My Dixie Chicks Mindless Rant

[Achán hiNidráne]

Damn good rant. Pretty funny too.

I gotta tell you that threats on the internet...

Not a threat, a statement of fact. If anyone, including the government, tries to deprive me of my life or liberty I will fight back by any means necessary.

You seem to have forgotten that this country was born out of the phrase "give me liberty or give me death," or does that no longer matter because your party is presently running Washington D.C.?

It's almost worth voting Democrat this year to see the GOP ousted. (Not that I think the Dems are going to undo the stupidity of the last 6 years.)

You have your opinion and I have mine.

It would be nice if you allow other to voice their opinions no matter what ground they happen to be standing on at the time.

You gotta admit I did rile your feathers though...

Sic semper tyrannus. Totalitarian gibberish like your's can't go unanswered.

And I have to add that if you read my posts you'll find that I support the first amendment as well.

Bull! Like many, you only seems to support freedom or speech when it's your own. Everyone else, on the other hand, needs to be watched, controlled, and/or punished when they seek to exercise their own.

And the second.

Yes, for now, but how long will it be until you decide that certain groups of "undesirables" shouldn't be allowed to keep and bear arms?

 

[Achán hiNidráne]

I have to add that if you really wish to shoot me, it'll be the second time and doesn't really scare me much.

I don't care if it scares you or not. I won't shoot you if you don't try to censor/imprision/lynch me for not "loving" this counrty to the degree you think I should.

 

[Axenos]

Mark, I think you knee-jerked over a couple of my posts without reading all of them and the context of the discussion. Just my opinion.

I've never made any mention of "undesirables" anywhere. I never said that any one person or group should be denied the rights granted to them under the constitution.

I merely said that I consider it disrespectful to badmouth your country on foreign soil. I have typed that same damn sentence or a variation thereof so many times in this thread that I'm sick of typing it.

And I love my guns, too.

Now, you wish to insinuate you'll shoot me for my opinions? Somewhat hypocritical there.

 

[back2basics]

Crescent wrench?

Let's take the serve the country idea, the Constitution, civilian control of the military, by structure and walk the dog, shall we Tony? "Serves the country" is a convenient shorthand for a slightly more complex relationship.

The land and people are what make up a country, a nation state, under some agreed framework. In America's case, that would be the Constitution. The people create (in America's case, by voting) a government, which then undertakes to pursue (by structure) the interests of the country. (Of course, in practice, it can be argued that government now and again pursues interests that may not be purely in the country's best interest.)

Regardless, it is under the premise that the actions of the government generally pursue the country's interests that the structure is coherent, and sustains over time.

Given the problem of scope and scale, the military establishment is created and funded, per the articles of the constitution, to raise armies and maintain a navy, to, if nothing else, "provide for the common defense" and by following acts of Congress, and the Executive, since framing, a whole lot else in the name of National Security activity. Put differently, the purspose of the Armed Forces is to fight and win the nation's wars. The wars are chosen by the people's duly elected representatives, and their executive, in this Republic.

The military answers to the Congress (the people's duly elected representatives) for administration and funding, and to the Executive (operations) as explicitly spelled out in the Country's constitution. The armed Services, and each member of it, serve at the pleasure of the President. (That was in writing on my commissioning paperwork. ) The President, the people's duly elected executive agent of government, is by the framing document to serve the nation and the constitution. In our Constitutional republic, that means that by three direct linkages, the armed services serve country made up of the people via the president and the government, who serve the Constitution on behalf of the people who sent them to Washington to do so for the good of the country, as originally defined.

Whether or not the government well and faithfully serves the interests of the people, in all cases, is an entirely different matter.

It isn't propaganda, Tony, it is the formal relationship defined by the structure of this Constitutional Republic, and the acta that have been approved via Constitutional processes.

Yes, before you point this out, many's the imperfection between theory and practice.

DR

This is cut out and keep stuff Excellent.

But obviously, as you said, Tony’s point is correct if this statement is false "the government well and faithfully serves the interests of the people". So not in all instances, Iran Contra, Vietnam etc is the army serving the people. I personally think that slight flaw in the system could be fixed, I am sure you must have some ideas about that yourself.

 

[Darth Rotor]

I don't care if it scares you or not. I won't shoot you if you don't try to censor/imprision/lynch me for not "loving" this counrty to the degree you think I should.

Mark, you seem to be reading a bit more into Ax's remarks than are there, or than I see in them. *shrugs*

How do you express your love for your country, other than the usual complaining about what isn't right? We all do a bit of that. I complain plenty. I am disgusted at the irresponsible debt accumulation of the past 6 years, and frustrated that the progress of 6 hard years of deficit reduction work (bi partisan) has been undone, and worse.

I ran into an "oops" a month back in carelessly suggesting that the best way to converse with CT sort, at Ground Zero, in New York, was with a Smith and Wesson. This made quite a few of the members here uncomfortable, this loose talk about shooting people, as I quickly discovered. Such a post could be used as evidence of a misdemeanor (or otherwise) threat to do harm to a person.

So, if you'd like to learn from my boneheaded move, you might want to stow the talk about shooting anyone on this forum.

Your call, of course.

DR

 

[Axenos]

The problem here is what happens often on the net and also in real conversations.

If people read just a sentence here or there, without context, they can create anything they want to hear.

I have explained my position. Nobody has to agree with me. I feel Mark's attack was a result of doing just that. Selective listening.

DR, you're post above was excellent.

 

[Darth Rotor]

This is cut out and keep stuff Excellent.

But obviously, as you said, Tony’s point is correct if this statement is false "the government well and faithfully serves the interests of the people". So not in all instances, Iran Contra, Vietnam etc is the army serving the people. I personally think that slight flaw in the system could be fixed, I am sure you must have some ideas about that yourself.

I am writing a small book about that. I'll let you all know if I ever get it published.

The Army was indeed serving the people, in Viet Nam, by faithfully serving the people's elected representatives, however, the policy makers did indeed fail. McMaster, in Derelictin of Duty, charges that the four stars failed to faithfully serve by obeying JFK, Mac and LBJ when injurious strategy decisions were taken. At the lower echelons, the norm was faithful service, the exception the wilful violations of law like My Lai.

Iran Contra was a secretariat level (and possibly higher) blunder, with Olly North as a point man in a secretariat level position, and of course all of the skullduggery that went with it. For what it is worth, The Nightengale's Song is an excellent treatment of that era of Cold War Reagan matters, and five key personalities involved.

DR

 

[Achán hiNidráne]

Mark, I think you knee-jerked over a couple of my posts without reading all of them and the context of the discussion. Just my opinion.

You call it "knee jerk," I prefer Jefferson's quote about "eternal vigilance."

I've never made any mention of "undesirables" anywhere. I never said that any one person or group should be denied the rights granted to them under the constitution.

You said that "some free speech goes too far." In a free society, there is no such thing as "too far" especially in political matters.

I merely said that I consider it disrespectful to badmouth your country on foreign soil. I have typed that same damn sentence or a variation thereof so many times in this thread that I'm sick of typing it.

That's what you say here. What do you think in private?

Now, you wish to insinuate you'll shoot me for my opinions? Somewhat hypocritical there.

Where did I say that? I made it perfectly clear that you have every right to your inane opinions and I would defend that same right to express them.

 

[bob_kark]

I ran into an "oops" a month back in carelessly suggesting that the best way to converse with CT sort, at Ground Zero, in New York, was with a Smith and Wesson.

DR

I've got my eye on you buddy!

 

[Darth Rotor]

You call it "knee jerk," I prefer Jefferson's quote about "eternal vigilance."
You said that "some free speech goes too far." In a free society, there is no such thing as "too far" especially in political matters.

As Lenny Bruce once quipped: If you make it illegal to say "f---," you make it illegal to say "f --- the government." Given the f---ing the government has given the public since about 1913, I'd say a quid pro quo is generally in order, in sentiment if in no other form.

DR

 

[Axenos]

You call it "knee jerk," I prefer Jefferson's quote about "eternal vigilance." .

Then let me ask: Have you read every post thus far and accepted them in the context of the conversation?

You said that "some free speech goes too far." In a free society, there is no such thing as "too far" especially in political matters..

Too far was probably the wrong choice of words. Too much would be a better description. Shame on me. Still riled you up.

That's what you say here. What do you think in private?.

Exact same thing. And I always will. And as I have typed over and over, it's my opinion.

Where did I say that? I made it perfectly clear that you have every right to your inane opinions and I would defend that same right to express them.

I voiced an opinion, and you somehow made a logic jump that I was trying to censor you. How you got to that I have no idea. Anyway, you post "then I suggest you try to shut me up... personally.By the way, before you do, keep this in mind: I also enthusiastically support the second amendment." which as we all know is obviously a direct reference to the right to keep and bear arms.

Which you follow with your logic leap:"I don't care if it scares you or not. I won't shoot you if you don't try to censor/imprision/lynch me for not "loving" this counrty to the degree you think I should."

Which, since you have clearly defined me as doing, is a direct threat.

Which still doesn't scare me.

 

[Achán hiNidráne]

Fine, then I apologize for the threat. I still think that Ax's comments on "disrespecting" this country on foreign soil borders on mindless nationalism.

 

[Axenos]

Maybe somebody said this, I read most of what was posted but not all, but here's my opinion:

Don't air your dirty laundry on your neighbours porch.

Free speech? Sure.

Insulting your own country on foreign soil? No. Against the rules (for me anyway).

Say what you want when you are here but out of your country you should show respect for it.

And honestly, I never liked the Chixie Dicks anyway.

Mark: This is my original post. The key here is "out of your country you should show respect for it." The country of your citizenship. It's simply a personal feeling, not mindless nationalism. I criticise my country all the time, as is my right, but I would never do it in another country, because I feel it's rude and disrespectful, both to my country and my countrymen. I have tried to reiterate that numerous times, but it has been ignored.

If you notice, I said "Against the rules (for me anyway)." For me. Me. How I live my life and how I see things. I think it's rude. Period. But everybody wants to interject their beliefs and make the whole thing into something it's not.

This thread took off on a tangent when people wanted to make it political and then I'm forced to try to defend myself from all kinds of silly attacks. It seems to me that people lost sight of the original post and never read what came after in its entirety, just bits and pieces.

Such is the beauty of the net.

And apology accepted. At least you gave some warning... the first time was in the back, no warning at all.

 

[Silly Green Monkey]

Having read through the thread, I'm still confused as to why one's current physical location must dictate what they say. Are we supposed to lie, depending on whether or not we are inside the borders?

 

[bob_kark]

Having read through the thread, I'm still confused as to why one's current physical location must dictate what they say. Are we supposed to lie, depending on whether or not we are inside the borders?

Silly Green Monkey, why do you hate our freedom only when you're located within the United States?

 

[Axenos]

Having read through the thread, I'm still confused as to why one's current physical location must dictate what they say. Are we supposed to lie, depending on whether or not we are inside the borders?

Silly Green Monkey (and I love that name btw) read the post directly above yours. Nobody ever said anywhere in this thread that location must dictate anything.

Ever see Zoolander? "I feel like I'm taking crazy pills!"

 

[Silly Green Monkey]

Silly Green Monkey (and I love that name btw) read the post directly above yours. Nobody ever said anywhere in this thread that location must dictate anything.

Ever see Zoolander? "I feel like I'm taking crazy pills!"

In the post you mention, you said that though you criticize your country while in it, you refrain from criticizing it while away. Now, while this is not a *must* dictated by location for anyone other than you, aren't you saying that your physical location is determining whether you tell the truth about how you feel about your country, or whether you lie about it? This is just my feeling (piling personal feeling on personal feeling), but I think forcing yourself to lie is showing disrespect to yourself. If someone indeed feels absolutely no respect for their country or the people in it, feigning respect would be lying to themselves and whoever is asking about their country.

(I love it too. Absolutely unique, as well as descriptive.)(Never seen Zoolander.)

Bob, I'm going to have to keep that one. I've never had one before, and that one is funny.

 

[Axenos]

I never answered your question I suppose.

Are we supposed to lie? Of course not. Nobody asked the Chixie Dicks a question. They volunteered their opinion.

If someone asked me overseas I wouldn't lie, but I wouldn't disrespect my country either. I can't give a direct answer because I don't know the question.

 

[bob_kark]

Bob, I'm going to have to keep that one. I've never had one before, and that one is funny.

Its all yours.

 

[UserGoogol]

It's simply a personal feeling, not mindless nationalism.

Mindless does not seem to be a completely inaccurate way to way to describe "personal feelings," although it might be a dickish way to describe it. You believe that is disrespectful to speak ill of your country overseas not because of any well thought out rationale, but just because you don't like it in your gut. That's not exactly mindful, now is it?