First off, it seems rather depressing to me that someone would compare a twenty mile-per-hour expansion of driving speed to the taking of someone's life. Second, attempted murder is a crime because you pre-meditated the crime and were intervened upon in your attempt to kill said individual. Also, if someone speeds a little, who cares? If someone murders someone, it ends one persons life and damages the lives of many others. Do you believe it to be a crime to bring a gun to school with every intention of murdering someone, however, someone intervened at the last second, saving the life of your target? I, for one, do.
I don't exactly understand what you were trying to say but what I got is that is you kill someone well driving slower than the speed limit is legal? Well first if you hit someone it is always the drivers fault (most of the time) because the pedestrians have, unfourentantly the right of way. If someone were to jump out at you from a bush then the driver would have the right of way, so thus the crime would be careless driving and manslaughter. But yet I probabally didn't answer your question because I didn't understand it so Long live Pope Alexander the IV!
I just have a bug in my butt about this, say your driving down the road in a geo and the speed limit is 40 and you want to go 60 but you just cant get your crappy geo to go over 30 have you committed a crime? No, then how is unsuccessfully killing someone if you have not actually hurt them a crime?
Andrew did make a good point, but as far as I see all that really happened is more ignorance and more people sitting around whining about things their incompetent minds could never comprehend. Ignorance and blind faith is all that has been created. Consider the person who made the joke about airport security and was arrested. It?s just the most half-witted nazi thing I've heard of in a long time. The only thing more asinine that I can remember off the top of my head is when we were forced to apologize to the Chinese for them hitting into our airplane over international water. Although George Bush kind of worked his way around a true formal apology, we should have needed to apologize at all. That was just a god-awful slap in the face, and the bastards should have been apologizing to us. Jesse Jackson was being his normal nefarious self, saying that we should apologize to keep the peace, this was a matter of pride, and what will they think if we cave into their commands? If you are to keep our superiority we must not appear as though we will do anything an apposing force tells us. Well that?s my blab for now, but keep it up with all the writing and such.
One can't be 'wrong' per se based on a dictionary definition when one makes a point based on the falsity of the definition itself. You're comparing the validity of someone's argument with the validity of the text of a book, the core of which was written over a hundred years ago. I personally disagree as well, however a good point was made, and no ones post should be described as 'wrong', because opinions can't be wrong in the first place.
Good point, Andrew. I agree, sort of... The patriotism exhibited by our nation was the dictionary definition. Be that definition correct or incorrect, I do not know and have no authority to say. However, I believe that the patriotism exhibited by our country was either bad for the people of this nation and their power in government or at very least made no difference in it, because though our overwhelming patriotism in the days following the attack caused us to make the decisions which we then made (to entrust George Bush with the country's decisions for an as yet undetermined amount of time), our patriotism has proved itself superficial, and has all but died away by now (only eleven months later), leaving the decisions which we made at that time to govern us now. For instance, how many of you all know where George Bush has been for the past three weeks, and will be up until the start of school? If you guessed the White House, you're wrong. He's been spending the last three weeks relaxing at his home in Texas. Even though he is doing absolutely nothing toward the safety of this nation (aside from perhaps hitting the occasional terrorist with a golf ball, perhaps), when he speaks of the war we are at, none would speak up to point this out. We merely follow him and his words almost as blindly as we did on September Twelfth when we allowed him this control of the nation. Well, that's all for now I guess.
~Franson
Patriotic - Having the characteristics of a patriot
Patriot - One who loves his or her country and supports its authority and interests
This is taken right out of good old Merriam Webster, so you are wrong
I think you have a good question Franson about how did the country get more patriotic? But I don't at all believe that the country got more patriotic. Now to start off by analyzing the literal meaning of the word patriotic my arguement is already crushed so lets put that aside. But I believe that the best way to be patriotic in a democratic society is not as many people believe to agree and allow their government to go off on its own seperate from the people. But instead I believe a trully patriotic democratic society would be a society that consistently questions its government, protests it government, a society that votes. I look at the Vietnam era and I truly see the most patriotic society that America has had in the 20th century because the "New Left" was not allowing their government to do what it wanted even though it was against the opinion of the people. So back to your question Franson, I believe that our society's change has been a change towards less patriotism. Of course more people swing their flags and what not but they decided to let Bush go off on his own. A good example is back around the first weeks after 9/11 Bush said to the nation, you are going to have to trust your government and you are going to have to not question us during the crisis. This is very typical of a president during or before war time turning the government away from the fact that it is controlled by the people. And allowing the government to take a firmer grip on the nation without the knowledge and support of the country behind it, as the people of the United States allowed George W. Bush to do, greatly changed this country from better to worse, in that it was one more step in crushing the democracy that was set up to have the people govern the government and the not the other way around.
The only change I see is better air port security and more whiney people
First off Jesse, rotten things don't become rotten enough to collapse for years and years. However, we need a new topic. How 'bout... the implications of the fact that 9/11 caused a basic change in the way United States citizens view their own country. Why did it take such a disaster for the people of our nation to become patriotic, and is the change for better or for worse?
Quoting Andrew
"2 Decay; rot."
Now when sonthing rots it tends to colapse in upon it self, same goes for when somone goes corrupt, they eventualy can't keep everything strait and they get found out. This is how the voters find out
