Oops, I'm a terrorist

The ultimate place to have my work critiqued, or possibly agreed with... who knows. This is an article written for a school newspaper that is actually run by the student, and therefore allows full representation of free speech, allowing me to write exactly what I want without any editing.


Oops, I’m a terrorist
Also known as: I’m different, spy on me
By: Eric Spittle

We all know that President Bush is the single worst thing to happen to our country since the Pearl Harbor incident in 1941, but what few of us know is how much he has twisted our rights to fit his own idea of a tyrannical rule. The specific law, or more set of laws, I am speaking of have become known as the Patriot Act. Quite the example of slapping a nice sounding name on something bad and convincing the American public to accept it as something good for our country, and most of our country will accept it without even bothering to read it. The United States of America, the model of democracy, fundamentally the greatest nation on the face of the planet, the world’s policeman and the nation that most represents hope for the future of the world allowing its own leaders to deny it, we the people after all are the government and the nation, of its own rights? The signers of both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution are turning in their graves as the people whom they fought so hard for are allowing ourselves to be taken by a 342 page document of tyranny.

The first offense I will mention here comes in Title V: Section 505 regarding the amendment made to section 2709(b) of title 18, United States Code. The new amendment allows authorities to force the turning over of telephone records based upon suspicion of terrorism. On the surface this seems a great idea, the quicker we can track terrorists the more terrorist attacks we can prevent from happening. However upon inspection of the wording of this act you quickly realize that you can be deemed suspicious of being a terrorist without the proper search warrant normally required as per Amendment IV of the United States Constitution, considered the supreme law of the land. Further paragraphs (b and c) allow the same access to financial records and consumer reports (credit ratings). Again a good idea on the face, but without the required court issued warrant can allow the government full access to just about any information about us, which is basically a good translation of what Title V allows the government, with some minor bookkeeping issues such as payment of “heroic public safety officers” and permission to award cash to anyone who presents information leading to intelligence on a terrorist or terrorist organization.

The other offense I will mention in this article is basically all of Title VIII, entitled “STRENGTHENING THE CRIMINAL LAWS AGAINST TERRORISM.” This title stops slightly short of considering a seven year old stealing bubble gum as a terrorist and his parents as part of his terrorist cell. Section 801, an addendum to United States Code title 18 chapter 97, specifically says that anyone who “Willingly wrecks, derails, sets fire to, or disables a mass transportation vehicle or ferry,” is assigned the title of terrorist, and automatically has a maximum of 20 years in jail not allowing for the time which he or she may receive for other crimes committed during the same time. This makes sense that somebody who inhibits the operation of any mass transit system to be punished, even having federal law regarding it makes sense, however labeling them a terrorist, and subjecting them then to the actions described in Title V, does not seem just. Section 802 states specifically that: “the term `domestic terrorism' means activities that… involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State,” or it continues to say, “to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion.” A little ironic to anyone who reads into it given the fact that our country was founded on an act that could be considered influential to the policy of a government, in a word, a revolution. This particular addendum could be translated into suppressing our right to freely criticize the government, and the right of the press to do the same. The press after all could be considered to have the ability to impress certain ideas upon a group of people, and therefore it could be considered that they have the ability to coerce the creation of policy by the government.

People may wish to define me as a conspiracy theorist after reading this article, and I will tell them that they are absolutely correct. People will most likely wish to call me a pessimist, and to them I would like to say that pessimists can never be disappointed and can only be pleased further, optimists have much more to lose and personally I would rather be safe and attempt to protect my rights than sorry later when I am being oppressed by my government.

wow mighty long post. But seriously i think if bush dun go to war the terrorist might continue their suicidal bombing.

If they can did it b4 (twin tower) they can do it again.

But thats what i feel. So dun flame me :p

I'm assuming you wrote this?

What do you think of this:

These laws and amendments are good, if they are used correctly. If you follow all the rules, are a good citizen, if you are clean, then what do you have to fear?

Of course, you can argue this with "What laws have not been abused?"

But what do you think of my point?

Nice article. You make some good points.

I would however have to disagree with the following:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Skitchen8
personally I would rather be safe and attempt to protect my rights than sorry later when I am being oppressed by my government.

---

In that statement you actually imply that you aren't already oppressed by your goverment.:eek:

Quote:

---

"Willingly wrecks, derails, sets fire to, or disables a mass transportation vehicle or ferry,” is assigned the title of terrorist, and automatically has a maximum of 20 years

---

Outside of not going far enough, how can you argue with that?
Of course, one must go thru the Due Process of Law, and if that step is skipped, then I'm riled.

-Lou

:eek:
The new laws they want to pass is for the war on drug!
:rolleyes:
And no I think Patriot Act sucks!
It is not American!
:bigyello:

The Patriot Act was specifically designed so that it would expire after a certain amount of time to help allay such fears. Also an independent group was set up to monitor abuses of the Patriot Act, which I might mention have not recorded any abuses since the inception of the Act. Not to mention how the media would paste such a violation all across the front page of every paper in the land for all to read. There is a fine line in protecting the country and personal freedom. I believe that enough safeguards have been placed in the Patriot Act to make it a viable tool in dealing with possible terrorism without limiting the rights of average citizens. I wouldn’t consider myself an optimist, just a realist. I realize something must be done to help protect the citizens of the US and if that makes a few conspiracy theorists nervous about the Patriot Act then so be it. It’s perfectly healthy to question and criticize the government and just the fact that you are still able to do it leads me to believe that all is still working as intended.

X

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Something Else
Outside of not going far enough, how can you argue with that?
Of course, one must go thru the Due Process of Law, and if that step is skipped, then I'm riled.

-Lou

---

Such criminal acts should be prosecuted by the state government, and in my opinion acts of terrorism should be limited to more major things that can harm many people. If I were to stab a tire on a bus, causing no harm to any people and maybe a couple hundred dollars damage it would be considered a terrorist act. If I stab the tire out on a charter bus they can prosecute me criminally but not throw me away for 20 years, nor label me as a terrorist, which is a label almost nobody wants to carry with them.

Xanith: Thousands of people die every year from radiation poisoning due to anti-tank missiles we use that contain spent uranium and plutonium, less volatile but still produces radiation. The in my opinion, and many others, is an atrocity and should be stopped, but does the news media say anything about it?? Not a chance. You place far too much confidence in news media to report what is true, which proves either you are ignorant or have not read a newspaper or watched a television news program since the 50's. The papers and other newsmedia organizations have free reign to print exactly what they want which is true, however the media allows itself to be puppeted by the government otherwise they don't get the leaks and they aren't as popular with the public. If a whole bunch of people tell the same lies is that going to make it the truth??

Imbue: Very good point, I was arguing against future and more of a "no holds barred" kind of opression, whereas the government now will step on your toes but if you hit them hard enough back they will back off a little bit. However that could be just like sticking your finger in water and pulling it back out quick, if it gets hot you are out of there, but if its cool you know you can dive right back in.

Mendhak: For me its an issue of privacy. Not that the government couldn't spy on me before if they wanted to, but now they have government mandate that allows them to monitor my communications. You are correct, as long as I am no threat then it doesn't matter if they hear what I say, but would you want somebody watching you having sex to make sure you didn't kill the woman?? Not to mention a government that can suppress one right is sure to be able to suppress another, and if America as a whole keeps being pacifistic about this who is to stop the government from becoming more corrupt than it is and ruling out the idea of democracy. It sounds far fetched to many because nobody in this or for that matter the last few generations has ever seen it, but its happened before so what is to prevent it from happening again?

Mendhak is correct, what do you have to fear if you are an upstanding member of society?

The chance of any of this happening to the average american is slim to none. I don't think it is a violation of privacy at all. If you have attracted the governments attention under this act, then in my opinion, you are obviously doing something wrong and should be investigated.

Your also forgetting the key fact here, which is you would have to be considered suspicious of terroristic involvement or activity to even be considered under this act.

I personally feel that anybody who attack mass transportation or in anyway threatened the lives of a mass group of people should be considered a terrorist.

Anybody, remember Oklahoma City??? Should Timothy McVie and Terry Nichols have been considered terrorists???

Personally, I think you are overly exaggerating what would happen if you flattened a tire on a bus.

The key thing to remember about law is, it is all subject to interpretation. The most logical interpretation is usually the most commonly accepted. Therefore, logically speaking you wouldn't be labeled a terrorist or jailed for 20 years for flattening a bus tire. unless of course you did it with a bomb.

But then again, why would you flatten the tire on a bus anyway? what did it do to you?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Skitchen8
If I were to stab a tire on a bus, causing no harm to any people and maybe a couple hundred dollars damage it would be considered a terrorist act.

---

Maybe, but lets see...

Quote:

---

“Willingly wrecks, derails, sets fire to, or disables a mass transportation vehicle or ferry,”

---

Stabbing a tire doesn't "Wreck" ,{whatever the legal definition of that is} said bus. Ignore the derail and the Fire, so Now we've got "Disable".

First of all, to What Degree should that be taken up to? "Permanently Disabled", "Partially Disabled", "Temporarily Disabled" ???

If you stab a buses Tire, since we make the distinction "Buses" Tire, the Tire is what was attacked, and not specifically the Bus itself. And we can hardly consider a tire a "Mass Transportation Vehicle". Heck, You can barely squeeze One Little Blond Haired Girl into it on a Tree Swing!

However, Lets say the Tire, being attached to a Bus requiring 4 to function, does effectively prevent the use of the bus for a timely interval, at least temporarily.

Hmmm, I'm meandering a little.

Never Mind!
:wave:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Memnoch1207
The key thing to remember about law is, it is all subject to interpretation. The most logical interpretation is usually the most commonly accepted. Therefore, logically speaking you wouldn't be labeled a terrorist or jailed for 20 years for flattening a bus tire. unless of course you did it with a bomb.

But then again, why would you flatten the tire on a bus anyway? what did it do to you?

---

Apparently you aren't American if you think that our laws are interpreted in any way logically. There is a reason that everyone is suing everyone nowadays, because the laws can be twisted and bent to award anyone money, including a lady who spilled coffee on herself and sued mcdonalds for not telling her it was hot.

Also apparently you've never been hit by parked busses, they are nasty little things.

my point exactly, the law is just a bunch of gray area, that is subject to interpretation. That is why we have all of these rediculous lawsuits. It isn't because the law is extremely clear and concise, it's because the law is vague and subject to different interpretations by different people.

And for every rediculous lawsuit you will have an ambulance chasing lawyer willing to take the case, in the off chance it can be settled out of court.

Oh, and btw I am an american and both of my parents are/were attorneys.

Then you understand things don't have to make sense, if somebody wants to track me down for some reason or another they can. They can say I am a terrorist threat maybe because I talk this way about the government and can lock me up, and the law can be interpreted loosely enough to allow them to do that. The whole point of freedom of speech and press is to allow the people living under the government to voice their opinion about it, and they are giving themselves the ability to take that freedome away from me. If this was a true democracy I would have had a say, or at least my parents, before this bill was voted in, but it wasn't up to the people to decide what their best interests are.

If you're to be a journalist, you need articles that people can read easily.

Use paragraphs/line breaks/wite space.

Very obvious and simple but it turned me off your article.

Hope that helps.

Skitchen.... No offense man, but how old are you? Judging by your "article" you seem to be; a) Lacking in basic writing skills and b) child like in the way you express your opinions. I mean "We all know that President Bush is the single worst thing to happen to our country since the Pearl Harbor incident in 1941"?? That is completely laughable and will win you no minds.

The point of a good article is to present it in such a way that you can sway the "other" side to see your point and value your opinion, but with outlandish/childish comments like that you are not only NOT going to win anyone over to your side you are also making yourself look like a moron.


Your entire article is completely over exaggerated and not based in fact. You seem more like a message board troll than someone trying to inform me about an issue. It is also good to at least occasionally try to see your opponents point of view, this way you come off as being fair minded and not inflammatory.

Keep all of that in mind when you write your next article.

If my child’s school was spewing garbage like this I'd be all over that principal’s ass.

Considering that he mentioned "Free speech" there, I think it was well written. :afrog:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Skitchen8
Then you understand things don't have to make sense, if somebody wants to track me down for some reason or another they can. They can say I am a terrorist threat maybe because I talk this way about the government and can lock me up, and the law can be interpreted loosely enough to allow them to do that. The whole point of freedom of speech and press is to allow the people living under the government to voice their opinion about it, and they are giving themselves the ability to take that freedome away from me. If this was a true democracy I would have had a say, or at least my parents, before this bill was voted in, but it wasn't up to the people to decide what their best interests are.

---

Freedom of speech only goes so far, try yelling "BOMB" in an airport terminal and see what happens when you claim you have the right to do that under freedom of speech.
Who is "they"??? Just some average joe off the street trying to sic the government on you?
Terrorism isn't about speech, unless you are making verbal threats, such as threatening to blow up a building, then yes it could/should be considered a terroristic threat.

You can't nor would you be considered a terrorist for making derogartory comments about our government. We have the right to criticize the government, but we do not have the right to make threats.

There is a difference between saying "I think Bushes adminstration is horrible and murderous", and saying "I'm gonna blow up the white house, because I don't like Bush"

The first comment is an opinion, which you are entitled to have, the second comment is a verbal threat.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Gary Campbell
If you're to be a journalist, you need articles that people can read easily.

Use paragraphs/line breaks/wite space.

Very obvious and simple but it turned me off your article.

Hope that helps.

---

There are paragraphs, I don't double space my paragraphs, look at it and there are line breaks between paragraphs.

Arc: I try to add slight comedy to my post, maybe it is lost on some, but there is a reason for such comments. As far as lacking in basic writing skills with a few minor edits it will be published in a couple weeks, didn't mean to offend such a great writer as yourself who I'm sure has many pulitzers hanging up on his wall. As far as not being based in fact, I specifically quoted and referenced parts of the document in question just to keep ass holes like you off my back saying it is all opinionated, don't believe me look it up. All parts are right where I say they are. I guess what I really mean to say is: **** you. You are entitled to make criticism of the work, calling me a moron is a little exaggerated though don't you think?? Im not even going to bother responding to half of your comments because half of them are hypocritical anyways.

memnoch: To quote from my article and from the Patriot Act itself "the term `domestic terrorism' means activities that... influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion." That makes your argument completely pointless. That statement right there says that things can be considered terrorism if they attempt to influence the policy of government by intimidation or coercion, that means that a newspaper printing an article getting a mass amount of people to rally in support of a change of the law is considered domestic terrorism. Try reading the whole article before you make comments about it, they is clearly defined as the government, specifically the executive branch. If there wasn't enough evidence in the article for that then I just defined it for you, set game and match.


I posted here in an attempt to get some constructive criticism and I thank those that have provided it for me, however in the future I will stick to forums where I will not be insulted for my opinions, where people will be intelligent enough to read before complaining, and where people have the intelect to attempt to see things from a point of view that they may have never considered before. If you have any interest in my writing, which I doubt you do, let me know via PM or something and I will allow you to read future works for a more thought out response to them.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Skitchen8
That statement right there says that things can be considered terrorism if they attempt to influence the policy of government by intimidation or coercion, that means that a newspaper printing an article getting a mass amount of people to rally in support of a change of the law is considered domestic terrorism.

---

WRONG. A newspaper article, nor a non-violent rally qualifies as either intimidation or coercion.

Intimidation is by definition: inducing fear or a sense of inferiority into another, to frighten into submission

Coercion is by definition: to bring about by force or threat

Neither an article, nor non-violent rally would in anyway intimidate or coerce the government into change.

You attempts at trying to find flaws in the Patriotic Act are not succeeding. It still protects the constitutional rights of innocent people.

Whatever battle you were hoping to win with this article is quickly being lost, due to your own slanted interpretation of the Patriotic Act.

Obviously we have a hard time reading both dictionaries and articles. Here is the Webster's Unabridged Dictionary's definition of coersion

Quote:

---

coercion

n 1: the act of compelling by force of authority 2: using force to cause something: "though pressed into rugby under compulsion I began to enjoy the game"; "they didn`t have to use coercion" [syn: compulsion]

---

According to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary of Law

Quote:

---

coercion

\Co*er"cion\, n. [L. coercio, fr. coercere. See Coerce.] 1. The act or process of coercing.

2. (Law) The application to another of either physical or moral force. When the force is physical, and cannot be resisted, then the act produced by it is a nullity, so far as concerns the party coerced. When the force is moral, then the act, though voidable, is imputable to the party doing it, unless he be so paralyzed by terror as to act convulsively. At the same time coercion is not negatived by the fact of submission under force. ``Coactus volui'' (I consented under compulsion) is the condition of mind which, when there is volition forced by coercion, annuls the result of such coercion. --Wharton.

---

Pay specific attention to "The application to another of either physical or moral force." I need not say more, the definition and your complete lack of understanding speaks for itself. As I said people may wish to see me as a conspiracy theorist, and they are right, however I wish people would try to see things from a more open minded point of view. According to Murphy's Law: anything that can go wrong, will go wrong. It may not happen, maybe Bush is an honest guy chasing no more than helping out his fellow countrymen. Then again, Hitler was only trying to protect Germany.

Quote:

---

The point of a good article is to present it in such a way that you can sway the "other" side to see your point and value your opinion, but with outlandish/childish comments like that you are not only NOT going to win anyone over to your side you are also making yourself look like a moron.

---

Arc, you're wrong about that. Most written works are aimed at an audience. There are numerous articles that are not even trying to sway the "other" side. For example, pick any left or right leaning magazine. They know who their readership is, and they speak to that readership. If they don't, they get blasted by that readership. The purpose for most of those magazines is to fortify the faithful, not convert the heathens.

Memnoch, I'm surprised that you would post that definition of coersion. From all you've posted, I wouldn't think that you really believe the definition would ever be restricted in that fashion.

Quote:

---

We all know that President Bush is the single worst thing to happen to our country since the Pearl Harbor incident in 1941

---

That's as far as I got.

Quote:

---

We all know that President Bush is the single worst thing to happen to our country since the Mullet and Union Jack tank top incident in 1981

---

:eek:

P.S. USA PATRIOT is an acronym. It should be capitalized in this context. (Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism.)

One last tip - two actually :-

- Journalists by definition make their writings public. The wider the audience, the better for most commercial journalists. This means you have to accept the heat when you're expressing your own opinions. You may be courtious to your readers but you can't expect the same courtesy returned. It's a shame but that's life. You also need to take the heat when you're wrong. I'm not saying any of your statements are wrong (I didn't read it - no paragraphs ;) )

- don't give up. Take all these comments onboard and try again, perhaps on a different subject. If a bunch of anonymous morons on a Chit Chat forum are going to knock you down you'll have no chance releasing an article in 'real life'

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Gary Campbell
One last tip - two actually :-

- Journalists by definition make their writings public. The wider the audience, the better for most commercial journalists. This means you have to accept the heat when you're expressing your own opinions. You may be courtious to your readers but you can't expect the same courtesy returned. It's a shame but that's life. You also need to take the heat when you're wrong. I'm not saying any of your statements are wrong (I didn't read it - no paragraphs ;) )

- don't give up. Take all these comments onboard and try again, perhaps on a different subject. If a bunch of anonymous morons on a Chit Chat forum are going to knock you down you'll have no chance releasing an article in 'real life'

---

One thing I would like to point out first of all is that there are indeed paragraphs I just didn't double space them so it looks like one continuous flowing. I am going to edit the post after I make this one and double space the paragraphs to make it easier to read.

In response to your first statement: currently there is not a wide ranging audience. Basically anyone who purchases the magazine/paper at my high school and a few other people including my parents who I show some of my writing to. Im not really used to being criticised heavily, and I will admit that I am taking the criticism wrong and am allowing it too much bearing on myself. Its a flaw of mine, I can't just say I don't care what people think about me because I do, especially in things like journalism what other people think is the only thing that matters.

I will do my best to take your second piece of advice, I of course will never stop writing because it is something I have always done more as a form of stress relief than anything, however I guess with this coming publication and a few after it I will find out how well the people around me appreciate my writing and my ideas. My next article I will try to publish on a more toned down level, one that maybe more people can relate to and isn't so far in left field that it is unperceivable by some.

Thanks,
Eric

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Shawn N
P.S. USA PATRIOT is an acronym. It should be capitalized in this context. (Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism.)

---

That's odd. I always thought that if you capitalize the abbreviation then it's pronounced as the individual letters.:confused:

"USA Patriot"

Quote:

---

Originally posted by imbue
That's odd. I always thought that if you capitalize the abbreviation then it's pronounced as the individual letters.:confused:

"USA Patriot"

---

Possibly. I'm no English major, so if I'm wrong I retract my statement. Either way, it's an interesting bit of information.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Shawn N
Possibly. I'm no English major, so if I'm wrong I retract my statement. Either way, it's an interesting bit of information.

---

I'm not either. I just remember reading about it the other day and thought it was funny. I think it's a matter of style and not a real rule, though.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Skitchen8
memnoch: To quote from my article and from the Patriot Act itself "the term `domestic terrorism' means activities that... influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion." That makes your argument completely pointless. That statement right there says that things can be considered terrorism if they attempt to influence the policy of government by intimidation or coercion...

---

So I guess that means all "Special Interest" groups and "Lobbyists" are Terrorists? Haha. If anyone Influences/intimidates/coerces our government it is them.

Like I said, you are blowing things WAY out proportion. I see the point you are trying to make, but you are taking it way over the edge. And as I said, you are convincing no one with your agressive and confrontational attitude.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Shawn N
That's as far as I got.

---

Haha, exactly. I am surprised that he actually thinks people will take him seriously writing garbage like that. Not only was it a completely outrageous statement, it was written in a poor manner.

It should have been written more like; "If you look at George Busch's record for the past 4 years it could be said that he has done as much, if not more, damage to this country as has ever been done by any other president." While I totally disagree with that statement, it still gets the same point across and doesn’t make you seem like a child throwing a tantrum.

To compare George Bush with a touchy subject like Pearl Harbor is stupid and it shows your age.

Skitch

I've read the article now and PM'ed my comments

Moral Force??? Please define that!
Moral Force is nothing more than a Euphemism for "making a party feeling guilty about its conduct" or "Enforcing your morality on others". This is how censorship began!

There is absolutely no way anyone, group, party, etc... could use Moral Force to change political policy. It may change opinion, which may change voters minds when elections come around. But to honestly think you believe the conspiracy crap your selling is rediculous.

The law can sometimes be very vague, but the words defining a law are always bound by their definitions.

As Mendhak said before: If you are an upstanding member of society, what do you have to worry about?

:D
I real like reading good threads of debate!
Skitchen8 remember everyone has an opinion and something else! :eek:
And that all part of America!


:bigyello:

If you Liberals would add what YOU would do instead of just what you don't agree with that our great President Bush does, then maybe I'd respect this bull****.

From Cambridge dictionaries :

liberal (POLITICS)

adjective

(of a political party or a country) believing in or allowing more personal freedom and a development towards a fairer sharing of wealth and power within society


Since that is basically the raison d'être for the USA, I guess you're all liberals then ...

:bigyello:
I vote for who I think is best! Not left or right! (Dem or Rep)
I do not like the Patriot Act!

:D
But I am pulling my gun out on anyone trying to harm me or my family!
With my legal fire arm!
A NRA member and CWP holder!
So what does that make me?
:cool:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Memnoch1207
The law can sometimes be very vague, but the words defining a law are always bound by their definitions.

As Mendhak said before: If you are an upstanding member of society, what do you have to worry about?

---

When those definitions are also vague it allows interpretations by people like me that may seem a bit outlandish. However there are a great many laws and policies made by the government that can also seem quite outlandish, so I believe I am not alone.


Hardcode: If you want me to write something about what I would do I will gladly do so. However pertaining to this specific article I think it is fairly clear that if I was to become president I would immediately remove the patriot act and perhaps rewrite it to make it more fair and constitutional.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Wally Pipp
From Cambridge dictionaries :

liberal (POLITICS)

adjective

(of a political party or a country) believing in or allowing more personal freedom and a development towards a fairer sharing of wealth and power within society


Since that is basically the raison d'être for the USA, I guess you're all liberals then ...

---

Not at all true. The USA is based on freedom but there's a limit to that freedom. Liberals & conservatives have different ideas on where that freedom starts and stops. Big big difference.

Example:
ACLU - Liberal organization
Grassfire.org - Conservative organization

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Skitchen8
When those definitions are also vague it allows interpretations by people like me that may seem a bit outlandish. However there are a great many laws and policies made by the government that can also seem quite outlandish, so I believe I am not alone.

---

Well the only words that are vague and not clearly defined are words such as "Moral Force" which, A) aren't in the dictionary and B) Have been conceived/created to benefit a person/parties agenda.

However, if you take the words individually and define them then you would end up with something like this

Moral: of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior

Force: strength or energy exerted or brought to bear

Definition of Moral Force: To exert upon or force the priniciples of right and wrong in behavior.

Hello Shawn, rest of the world calling ...

We have a very different definition for liberals and liberalism and, as it nearly always goes, the original is far closer to the mark than whatever meaning you yanks attach to it.

And spare me the usual in-the-US-liberals-are-commies diatribe, don't want it, don't need it, seen it, heard it, read the book, bought the damn T-shirt ...


P.S. : How I love a good send up. Especially if you're such an easy target :) :wave: