It’s Wednesday, so you know what that means: it’s means it’s time to question people’s patriotism.
Liberals are always saying that conservative are questioning their patriotism when we attack their moronic ideas, but I wonder why we don’t just go out and attack their lack of patriotism outright. It seems like a fun idea long overdue.
Today, I’m going to question the patriotism of John Kerry. He recently claimed that American soldiers are going into Iraqi homes in the dead of night and terrorizing kids and children. I don’t care what his past service was; he now seems happy to undermine our troops if he thinks it helps his non-existent chance at being elected President in 2008. He obviously cares nothing for this country or the men and women who put their lives on the line for it, so consider his patriotism questioned, that traitor.
Question other people’s patriotism in the comments. You can’t question my patriotism, though, as I have a picture of an American flag somewhere on this site.
Why has it become taboo to question ones patriotism? Benedict Arnold’s patriotism was clearly questioned, and with good reason, and he got a tasty breakfast named after him.
Mmmm… Kerry Baked Ham…
No, No Kerry was a true patriot…served as foreman on Jury duty and everything…and VIETNAM…remember Kerry cut peoples’ ears off in Vietnam!!!
“Chicken Pelosi” might be a tasty dish. You’d have to choose an understated wine, however, since the chicken would have a weak, weasely flavor.
OK, Pelosi recently voted against an immediate withdrawal of our troops from Iraq. In fact, she directed the entire Democratic caucus to do the same. The next day (or thereabouts), she was out with Murtha demanding their immediate (3-6 months or some insane number) withdrawal. Therefore, it seems that she has both forced our troops to stay there, and given support to our enemies, emboldening them to kill our troops even more.
Treason? Perhaps not, but wanting more of our troops to die (which according to her is all they’re doing) doesn’t sound very patriotic.
Of course, cheering as American Soldiers confiscate weapons from Iraqi citizens, and violate, what would constitute here, their 4th Ammendment Rights, apparently is extremely patriotic.
-Abject.
2nd amendment, abject
Maybe we should just put the treasonous liberals in jail for the love of God! and question their sanity instead. Sedition is illegal too, ok so maybe we can’t have them shot for it (can we?), but still.
-Abject
Iraqi citizens are entitle to American 2nd Amendment rights? That’s a new reading of the Constitution on me. You should sit on the Supreme Court! Iraq doesn’t need a new constitution, they can borrow ours! Now we can avoid all that pesky voting stuff…
Man, are there any people in this world not granted Constitutional protection? Anyone? I mean, obviously terrorists are entitled and regualr people from outside the country but who, if anyone, is absolutely not covered? Will Justice Abject enlighten us?
Dave –
I was referencing American troops breaking into the homes of Iraqi’s with my reference to the 4th Ammendment. I should have made that clearer.
Kevin,
If we are going to “Nation Build” why should we not extend the Rights granted to us by G-d unto those people in the respective country we are building? Our Bill of Rights should be the model, to do otherwise is hypocritical. I personally find it rather interesting that you you choose to take such a mocking approach.
That’s not what Abject said.
And let’s not lose focus here – liberals are unpatriotic.
Kerry was in Vietnam?
Does the comment thing automatically replace the O in God with a -, or did abject do that himself.
Because its always seemed to me to be a really retarded thing to do. Either talk about God or don’t, but putting in the dash is dumb.
I guess it isnt automatic
RightWing,
It’s nice to know that my Religious beliefs are fodder for attack, instead of any of my points. You are entitled to your opinion none the less, and if you’d like an explination as to why the ‘-‘ is placed there, a number of open sources on the Internet are available for your review.
-Abject.
I believe the practice of leaving out a letter in the name of God is a Jewish custom that has something to do with a belief that we are not worthy to speak (or write) the name of God. Of course I might be totally wrong, too.
Merry Christmas.
Abject,
Not of your faith but I love the use of the “-“. Started using it myself as a sign of respect. Hope your day goes well.
Well Mr. Abject, GOD did grant us rights. The right to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. The bill of rights tries to specify some of what that means, though in present times people can’t seem to agree on what the word “people” means (2nd Amendment battle) among other disputes, much less some of the more complicated ideas laid forth therin. God help us if we ever have to re-interpret “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness”. That being said, it is freedom we are trying to spread, not our constitution. Freedom is the key affect of our God given rights. Our Bill of Rights is basically an agreement between the union states decided upon in order to ratify the constiution. I think we should at least allow Iraq that same freedom to decide how to interpret their God (or Allah) given rights and give them a chance to word their Bill of Rights much more specifically than was ours to hopefully avoid Judicial legislation in their future.
To do otherwise would be hypocritcal.
-LucidObscurity
What is even funnier, is that Kerry apparently isn’t upset over the “terrorizing,” just that the Iraqis weren’t the ones doing the “terrorizing.”
Of course, this is coming from someone who would consider it “torture” if we were to give imprisoned terrorists store-brand fruit cocktail instead of fresh-made.
How about this one: Howard Dean said last week that the idea that we will win this war is wrong.
So, how do you think Saddam feels when he hears what Dean said?
Encouraged? Comforted, even?
Obviously. So Dean has, by definition, given “comfort” to the enemy.
Seems simple to me.
mtnst8, I understand your logic, but that sounds ridiculous to me, since God’s name isn’t actually “God”, or even the same language as “God”.
Tristan:
Hey, that’s not my bag, man. Just trying to be helpful. I might not have a totally accurate understanding of it either. But I think that is the general logic.
MtnSt8
Abject – If you’re still reading this thread, I’d love a link to an explanation of the whole “G-d” thing. I’ve seen it a lot and have always wondered.
Lucid (and others) – All rights come from a man standing up and saying “I have this right. Anyone got a problem with that?”, not from God. I won’t claim to be a biblical scholar, but I’ve never seen, in all my readings of the scripture, a reference to God granting a man, a group of men, or all men a right.
Sik1:
Are you trying to draw us out? Read the first chapter of the Bible. “So God created human beings, making them to be like himself. He…said “Have many children so that your descendants will live all over the earth and bring it under their control.”
Genesis 1:26-28 TEV
Does this not certainly mean that God has given mankind dominion over the earth? That we are to rule over it? Throughout the rest of the Bible there are clear instructions on how we are to relate to each other but these passages clearly indicate that human beings are different from all other creatures and we are to rule and govern ourselves…a right unafforded to all other creatures.
“Now, the Lord is the Spirit, and wherever the Spirit of the Lord is, he gives freedom.”
2 Corinthians 3:17
More in depth analysis
Wait, Kerry was in Nam? I thought he was in Cambodia?
Well, I question Barbara Boxer’s patriotism, and Howard Dean’s, as well. Come to think of it, I question John Kerry’s patriotism, and Al Gore’s, and Nancy Pelosi’s, and Chuck Schumer’s, and Teddy Kennedy’s (assuming that he’s been sober enough in the past forty years to be unpatriotic), and Michael Moore’s. I question Jimmy Carter’s patriotism, and Cindy Sheehan’s, as well.
As it used to say on the bottom of a cigarette package, “LSMFT” (let’s stop, my finger’s tired).
mtnst8: Not at all, seriously. I think you and I might have differing definitions of the term “Right”, though. I get that we’ve been granted dominion over the earth, but I don’t see that as a “Right”. But I could be all wet on this. I’ll think on it some more.
Lucid: Thanx for the link. I’ll study it tonight. I get that it is God’s intention (in fact, I believe it is His Will) that man be free, but I don’t see where we get the idea that we have the “Right” to be free. To my mind, if it can be taken away from you, it isn’t a “Right”. And freedom is all too rare in this world.
One of the problems we have in this country is too many people thinking that freedom is free. I’m just trying to point out that these things we call “Rights” are really gifts which where bought and paid for by others, and we have a responsibility to remember that.
I think I’ll just leave it at that.
Happy Festivus you unpatriotic lefties
How funny is it that I found this blog through an Alan Colmes link?
I give up. How funny is it?
What Alan Colmes link?
Was Alan Colmes in Vietnam?
Alan Colmes invented Vietnam and combs.
Yes, mtnst8, the use of the “-” in place of “o” has to do with the lord’s name not being written in vain. It is not a “retarded thing to do,” RightWingConspirator, merely part of our religious beliefs. You take your beliefs seriously, and we do too (at least those of us who use a “-” in place of an “o”).
I think all liberals are unpatriotic, at least the mainstream, far-left types. How can they claim to be patriotic when the only thing they do like about America is the right to criticize it? Conservatives like America for what it is, and what it represents. Liberals like America for what it could be. Which of those seems more patriotic?
Hey Alucard —
Wouldn’t be ironic if God’s name really is “G-d” with a dash?
If so, by now he’s getting steamed at you!
Me and a lot of other people 😉
Whether or not there’s a dash in Adonai or Elohim, has the culinary intent of this post been lost on everyone, or am I the only one who’s hungry?
Alan Colmes would probably have a lame mac ‘n cheese caserole named after him. Unless he served in Vietnam, of course.
Who gets waffles named after them is what I want to know.
I question Jimmy Carter’s patriotism. And in his honor we should serve a tasty Killer Wabbit Fwicassee.
Former US Attorney General Ramsey Clark for defending Saddam Hussein.
How funny is it that Alan Colms looks a lot like Dionne Warwick?
I was going to question Jane Fonda’s patriotism…until I realized you cannot question something that everyone agrees does not exist.
Kerry was in Cambodia in December of 68 and he was sent there by Nixon before Nixon even took the oath of office. I am thinking creamed Kerry on toast points…
Abject,
I kn-w y-ur pain, the letter – (I just typed the letter after N) is br-ken -n my keyb-ard t–. Pe-ple sh-uldn’t make fun -f me because I am t– p–r t- get a new keyb-ard.
Y-u are an Unpatri-tic f–l!!!
Y-u will surely burn in he**. Great… N-w the *etter after K is a** br-ken.
*-ve,
Bi**
Sik1,
Great point, thanks for clarifying. We can never forget that we all have free will and despite the Lord’s wishes the very freedom of choice he has given us is often used to take the freedom of others. We were all designed with our freedom in tact but if expressing that freedom will get you killed then you are not really free. Our rights as Americans were earned (and continue to be earned) with blood, sweat and tears. The unpatriotic are any of those who pass judgement on insignificant shortcomings of the men and women who pay for our freedom so that we may have it for free.
That’s lame to pick on Abject because of his religious beliefs, get over it already. And Sik1 said rights are things that can’t be taken away? So as long as liberals take away our guns, our right to bear arms magically goes away? No, human beings are endowed by their creator with inalienable rights, so even though rights can be oppressed, neither governments nor people can take your human rights away. The Bill of Rights just lists a handful of these, but the whole reason the Federalists of that era opposed the Bill of Rights is that as soon as you start listing them, you start limiting them (to the point that now the courts tell you that if the Founding Fathers didn’t say that you have a right not to have your family’s home forcibly converted into a Walmart, then that right doesn’t exist). So even if a different country doesn’t acknowledge that their citizens have those rights, they still exist, which is what Abject was saying in the first place. Just like how the British have no more right to disarm the republicans in the occupied counties of Ireland than they did to try and disarm us in the 1700s.
Let’s go back to Abject’s objections.
Of course, cheering as American Soldiers confiscate weapons from Iraqi citizens, and violate, what would constitute here, their 4th Ammendment Rights, apparently is extremely patriotic.
Let’s look at the confiscated weapons. When enough “citizens” (which leaves out the foreign terrorists) are shooting at our guys, they are going to take the weapons away. Whining about this is stupid.
Next, the fourth ammendment. Surprise, surprise, (s)he didn’t actually read the fourth ammendment.
A bit of background: any military operation requires provisions. The fourth ammendment prevents the military from quartering troops in your house and eating all your food.
It doesn’t say anything about searching for terrorists. Try harboring a dangerous fugitive in your house and see how long the fourth ammendment keeps the police out.
I guess rights can’t be taken away, but they can be infringed upon. Such as suppression of speech and whatnot. And as far as the “G-d” thing goes, “God” is not his name but what he is. It is, I think, a title. Not his name. As far as his name goes, that’s easy enough to look up. Putting the dash in when you’re TYPING makes no sense, as you’re not “saying” it anyway.
…
John Kerry Waffles.
CO got it right. All rights come from God. A right does not cease to exist just because its bearer is oppressed. Rights may be violated but not eliminated. Freedom is our natural state at birth. The right to be free is Absolute, Universal and Eternal. It is not the product of consensus or human convention. It is God’s gift to mankind. Those fortunate enough to be born in the West generally get to enjoy their freedom throughout life. Others have to live with their rights compromised until they are sufficiently deprived to provoke revolution. Even under oppression, the recognition that your rights are immutable provides liberation of the mind. Natan Sharansky has some incredible insight on the subject (‘The case for Democracy: The Power of Freedom to Overcome Tyranny and Terror’).
Alright, took me awhile to get back to this thread (finals suck) but if anyone is still reading it, I apologize. I thought I read a different explanation of it somewhere, but maybe I misunderstood, or perhaps the person who wrote it was wrong. I didn’t mean to go insulting anyone’s religion.
Man, are there any people in this world not granted Constitutional protection?
I believe my friend’s cat has Constitutional protection. And the Caribou in Alaska. (The Bill of Rights does have an amendment against oil drilling, right?)
Oh, and there’s a push to give puppies Constitutional protection. Glenn Reynolds will be p-ssed.
There are two groups without Constitutional protections though: smelly hippies and ninja monkeys. The Third Circuit decided and Alito cast the deciding vote in both cases. Feel free to infringe on the rights of smelly hippies and ninja monkeys all you want.
OH…and neither smelly hippies nor ninja monkeys are patriotic. It’s a fact.
“John Kerry Waffles” “John Kerry Waffles” <– that was a good one.
And I was agreeing with the principle that rights aren’t given to us by our goverment. I don’t really agree with Abject’s assertion that enemy combatants should have any more of a right to weapons that a convicted felon does in the land of the free. Plus, I’m pretty sure each household in Iraq is permitted to keep on rifle and a certain amount of ammunition, so it would be hard to make a case that they’re being infriged upon anyway.
And just to beat the whole ‘-‘ thing to death, I don’t think he was implying that God’s given name is “God”, it’s just his interpretation on how to not refer to Him in vain. Just like how to some people “goddammit” is no big deal, but others think of it as casual blasphemy, there’s no reason to push your interpretation onto others.
That “John Kerry Waffles” bit was supposed to giving Dave credit for coming up with a good one, but the little arrow character got deleted out as being an HTML comment tag. Beware, lest you meet the same fate…
I have no respect for Kerry whatsoever, but I don’t know why people have reacted this way to this particular statement. Sure, the way he delivered it was pretty treasonous, but the facts are clear. We do go into people’s houses in Iraq. In the night. And sometimes women and children are there.
But we do that here in the US too.
Scooby,
If you are going to mock Abject, you might want to get your Ammendments Right.
Ammendment III is what you referenced, Abject was correct in his statement.
//We do go into people’s houses in Iraq. In the night. And sometimes women and children are there.
But we do that here in the US too.//
That’s right!! Janet Reno sent a whole bunch of her commandos in to steal a little Cuban boy from his Auntie…or something like that. Didn’t she send some of her guys in to take Ruby Ridge and Waco as well?…boy, that government sure was crazy…glad it’s not in charge anymore!
(Hope I simplied that comparison enough to get the moonbats’ scratching their heads.)
Someone brought up Alan Colmes. I have a great deal of respect for him for one specific reason (and it’s not because he’s Jewish). Colmes (known as the liberal half of Hannity & Colmes) at one point said something to the degree that they protested the war before it started, but they lost the debate, and now that it’s underway, they should support it. My thoughts exactly. Far-lefties everywhere, take note. This is what’s called a liberal patriot (nearly a contradiction in terms).