About 'peace' people being supporters of SH.
Sat, 22 Mar 2003 17:05:50 -0500 (EST)
On Sat, 22 Mar 2003, johnhall wrote:
--]But in _this_ case the Peace protestors and nations like France have
--]actively impeded the liberation of Iraq from SH.
France trys to impeeded anything not french, thats a given. BUT the peace
protestors DID NOT impeed anything. They are out showing how they feel.
You would have to have feeligns to know about that though, so Im not
surprised you dont get it John Hallow.
People can express opposition to actions that are done int hier names. Its
, in this country at least for now, one of the ways we cohabitate with so
many differings ideas. If we lived in a homoginized nationstate tehn we
would all go merrily along like sheeple bleeting out the party line, like
you are John Hallow. And thats ok, thats your thing. Someones got to be
the goverment lackey and from what I have seen of your posts your really
good at it, ataboy.
--]Those who argue that we should not have stopped SH should accept the
--]moral burden of SH. They are no longer silent observers.
Those who stay silent on, and thus allow to continue unopposed,the abuses
in Tibet, North Korea, China, Texas, Iran, Africa, and elsewhere around
the globe should accept the moral burden of those abuses?
Those who give aid and resources to teh forces that support, either thru
silence or overt acknowledgement, abuses around the globe should accept eh
moral burden of those abuses?
Those who do not fight to keep america free and open by fightings to undo
the damage of the patriot acts, the RIAA, Disney, industry
lobbys, and other fronts who seek to unwrite our foudning documetns
should, and do , bear the moral burden of destroying their won countries
You got a lot on your shoulders there John Hallow, I hope youve been
taking your vitamins and saying your prayers like a good little
Bushimaniac, cause brotha, what ya gonna do....what ya goona do when the
consquences of your words runs wild all over you?