ANTI-FLAG

...or if you like you can tell me how to spell answer. Either way, I take it your "group think" accusation is a red herring.

Oh, by the way, other than Libertarians, the queens of the screwball prom are the objectivists. Rational Irrelevance.

'Groupthink' is obvious on FR. Just follow the 'fives'. A group of freepers recently got together to brand their opponents as fifth columnists with silly graphics & sly references. - Pretty hard to miss.

No, her rights weren't trampled on. But you chose to drag her through the dirt, as if she trampled on the twerp's rights.

Quite incorrect. She posted to the forum, looking for comments. I gave mine: she is a self-righteous, unmannered child. At no time have I accused her of violating anyone's rights.

She did take a stand, and as you stated, at risk to herself. I support that, although a 14 year old Goth is almost by definition a panty-waist and is only a threat to himself and small animals.

So, actually, she didn't.

It is exactly the attitude of "choosing our battles", not standing up for ourselves, and the perception that we, as a people, don't have the stomach for a fight that led the the destruction of the WTC.

It is logically impossible to extrapolate that from the experience she described.

Somalia most recently,

We shouldn't have been there in the first place.

but this has been escalating since we pulled out of Vietnam.

Ditto.

That is where you had lost me. I thought you were ref. your list. "5. self censorship"

I haven't run across them myself. I do call a "boilerplate" argument when I see it. Fith column or not, Leftist BS fallows a pattern.

They intentionally miss-interoperate what was said, OWC linked rejection of the 60's peace movement to a blood thirsty love of war

They never defend their argument, they always attempt to discredit their adversary

They always accuse their adversary of there own sins

They base all lies off of fact based half truths.

And when confronted, they try to redefine the arguments on their own grounds..usually attempting to get concurrence on false assumptions.

It is eventually backed up with a physical threat

Basically, how to lie and intimidate, even when your wrong. Carville is the master of it, and after 8 years of that crap, actually more, I spent 20 years on Eugene Oregon. The left are the enforcers of group think and I have very little patients for anyone who carries their line for them.

OWC's first post was a left wing mantra.

You appear to be posting Dead drunk Dog. - Go sleep off your delusions.

I showed this to my son (soon to be 14) he said "what morons!" Fortunately his school does teach what the flag means. On September the 11th the 6th grade principle read --What the Flag Means –read before by Red Skelton and John Wayne--over the intercom at school. When he got home and I asked him what all they did to commemorate the 11th of September- -The first thing he told me was about the Pledge (He had heard this before from the AM radio station that I listen too). This was among other things they did as well - -like mentioning the teachers that went to fight over in Afghanistan etc.. I emailed the Principle of the school and this 6th grade Principle who announced it over the intercom and told them how proud I was for what all they had done that day (and more). They thanked me in return for the appreciation.

By the way - - This is a Public School I am talking about not private- - some Public Schools have it right. :o)

ooooh... one of the much hated (around here but not by me) libertarians huh?

LOL

You go girl! I would have had to say it without the bad words though.

my son says he can still like their music even though he doesn't agree with their politics.

How? Who paid for the ticket that put money in the pockets of these band members? You're helping them spread their propaganda by giving them your hard earned money.

http://www.anti-flag.com/anti-flag/index.html

This is an excerpt from one of the pages on their website.

We practiced our **** off during the remainder of February and part of March and within a few weeks we were scheduled to play a live radio show on WRCT in Pittsburgh. Unfortunately for us, we still didn't have a name! While Pat and I had already used the name Anti-Flag years earlier in our other band we had been kicking around the idea of using it again. Why? Well, it was like this… the name was originally inspired as a result of the late 80's Pittsburgh scene being infiltrated by a bunch of ******** who toted the slogan, "Freedom not fascism". Well, that would've been great if these jerks practiced what they preached, but unfortunately, their idea of punk rock was VERY fascist! They took to sporting the American flag on their jackets, saying the pledge of allegiance to the flag, and (like the bunch of goons they were) beating the ****** out of each other and anyone who got in the way.(basically they were just macho jock types who happened to have gotten into punk) At shows I would see these ******* sporting their flags singing along to the Sub Humans, Exploited, Circle Jerks, whoever happened to be on tour, and I would wonder why? Weren't these bands completely speaking out against everything these "punx" believed in? It seemed to me that these kids were really missing the point to it all. They needed to look "fascism" up in the dictionary so they could learn that fascism controls the masses by 1. Promoting extreme nationalism, and 2. Using systematic violence and terror.(To these kids credit they were against racism but they failed to realize that you can be anti racist and still be a fascist!)

Notice this statement...... their idea of punk rock was VERY fascist! They took to sporting the American flag on their jackets, saying the pledge of allegiance to the flag, and (like the bunch of goons they were)

Since when has fascism had anything to do with wearing a flag or pledging allegiance to one?

There's some anti war propaganda here ....http://www.anti-flag.com/anti-flag/index.html

After seeing the names of some of their albums I am further ticked off. I'm going to look for lyrics nowunless someone has already found some.

The words belong to Jefferson. They address the need for free men to stand in defense of their own rights (against the state). They do not address the typical forays of military adventurism our current government sees fit to involve us in... all over the globe. The founders of this nation had no interest in such things, and in fact warned us quite strenuously of the dangers of these entanglements.

The Undeclared Naval War with France 1798-1800 and the First Barbary War 1801-1805 don't count as foreign wars in your view of History?

Prior to becoming President and waging war against the Barbary States on the other side of the Atlantic, Thomas Jefferson wrote in his autobiography that in 1785 and 1786 he unsuccessfully "endeavored to form an association of the powers subject to habitual depredation from them. I accordingly prepared, and proposed to their ministers at Paris, for consultation with their governments, articles of a special confederation." Jefferson argued that "The object of the convention shall be to compel the piratical States to perpetual peace." Jefferson prepared a detailed plan for the interested states. "Portugal, Naples, the two Sicilies, Venice, Malta, Denmark and Sweden were favorably disposed to such an association," Jefferson remembered, but there were "apprehensions" that England and France would follow their own paths, "and so it fell through."

Jefferson understood that not only "The State" but also foreign enemies can constitute a threat to a free man's rights. That is why Jefferson attempted to form an alliance with European powers to fight the Barbary States and actually warred on the Barbary States when he was President.

Some Founding Fathers may have warned against alliances for alliances sake when the U.S. had no vital interest involved. However, Jeffersons efforts to create an alliance against the Barbary States demonstrates that Jefferson had no qualms in trying to create an alliance for a specific purpose that served America's foreign interets.

That one is new to me... who came up with it?

I dont know, probably some acid dropping commie hippy with dread locks pretending to be enlightened while his parents were paying him 30 grand a year to go to Harvard.

Im in college right now, so on that once a month occassion when the moon comes out and all the freaky deeks come out of their shells to find something wrong with the world that could be solved by carry picket signs and shouting annoying chants at passerbys, that picture always makes an appearance.

"lighten up..."

You're right.
Even my wife has been telling me I need to lose a few pounds.

....on that once a month occassion when the moon comes out and all the freaky deeks come out of their shells...

ROFL! Vivid imagery.

Uhhh... OK.

But how does your suggestion that Jefferson formed an alliance against the Barbary Pirates (who were raiding American shipping) have anything to do with the founders' warnings against a standing army, and avoiding foreign entanglements?

No one has suggested that the defense of rights is a bad thing.

Your self deluded and pi$$y. Take a Midol.

Uhhh... OK.

But how does your suggestion that Jefferson formed an alliance against the Barbary Pirates (who were raiding American shipping) have anything to do with the founders' warnings against a standing army, and avoiding foreign entanglements?

No one has suggested that the defense of rights is a bad thing.

First of all, it was not “my suggestion” that Jefferson tried to form an alliance. What I posted were Jefferson’s own account of the matter as found in his autobiography. Secondly, a very minor point, Jefferson did not actually succeed in forming the alliance, as he explained in the quotes I posted, although not from lack of trying.

Now let’s address this entire matter of what the Founding Fathers said or did not say and what the Founding Fathers warned about or did not warn about.

The Founding Fathers were not Gods. The Founding Fathers were Men.

Every opinion that was uttered by a Founding Father, be it Washington or Jefferson, was not The Word of God. Such opinions or advice were the opinions and advice of Men, albeit a Great Men.

Most importantly, they were the opinions of “Men of their Time” with all that implies.

The following is also the statement of George Washington himself taken from an extant letter Washington wrote in 1766:

"Sir: With this letter comes a Negro (Tom) which I beg the favour of you to sell, in any of the Islands you may go to, for whatever he will fetch, and bring me in return for him: one hogshead of best molasses, one of best Rum, one barrel of Lymes if good and cheap, … and the residue, much or little in good ole spirits…That this Fellow is both a rogue and a Runaway…I shall not pretend to deny. But . . . he is exceedingly healthy, strong and good at the Hoe… which gives me reason to hope he may, with your good management sell well (if kept clean and trim'd up a little when offered for sale… I must beg the favor of you (lest he should attempt his escape) to keep him hand-cuffed till you get to Sea."

The Founding Father, in the Constitutional Convention, also wrote and adopted the Constitutional provision that representation include three fifths of “other Persons”, in other words, Slaves.

Today, such statements and such notions are as outdated as a Brown Bess musket.

That does not mean, nor does it follow, that everything else the Founding Fathers said or wrote is out of date or invalid. It simply means that as the statements and writings of such Men must be taken in the context of their Time, Place and Circumstances. It means that, as Time, Place and Circumstances change, the wisdom of those statements and writings must be periodically reconsidered.

The predicament of how to deal with the question of the dangers to a society of having or not having a standing army or the issue of alliances was not a question that suddenly arose in 18th Century America.

Such issues have been struggled with by Western Civilization since the days of Antiquity.

From Sparta to Athens to Melos to Messana, to the Roman Republic to the Roman Empire, etc., etc., the Catch-22 issue of how a society can defend itself and survive in a dangerous world crawling with foreign enemies while not creating the seeds of it’s own enslavement by it’s own defenders has been grappled with, with varying degrees of success, throughout Western History.

Historical examples abound with societies, such as Melos, literally wiped off the face of the Earth and other societies, such as the Roman Republic at the time of Cicero, enslaved by their own Army, to support each side of the argument of whether Standing Army versus No Standing Army is the Correct Way.

As with most thing in life, the answer is “neither extreme” and the resulting compromise is a dangerous balancing act that can turn deadly with a single false move.

The analysis of these historical examples is quite fascinating and educational. Unfortunately, we must discuss them at a later time, if you are interested, as the time of the morning has arrived when I must go off to support the wife and kids and the Internal Revenue Service.

Ping to Travis as he enjoys historical discussions.

FreeRegards,
Polybius

"Your self deluded and pi$$y. Take a Midol." - DD -

Instead you get snippy, pissy, and selfrighteous. Take a midol!
274 posted on 9/30/02 3:22 PM Pacific by Dead Dog
__________________________________

You're repeating yourself. Memory problems? Black outs?
Get help.

Thannks for the ping, I'll go through this when I get a chance.