Author |
Message |
Miamiuly
| Posted on Thursday, September 04, 2008 - 08:55 am: |
|
So I was thinking about how lately if one is the least bit critical of anything in America, then they don't "love" this country. Here is a simple comparison to show why that is so untrue and complete B.S. Turn on Nanny 911 or Supernanny or the like one day. Parents with kids that they LOVE, but who are out of control due to bad parenting. Tough love is necessary sometimes and that takes and objective eye and sometimes criticism. If your kid drove home drunk and you caught him, you may have some critical words and actions towards him, does that mean that you don't love him? Or would that prove that you do love him enough to actually help improve him even if it hurts? Just saying... some food for thought. I can't believe we accept, "free speech zones." Sounds like something the commies would come up with to claim that they allow dissent. |
B00stzx3
| Posted on Thursday, September 04, 2008 - 11:07 am: |
|
I think your right, world is outta control. both government and society...I think it started to breakdown when parents stopped spanking there kids. I'm part of that generation to, but my folks were old school and I turned out better because I got the smackdown when I acted up. Free speech zones is scary, sorta like 1984 stuff. Those raids on those hippie houses are pretty scary to. Since when can you raid someones house just for being pot smoking hippies? |
Seanp
| Posted on Thursday, September 04, 2008 - 11:39 am: |
|
Yes, but there's a fine line between loving your kid and chastising him for a wrongdoing, and ridiculing your kid in public for something minuscule just for a power trip. I was raised the first way, and a friend of mine was raised the second way. We have two completely different adult lives now. Many people tend to ridicule the country and its leadership for the sole purpose of making themselves feel better, rather than pointing out flaws in the country and administration in order to fix those flaws. |
Cityxslicker
| Posted on Thursday, September 04, 2008 - 01:13 pm: |
|
"Since when can you raid someones house just for being pot smoking hippies?" Since 1972 with the formation of the D.E.A. |
Spiderman
| Posted on Thursday, September 04, 2008 - 01:18 pm: |
|
How un-American of you! LOL JK
|
Buellinachinashop
| Posted on Thursday, September 04, 2008 - 01:20 pm: |
|
If you want a rant about stuff in this country, you gotta see this dude in action..... http://theguyfromboston.net/ |
B00stzx3
| Posted on Thursday, September 04, 2008 - 01:42 pm: |
|
Oh yeah I forgot, the DEA HATES doritos, funyuns and Family Guy, so they must stop the pot smoking hippies now before Doritos, Funyuns and Family Guy become too powerful. |
Hr_puffinstuff
| Posted on Thursday, September 04, 2008 - 03:30 pm: |
|
"Since when can you raid someones house just for being pot smoking hippies?" Since 1972 with the formation of the D.E.A. 1937. before that, there were no laws on the (federal) books having to do with marijuana. the DEA just took it to the next level. with a passion. waste of money. hippies are no threat to anything but a box of twinkies. |
Greenlantern
| Posted on Thursday, September 04, 2008 - 03:43 pm: |
|
waste of •••••• money. hippies are no threat to anything but a box of twinkies. Yeah!? Well they taint gettin my f*!@*^g Twinkies! U.S.A! U.S.A! U.S.A! U.S.A!
|
Buellinachinashop
| Posted on Thursday, September 04, 2008 - 03:49 pm: |
|
Uncle Sam wants his cut from Pot. If he can't tax it or license it, its Illegal and he'll make his by siezures and fines. Pot and money are both green. Unless you get some skunk weed or stems. |
Retrittion
| Posted on Friday, September 05, 2008 - 03:53 pm: |
|
The Twinkies thing! . . . . . . . . . *cough*cough*hack*cough*... You guys are gonna give me an anurism!!! |
Djkaplan
| Posted on Friday, September 05, 2008 - 05:07 pm: |
|
Rebelling against the status quo is what turned a collection of colonies into the greatest nation on the planet. We should all keep fighting the good fight... stagnation is the most un-American of all activities. (Damn.... that's good!) |
Ferris_von_bueller
| Posted on Friday, September 05, 2008 - 05:21 pm: |
|
What's up with the "free speech zones" ? I haven't heard of this...please elaborate |
Chellem
| Posted on Friday, September 05, 2008 - 06:11 pm: |
|
Fighting the good fight, finding fault with the country and then working toward a resolution - that's not the same thing as standing around bitching about how everything sucks. Fact is, relative to MANY countries out there, everything most certainly DOES NOT SUCK. But just like they said, raising kids - you can't just tell them they suck, loudly and in public, and expect the behavior to improve. You have to work with them, tell them the RIGHT way, or give them some reasonable ideas anyway, and then help them to become better. I think it's a fairly good analogy. I don't mind people with legitimate gripes trying to bring awareness and change to what they see as an area which needs improvement. But people who just stand around and say, man, someone should do something! The government should do something! These people just kinda tick me off. Come off as a bit whiney. The LAST thing I want is for the government to have to step in to fix something. Gives them more power, and more arrogance, and more control. If only people would take more control in their own lives (and responsibility) then we wouldn't need the government. Yes. Libertarian. I'm braced. ->ChelleM |
Miamiuly
| Posted on Friday, September 05, 2008 - 09:27 pm: |
|
Some good thoughts. As for free speech zones, I hate to do it but this sums it up: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_speech_zones |
Brumbear
| Posted on Friday, September 05, 2008 - 09:56 pm: |
|
I guess you aint seen the cow video |
Chellem
| Posted on Friday, September 05, 2008 - 11:21 pm: |
|
Well, if wiki is to be believed - and I say if - that's pretty effed up. I certainly can see the appeal to the establishment to create free speech zones, waaaaay over there, over that hill and behind that tree, but by defining a free speech zone, they are, by definition, designating other areas as "non-free speech zones". I don't understand how that is constitutional. Not that consitutionality is all that much of a concern lately. On the other hand, "peaceful" protests lately have become anything but - I blame reality TV and the media. I know, easy scapegoat, but no one wants to watch a peaceful protest, and so they don't get much airtime. Unless the protesters cause some sort of a ruckus, or ruckus-related riot, they get no airtime at all. And it gives people in power the perfect excuse to define and exercise "free speech zones" for the "protection" of all involved. So the media is helping to create the very unconsitutionality they are reporting on. My head hurts. ->ChelleM |
Indy_bueller
| Posted on Friday, September 05, 2008 - 11:29 pm: |
|
ChelleM: For a long time I've believed that every American should live in a third-world country for one month. That would cut down on the bitching quite a bit. |
Oldog
| Posted on Saturday, September 06, 2008 - 12:40 am: |
|
I visited one for a WEEK I could not agree more ChelleM: It will make you think. |
Wile_ecoyote
| Posted on Saturday, September 06, 2008 - 12:46 am: |
|
What DJ said..............+1 BTW yeah, quite good. |
Miamiuly
| Posted on Saturday, September 06, 2008 - 01:15 am: |
|
Some free speech zone reading http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/08/04/hilden.freespeec h/index.html http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/news.aspx?id=1 1796 http://baltimorechronicle.com/052704FreeSpeechZone s.shtml http://www.aclu.org/freespeech/protest/11423prs200 30923.html |
|