oath very seriously. So by extension, I believe in protecting your right to disagree with my opinion, but I personally have to come down solidly in favor of keeping what we have and polishing the rough spots as we go forward.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: to dekeguy
 

I feel your pain. :eek:
Thanks for your response!

dekeguy, I actually agree with your last post completely. I do agree that IDEALLY, the system that is set up is the best possible one. However, REALISTICALLY, is it not carried out as it was intended. Or maybe it is. Let me explain.

The form of government that we are under is not what bothers me. It is the the way it is practiced, which fosters classism, oppression, and a general hierarchy. It has nothing to do with the structure of the government, instead it is about the people who are running it, and the mentality that has pervaded the leadership of this country since day one.

In this society, capital is power. I doubt anyone will argue with that. The problem is that the capital rests with ONE group of people, and they are not interested in seeing any other group progress. In fact, they are threatened by it, so they find covert ways to stifle it. The fact that this cycle perpetuates itself is what concerns me. I don't blame the GOVERNMENT ITSELF so much as I blame the corrupt nature of the people in it. Does that clear it up?