No, I'm stating that most people with disabilities, (legitimate disabilities) don't think of themselves as being "disabled". If it is irrelevant than why is he referred to as the "First African American" this and that? He's half African. I'm half Italian, if I run for President can I been called the "First Italian American" this and that? Obama and his campaign has overtly and at times outwardly used race to their advantage. It's really a shame that after all we've been through in this country that someone would resort to their outward appearance as a source of betterment under false pretense. So. What. How is that any different than FDR standing in front of a podium and purposely attempting to never be seen in a wheel chair? Sure the revelation of his lost limb was 100% deliberate. It validates his point. I never said it was not done on purpose. I just dispute your lack of understanding the sincerity of the message. You called it "emotional blackmail". I call it validation.
With that logic they also give us our food, our land, our water, our government, our family and so much more. If we did not have an active military we would have a more active militia, we would not be getting into wars overseas. The military gives us protection not our freedom. The military could protect us the same way if we were a Communist nation, the freedom we have is given to use by our constitution, not our military.
Actually GRIM is incorrect. One of the Constitution's military provisions: Section 8, Article I, includes the key right to "provide for the common Defense." There are actually 5 references to the military, specifically all located in Articles I and II of the Constitution. Do keep in mind that we were also given a Right to Bear Arms in the unlikely event we ever needed to protect ourselves from our government.
Once again, slowly, this time, please, Biz. You agreed with the statement: Now, could be "complete idiot" me, but can you figure out how 99% of the people complaining are people who do nothing for the war effort, WHO AT THE SAME TIME INCLUDE MOST OF THE VETS SERVING THERE? Now, ya reckon "64%" of the troops surveyed who think this war was not worth it somewhere exceeds the "1%," of those complaining who do contribute to the war effort, by Mia's magic prophecy? Or do you have some special kind of ciphering to tell us about? Easy with the "idiot" thing, buddy. Blowback, and all.
Where did I state the constitution was against the military? -- So I'll take that as I was not 'incorrect' and in fact you misread my statement..
Lay off the psycho babble. I agreed with Mia. So what. Grim The Constitution is a written document. A written document is going to defend your from attacks and keep you free? I guess you can roll it up use it like a bat.
Oh, I'm with you. Hell, why allow a little thing like sense to intrude on a point of view. After all, with Mia, you agree that only 1% of the people having a problem with the war actually contributed to the war effort. And this of course makes sense, since 64% of the vets who actually did contribute to the war effort have said they didn't feel the Iraq war was worth their sacrifice. No question; makes perfect sense.
A written document of which gives you the power to own a gun, a written document that gives our government the powers they have and separates them. To compare the constitution to a standard piece of paper is beyond foolish. Without the constitution we could very well be a communist nation with no 'freedom' but a military 'protecting' us.
Without the military protecting us we could not have food, we could not have water, we could not have government, and so on and so forth. Who would be invading us exactly? If it was not for the military we would have an extremely strong militia. The military does give us protection, it does not give us or guarantee us our freedoms. US citizens fighting for their rights guarantees our 'freedom' more than the military does.
I guess militias would have stopped the spread of communism as well. Or if militias didn't stop it, and after the majority of the world was finally infected by soviet communism, and the soviet-backed states decided to band together to invade us, that militias would then protect us and our constitution. I for one feel confident about the security of our constitution as long as a bunch of yahoos have guns.
You are missing the point entirely, that however does not surprise me. The military does protect us, it does NOT guarantee our freedoms, no matter how you want to twist it, it simply is not the case. Without the constitution our president could use our very military against us.
Let me break it down into simple terms. 1. We don't have a capable military. 2. We get invaded. 3. Invading force overpowers the domestic force with more men, arms and teeth. 4. Occupying force decides they don't like the constitution so much. 5. No more constitution. If you're more visual then I could perhaps produce a flow chart for you.
Eek. I've got both on ignore and have never been happier! Whilst they waste their time responding, I'm getting twice the work done in half the time. Anyway, for the record, you have to be real careful about who you agree with here. By careful I mean, make sure when you quote them, you only quote the parts you agree with, else you will be publicly castrated and called out to defend agree with parts of the message you may not agree with. I got gang raped here by a bunch of freekazoids for doing that a while back.
Lets see if I can brake it down for you further. #1 The constitution which actually provides our freedoms is the heart of our country. #2 The constitution creates the form of government we have. #3 The constitution gives the power to the states and the federal level. #4 Without the constitution which gave us our freedom, the military itself as we know it would not exist. Doom and gloom of 'what ifs' we got taken over does not take away from the fact that the military does not in anyway shape or form, by any legal means 'provide us our freedom'
"Doom and gloom what ifs" are the main reason for having a military in the first place. May not provide but surely maintains(amongst other things). Your argument seems to be a petty, highfalutin one that maybe some "authority" like Ron Paul espouses. Mine is not a legal, ideological or abstract argument in any way, it's a very simple, practical one. The military protects our sovereignty and without that the very existence of the constitution would be in jeopardy. The military is by no means the only protection, but it certainly assists. Now if you want to continue to make a petty argument based on some ideology you have, have at it. We've had this conversation before and I believe there's no new ground to explore.
I am not against the military, nor do I think we should not have one. Nothing to do with 'Ron Paul' everything to do with what actually gives us our freedom. Without our constitution our country would not even be what it is today and even our military would not exist. The military keeps us protected, citizens fight to keep our freedoms. What provides those freedoms however is the constitution... I am not bashing the military, simply using common sense, what actually 'provides' our freedom. The same document that provides our way of government, that provides everything in our nation, the building block that even provides our military. This is not a 'petty' argument, it is simple facts of the matter.
They are missing the point entirely, that however does not surprise me Militias, that is funny to think Militias could protect our country from terroist, and world armies. Thanks for breaking it down, I don't think I need a flow chart at this time. They do gang rape quite a bit. I only put one of them on ignore sometimes. He is an over educated moron I do not know if I would use freaakazoid.