Wilson: Demonizing Freedom
By Bill Wilson || Individuals enlisting in the U.S. Armed Forces must swear an oath to “support aYou must Subscribe or log in to read the rest of this content.
By Bill Wilson || Individuals enlisting in the U.S. Armed Forces must swear an oath to “support aYou must Subscribe or log in to read the rest of this content.
25 comments
“Wait — government isn’t corrupt? And warrantless wiretaps, forced participation in a Social Security Ponzi scheme and Barack Obama’s health insurance mandate aren’t intrusions on our liberties?”
Now, now Bill.
You are getting dangerously close to conspiracy level crap, which gov’t tells us does not exist.
If you continue to say otherwise then you can expect to live a life inside non western empire friendly embassy’s for the duration of it-just like Julian Assange.
Or better yet, you can just give yourself up like Bradley Manning when you uncover proof of conspiracy cover up and corruption and rot in jail under suspension of habeas corpus.
Remember, the gov’t has told you conspiracy’s don’t exist and it is not corrupt.
If you continue to say they are and they can’t label you crazy or a kook then you are going to force them to put you in jail. It will be your fault.
Gov’t will put in jail because conspiracy’s don’t exist and are not corrupt. Now behave.
edit: “put you in jail”
Ha! I wonder if all those radical left-wing activists are plotting from their wheel chairs.
“When assessing time trends in terrorist attacks we found that the majority of extreme left-wing terrorism was concentrated in the 1970s…”
That’s right, ?, OKC was an inside job and the President has kill squads roaming the country.
Good lord. Go get a job and take a break from posting this nonsense.
Did I ever say the President has kill squads roaming our country?
Tell ya what Douchey, when researching for your next “contract” position with whatever gov’t agency has mercy on you for your next paycheck…try to remember where that “spellcheck” button is before submitting your PHD level work.
Maybe you should be working on a steady income before lecturing others on the merits of a “job”.
Oh, I didn’t say “OKC” was an inside job either-but I expect that from you given your apparent spelling & reading abilities.
You are truly an embarassment to whatever institution awarded you a PhD.
Bill, I’ll bet you a hundred dollars to a mouthful of piss that you’ve never served in combat, and you can hold both bets.
Such a point might matter if someone were arguing that we should send troops to such-and-such a place, but of what relevance is it here?
OGB, you don’t know what West Point is, do you?
I have a vague memory of visiting some academy on the Hudson River when I was younger.
That still does not explain the relevancy of your post.
OGB, I’ll make the same wager with you that I offered Bill. If you don’t understand that there is a relationship between West Point and military combat, you’re fucking hopeless (or FUBAR, but you wouldn’t understand- it’s a military thing).
No shit there’s a relationship between West Point and combat.
But what does combat experience have to do with a criticism of the subject of “terrorisim studies” at West Point? What difference would it make if the author was a coward or a war hero? The point he made is still the same.
And I disagree with much of what the author said. Based on rickie’s post below, it sounds like much of it was taken out of context. There are valid reasons for criticizing the author’s premise, but his lack of combat experience is not one of them.
Original Goober, you never served in the armed forces, did you? You’ve never really been there, so you don’t really know, and I’m not talking about Mexico.
Rather than addressing me with juvenile ad hominems, why don’t you answer the question: what does combat experience have to do with the author’s opinion?
Based on the fact that you keep dodging the question, it’s safe to assume that you have no good answer.
From the West Point book:
It is important to note that this study concentrates on those individuals and groups who have actually perpetuated violence and is not a comprehensive analysis of the political causes with which some far-right extremists identify. While the ability to hold and appropriately articulate diverse political views is an American strength, extremists committing acts of violence in the name of those causes undermine the freedoms that they purport to espouse.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/130949.html
So the SPLC now has curriculum being taught at West Point?
That’s beautiful.
Let’s just rename West Point the Israeli Guard Academy and get it over with.
That same oath swears one to obey the officers appointed over them including the POTUS, which happens to be the CinC.
These latter-day patriots are all lathered up because they have lost two elections in a row to a black man. Enough to piss off any real American.
I may not agree with you, and wouldn’t do shit for if you paid me,Mr Wilson but keep spouting your bullshit,you crazy ass motherfucker
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=63CrlFwUdD4
Here’s a news flash for you: Extreme right wingers are nuts, but dangerous ones. They and religious nuts pose a great threat to the freedom of this country.
One of the best quotes I have ever read was in the “Verbatum” column in “Air Force” magazine some years back.
It went something like this:
“The biggest threat to individual liberty and freedom is not communism but religious zealotry”
I wish I had kept that quote but I will NEVER forget the gist of that quote
I think you probably mean “Verbatim,” SC. I recall seeing similar quotes in the past, but they were all in reference to religious zealotry among extremist muslims, and in the form of despotic states and terrorist enterprises overseas. I think if you are trying to apply the “quote” to “religious nuts” here in the US, then you actually have forgotten the gist.
Just 58 attacks from right-wings vs 300+ from liberal/far left.
Yep,
Oklohama City and Timothy McVeigh was just one of those “little” 58 attacks.
So was Eric Rudolph’s Atlanta bombings as well………..
Who said any of the attacks, from either right or left, was “little”? Are you not familiar with the difference between the terms “fewer” and “little”? For your edification, “fewer” means less in number, not that any one of the “fewer” incidents were less in scope. So, when the author wrote “far fewer (58) attacks,” he merely stated the fact that there were fewer attacks, not that any one particular attack should be considered less important because it came from a smaller subset.