Michael Savage banned in the UK

[kmitch]

Obeying the orders of the President, and defending the constitution are two completely different things.

No, they are not.

Article 2 Section 2 US Constitution:

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States

Since the President's authority is established by the Constitution, obeying that authority is an act of defense of the Constitution.

So, if the President tells the US military to sit in the middle of nowhere with their pants around their ankles, they are still defending the constitution??

[kmitch]

Ok, now if you can show to me how Saddam was an enemy to our constitution, then you have a point.. Obeying the orders of the President, and defending the constitution are two completely different things.

How was the Kaiser, Hitler or Tojo? None of those guys was really ever gonna be able to invade the USA. We haven't had a life or death war since 1865.

The simple fact of the matter is that soldiers do what they are told to do within the rules of law. Period. You don't want it any other way.

I believe some wars need to be fought. However, I think it is stupid to say that our troops occupying countries right now is protecting my right to free speech. Saddam never read my emails.

[dalbuc]

I believe some wars need to be fought. However, I think it is stupid to say that our troops occupying countries right now is protecting my right to free speech. Saddam never read my emails.

Saddam was all kinds of trouble:

1. He was a sponsor of terrorism. Yes, yes he was with links to lots of nasty groups.
2. He had a WMD program and if we didn't find any at the time of the invasion it was only something that would have lasted until the sanctions ended and the sanctions regime wasn't gonna last forever and was already breaking down because of opposition from France (business ties) and Russia (shared sense of scumbaggery).
3. He was a destabilizing threat in a flashpoint region who had invaded 2 of his neighbors already.
4. He was a mass murdering SoB and while you might not care about dead brown people they're still victims of a murderously nasty regime.

Now, compare with, say Mussolini, and Saddam is a much worse bag of trash and a lot more Americans died to oust him and his no threat Italian regime. He's not as bad as Hitler but then again our effort to oust him wasn't on the same scale as the effort/losses to oust Hitler. People get insanely worked up over whacking this creep and I'm not sure why. He was  bad man who had done and would do bad things again. We can't clear out all the losers and tyrants around the world but when the good guys snuff one of the bad guys let's call a win a win.

[John Galt?]

Obeying the orders of the President, and defending the constitution are two completely different things.

No, they are not.

Article 2 Section 2 US Constitution:

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States

Since the President's authority is established by the Constitution, obeying that authority is an act of defense of the Constitution.

So, if the President tells the US military to sit in the middle of nowhere with their pants around their ankles, they are still defending the constitution??

If they are obeying the President, they are by definition, obeying the Constitution. Is not basic training part of defending this country (and by extension the Constitution)? Is not training exercises and maneuvers an important part of defense? Is not being stationed in a strategic location part of defense? If the President orders the military to do something/anything then obeying that order IS defending the Constitution.

One more time:

Article 2 Section 2 US Constitution:

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States

Since the President's authority is established by the Constitution, obeying that authority is an act of defense of the Constitution.

You can come up with what ever crazy loopy scenario you want, it doesn't change the DEFINITION OF THE WORDS. You seem to have a problem with the difference between "defending" and "effectively/optimally/efficiently".  

Defend verb: 1. to protect from danger or harm. 2. to support or maintain

See in English we use adverbs to specify, quantify or qualify how a verb is used.  So if "Bob eats his lunch, but Jim more quickly eats his lunch" the adverb "quickly" does not mean Bob is NOT EATING, just that Jim is eating faster. DO YOU UNDERSTAND SO FAR?

I'M NOT GOING TOO FAST FOR YOU?

Okay, in your question "So, if the President tells the US military to sit in the middle of nowhere with their pants around their ankles, they are still defending the constitution?" What you are really asking is "are they defending the Constitution effectively". But you didn't use an adverb. In the future you can use these adverbs to write more effective and concise statements and maybe get up to a 4th grade level.

Best of luck to you, and keep studying.

[spartan]

John,

Why are you wasting your time? There are some posters on this board who have been spoon fed their opinions and if it is not on the blogs/sites they check every day it is simply not true. The ability to reason is totally absent. It matters not that Michael Savage is a complete prat or not, the sites they get their information from says this is justified, therefore it is. Rational thought and reasoning simply does enter into the equation.

[kmitch]

John,

Why are you wasting your time? There are some posters on this board who have been spoon fed their opinions and if it is not on the blogs/sites they check every day it is simply not true. The ability to reason is totally absent. It matters not that Michael Savage is a complete prat or not, the sites they get their information from says this is justified, therefore it is. Rational thought and reasoning simply does enter into the equation.

I do not get my opinions from a news paper/blog/news channel. Occupying a country 6,000 miles away does not impact my ability for freedom of speech, and maybe I am brainwashed by my own ability to think for myself.

I wonder if the German citizens in 1940 were told that occupying Poland was in the interest of defending their own rights.. Every conquering army has to preach to the public on why it is necessary.

The Iraq War has NOTHING to do with any of our rights. It was a collosal mistake, and the troops are fighting there because of a mistake, lets just hope as many of them get home intact as possible.

[dalbuc]

I do not get my opinions from a news paper/blog/news channel. Occupying a country 6,000 miles away does not impact my ability for freedom of speech, and maybe I am brainwashed by my own ability to think for myself.

By that logic fighting the Confederacy didn't affect you or any citizens freedoms (slaves were not citizens and didn't have rights) since the South wanted nothing more than to be left alone. Your logic also would have left us out of WWI and WWII since Japan didn't even attack a US state.

[kevabuc]

John,

Why are you wasting your time? There are some posters on this board who have been spoon fed their opinions and if it is not on the blogs/sites they check every day it is simply not true. The ability to reason is totally absent. It matters not that Michael Savage is a complete prat or not, the sites they get their information from says this is justified, therefore it is. Rational thought and reasoning simply does enter into the equation.

I do not get my opinions from a news paper/blog/news channel. Occupying a country 6,000 miles away does not impact my ability for freedom of speech, and maybe I am brainwashed by my own ability to think for myself.

I wonder if the German citizens in 1940 were told that occupying Poland was in the interest of defending their own rights.. Every conquering army has to preach to the public on why it is necessary.

The Iraq War has NOTHING to do with any of our rights. It was a collosal mistake, and the troops are fighting there because of a mistake, lets just hope as many of them get home intact as possible.

Again you are confusing the political issues that initiated the sending of troops and the accompanying "occupation" with the true purpose of the of the duty that individual members of the armed services are sworn to defend. This may be a little too abstact for you to comprehend since you continue to place your personal opinions into the argument. This has nothing to do with your personal opinion of any given subject. Opinions are complex on any issue and the right to hold them and express them is what is granted by our Constitution, a document that guides all citizens of this country. The fact that you think the war was or is wrong means nothing or the fact that I believe it is right means nothing to the soldier in the field. That soldier did not take an oath to only fight if they believe they are directly defending a particular viewpoint, they took an oath to defend the Constitution and any order given by their Commander in Chief. This takes the thinking out of the equation for the soldier, without this there could be both chaos within the ranks or the added burden upon the soldier of personal guilt associated with their duty.

In essence the common soldier is bestowed the honor of defending an honorable purpose as opposed to the guilt that could be laid upon them by the ordinary citizen that may oppose the political nature of a mission.

Your inability to understand this very basic distinction is why I believe you have difficulty understanding why those classmates of yours did not die in vain. In doing so I believe you dishoner their momories unintentionally.

I also believe that you only defend the right to freedom of expression as long as it agrees with either your opinons or the manner in which you judge those opinions to be expressed. Again, it seems it is all about you.