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.
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
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?
Rather than rehashing everything that you just said, I'll simply second it all. Brilliant.
Corruption is nothing less than the strongest poison to any organization lording over a group of people with brains between their ears. Take pre-Communist Russia for example. The people recognized that the Romanovs were merely pawns to Rasputin's corrupting influence, so they killed said influence along wirh his supporters (in a slightly less spectacular fashion), and formed a coup which brought a new leader to power. However, this story has a downside as well. Their blind faith in the new form of government and its decisions brought them into the mindset that nothing could possibly harm them, as they followed Communism, whilst Stalin's regime became in many ways more corrupt and evil than Czar Nicholas's a quarter-century earlier. Thus, corruption can destroy a corrupted regime if the people are brave enough to see it, or, in a worst-case scenario, strengthen the belief in the regime and the country it rules. Oh, and by the way, Jesse, thank you for restoring the paper to its former glory days of existing above censorship.
Capitol punishment. Have at it.
Just for future reference, Jesse Donat is the largest feeb ever!!! .
From what I remember about the Confederacy, it had just a government almost as large as that of the Union, with large legislative and executive branch nd no judiciary... Which seems largely different from the America you speak of, as it strongly controlled small farms and let the larger plantation-owners do largely as they pleased. .. I will however concede your point about racism and anti-African-American sentiment in the North versus in the South, though I don't see how it fits the topic (thus, hats off to you). Now then. I must be off to verify all that I have said, through the wonders of Brinkley, and/or the Internet. Good day to you, sir.
~Franson
I hadn't read any of your recent articles until the day I posted Um... Gross..., as my computer had been down for ages (six weeks or more, as far as I can remember). Your article was the first I responded to, as it was nearest the top, plus the rest was mostly Dan talking to himself. But now then, let's clarify a few things: 1. Yes, I am a lazy, lazy man. 2. I support Lincoln because he kept the Union together, which is what absolutely had to be done above all else. 3. When have I ever supported Franklin Roosevelt? If I did, I was drunken at the time. 4. If you said "Damn the Republicans" in favor of independent conservativism, I salute you. I was worried that the overwhelming aura of ultraliberalism in Minnesota had swayed your perspective. 5. Why would I think with a brain "prescribed to me by my Republican officials" if I hate political parties?
That's about all for now, but really, you should think before you accuse people of falling in line with a party by their own choice.
~Franson
Now then. Link us to some of the "information" backing up your gibberish, fool (It's ON NOW).
~Franson
