Not one person in Iraq or Afghanistan is defending America. I have the right to call anyone who has gone there, anti-American slime, because they are violating their oath to uphold and defend the U.S. Constitution and they are following unlawful orders from a president who is guilty of treason.
I don't call those in Iraq or Afghanistan anti-American slime, because many went because they didn't want to face jailtime from a corrupt administration for an illegal war. Supporting our troops doesn't mean supporting the war! --- In [email protected], "Eric Dondero Rittberg" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Wrong again. If someone doesn't wish to serve their country in the > Military as I did, that's their goddamned problem. But I should have > the right to diss them as unAmerican slime. > > Same goes with supporting defense of America. If some Americans don't > wish to contribute thei tax dollars fine. Give 'em a tax write off. > But those of us who are patriots and wish to defend our country and > support the troops, should have the right to publicly shame those > cowards who want to hand over our Nation to Islamo-Fascists and other > assorted American enemies. > > > --- In [email protected], "kiddleddee" <kiddleddee@> wrote: > > > > --- In [email protected], "ma ni" <statonberg@> wrote: > > > > > > Eric, > > > > > > Good points about guns, smokes, seat belts and burgers. You have > > > also stated in the past that you are against the drug war. We > > > agree with you. Libertarianism agrees with you. But, back to a > > > previous discussion: Surely your basis for agreeing with these > > > libertarian perspectives is the non aggression principle. If so, > > > how can you maintain such a pro-aggression position on the > > > military, and remain consistent? If the non aggression principle > > > is not your basis for advocating any libertarian position, what > > > is? > > > > > > -Mark > > ___________________________________________________________________ > > > > Mark, it isn't only military agression that Eric espouses. By > > implication he also advocates government agression against the > > property and livelihoods of citizens in order to steal the wealth to > > fund the military agression. I'm pretty sure he would be in favor of > > other forms of government aggression as well. He even advocates > > personal agression; he has suggested that "veterans" (or marines or > > somebody) should physically assault and inflict injury on people who > > burn United State flags in protest, for instance. > > > ForumWebSiteAt http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian/ <*> Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional <*> To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian/join (Yahoo! ID required) <*> To change settings via email: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
