"Suggesting that our troops would attack the leaders of the very democracy they've sworn to sacrifice their lives for is an insult to their integrity, honor, and professionalism." [More]
When we see this kind of blatant misdirection happening, let's all take a moment when we can to correct the record. Here's my comment (177):
"Suggesting that our troops would attack the leaders of the very democracy they've sworn to sacrifice their lives for is an insult to their integrity, honor, and professionalism."
Media Matters seems not to understand that accuracy matters. That oath is not to "sacrifice their lives" for "democracy," but to "support and defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic."
Big difference.
Google "Oath Keepers."
By promulgating that deception, Eric Burns is an insult to what is supposed to have been a watchdog, not a lapdog press.
Comment by David Codrea — May 10, 2009 @ 10:09 am
Feel free to join the the fun. Maybe even explain how one could use "
Nancy Pelosi" and "domestic enemy" in the same sentence...
9 comments:
Mr. Feherty hasn't been paying attention. Presidents folding the Constitution into one of those paper footballs and playing with it isn't exclusive to this regime or the Democrats. Our troops "may prefer Bush by contrast," but that's an Anakin "Vader" Skywalker/Emperor Palpatine popularity contest. Left boot, right boot, jackboot either way.
I GUESS it's good to see some licensed journalists NOT getting a shiver up their leg when Obama's name is mentioned, but sheez, people, PATRIOT Act? Remember? I wonder what Ashton Lundeby would say, IF we could ask him.
Why would anyone ever sacrifice their lives for a democracy? The whole point of sacrificing your life implies commitment to a higher purpose or principle. Democracies don't have principles -- they have elections. Thankfully, we don't live in a democracy; we live in a Republic.
I would happily lay down my life to defend this Republic, but that's because the Liberty guaranteed by this Republic is my children's birthright, and despising one's birthright is beyond contemptible.
But I would never die for a democracy that could vote that Liberty into non-existence on the judgment of a simple majority. That's beyond absurd.
I'll never lay down my life for any government. For freedom, family, and friends, yes, but never for any form of institutionalized brutality, which is all even the "best" government can honestly claim to be. Those who fight to support the government are not "fighting for 'our' freedom".
In my opinion, (at least semi-protected by the 1st Amendment) Eric Burns is an idiot who obviously hasn’t bothered to; (a) read the oath he references, or (b) talked personally to any troops. First of all, the troops haven’t sworn to sacrifice their lives for a damn thing. They have sworn to protect and defend the Constitution. Secondly, they do willingly put themselves in harm’s way, but they do not sacrifice their lives to the enemy, their lives are stolen by the enemy. Or, in many instances by the very people they are attempting to protect.
No apology required.
Also, David, your last question is easy. Just insert the phrase “is a” between the words “Pe-lousy” and “domestic” then add a period just to the right of the word "enemy"
Hypnagogue said: "Democracies don't have principles -- they have elections."
Well said. I hope you don't mind but I stole your post and reprinted it in its entirety at Sipsey Street.
Mike
III
Putting me into an elevator with those three would be akin to putting a werewolf in with them. Kent, do you suppose that YOUR freedom was obtained and maintained by people who were your ideological counterparts? People have sacrificed their lives for the Republic, which is an idea that all men and women would be as free as possible, under mutually agreed standards of law and justice. This country was born and kept free by better men than your bitter self, so if you don't like it, tough. You could not do better. Your quasi-nomadic idea of everyone for themselves would work great.... in 4000BC. Don't worry, you won't be asked or compelled to do anything to help your fellow man in America. You don't know who they are anyway.
Defender, did you read the recent Ashton Lundeby news?
The kid's basically a punk who, with his mother's knowledge, was getting paid by kids across the country to use Skype to call up those schools and make bomb threats so that classes would be canceled. Seems that his mom's only excuse is that he denies making the specific bomb threat that they're arresting him for (Purdue University) and extraditing him to Indiana for.
There might be some odd stuff going on with his lawyer situation, depending on whom you believe, but it looks like the feds were right to get involved, to search their home, and to take him to Indiana, even without the Patriot Act.
I don't think I'm going to waste my outrage on that kid.
to Quote and expand on Hypnagogue's post;
"Why would anyone ever sacrifice their lives for a democracy? The whole point of sacrificing your life implies commitment to a higher purpose or principle."
Duty (from "due," that which is owing, Lat. debere, debitum; cf. "debt") is a term that conveys a sense of moral commitment to someone or something. The moral commitment is the sort that results in action, and it is not a matter of passive feeling or mere recognition. When someone recognizes a duty, that person commits himself/herself to the cause involved without considering the self-interested courses of actions that may have been relevant previously. This is not to suggest that living a life of duty precludes one from the best sort of life, but duty does involve some sacrifice of immediate self-interest.
I have never seen or heard a liberal who understood duty, because everything a liberal does is about their own feelings and in their own self interest.
"The coward (liberal) is the one who lets his fear
overcome his sense of duty. Duty is the essence of manhood."
George S. Patton
This is why a liberal cannot understand the essence or mindset of a warrior. Or why some things are worth living and dying for.
"I would happily lay down my life to defend this Republic, but that's because the Liberty guaranteed by this Republic is my children's birthright, and despising one's birthright is beyond contemptible."
But being free of the duty of understanding and defending the sacrifices of those who came before you allows contempt. For there is no touchstone of what is right and good, only what is in it for me. And that is the essence of "democracy" and is why we are where we are today. That is why Obama has no right to stand on much less deny anyone else to visit the hollowed ground of Colleville-Sur-Mer this June 6th. Because he just does not get it.
Duty. Honor. Family. Country. Is there anything else worth living and dying for?.
What the HELL are people thinking? I'm not fighting and dying for some rich senator's pocketbook. I'm not fighting for the President. I'm not fighting for ANY person. I'm fighting for every person's RIGHTS, which are enumerated in THE CONSTITUTION. Screw the people. I could care less about them, because they live by their own choices; what I care about is their right and ability to make those choices UNHAMPERED BY IDIOTS. I fight for the CONSTITUTION and the people that adhere to THE CONSTITUTION, which is a lot less than they're forcing us to fight for lately.
Post a Comment