Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 3
Posted: 10/7/2001 1:15:31 PM EDT
Another great article: [url]http://slate.msn.com/framegame/entries/01-10-04_116780.asp[/url]
Link Posted: 10/7/2001 1:36:06 PM EDT
...and the sheeple will accuse you of being anti-american, isolationist and terrorist sympathizer for agreeing with what was said in the article. Blind loyalty and trust, be it to a political party or government does not make one a patriot.
Link Posted: 10/7/2001 1:54:27 PM EDT
Extreamisim in the suport of liberty, is a good vice to have.
Link Posted: 10/7/2001 2:19:24 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/7/2001 3:40:14 PM EDT by zazou]
the cultural change that will result from 9/11 is going to be ugly, though most will percieve the intent as 'good' We have been cultured for decades that the Government will take care of us, that it is here to help. It is, however, solely a band of powerseekers using their positions, regardless of intent, to force individuals to compliance of the laws [b]they[/b] choose to make. We are now begging them to pass laws, every one of them in some way repressive, again regardless of intent, that once the objective of that law is fufilled the law itself will remain and be used against the american people. This is a fact. It is historically evident. Zaz
Link Posted: 10/7/2001 2:38:14 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Imbroglio: Blind loyalty and trust, be it to a political party or government does not make one a patriot.
View Quote
Do you consider yourself a patriot?
Link Posted: 10/7/2001 2:45:40 PM EDT
Originally Posted By sr15:
Originally Posted By Imbroglio: Blind loyalty and trust, be it to a political party or government does not make one a patriot.
View Quote
Do you consider yourself a patriot?
View Quote
Sure, lets all follow the likes a Imbroglio, a brilliant political mind. He can fix whats wrong with the world.[rolleyes]
Link Posted: 10/7/2001 3:41:09 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/7/2001 3:38:56 PM EDT by zazou]
Originally Posted By Sukebe: Sure, lets all follow the likes a Imbroglio, a brilliant political mind. He can fix whats wrong with the world.[rolleyes]
View Quote
Exaclty. That's the point. When did it and why do you insist that we solve the problems of the world? When did Neutrality become bad and derogitorily become labelled Isolationism? Patriotism and Freedom would be exhibited by one who agreesa to all they have promised to do and does not encroach on other persons or theit property. Patriotism and Freedom would be exhibited by the desire to see that our Government did not meddle in the afairs of the countrys citizens, nor those of foreign nations. Pariotism was exhibited by our Nations builders by declining to be involved with the political alignments of their times. They were interested in Life, Liverty and the pusuit of Happiness. Every law our Government makes encroaches on one of those ideals. I don't know Imbro. but I would guess by his posts that he has a firm grasp on Liberty and Patriotism. Do you? Zaz
Link Posted: 10/7/2001 4:10:04 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/7/2001 4:06:13 PM EDT by sr15]
Main Entry: pa·tri·ot·ism Pronunciation: 'pA-trE-&-"ti-z&m, chiefly British 'pa- Function: noun Date: circa 1726 : love for or devotion to one's country Main Entry: pa·tri·ot Pronunciation: 'pA-trE-&t, -"ät, chiefly British 'pa-trE-&t Function: noun Etymology: Middle French patriote compatriot, from Late Latin patriota, from Greek patriOtEs, from patria lineage, from patr-, patEr father Date: 1605 : one who loves his or her country and supports its authority and interests source: [url]http://www.m-w.com/home.htm[/url]
Link Posted: 10/7/2001 4:28:25 PM EDT
Yep, a patriot. Kinda like Jane Hanoi Fonda. So what have all of you "patriots" done for your country? Gave us your presence is all I'll bet. Flame away, but you are part of the problem, not part of the solution.
Link Posted: 10/7/2001 4:36:26 PM EDT
Jane Fonda was most definitely NOT a patriot, nor am I any way ideological similar to her. An American Patriot is one who believes the same ideals as the Founding Fathers: Liberty, Limited Gov't, and non-interventionism. Ron Paul is most likely the ONLY federal official who fits this description. What have I done? I've given money to the NRA, GOA, SAF, LewRockwell.com, among many others. I've protested the UN in New York, and the MMM's in Harrisburg, PA. I've written numerous letters to my elected officials. I've voted in every election I could, for those who I believed could help restore our Constitution. I have armed myself, and prepared for the day I might have to defend my state and my country, from both foreign AND domestic enemies. What have you done?
Link Posted: 10/7/2001 5:01:15 PM EDT
Well, lets see. I have spent the majority of my life in the service of my county. Seven years in the US Army. Three of those were on the East German border during the height of the Cold War. I did this, to make sure you have a right to spout off, and denegrate the United States. I have served as a deputy sheriff for the past 18 years. During that time I have, done all I can to defend and protect the rights given all american citizens. I have not given money or time to fringe political movements. I have not given time to listen to "sunshine" patriots who claim to know it all. I do not distrust our government. I do not always agree with it either. When I disagree I take action at the polling place. I have voted from an OP on the East German Border in the dead of winter. I have stood by while Democrats tried to steal the last election and observed the recount in my county. I did this as a deputy sheriff to insure no non legal methodology was used. What kind of solution do you have for the current crisis?
Link Posted: 10/7/2001 5:59:18 PM EDT
Hey Stg44, While my current job as a machinist involves the shameful process of actually producing something useful, I previously spent 4 years in the Army, 2 in the National Guard, and I'm an Endowment Member of that "fringe" NRA, a longtime member of the "fringe" GOA and the "fringe" LEA, plus I have personally run for Congress twice and debated gun control and just about every other issue with my incumbent congressman in front of live and TV audiences of thousands. I'll tell you, I do distrust our government, and the current mindless rush to give it more powers scares the hell out of me. And by the way, Sukebe, from what I've read Imbroglio actually IS one of the most brilliant political minds of our time. At least compared to who's running the show now. If half of our congressmen and senators had his clear vision unclouded by lynch-mob mentality and his grasp of the principles of liberty and limited government, I expect this country would be in much better shape than it is now.
Link Posted: 10/7/2001 6:38:53 PM EDT
Well Fuzzbean, I'm glad you are a vet. I'm happy you have given money to the NRA. I have as well. I do know, however, it is time for all good americans to come to the aid of their government. We can do the arguments, and second guessing later. Right now, all the BS out there is doing nothing but giving aid to our enemy's. Just as the demonstrations against the war during Vietnam gave aid and comfort to the North Vietnamese. I, for one, am often agast at some of the things our government has done. Especially during the Clinton term. Right now is the time to put it aside. It is the time to do what we have to do to win what is shaping up to be a long bitter fight. No, I don't want to give up the rights that I have helped defend for most of my life. But what is the solution so many "patriots" seem to offer? Kinda like some of the much despised soccer moms. Let's not do anything to upset them, so they won't hit us again. Well, that is not a viable answer. Isolationism by the United States led directly to WWII. When the senate did not ratify the League of Nations, Japan saw an opening and started hostilities in Manchuria. The Italians started using poision gas in Ethopia. The Germans marched into the Rhineland, Austria, and cut up and took over the Cezh's. This was caused because a world power, the United States, wanted only to deal with local issues. We ran the hell out of South America, with dozens of actions in bananna republics. Because we were only concerned with what happened in our limited sphere, we got ourselves attacked and involved in the largest, bloodiest world war. If we had been involved in the implementation of the Versailles treaty, the league of nations, and other issues, it is agruable that WWII would not have happened. If we want to be a great nation, a world power, we have no choice but to be involved. Greatness has costs associated. You might want to review Teddy Roosevelts statements on timid souls.
Link Posted: 10/7/2001 7:05:34 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Stg44:Well, lets see. I have spent the majority of my life in the service of my county. Seven years in the US Army. Three of those were on the East German border during the height of the Cold War. I did this, to make sure you have a right to spout off, and denegrate the United States.
View Quote
How is upholding the principles of liberty denigrating the US? If that is true, then the US has gotten far away from its founding principles. Oh, wait, I guess that is true
I have served as a deputy sheriff for the past 18 years. During that time I have, done all I can to defend and protect the rights given all american citizens. I have not given money or time to fringe political movements.
View Quote
I don't consider any of the orgs I give money to as "fringe", but as Samual Adams said:"It takes a tireless minority working to convince the majority of its cause"
I have not given time to listen to "sunshine" patriots who claim to know it all. I do not distrust our government.
View Quote
You do not distrust our gov't?? Where in the hell have you been? Do you even remember waco? How about the entire body of law passed by congress? I do not see how anybody can trust the gov't.
I do not always agree with it either. When I disagree I take action at the polling place. I have voted from an OP on the East German Border in the dead of winter. I have stood by while Democrats tried to steal the last election and observed the recount in my county. I did this as a deputy sheriff to insure no non legal methodology was used.
View Quote
I take action at the polls too. But that is not the only thing I do either.
What kind of solution do you have for the current crisis?
View Quote
Kill the terrorists, change our current foreign policy, and eliminate almost every single law we have on the books.
Link Posted: 10/7/2001 7:52:31 PM EDT
Originally Posted By libertyof76: ... change our current foreign policy...
View Quote
What specifically would you like to see changed?
Link Posted: 10/7/2001 8:02:16 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Stg44:I do know, however, it is time for all good americans to come to the aid of their government. We can do the arguments, and second guessing later.
View Quote
Problem with that is, that by the time you want us to 2nd guess, it already is to late. Do you release how hard it is to change a law once it is already on the books? it is almost impossible.
No, I don't want to give up the rights that I have helped defend for most of my life. But what is the solution so many "patriots" seem to offer?
View Quote
To kill the terrorists, but also review and change what we have been doing.
Kinda like some of the much despised soccer moms. Let's not do anything to upset them, so they won't hit us again.
View Quote
Some of the "peace" people are saying that, but I'm not. so don't confuse us.
Well, that is not a viable answer. Isolationism by the United States led directly to WWII. When the senate did not ratify the League of Nations, Japan saw an opening and started hostilities in Manchuria. The Italians started using poision gas in Ethopia. The Germans marched into the Rhineland, Austria, and cut up and took over the Cezh's. This was caused because a world power, the United States, wanted only to deal with local issues. We ran the hell out of South America, with dozens of actions in bananna republics.
View Quote
No, you're wrong here. WWII was caused by WWI, which was caused by interventionism. WWI was at a draw when we entered it, and most likely they would have stopped fighting, pulled back and there would have been no winner. With no winner, that means there is no loser to punish, like we did with Germany. That led the disgruntlement of many, many Germans, who were easily led astray by hitler. So no WWI, no WII.
Because we were only concerned with what happened in our limited sphere, we got ourselves attacked and involved in the largest, bloodiest world war.
View Quote
No, because we wanted to intervene in WWI, that led us to get involved in WWII. Plus, FDR led and let the Japanese to bomb Pearl Harbor.
If we had been involved in the implementation of the Versailles treaty, the league of nations, and other issues, it is agruable that WWII would not have happened.
View Quote
No, we WERE involved in the Versailles Treaty, and that led to the rise of the Nazi's. That was the problem. The League of Nations is just like todays UN. It was for the implementation of socialism, and the elimination of sovereignty, and all of the liberties you claim to hold dear. That is not an good choice. If we want to be a great nation, a world power,
we have no choice but to be involved. Greatness has costs associated. You might want to review Teddy Roosevelts statements on timid souls.
View Quote
We can be a great nation, but only by being good. We have ceased to be good, by our many contradictory interventions, among other thins, so we are ceasing to be great.
Link Posted: 10/7/2001 8:06:34 PM EDT
Originally Posted By sr15:
Originally Posted By libertyof76: ... change our current foreign policy...
View Quote
What specifically would you like to see changed?
View Quote
End all foreign monetary aid. End all stationing of troops overseas. End all treaty's that give up our sovereignty. Pull out of the UN and NATO, and every other international org.
Link Posted: 10/7/2001 8:19:23 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/7/2001 8:16:48 PM EDT by Stg44]
You obviously know all about history there is to know. So, I'll stop wasting my, and your time. BTW, I am a bit of an insider into what led up to the BATF's search warrant for the Branch Dividians. I was even called by a Waco newspaper and interivewed. I know some of the key players, and have even seen the sealed affidavit for search warrant by the BATF. So, I really don't need you to tell me what the hell went on there.
Link Posted: 10/7/2001 8:26:47 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Stg44: If we had been involved in the implementation of the Versailles treaty, the league of nations, and other issues, it is agruable that WWII would not have happened.
View Quote
It is also arguable that during WW1 the European powers had fought each other to the point of mutual exhaustion prior to Wilson involving the U.S. in the conflict. They might have ended the conflict in some less imbalanced fashion if we had not interfered, and Hitler would not have had the Versailles Treaty to use later as a tool to gain power in Germany. Speculating about the past in this manner is fairly useless. In the present, I do not feel that the fact that bin Laden thinks U.S. policy is bad necessarily makes U.S. policy good. My solution to the current dilemma involves killing bin Laden and probably from 10 to 100 other individuals who can be proven to have played actual roles in the attacks, using the sneakiest methods we can conjure up. It also involves ending genuinely unjust U.S. policies that have been irritating the Muslim world for decades. I think it is foolish to stubbornly continue doing stupid things just to spite our enemies who have pointed out they're stupid. Bush has set off on his course now, and I sincerely hope it works out. I hope they got those cruise missiles fine-tuned and civilian casualties are extremely minor. But it sure seems to me it would be a lot more ominous for our enemies if one day bin Laden just keeled over after drinking his tea; if his right-hand man just disappeared and was never found; if his left-hand man was found out in the open desert with a .50 Whisper bullet in his head; if his chief man in Europe just died mysteriously after being accidently poked with an umbrella in the London subway. Who's going to jump up to take their places under those circumstances? Compare that to what will happen if we accidently blow up a bunch of Afghan school kids with our airstrikes. Of course, what bothers me most is the infringements of our rights that the Bush administration is calling for here at home. This "Office of Homeland Security" sounds like a monster in the making. MORE wiretapping authority? MORE warrantless or secret searches? MORE "detention" without charges filed? Remember, Stg44, the Bill of Rights was not written for the times when rights are popular or convenient, it was written for times like this. Undermine it now, and I'm convinced the day will come when our own government will do things to us that will make September 11th pale in comparison. And why the heck hasn't Bush supported arming pilots? Gee whiz, they are already FLYING THE PLANE. What higher level of trust could there possibly be? P.S. After you've stood up and debated healthcare with your congressman in front of TV cameras and hundreds of people, THEN you can lecture me about timidity.
Link Posted: 10/7/2001 8:35:03 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Fuzzbean: Compare that to what will happen if we accidently blow up a bunch of Afghan school kids with our airstrikes.
View Quote
From what I have been hearing the only schools they have around there are terrorist ones, so if we did blow up some school kids we would just be killing some future terrorists. [(:)]
Link Posted: 10/7/2001 8:41:25 PM EDT
Originally Posted By libertyof76: Jane Fonda was most definitely NOT a patriot, nor am I any way ideological similar to her. An American Patriot is one who believes the same ideals as the Founding Fathers: Liberty, Limited Gov't, and non-interventionism.
View Quote
Really?? both you and Jane don't like interventionism. I'm sure Jane feels strongly about free speech and not having to answer to the the govenrment for her actions. You may diverge how big you feel the government should be.......
Link Posted: 10/7/2001 8:45:38 PM EDT
Originally Posted By libertyof76:
Originally Posted By sr15:
Originally Posted By libertyof76: ... change our current foreign policy...
View Quote
What specifically would you like to see changed?
View Quote
End all foreign monetary aid. End all stationing of troops overseas. End all treaty's that give up our sovereignty. Pull out of the UN and NATO, and every other international org.
View Quote
We can be a great nation, but only by being good. We have ceased to be good, by our many contradictory interventions, among other thins, so we are ceasing to be great.
View Quote
Ok, let me see if I've got this straight. You think that the US forign policy provoked the attacks. And if we followed the ideas you sugest above, there would be no attacks. Is this correct?
Link Posted: 10/7/2001 9:02:48 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/7/2001 8:58:49 PM EDT by OLY-M4gery]
What he is saying is that he doesn't see a problem if we totally withdrew from the rest of the world. He might want to consider the effects on the economy and the ability of the US to get raw materials that are neccesary for the security of the nation. Jee no US Forces overseas..... I guess he would want to buy all his gas from the Emperor of the Mid-East Saddam Hussein, with his Minister of What the Koran Says Bin Laden. It would be great to be a US citizen and travel overseas if all the other countries knew the US had a phobia about dealings outside its borders. Imagine if you got stopped for jay-walking in Paris what those snooty French would do to you if they knew they could get away with anything they wanted. Ok, enough being wise, but think about that for a bit if a US tourist was accused of a SERIOUS crime overseas. Imbroglio has his share of one liners. It is always easier to review that to actually do however. What has he actually done? Let me know I'm ready to review.
Link Posted: 10/7/2001 9:11:41 PM EDT
Originally Posted By OLY-M4gery: He might want to consider the effects on the economy and the ability of the US to get raw materials that are neccesary for the security of the nation. Jee no US Forces overseas..... I guess he would want to buy all his gas from the Emperor of the Mid-East Saddam Hussein, with his Minister of What the Koran Says Bin Laden.
View Quote
Yea, that's kind of where I was heading with this. You beat me to it though.
Imbroglio has his share of one liners. It is always easier to review that to actually do however. What has he actually done? Let me know I'm ready to review.
View Quote
Trying to get that out too. Something tells me he's not going to answer though.
Link Posted: 10/7/2001 9:22:50 PM EDT
Originally Posted By OLY-M4gery:
Originally Posted By libertyof76: Jane Fonda was most definitely NOT a patriot, nor am I any way ideological similar to her. An American Patriot is one who believes the same ideals as the Founding Fathers: Liberty, Limited Gov't, and non-interventionism.
View Quote
Really?? both you and Jane don't like interventionism. I'm sure Jane feels strongly about free speech and not having to answer to the the govenrment for her actions. You may diverge how big you feel the government should be.......
View Quote
Oly, You have stooped to a new low. Equating Mr. '76 with Jane Fonda is pretty sick. Libertyof76 has consistently stuck by the principals of the founders, especially limited government. This limited government view seems to be a particularly disdainful way of life for both Jane Fonda and those that suck the blood of the taxpayer, why does it bother you, and Stg44 so much? I guess I shouldn't ask questions that I know the answer to. rDAm
Link Posted: 10/7/2001 9:38:09 PM EDT
Originally Posted By OLY-M4gery: He might want to consider the effects on the economy and the ability of the US to get raw materials that are neccesary for the security of the nation. Jee no US Forces overseas..... I guess he would want to buy all his gas from the Emperor of the Mid-East Saddam Hussein, with his Minister of What the Koran Says Bin Laden.
View Quote
Isn't that really up to the Arab nations and people? How do you justify using our armed forces overseas to install governments that do not have popular local support so you can pay a 1.50 per gallon for gas or affords us the opportunity to buy raw materials at a value [b]you[/b] think is fair? Do you believe the Bill of Rights is exclusive to Americans? And last time I checked the two wing-nuts you mentioned, husein and Laden, came to power by our hand and money. What do you think of that foreign policy? Zaz
Link Posted: 10/7/2001 9:39:58 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Stg44: Well, lets see. I have spent the majority of my life in the service of my county. Seven years in the US Army. Three of those were on the East German border during the height of the Cold War. I did this, to make sure you have a right to spout off, and denegrate the United States. I have served as a deputy sheriff for the past 18 years. During that time I have, done all I can to defend and protect the rights given all american citizens. I have not given money or time to fringe political movements. I have not given time to listen to "sunshine" patriots who claim to know it all. I do not distrust our government. I do not always agree with it either. When I disagree I take action at the polling place. I have voted from an OP on the East German Border in the dead of winter. I have stood by while Democrats tried to steal the last election and observed the recount in my county. I did this as a deputy sheriff to insure no non legal methodology was used. What kind of solution do you have for the current crisis?
View Quote
That’s all nice '44, but just remember when you are freezing your ass off in some mudhole in Europe, or sweatin' to the oldies in Florida, I *NEVER* asked you to do *ANYTHING* for me. Nor will I. There is nothing you or any other tax leech can do that I can't do better by myself for my self, or through private contract, especially when it comes to self-protection. I wonder how many people came up to you and said; "Mr. '44, please man the east German border, 'cuz I am so scared!" or "We need you to write speeding tickets 'cuz were afraid of those damn kids driving over 55!". No one that I know ever asked that of you. rDAm
Link Posted: 10/7/2001 9:53:50 PM EDT
Invictus, If you don't see a similarity between Jane's "the US shouldn't be here", and Liberty's view on foriegn policy you just aren't looking. Excuse me for not toe'ing the I hate government secret plot X-file tin foil beanie view of the world. Zazou, Yes we supplied weapons to people like bin Laden. At the time the US felt that it was more important that the Russians not take over Afghanistan. People in the know say 2 things happened after the Russians pulled out. The US stopped all aid to Afghanistan. That caused hard feelings, supposedly if we had sent food and medicine some of the hard feelings toward the US wouldn't be there now. We put troops in Saudi Arabia during the Gulf War. bin Laden supposedly sees this as an affront to Islam. We didn't put Saddam Hussien in power. He killed his uncle to get in. We put the Shah of Iran in tho'
Link Posted: 10/7/2001 9:58:29 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Invictus: There is nothing you or any other tax leech can do that I can't do better by myself for my self, or through private contract, especially when it comes to self-protection. rDAm
View Quote
I'm glad everyone doesn't feel this way. It would really suck to loose 341 firefighters in vain.
Link Posted: 10/7/2001 10:12:10 PM EDT
Ok so what do you want to know? I haven't served in the military, and it appears that many here believe if you don't have a DD214 to waive around then you are not a loyal citizen. That is pure bullshit. We do not live in a Heinline story. I guess Vietnam veterans like John "close the gunshow loophole" Mccain and Bob "I helped ban assault weapons" Kerry are to be commended protectors of our freedoms. I have been politically active for over 13 years seeing things from my support of both political parties and realizing that when it came down to brass tacks, they were one in the same- striving for bigger government and infringment of our rights. I have written reps and senators, I am in the LP, I have called into radio shows to debate socialists, I am a 9 year member of the NRA and *gasp* I was in an actual militia. How much more are you people willing to accept as sheeple CALL FOR and get a government that will only resemble a mere shell of what the founders fought over 6 years and many gave their lives for? Probably alot, that is until the next infringement affects you personally but by then it will be too late. Do you really believe that Harris and Gallup surveyed only democrats in their recent "will you give up rights for liberty" polls? I don't think so. This is what I mean by blind loyalty. I have seen this time and time again- people more easily accept and rationalize infringements as long as it is proposed by their own political party.
Link Posted: 10/7/2001 10:19:30 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/7/2001 10:25:00 PM EDT by OLY-M4gery]
Freedom isn't free........ seems that people who did nothing to pay for it are a lot more mouthy about "their rights" than those that have actually paid a small part of the price. Zazou, We still have to ensure that the US is protected. Some have said having access to oil is vital to the national interest. That's why that is important. Imbroglio, If you are sayin that you are concenred that the Gov't is too intrusive and may get more so now...... I think you have something there. But there is always a question, some want very little to no government and other want everything done for them by the government, and few want to pay taxes.... Waht amount of governement is "proper"? No 2 people seem in total agreement when asked that. In the meantime many want the "nanny-state". Providing day care, health, care, and on and on. I think that prior to 9/11 some in government were saying that terror attacks were possible. Many people were blissfully unaware, some were discounting the possibilty, and a few were making their SHTF plans (maybe not with terrorsim in mind but none the less). Now the blissful masses have woken up, security is now an issue. Laws will be passed speeches will be made. 2 years from now the blissfully unaware will have slipped back into their "thought comas". 10 years from now they will be repealing "terrorism laws", saying that they were an over reaction.
Link Posted: 10/7/2001 10:38:06 PM EDT
Originally Posted By OLY-M4gery: Freedom isn't free........ seems that people who did nothing to pay for it are a lot more mouthy about "their rights" than those that have actually paid a small part of the price.
View Quote
Very true Oly-M4gery. I support my country and keep a weary eye on the Government, that's just common sense. But most of these other radical thinkers (Liberty,Invictus and so forth) truely are handicapped by their age, they just haven't experienced enough life yet. Their thinking will change as life changes them. Yes the USA's over seas policies need to be revieved. But not supporting other nations is like you or me not helping out a neighbor. Everyone relies on others...the same is true for countries wheathet you like it or not. It is thru treaties and sharing that we have brought about more peace in the world these last centuries. Before when countries kept knowledge and goods to themselves is were greed and war would often raise it's ugly head. Obviously this is not true in all situations. And yes we helped Bin Ladin obtain power yet he still hates us, that makes no sense! Some of these people will never be happy till all government is gone, and then they will really be surprised. Fact is Government is a necessary evil.
Link Posted: 10/7/2001 11:15:17 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/7/2001 11:10:26 PM EDT by zazou]
Originally Posted By OLY-M4gery: Zazou, We still have to ensure that the US is protected. Some have said having access to oil is vital to the national interest. That's why that is important.
View Quote
just what the hell is an 'interest?' First, we died for liberty, the it was downgraded to 'ensuring democracy' adn now we go to war over our national interests. So, what, we can suspend the theory of the Bill of Rights as it pertains to another country ot protect out interests. Very Freedom loving of you...as long as you are an American. The US consumes 45% of the worlds oil. If these countries don't sell it to us, what are they going to do, drink it? Laws of supply and demand and natural economic theory will dictate. Iraq, Saudi, Kuwait would get into a price war over who got our money. That is how you solve it. Get out, buy from teh lowest bidder. How much do we spend keeping these lines open? Billions. The highrer cost would easily be offset by the lack of need to militarily police the area. not to mention countries like Venezuela want ot sell to us. And we have our own oil as well. Our military there forcing the situation to remain as it is is a protection racket. At the threat of our force they sell us oil at a prince you think is fair. If you are upset by the price, you force it...at the point of a gun.
Originally Posted By Invictus: There is nothing you or any other tax leech can do that I can't do better by myself for my self, or through private contract, especially when it comes to self-protection. rDAm ------------------------------------------------------------------------ reply posted by sr15: I'm glad everyone doesn't feel this way. It would really suck to loose 341 firefighters in vain.
View Quote
You God Damn well know that is not what he meant and you make me sick that you even suggest it. You are a sad bastard. And by the way, there are several private contract Fire and Ambulance companies in this country that a very good at what they do, among the best. And they do it for less per cap. than [b]any[/b] public Fire and Resuce service. Zaz
Link Posted: 10/7/2001 11:23:43 PM EDT
Zaz, perhaps you should calm down. The Bill of Rights applies to US citizens in the US. Not French citizens in Japan. You put that supply and demand thing in. That is usually applied to consumer goods like shoes and hats. Not neccesities like food or oil for heat. Also that goes hand in hand with monopolies being bad. If Saddam stayed in Kuwait do you really think he would have stopped there?? Of course he would still sell oil, maybe $1000.00 a barrel. Venezuala will sel us oil. The oil from there is lower quality and yeilds less product when refined than Mid-East oil. Of course they would probaby like to jack up prices too. The price their oli a little below the OPEC price. So theirs would be $950 when Saddam's is $1000.
Link Posted: 10/7/2001 11:34:56 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/7/2001 11:38:17 PM EDT by sr15]
Originally Posted By zazou: Originally Posted By Invictus: There is nothing you or any other tax leech can do that I can't do better by myself for my self, or through private contract, especially when it comes to self-protection. rDAm ------------------------------------------------------------------------ reply posted by sr15: I'm glad everyone doesn't feel this way. It would really suck to loose 341 firefighters in vain.
View Quote
You God Damn well know that is not what he meant and you make me sick that you even suggest it. You are a sad bastard.
View Quote
I still think I interpreted it the way he meant it. If not, please tell me what he means.
And by the way, there are several private contract Fire and Ambulance companies in this country that a very good at what they do, among the best.
View Quote
Actually, there are a lot more than several. I serve as the Assistant Chief and as a board member of one of them, so you are not telling me anything I don't know. And believe me, the above comment sickened me much more than it did you.
And they do it for less per cap. than [b]any[/b] public Fire and Resuce service.
View Quote
Not true at all!
Link Posted: 10/8/2001 12:01:29 AM EDT
Originally Posted By OLY-M4gery: Invictus, If you don't see a similarity between Jane's "the US shouldn't be here", and Liberty's view on foriegn policy you just aren't looking.
View Quote
Actually I have looked. There is a huge difference between the two. Your suggestion that Red-Janes "the US shouldn't be here, 'cuz I want my *Progressive* socialist regime in power" is in any way shape form or fashion similar to '76's view of "the US should not be interfering in the affairs of other countries as a matter of policy established by *George Washington* himself, is so morally and intellectually bankrupt I hardly believe that even you would say that!
Excuse me for not toe'ing the I hate government secret plot X-file tin foil beanie view of the world.
View Quote
You are excused. I haven't seen anyone stating anything vaguely resembling what you just said. I have seen many getting a little edgy with all the liberty-bashers here. I can see you being defensive about that.
Zazou, Yes we supplied weapons to people like bin Laden. At the time the US felt that it was more important that the Russians not take over Afghanistan. People in the know say 2 things happened after the Russians pulled out. The US stopped all aid to Afghanistan. That caused hard feelings, supposedly if we had sent food and medicine some of the hard feelings toward the US wouldn't be there now. We put troops in Saudi Arabia during the Gulf War. bin Laden supposedly sees this as an affront to Islam.
View Quote
Actually the ten-year bombing/no fly zone/embargo of Iraq and the ten year occupation of Saudi Arabia is what is getting on Mr. Bin Ladens's nerves. At least from the translations of numerous interviews I have seen. Unfortunately since Madeline Albright thought that it's "Acceptable" that half a million children in Iraq have died from the impeded flow of medical, sanitation, and food supplies. He has since decided that American civilians, even children are now fair game. Please note the escalation in targeting. Embassies (all Feds), Barracks (all Military, in S.A.), USS Cole (full of young squiddly-diddly's), and now [drum roll] the WTC, and others targets with aircraft full of unsuspecting and federally disarmed rabbits just ripe for the slaughter. What a tragedy that 7,000 Americans had to pay for the arrogance of the elite.
We didn't put Saddam Hussien in power. He killed his uncle to get in. We put the Shah of Iran in tho'
View Quote
Not to bust anyone’s bubble but the CIA was hip-deep in the effort to remove the previous Iraqi regime. Forgive me that I can't exactly recall the mans name now but I think it was Kasem or something like that. Anyway *WE DID* get the ball rolling that got S. Hussein in the saddle. Again now we are paying the price for our intervention in all things foreign rDAm
Link Posted: 10/8/2001 12:55:01 AM EDT
Originally Posted By sr15:
Originally Posted By Invictus: There is nothing you or any other tax leech can do that I can't do better by myself for my self, or through private contract, especially when it comes to self-protection. rDAm
View Quote
I'm glad everyone doesn't feel this way. It would really suck to loose 341 firefighters in vain.
View Quote
------------------------------------------------
Originally Posted By sr15: I still think I interpreted it the way he meant it. If not, please tell me what he means.
View Quote
Here is a clue sr15, If you have any questions about what I have said or written you are free to ask me. Your interpretation skills are lacking. This of course does not discount Zazou's interpretation of your character, it sure appears to be "spot on". Just what in the above statement have I said that I am glad to see any firefighters die? I never did. If these same people were from a private company, would I feel any different? Of course not. Would you? All I said is that I can do anything supposedly accomplished via a gubmint agency better by myself, or through a private contract. You need to read it over if it didn't sink in the first time. Since you are incapable of generating sympathy for leeches you try to take a pot shot at me. Congratulations are in order as you have joined the rather exclusive "Cheap Shot Artist" Club. I hope you enjoy the company you keep. rDAm
Link Posted: 10/8/2001 1:29:41 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Invictus: There is nothing you or any other tax leech can do that I can't do better by myself for my self, or through private contract, especially when it comes to self-protection. rDAm
View Quote
I'm glad everyone doesn't feel this way. It would really suck to loose 341 firefighters in vain.
View Quote
Just what in the above statement have I said that I am glad to see any firefighters die? I never did
View Quote
I agree. Nowhere did I say or imply that you were glad firefighters died.
If these same people were from a private company, would I feel any different? Of course not.
View Quote
I wouldn't expect you to.
Would you?
View Quote
Of course not. I've been on a private fire department for 5 years and a public fire department for 5 years. Firefighters are fighters.
All I said is that I can do anything supposedly accomplished via a gubmint agency better by myself, or through a private contract. You need to read it over if it didn't sink in the first time.
View Quote
No, what you said is above. I've probably read what you wrote more times than you have by now. Your original comments were in a reply to a Sherifs deputy. You called him a tax leech and claimed you did not want or need his services. I don't know how else to interpret it.
Since you are incapable of generating sympathy for leeches you try to take a pot shot at me.
View Quote
Don't tell me about sympathy! I've been to firefighter funerals before and it is a horible experience. Believe me, I am quite capable of generating sympathy for any public servant.
Congratulations are in order as you have joined the rather exclusive "Cheap Shot Artist" Club. I hope you enjoy the company you keep. rDAm
View Quote
I'm sorry, I still do not understand how this was a cheap shot. You claimed you don't want or need public service from "tax leeches" and all I did was point out a flaw in your thinking. I stand by what I said. I'm glad everyone doesn't think like that. If they did 341 firefighters would have died in vain. Seems pretty straight foward to me.
Link Posted: 10/8/2001 1:44:47 AM EDT
Originally Posted By OLY-M4gery: Zaz, perhaps you should calm down. The Bill of Rights applies to US citizens in the US. Not French citizens in Japan. You put that supply and demand thing in. That is usually applied to consumer goods like shoes and hats. Not neccesities like food or oil for heat. Also that goes hand in hand with monopolies being bad. If Saddam stayed in Kuwait do you really think he would have stopped there?? Of course he would still sell oil, maybe $1000.00 a barrel. Venezuala will sel us oil. The oil from there is lower quality and yeilds less product when refined than Mid-East oil. Of course they would probaby like to jack up prices too. The price their oli a little below the OPEC price. So theirs would be $950 when Saddam's is $1000.
View Quote
So what if some country, or for that matter any country decides not to sell us any oil at any price? It isn't our business to tell anyone that they must supply us with anything. A supply problem for the United States does not necessarily translate to a crisis for anyone else. If OPEC shut off the taps we should be damn grateful if even just Mexico would sell us oil, instead of bitching about the price or quality. Of course if supply dries up the market will have to compensate by raising prices. It is all really fairly simple. High prices will dampen the demand, a lowered demand will dampen high prices. It is a damn shame that so many Americans seem to be big fans of the Marxist command economy. What makes it worse is the position some of these people are in. rDAm
Link Posted: 10/8/2001 2:10:30 AM EDT
Invictus, The motive may be different but the end result is the same. He said there were NO similarites between him and her. I was pointing out there were. And just like he is here popping of about his rights, she is popping of about her rights, freedom of speech right to health care ect. The goals and motives may be different but they do have similarities. And it is very naive to think that it would serve our interests in this time of interdependent economies and the availability of weapons of mass destruction that the US Gov't should "hunker down" and hide. As far as the T-F-B plot scary government line. Let's face it I am not the avg. AR-15.com'er. My response was about getting slapped for a divergent opinion. Yeah ok maybe I over simplified. Hussien was jailed and tortured a few times. Then some part of his family got a bit of power. I don't believe the CIA had any direct hand in that. But the CIA was certainly no friend of the Iraqi government at the time, and CIA rabble rousing may have weakened the governement and allowed an opportunity for Saddam. Saddam was basically a street thug who had services to offer his family when they got some power. Of course he realized he didn't need them so much after a while...... Sure if you excuse the mass killing and NBC attacks the Saddam peretrated on his own people, I'm sure he's a fine person to have leading a country with a large military. There is money going in and out of Iraq. If things are so bad how has he re-armed his military?? Saddam is a dictator and what he says goes. He has decided what the priorities are in his country weapons, power and obedience. Anything else he doesn't care about. Saddam had a biological weapons program, what was he going to do with that??? The big mistake that was made after Desert Storm was no that we went to far but not far enough. bin Laden is a hate filled man. He would justify his actions by saying the US soccer was a corrupted game compared to European soccer, don't kid your self he hates the US and seeks justification. As far as Liberty have you read my posts? I believe in liberty, I also believe in responsibility. We as individuals also live in a society. Society must function, and be reflective of the People. Governmental power comes from the People. So if you resist the government you may also be reisisted the will off the People. We can lose liberty because of an overbearing governement or because the government doesn't do it's job. If you have to worry about being attacked by criminals everywhere you go do you have Liberty? Governemnt must "balance" it's (the Peoples) responsibilty to maintain order while not infringing on the Rights of the very same Poeple. Of course a lot of individuals think that they should be able to do whatever they want, without regard for others, and damn anyone that tries to stop them.
Link Posted: 10/8/2001 2:25:30 AM EDT
Originally Posted By sr15:
Originally Posted By Invictus: There is nothing you or any other tax leech can do that I can't do better by myself for my self, or through private contract, especially when it comes to self-protection. rDAm
View Quote
I'm glad everyone doesn't feel this way. It would really suck to loose 341 firefighters in vain.
View Quote
Just what in the above statement have I said that I am glad to see any firefighters die? I never did
View Quote
I agree. Nowhere did I say or imply that you were glad firefighters died.
If these same people were from a private company, would I feel any different? Of course not.
View Quote
I wouldn't expect you to.
Would you?
View Quote
Of course not. I've been on a private fire department for 5 years and a public fire department for 5 years. Firefighters are fighters.
All I said is that I can do anything supposedly accomplished via a gubmint agency better by myself, or through a private contract. You need to read it over if it didn't sink in the first time.
View Quote
No, what you said is above. I've probably read what you wrote more times than you have by now. Your original comments were in a reply to a Sherifs deputy. You called him a tax leech and claimed you did not want or need his services. I don't know how else to interpret it.
Since you are incapable of generating sympathy for leeches you try to take a pot shot at me.
View Quote
Don't tell me about sympathy! I've been to firefighter funerals before and it is a horible experience. Believe me, I am quite capable of generating sympathy for any public servant.
Congratulations are in order as you have joined the rather exclusive "Cheap Shot Artist" Club. I hope you enjoy the company you keep. rDAm
View Quote
I'm sorry, I still do not understand how this was a cheap shot. You claimed you don't want or need public service from "tax leeches" and all I did was point out a flaw in your thinking. I stand by what I said. I'm glad everyone doesn't think like that. If they did 341 firefighters would have died in vain. Seems pretty straight foward to me.
View Quote
Stand by your words, that is what I would expect from you. If you are a contracted firefighter then more power to you. That means you are specifically and freely wanted to perform a service for people and if you are not up to par with said services you will likely be replaced with a more suitable contractor. If on the other hand you provide a dubious service not specifically requested by those that you "serve", you are collecting your paycheck via the implied threat of governmental violence, i.e. you are a tax leech. I fail to see why you get so testy over something so obvious as; "If I wanted your help, I would have hired you!". Inferring that anyone dies in vain if I prefer to hire my own help instead of having it foisted upon me at the end of the barrel of a tax-funded gun is quite a stretch of anyones imagination, even yours. I am not the only one to have outed you on your cheap shot, don't make it so obvious next time and it won't be called a cheap shot. rDAm
Link Posted: 10/8/2001 2:26:46 AM EDT
Invictus, Energy isn't as smiple as that. The economy and the nation would come crashing down without power. The nation won't aloow that. I agree that there is a double standard. People say business should be allowed to charge whatever the market will bear for good and services. But when gas goes up to $2.00 a gallon there is widespread complaining and anger. And if the the energy supply was cut down many people couldn't afford energy to heat their houses etc. and it would be a very difficult situation. Look at what happened with Cali's electricity crisis. There is a minimum supply bleow which we can't go. Energy and the productivity of this country go hand in hand. Many European countries are much more efficient. They also spend much more on energy per unit. Americans believes in John Wayne, God, and cheap gas. We like are cars, trucks, and houses big. We've gotten used to having abundant energy and there will be trouble if we ever go "cold turkey". Not neccessarily how I feel, but how it is.
Link Posted: 10/8/2001 2:39:26 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/8/2001 2:45:43 AM EDT by sr15]
Originally Posted By Invictus: Stand by your words, that is what I would expect from you. If you are a contracted firefighter then more power to you. That means you are specifically and freely wanted to perform a service for people and if you are not up to par with said services you will likely be replaced with a more suitable contractor. If on the other hand you provide a dubious service not specifically requested by those that you "serve", you are collecting your paycheck via the implied threat of governmental violence, i.e. you are a tax leech. I fail to see why you get so testy over something so obvious as; "If I wanted your help, I would have hired you!". Inferring that anyone dies in vain if I prefer to hire my own help instead of having it foisted upon me at the end of the barrel of a tax-funded gun is quite a stretch of anyones imagination, even yours. I am not the only one to have outed you on your cheap shot, don't make it so obvious next time and it won't be called a cheap shot. rDAm
View Quote
....Nevermind. I just read all of your posts from the last 30 days and noticed that almost all of them were attacks on other people or meant to initiate an agrument. Re-read this about 10 years after you get out of high school.
Link Posted: 10/8/2001 3:52:59 AM EDT
Do I trust the Government, well no I don’t. I have served too long and seen the effects of the bureaucracy that runs things. That is why I laugh when many talk about the NWO and such crap like that, conspiracy doesn’t run the world bureaucracy do and will always. But the only people I trust less than the government are the many that say they are here to protect us from the government. The often cloak themselves in patriotism, but they are truly the ones referred to as patriotism being the last refuge for scoundrels. The only swear fidelity to the constitution, and even in that only the parts they agree with. They ignore all the mechanisms that are built into the constitution for change, because those constitutional changes are contrary to their views. So in the end I think there true title should not be patriot, but anarchists. Because in the end it breaks done to most just don’t want to be told what to, whether it is their duty or not.
Link Posted: 10/8/2001 3:59:26 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Invictus: . . . I *NEVER* asked you to do *ANYTHING* for me. Nor will I. There is nothing you or any other tax leech can do that I can't do better by myself for my self
View Quote
That is a sad commentary on the ignorance of a spoiled brat.
Link Posted: 10/8/2001 8:56:47 AM EDT
Originally Posted By OLY-M4gery: Invictus, Energy isn't as smiple as that. The economy and the nation would come crashing down without power. The nation won't aloow that. I agree that there is a double standard. People say business should be allowed to charge whatever the market will bear for good and services. But when gas goes up to $2.00 a gallon there is widespread complaining and anger. And if the the energy supply was cut down many people couldn't afford energy to heat their houses etc. and it would be a very difficult situation. Look at what happened with Cali's electricity crisis. There is a minimum supply bleow which we can't go. Energy and the productivity of this country go hand in hand. Many European countries are much more efficient. They also spend much more on energy per unit. Americans believes in John Wayne, God, and cheap gas. We like are cars, trucks, and houses big. We've gotten used to having abundant energy and there will be trouble if we ever go "cold turkey". Not neccessarily how I feel, but how it is.
View Quote
you have heard of 'sunshine patriotism' I am sure. Well above is an example of 'sunshine support of liberty' You support freedom and liberty as long as it applies to you, or perhaps your nation. But it appearently does not apply to anyone anywhere else, especially if it affects your financial situation. Bill if rights is an itemization of Unalienable Rights, not rights granted by a Government in Power. Usurpation of these rights, by any governmnet is oppression regardless of intent.
As far as Liberty have you read my posts? I believe in liberty, I also believe in responsibility. We as individuals also live in a society. Society must function, and be reflective of the People. Governmental power comes from the People. So if you resist the government you may also be reisisted the will off the People.
View Quote
So you are saying if the majority says is OK that it is fine to violate someones rights. Society can make all the choices it wants. But the second it forces its will on someone it becomes criminal. A Robber takes your money at gun point to spend on whatever he chooses without your consent...it is wrong, even if it for medicine for his dying child How is the Government any different. They take money with the threat of a gun and use it for what they think is good. That is also wrong. I will not calm down. I am not all that excited, really. I do get frustrated with this modern "National Statism" that you and others exhibit. Profession of the belief in Liberty and Freedom but always prepared to offer some excuse about our National Interest to exempt the notion if it keeps you comfortable. I want liberty right down to the last person. No exceptions. You don't. Zaz
Link Posted: 10/8/2001 9:01:47 AM EDT
View Quote
. {and even more]
posted by STLRN: But the only people I trust less than the government are the many that say they are here to protect us from the government. The often cloak themselves in patriotism, but they are truly the ones referred to as patriotism being the last refuge for scoundrels. The only swear fidelity to the constitution, and even in that only the parts they agree with. They ignore all the mechanisms that are built into the constitution for change, because those constitutional changes are contrary to their views. So in the end I think there true title should not be patriot, but anarchists. Because in the end it breaks done to most just don’t want to be told what to, whether it is their duty or not.
View Quote
That is wholly not true. If anything, myself and those of us like me, want the Constitution to be the law. It is all the BS bueracracy that has been piled on top of it. Every infringment of rights has come out of some bright idea law since. There are no infringments built into the Constitution. Zaz
Link Posted: 10/8/2001 9:07:18 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/8/2001 9:06:11 AM EDT by OLY-M4gery]
Well your reading comprhension is suffering. My point was if you lived next to me and thought you had the right to explode bombs in your back yard it would effect me and my safety. The government has a responsibiltiy to protect it's citizens. That means they must provide for the national defense and investigate crimes. Yes, murderers will say they were unfailry singled out because the meter reader saw a severed head in their basement or the police stopped them because the were walking around in blood splattered clothes. They would claim that they were illegally stopped because the Gov't couldn't PROVE they had committed a crime when stopped. Yes you have Rights and I believe in them. I also believe that the Gov't has certain responsibilities. Yes if the government violates someones Rights it is wrong. And the government can make and enforce laws. You may say that your rights are violated becuase you can't drive 120 mph in your neighborhood. Others would say the governement can make regulations for the use of public roads and has responsibility to stop dangerous drivers. Your right our views are different, what you support is anarchy............... Have you noticed that states like MA, CA, NY, and IL that have more "Rights" built into their State Constitutions and legal system have the most restrictive laws............think about it.
Link Posted: 10/8/2001 9:37:33 AM EDT
There could be 2 laws. If they were followed we would need no others, only methods of punishment. 1. do all you have agreed to do 2. do not encroach on anyone or their property.
Originally Posted By OLY-M4gery: Well your reading comprhension is suffering. My point was if you lived next to me and thought you had the right to explode bombs in your back yard it would effect me and my safety. The government has a responsibiltiy to protect it's citizens. That means they must provide for the national defense and investigate crimes.
View Quote
Agreed. I would be encroaching on you and your property.
Yes, murderers will say they were unfailry singled out because the meter reader saw a severed head in their basement or the police stopped them because the were walking around in blood splattered clothes. They would claim that they were illegally stopped because the Gov't couldn't PROVE they had committed a crime when stopped.
View Quote
Disagree. If they did commit the crime and the evidence points to it in volumes, as depicted, this person encroached on someone.
Yes you have Rights and I believe in them. I also believe that the Gov't has certain responsibilities. Yes if the government violates someones Rights it is wrong. And the government can make and enforce laws. You may say that your rights are violated becuase you can't drive 120 mph in your neighborhood. Others would say the governement can make regulations for the use of public roads and has responsibility to stop dangerous drivers.
View Quote
Agree and Disagree. If I was driving 120 I am encroaching on your person and saftey. There is no need for the Government to make a law beyond that. A court and / or Judge would assign a punishment.
Your right our views are different, what you support is anarchy............... Have you noticed that states like MA, CA, NY, and IL that have more "Rights" built into their State Constitutions and legal system have the most restrictive laws............think about it.
View Quote
It is common to say I support anarchy...as an ideal. That may be true, but in the true sense of the word. Anarchy is not riots and barbarism. Websters New Universal: 3. a theory that regards the absence of all direct or coercive government as a political ideal and that proposes the cooperative and voluntary association of individuals and groups as the principal mode of society. or as Patrick Hnery would have said "Honrable men doing business with Honorable men." You can not give me one instance that the two laws I mentioned do not fall under. Zaz BTW, I am viewing this as a pleasent debate, not a flame fest. I hope it is the same among the rest of you. (my distaste for sr15s assertion that somehow we condon the deaths of the Firefighters withstanding)
Link Posted: 10/8/2001 9:46:22 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/8/2001 9:42:34 AM EDT by OLY-M4gery]
Well, I used to work in a jail. Inmates would get all puffed up and say, "you don't know who your talking to" or "you don't know why I'm in here". Like I was gonna be impressed by their crimes. I would tell them they were in jail because they were disrespectful. 1) to other people 2) to other people's property 3) to societies rules or a combination of the three. Sounds a little like your reasoning.
Link Posted: 10/8/2001 9:47:55 AM EDT
Invictus, first of all, I don't sweat to the oldies in Florida. FYI, a deputy sheriff is a Constitutional officer. I am sworn in by an elected officer. If that is a leech, then so be it. But since you don't live in my county, thankfully, it ain't none of your damn business. And I can't help the fact that you didn't have the balls to go and defend your right to be obnoxious assholes. Me, I'll just keep on doing the good job, while you, and your ilk are constantly pissed off at life.
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 3
Top Top