What's new
TerraForums Venus Flytrap, Nepenthes, Drosera and more talk

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Non-Compliance

  • #41
I talked to an attorney, he gave me some pointers, I didn't think about the School Board, and if I get expelled, I'm out of the house. Probably moving to North Carolina. :0o:

I hadn't thought about the school board.

Today, I talked to the principal, during homeroom (which is now the office until i can get this straitend out)

I showed him some papers and a court case that said it was a violation of my rights, it was illegal, and he didn't seem to care. Hes the principal of a school where kids who don't farm are the minority. Theirs nothing wrong with that, but they usually don't think for them selfs, "well mom and pa said .... so it must be right". He of course can have the same views some times it seems. Either way, Ill call the school board. Thanks for that, but I'm also calling the Local news stations if I get in trouble for it. Ive also written a letter to the ACLU.
 
  • #42
why are all us cp'ers anti-gov't and what not? :D

coincidence? i think not...it's a conspiracy...CIA...they're watching us!!!

:crazy:
 
  • #43
OMG obregon! You forgot your aluminum foil hat! You foolish fool, you've brought them straight to us! :-D

Speaking of aluminum hats... I love how they (media) conveniently discredited Dennis Kucinich by asking him if he saw a UFO. We live in a Universe that is incomprehensibly huge, and yet people still believe we are alone. Aside from that... he never said he saw aliens, just a U.F.O. Anywho, I definitely digress.
 
  • #45
I showed him some papers and a court case that said it was a violation of my rights, it was illegal, and he didn't seem to care. Hes the principal of a school where kids who don't farm are the minority. Theirs nothing wrong with that, but they usually don't think for them selfs, "well mom and pa said .... so it must be right". He of course can have the same views some times it seems. Either way, Ill call the school board. Thanks for that, but I'm also calling the Local news stations if I get in trouble for it. Ive also written a letter to the ACLU.

Again, I have to go back to the methodology about making your point. I've seen it countless times how an important issue can get bogged down by the inclusion of lawyers, outside media sources, and preplanned implementation. Many of these important issues will be better suited to a different approach than trying to build alliances that are seemingly unimportant to the immediate cause. As with this discussion, we always have to think about our tact when approaching people who disagree with us. By automatically putting up our guard and going offensive people more often than not create a hostile environment that will most certainly not benefit their cause. It makes them a media celebrity martyr.

Just think of how your pricipal might react if you come into his office talking about how you've talked to a lawyer and you've written letters to the ACLU and the media. I would hardly consider that a proper use of your resources in getting your point across. You would be much more productive going into his office and being open and honest about how you feel. Recognize that he is in a difficult position as well since he has people he has to report to as well. Explain yourself in a calm way and non confrontational way. You'll get much, much further in your cause operating under "good faith" and not by feeling that you've been wronged every step of the way (even if you were).

Lastly, through my experiences working with students and, unfortunately, having to deal with my fair share of lawyers, I can only tell you this: Lawyers fix problems; they don't solve problems. After all was said and done, lawyers never solved any problems. They just mitigated the problem so it wasn't in the spotlight; yet it left the students with no permanent resolution other than the feeling of a temporary win. But truly, say the school district and the ACLU or accompanying lawyers settled and the school allowed you sit and not participate in the pledge of allegiance was the underlying issue really resolved? No, the outcome was forced and there is no lasting impact on any party involved.

Just my two cents, again. And again, I'm all for damning the man, but I've seen what works and what doesn't work, if you are truly trying to make a difference. I'd rather change the man through a long, time and energy consuming, tedious process than thumb my nose at him every chance I get only hoping to achieve my desired outcome.

xvart.
 
  • #46
It is not a lawyer's job, or responsibility, to solve problems. Solving problems, as you pointed out, is the job of the individual. It also doesn't matter how his principal might react if he came in talking about lawyers, the ACLU, and the media. It seems like he tried to reason with the principal and after the principal tried to oppress his freedoms, he has had to resort to such measures. Besides, more often than not, the problem can be diverted simply by presenting the lawyers. Once the principal knows he is not just some ignorant kid who will bow down to his "authority", he is going to view him much differently. I would have more respect for someone who fights for his rights, than someone who does what he is told to avoid confrontation. And BTW, fighting the legal route is the long, time and energy consuming, tedious process of which you speak. It is not a simple matter of thumbing your nose and hoping to get what you want. It is using the legal venues and processes to reserve your rights... such processes are central to our democracy.
 
  • #47
It is not a lawyer's job, or responsibility, to solve problems. Solving problems, as you pointed out, is the job of the individual.

I'm glad we agree on this. I said nothing to the contrary. In fact, that is exactly my point.

Besides, more often than not, the problem can be diverted simply by presenting the lawyers.

And again, my point is that do we really want to "divert" the problem? What I'm saying is that diverting the problem has neither long term benefits nor any semblance of resolution.

Once the principal knows he is not just some ignorant kid who will bow down to his "authority", he is going to view him much differently.

I'm sure Cody would agree that his principal already knew this about him prior to this incident (at least from previous stories he has posted).

I would have more respect for someone who fights for his rights, than someone who does what he is told to avoid confrontation. And BTW, fighting the legal route is the long, time and energy consuming, tedious process of which you speak.

I have the highest respect for people who stand up for their rights. You should recall that nowhere did I mention that Cody should curl up in a ball and play dead and avoid confrontation. And once again, my point about lawyers goes back to exactly what you said: they divert the problem, not solve the problem. If the problem is not solved, but simply diverted, has any change in behavior occurred? Is that something I should respect? No, it was just a long tedious waste of time that resulted in a temporary illusion of resolution. Cody's children won't reap any benefits of that situation if it was only diverted; and isn't that what we all want? To create a better union for our children and not just temporarily "resolve" our personal dissatisfactions?

It is not a simple matter of thumbing your nose and hoping to get what you want. It is using the legal venues and processes to reserve your rights... such processes are central to our democracy.

I think a far more central, fundamental, and important "process" of our democracy is the exchange of ideas; I would hope that everyone would realize that exchanging ideas is far more important and practical in achieving change than utilizing our holy legal venues to divert problems. That is what I have been advocating the entire time.

xvart.

edit:
It also doesn't matter how his principal might react if he came in talking about lawyers, the ACLU, and the media.

I think it does matter if we are trying to solve problems. I am merely hypothesizing based on my experiences on how such attitudes can get in the way of actual progress. Walking into t a conversation talking about how you got the screw job is not going to have near the effect on your desired outcome as sharing your feelings while recognizing the feelings and opinions of others.
 
  • #48
I meant divert the problem of him being kicked out of school. I did not mean to divert the issue. The issue is what he is fighting for... I don't argue that the exchange of ideas, and indeed the voices of dissent, are important to maintaining democracy. But simply trying to talk the principal into seeing his point of view has obviously failed, and the principal has continued to try to deny him his freedom, despite his communication efforts. When communication fails, often resistance is necessitated to bring about change.
 
  • #49
I thought that saying was supposed to be about communism...

Never heard that take on it before. The way I have always heard it used is that it is about growing up and being a responsible contributing member of society. When you are young you should stretch your wings and muscles and feel free to buck the system, to an extent. But at some point there comes a time where you have to start contributing to the society in which you live. I am not saying you have to take everything the gov'mnet spoon feeds you but you can not go your whole life being a scav.

Actually that is a Police Officer. I know it is hard to tell, but then again he is dressed in all black and not camo.

Bit of a misconception that soldiers only wear camo. I have known a number in my days and black is part of the wardrobe.

I understand the pledge issue is not directly related to this concept, however we do unwillingly relinquish some of our most basic freedoms in our society. And that is the same society which is represented by our flag.

And just as often we take for granted the basic freedoms we enjoy living in our society. I always find it entertaining that a person can stand up on a soap box and proclaim to all who listen that they are being oppressed by a system that will not allow them to express themselves as they want. Quite the paradox.

I am not, despite what you may think, brainwashed.

I never said you were. Note that I said: "I tend to find that..."

Never said all cases. And did not say or even specifically mean you.

BTW here is a definition of brainwashing: "any method of controlled systematic indoctrination, esp. one based on repetition or confusion".

A definition that could easily apply to religions yet I hardly hear anyone crying foul that parents are bringing up their children to follow their religion. I was born into a Catholic family and raised Catholic. Was my mother "brainwashing" me??

How many times have you heard the word terrorist?

With respect, this conversation is not about "the war" or terrorists. But since you bring it up and in such a derisive manner I would like to point it out to you that some 4000 people lost their lives and two major building were annihilated in an act of terrorism. While the word "terrorist" may be bandied about in excess it does not change the fact that terrorists do exist and are out there and that they dealt us one of the most devastating attacks this country has ever seen on our own soil.

Yes! Duh!

Thanks X, love you too :)

Which is further supported by the title of this thread being "Non-compliance" rather than personal rights infringed or patriotism being questioned.

Which I was going to bring up myself.

Non Compliance isn't a bad thing

I never said it was. All I said was that when you make it a point to draw attention to yourself by not complying then you can not act surprised when there are reactions to your behavior. Do you really think Rosa Parks thought nothing would happen when she sat in that seat on the bus?? She bloody well knew it would get a response and that it was going to be a big one. She chose to pick that fight and I applaud her actions, that was a fight worth fighting.

I dont say the pledge cause i feel the AMERICA we see today, represents our government way to much. The things the government does are, horrid. Its not a dirrect reflection, but the things that they do have a HUGE impact on the way people in America and other countries SEE the FLAG.

I find this argument interesting. The Pledge is not something specific to this president/current government. It was in place years before Mr. peanut brain was in office. If "Junior" was not in office would you be happy to say the Pledge?? Are you going to be willing to say the pledge when a different president enters office if they are more to your liking?? It will be the same Pledge then that it is now and was before.

The Pledge is the Pledge. It does not matter who is trying to run the machine. A Ford is still a Ford whether I am driving it (not that I would be caught dead in a Ford) or you are driving it. A 777 is still a 777 regardless of the piolet behind the yoke. America is still America no matter who is in office.

Im not trying to not conform, I enjoy the way punk clothes fit, feel

With respect, I disagree. If it was just about the clothes, there are clothes out there that fit the same way but entail a little less "flash". Plus, if it was just about the clothes then how do you explain the mohawk??

"Normal" clothes and a typical hair cut do not mean you are not punk. Like I said in my other post, I am as punk now as I was when I had hair down to my waist and wore flannel. You may not know it to look at me but that changes nothing.

and its a way i can express my self

It is that, and in that expression you are trying to, and succeeding in, not conforming. And again, I am not saying that there is anything wrong with not conforming. I am just saying that taking the path you have chosen has the consequence of drawing attention to you. You can not be ignorant of that fact, the fact that you say you are ridiculed for it tells me that you are not ignorant of it. You have gotten the attention for it, it just is not the attention you wanted. Now you have to chose what to do with that attention. Constructive/destructive, antagonistic/protagonistic. Those choices are your and only yours to make.

NO one understands the way i view things except my friends EVEN then they think I'm crazy at times.

Join the club. I have given up talking about my view to most everyone (and that includes my parents and my wife) because more often than not they look at me as if I am a few sandwiches short of a picnic. I still believe the things I believe. I just do not voice them unless I am really in the mood to stick to my guns even in the face of ridicule and ostracism.

In comment to SLC punk, It made me considered law school the end went something like "The best way to break the system is to become apart of it"

Ah, you have seen it. :boogie: The end quote is poignant but there is more to it than that. Having made that decision, how does he begin to enact it? He loses the clothes and the radical style, drops the "poser" facade and puts on a suit and becomes a "work-a-day Joe". He is still himself though, still punk and proud. He chose his battle.

I never said any thing about wanting more attention if any thing I wish people would shut up about the way I like to look. I dont WANT or NEED attention.

If I did i would wear a hat like this

Again, I have to disagree with you. This is an oxymoronic statement. Like when a woman wears something that exposes her breast and then gets riotously indignant when men stare at her breasts. You do not put your hair up in a mohawk and expect people to not notice. You do not wear a spiked dog collar and expect people to not notice. If you did not want to be noticed you would not do/wear things that draw attention to yourself. If I do not want someone to stare at my lily white derriere then I don't walk around naked. Not the other way around (i.e. I do walk around naked and expect people to not look at me.)

If you really want people to shut p about how you look then don't look the way you do. That is the only solution.

Again, I have to go back to the methodology about making your point...

X makes some very good points here. The real issue here is the repercussions of actions taken and how to deal with them. Again, the analogy of a hornets nest comes to mind. If the nest is somewhere there are lots of people and poses a potential hazard then obviously something has to be done. That does not mean you start throwing rocks at the nest to destroy it. The extreme response is very often the wrong one. Be calm, be rational and above all be smart. If you antagonize the principal/school board you are more than likely going to find yourself in the worst position in the end regardless of whether you are right.

And a personal point of view but since we are talking about the value of lawyers... As far as I am concerned, resorting to lawyers is proof of failure. Personal belief but there it is.

Two things that keep coming up that I think need addressing.

1) Legal vs. illegal. Please do note that, right or wrong, laws are interpreted/applied differently if you are a minor or in a certain institution. A great example: While it is fine and dandy and perfectly legal for me to carry a knife (or even a gun) in public you can not do so in school. Technically, yes it was illegal for the schools to tell me I could not but that never stopped them and in the end they won. Though my principal did note that I was civil in my defense, my arguments were lucid and in principle he agreed. I still chose to carry my knife and if I had been caught I would have been expelled. I just was not flagrant about it. You pick your battles.

2) The comments about how many people disagree with the current "leader" of our nation. When we had the last election someone posted a neat link to a map of the US colour coded to match the votes. Interestingly enough, the map showed that the US by and large was purple verging on maroon. Now yes I know that that is just a snapshot of a singe time frame but it makes a point that for the most part the country is pretty evenly divided. If this country really was the dictatorship some people like to imply it is then the map should and would look significantly different. Just me thoughts there though.
 
  • #50
I agree going to a lawyer is a waste of time..
and getting kicked out of school over this would be really taking it too far, and only hurting yourself..

10 years from now, with no high school diploma or college, working as a greeter at Walmart: "well..my life sucks, I can afford about $200 for a car, I live in a 10X10 foot apartment, but at least I stuck it to my school principle 10 years ago! yeah..I sure showed him! yay.."

meanwhile your school principle is still earning 100k a year and forgot all about you 10 minutes after you were kicked out..In the long run, who was smarter in this scenario?

If you get kicked out of school you are only screwing yourself..no one else will be hurt.
(well ok, thats not true..your Mom will be hurt too.)

I know thats a bit extreme, and you probably wont really quit school! (at least I hope not)..but if you do allow yourself to get kicked out over this, you are a fool..

Scot
 
  • #51
I talked to an attorney, he gave me some pointers, I didn't think about the School Board, and if I get expelled, I'm out of the house. Probably moving to North Carolina.

I hadn't thought about the school board.

more or less the chain of command goes(and this isnt 100% true but works for MOST cases)

teacher
principal
superintendent
school board

things USUALLY go best if you take things step by step up the chain of command though i have minimal problems with the idea of skipping the superintendent in most cases unless its a teacher issue as the principal doesnt always answer directly to the superintendent, especially in small rural schools. however what it all comes down to is that the school board IS THE BOSS of the school....right or wrong school boards can override most anything anyone employed in the school does. so if you happen to have a bright school board, this can be resolved easily without a lawyer, if you have an idiotic one than..........well if yah want to fight it you'll need a lawyer but it shouldnt be hard to find one to take the case......however i see no reason to hire a lawyer unless the school board turns out to be idiots........
 
  • #52
"Normal" clothes and a typical hair cut do not mean you are not punk. Like I said in my other post, I am as punk now as I was when I had hair down to my waist and wore flannel. You may not know it to look at me but that changes nothing.

Agreed. I'm more "punk" now than ever before. The only difference is now I recognize how to make change in systems and have been a part of change.

Here's a little story from my Junior year in college about what is often considered an outrage by student populations and upsets a lot of people on college campuses. Granted, this is not a human rights issue; but, I think it is moderately relevant to the points I have been trying to make about the process of communicating, educating, and listening. It goes a little something like this:

The governing board of the residence halls at the large college I went to had the director of housing come to a meeting to meet with all the hall representatives about the proposed housing rate increases. HOUSING RATE INCREASES?! They just raised the rates last year by 4% and tuition went up by 12%! What an outrage. We're not made of money, are we??

The director came to us and made a presentation about a 3.2% increase and wanted the ARH's approval on the rate; he didn't tell us this was what was going to happen (even though we knew it would) but rather he talked about the expectations of this funding and the projects that would be started and completed during the next year with this addition. I will always remember that night. He then allowed us to openly express our concerns, feelings, and expectations of the housing department. We talked about projects we wanted to happen and priorities we thought were more important than the ones he outlined. At the end of the night, you know what happened? They didn't approve the 3.2% increase. In the middle of some of the biggest tuition and fee increases in higher education history the residential population suggested a 5% increase! There was more they wanted to see happen and important issues in the residence halls that had to be addressed.

My point is this: when we communicate and compromise in the conversation process both parties involved should be more educated. When we are all more educated only then can we truly make a lasting difference. Of course, this story won't make a good headline or movie later on; but the point is not to get attention but to make a difference, right?

But simply trying to talk the principal into seeing his point of view has obviously failed, and the principal has continued to try to deny him his freedom, despite his communication efforts. When communication fails, often resistance is necessitated to bring about change.

By his descriptions, I'm not convinced that this has occurred. I'm not convinced at all that a civil attempt has been made at trying to keep the lines of communication open, for the countless reasons listed throughout this thread.

xvart.
 
Last edited:
  • #53
This is really a simple issue. The legal case is rock-solid - you don't have to say the Pledge. Even if the principle says you do, and he cannot punish you in any way for not saying it. And frankly, the idea of a coerced, compulsory Pledge is offensive. It may not have the gravity of Rosa Park's actions, but it's still important. Plus, Rosa Parks violated the law (which was unjust and unconstitutional, but it WAS the law). In this case the law is on Nepenthes_AK's side. Squarely. Don't say the Pledge. Be firm, polite, respectful, and don't do it if you don't feel like you should. Defending the Constitution and the right to free expression is Patriotic. Robotic and ILLEGAL attempts to make you give up those rights are staunchly Unamerican. And I've always felt that "overwrought sanctimony must be met with disrespectful insolence."

That said, it's true you are entering a minefield where people are of high emotions. And just realize that while you can and will win this fight, depending on the people involved, it may get messy. Whatever the case, it will be highly counterproductive to be sneering, dismissive, smart-***-y, or cocky. Always take the high ground in issues like this. Be the MORE respectful party. Be MORE polite than the Principal. Conduct yourself like the adult in the situation, because you are in the right. I support your stand. Don't say it if you don't feel like you can mean it. Say it if you do. That's how it's supposed to work. There are few things in life as satisfying as fighting for your rights, and you do a public service by doing so. So stick to your guns. Just don't undermine your case by being a jerk about it (not saying your are, just giving advice on how it will be more effective.) Fight the power. Be true to yourself.

Capslock
 
  • #54
I only read the first couple and last couple posts and don't know what was said in between, but the right to stay seated during the pledge of allegiance ranks pretty low in my list of priorities. I couldn't care less whether I'm standing, sitting at my desk, or sitting on the toilet while everyone else is mindlessly reciting their allegiance to a piece of fabric. The pledge means nothing to me and to protest it only gives it more significance than it deserves. Especially if such a petty protest might be a problem for someone I care about.
 
  • #55
I agree going to a lawyer is a waste of time..
and getting kicked out of school over this would be really taking it too far, and only hurting yourself..

10 years from now, with no high school diploma or college, working as a greeter at Walmart: "well..my life sucks, I can afford about $200 for a car, I live in a 10X10 foot apartment, but at least I stuck it to my school principle 10 years ago! yeah..I sure showed him! yay.."

meanwhile your school principle is still earning 100k a year and forgot all about you 10 minutes after you were kicked out..In the long run, who was smarter in this scenario?

If you get kicked out of school you are only screwing yourself..no one else will be hurt.
(well ok, thats not true..your Mom will be hurt too.)

I know thats a bit extreme, and you probably wont really quit school! (at least I hope not)..but if you do allow yourself to get kicked out over this, you are a fool..

Scot

Lowest blow possible. :censor:

and you obviously blew this out of proportion. Its not like their arent schools I cant go to near by, and im not going to get expeled.

I still don't see where you guys ASSUME that because i enjoy wearing punk clothes, I understood that it would draw some attention but i still haven't gotten much. Except for the occasional how do you put your hair up, i know it would raise some eyebrows with authority figures, but not as much as you would have expected.

IMG_0019.jpg

(poor job at spiking it and it was a windy day)

The thread was more than non compliance, yes, but it also had to do about how it affected my home life. My mom practically hates me, and didn't come to the veterans day thing cause she didn't want to see her son not stand for the pledge. This was probably why it was made such a big deal. But the principal let me not stand for the pledge, when the school body and many veterans were their but cares about me doing it in class.

I have been communicating, their was only one time when I comprised my cool, I said "we will see how this turns out" at the end of the first meeting with him rather harshly. But other wise Ive been mature about it. I havent had a chance with the school board, because My ex gf ended up putting lip gloss under all the handles of my car, and being racist towards me. Shes just :crazy:

thanks for talking i really enjoy it.
 
  • #56
Any body else have a problem with it saying you posted? or does it read as I posted last on the board. Cause what I read is that it says herenorthere posted last not me.
 
  • #57
I wanted to just let this thread die, but there was one part that was bugging me and that I felt needed clarification, if for no other reason than to clarify my outlook on a specific issue.

BTW here is a definition of brainwashing: "any method of controlled systematic indoctrination, esp. one based on repetition or confusion". How many times have you heard the word terrorist? How do you think so many people were enthusiastically ushered into a war, for which almost none have approval for now? Because we are fighting terrorists right? Terrorists. Terror. Terrorism. Oh yeah and a little bit of oil and defense contracts. Terror.

With respect, this conversation is not about "the war" or terrorists. But since you bring it up and in such a derisive manner I would like to point it out to you that some 4000 people lost their lives and two major building were annihilated in an act of terrorism. While the word "terrorist" may be bandied about in excess it does not change the fact that terrorists do exist and are out there and that they dealt us one of the most devastating attacks this country has ever seen on our own soil.

First of all, some 3,000 people lost their lives during 9/11, and 3 major buildings were annihilated (not including the Pentagon). That of course is no less tragic than had 4,000 people died, and 2 buildings came down, but at any rate that was erroneous. Anyway, that was not my major concern with what was said here. What was getting to me was how I brought the issue up in such a "derisive manner". I never argued that terrorists exist, and that they are out there. My statement was in reponse to brainwashing, and its proliferation in this government (like the pledge). You cannot fight a "war" against terrorists, in the same way you cannot fight a "war on drugs". It just doesn't make any sense. Al-Qaeda does not have a country (you must declare a war on a country). That was when Bush had to go on record saying "This country will make no distinction between terrorists and the countries that harbor them." Hence, the people got ushered into a war when they were fed false information that Iraq was harboring these terrorists. (Even though it has been proven the hijackers were not from Iraq, and Saddam did not have WMD's)

Back to those 3000 people that died on 9/11. It was no doubt a tragic day for the U.S., and we were attacked by terrorists... But you can also call the U.S. government terrorists. What of the nearly 200,000 children whom died of starvation, disease, and sickness when we placed a blockade on Iraq during the Clinton Presidency? What about the countless bombs we dropped? (Not to mention the bombings during previous presidential terms) What about when we bombed the chemical factory producing medicine for over half the Iraqi population, because we "suspected" them of producing chemical weapons? The nerve gas Saddam used on the Kurds was created with the help of the Pfaulder corporation in Rochester, New York. Anyway, I digress. I simply wanted to point out why I used the word "terrorist" so "derisively". It was used to illustrate the brainwashing tactics we are subjected to, to bend the will of the people unto government, and corporate agendas.

Please do not take my corrections as disrespect to you, or to this country pyro. I simply wanted to elucidate the issue some. I do not treat the losses of 9/11 mockingly (derisively), but I do treat the government's response to it in such a manner. Yes terrorists DO exist, and they have bad intentions. But a more important question is why they exist, and, what has been done to them. We cannot kill hundreds of thousands, (millions worldwide), and not expect for "terrorists" to lash out at us. Of course I use the term "us" very loosely here, because neither you nor I are guilty, but I think you know what I mean.
 
  • #58
The thread was more than non compliance, yes, but it also had to do about how it affected my home life. My mom practically hates me, and didn't come to the veterans day thing cause she didn't want to see her son not stand for the pledge.

You have to choose your battles. The pledge of allegiance was written by a Christian socialist who actually believed in "liberty and justice for all" and saw no need for "under God" to be included. If nothing else, stand and enjoy the spectacle of a roomful of people saying they believe in "liberty and justice for all." It seems to me that some of the most strident pledgers don't actually hear what they're saying. It's kind of like going to a ballgame and seeing a crowd of red-blooded Americans cavorting along to the gay anthem "YMCA". It's words purged of their original meaning.
 
  • #59
First of all, some 3,000 people lost their lives during 9/11, and 3 major buildings were annihilated (not including the Pentagon). That of course is no less tragic than had 4,000 people died, and 2 buildings came down, but at any rate that was erroneous.

*snip*

(Even though it has been proven the hijackers were not from Iraq, and Saddam did not have WMD's)

Since we are pointing out things that are erroneous, you made an erroneous statement yourself:

"Even though it has been proven" "Saddam did not have WMD's"

thats a myth that Saddam didnt have WMD's..and it has not "been proven" that he didnt...Actually it has been proven that he did, and he used them..thats a known fact.
yes maybe he didnt have them anymore by the time we invaded, but we didnt know that, but we gave him months of warning so he could get rid of them!

Its like if the police intend to raid the local drug house..they put a big advertisement in the newspaper"
"ATTENTION! The Police will raid the drug house at 123 main street on January 15th at 8am, 3 months from now!"
then its on the news every night for weeks "Big drug house raid only a week away now"
then the big day comes..the police raid..to the shock of everyone, there are NO drugs in the house! amazing! Then people say "SEE! those nasty police are so mean! that was never a drug house..the fact that the police found no drugs PROVES there were NEVER any drugs there!"

its twisted logic..
but its the same logic the people who believe that "Saddam didnt have WMD's" are using.

how did we get on this topic anyway??
I thought this was about the pledge?
oh well...just helping to point out erroneous statements..since we like to do that here!

Scot
 
  • #60
What about when we bombed the chemical factory producing medicine for over half the Iraqi population, because we "suspected" them of producing chemical weapons? The nerve gas Saddam used on the Kurds was created with the help of the Pfaulder corporation in Rochester, New York.

Those "WMD's" which you are referring to are the gas nerve agents which were created with the help of a U.S. corporation (who also help him set up factories to produce the chemical). I even mentioned them as you can see in my above quote. I did not regard them as WMDs, however, because we all knew he had used that nerve agent prior to 9/11. When it was said he had WMDs, they were referring to other forms of WMDs, not the ones we had supplied to him, and of which there was no doubt of his posession.

Yes it made no sense for us to give him so much time to clear out any other weapons he might have had... the same way it makes no sense that we have color-coded terror alerts. Who wakes up everyday and checks the alert status? Terrorists. Anyway I digress. I was not using "twisted logic" in saying that he did not have WMDs. This has been admitted to in a CIA report authored by Charles Duelfer, head of the Iraq Survey Group. They did conclude that he intended on obtaining WMDs in the future, but this hardly makes my statement false.

I suppose we do like to point out erroneous statements here after all. Next time check your facts. Again, I mean you no disrespect either, but your facetious nature has caused me to point this out to you.

Anyway, this was about the pledge, but I was responding to Pyro's statement about my "derisive manner". My correcting him, was not done in malice, but as a matter of clarification. I do not regard our troops or our country with contempt. However, I do regard the Plutocracy of a handful of people as such.
 
Back
Top