Jump to content

Charges Dismissed in Stolen Valor case


Recommended Posts

Maybe they need a kicking, maybe I should consider houndingh them... but screw it...

 

..................... IMHO catching one (uno, Eins, 1) single child molester is more important than 10 Walter Mitties pretending to have a pair of balls.

 

Screw it? Therein lies the crux of the problem, methinks. No one cares enough to take a stand.

 

I'd never be in favor of letting the one arrested/convicted child molester go (though it seems several liberal courts have taken that tack as well) but I ask you....why must it be one or the other? Why can't the 10 scumbag fakers be held accountable as well as the one child molesters?

Semper fi; Bill











donation2008.gifdonation2009.gifdonation2010.gifdonation2011.gif
donation2012.gifdonation2013.gifdonation2014.gifdonation2015.gifdonation2016.gif

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 88
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

And, fortunately or unfortunately, depending on your perspective, lying is indeed protected speech. If it weren't, every guy chatting up a girl in a bar on a Friday night would be committing a crime. :)

And the sound of crickets chirping would replace speeches in every legislature across the country. ;)

Judges 1:19- And the LORD was with Judah; and he drave out the inhabitants of the mountain; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I'd never be in favor of letting the one arrested/convicted child molester go (though it seems several liberal courts have taken that tack as well) but I ask you....why must it be one or the other? Why can't the 10 scumbag fakers be held accountable as well as the one child molesters?

 

 

You want to raise taxes and hire more cops, Judges, prison warders? :-)

Link to post
Share on other sites
If they read and understand the decision they will understand that it has nothing to do with the acceptance of lying, that it is clear statement that the federal government cannot criminalize speech it doesn't like without a compelling reason.

 

 

I'm not speaking about criminalizing speech by the federal government but as to the acceptability of lieing by society whether you can be prosecuted for it or not as a sign of a morally bankrupt society.By your statement I take it you think it's acceptable practice to lie if the government has no compelling reason to prevent you or prosecute you.I could care less if the lieing is about medals,military records or chicken farming,procecutable or not.It is a sign of a culture in decline.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Who is going to stand up for him if others won't (pictures borrowed from another post):

 

YOU! You, and anyone else who wants to do it, but NOT the US government, and NOT the FBI. Your argument is starting to sound like the 'save the whales' people. I agree with you on everything except that there should be a law against this behavior. Without posting emotionally compelling photos to cloud the issue of constitutional rights vs. the rights of a select few, please tell me why the men and women of our armed forces are in such danger from these guys that they need a law to protect them.

 

Just like your "save the whales" type argument that nobody will stand up for them, well, like it or not, maybe there's people in America who don't feel like they should have to stand up for them. Veterans, whales, immigrants, single mothers, professional athletes...where does it end? Does every single special interest group need a law to protect them? NO! Clearly you will stand up for them...and I will too.

 

 

MY RIGHTS to defend myself and I would do so. I further wrote that it would be highly unlikely the situation would reach such point; most of these valor thieves do not have the courage it would take to have earned the medal(s) they are fraudulently wearing.

 

I do not wish my words to be turned into something they were not. I hope that clears up and misconception about "beating someone up."

 

Tired of arguing semantics...you know good and well what you meant with your comments. Thinly veiled threats of violence or not, this is getting to be childish posturing. Now you're implying that it requires the courage of a valor medal holder for someone to fight you? Enough of this. You are free to defend the memories of your fellow Air Men who served, bled, and died, and I'll honor my fellow Marines. If you're trying to convince me to stop caring about the constitution just because a handful of fools have told untrue stories and caused some hurt feelings, you can forget it. Unlike you, sir, if the choice were mine, I wouldn't want to live in a communist state where speech is so tightly controlled.

donation2008.gifdonation2009.gifdonation2010.gif

donation2011.gifdonation2012.gifdonation2013.gifdonation2014.gifdonation2015.gif

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
You want to raise taxes and hire more cops, Judges, prison warders? :-)

 

Of course...if they're needed; why wouldn't I? Why wouldn't anyone?

 

At least it would be one governmental expenditure that would yield some dividends and wouldn't cost a trillion dollars.

Semper fi; Bill











donation2008.gifdonation2009.gifdonation2010.gifdonation2011.gif
donation2012.gifdonation2013.gifdonation2014.gifdonation2015.gifdonation2016.gif

Link to post
Share on other sites
.....you know good and well what you meant with your comments.

I certainly do know what I meant by my comments. There is no need to argue semantics. There was no subterfuge, no double entendre, no attempt at deception of any sort in what I wrote. I meant exactly what the words I wrote said; nothing is hidden or veiled. I'm not afraid to stand for what I believe and am not afraid to voice my opinion(s). I don't need to hide them or engage in sophistry of any sort.

 

I've done that on this topic and have returned to revisit a couple points that may have been misunderstood or needed further amplification. There's really nothing more to be accomplished by further discourse on it other than risk the danger of ill will with some of my fellow Forum members. That is a consequence I don't fancy so I will take my leave of this thread now for good.

Semper fi; Bill











donation2008.gifdonation2009.gifdonation2010.gifdonation2011.gif
donation2012.gifdonation2013.gifdonation2014.gifdonation2015.gifdonation2016.gif

Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm not speaking about criminalizing speech by the federal government but as to the acceptability of lieing by society whether you can be prosecuted for it or not as a sign of a morally bankrupt society.By your statement I take it you think it's acceptable practice to lie if the government has no compelling reason to prevent you or prosecute you.I could care less if the lieing is about medals,military records or chicken farming,procecutable or not.It is a sign of a culture in decline.

 

The Strandlof decision, which started off as the focus of this thread, was exactly about criminalizing speech, which is precisely what the "false claims" portions of the SVA did.

 

I don't think anyone here is advocating lying (or even argung that lying is acceptable). But I certainly don't advocate making every lie ("yes, dear, your sauerkraut and dill pickle casserole was delicious") into a federal crime.

Jeff Floyd

The universe is made up of neutrons, protons, electrons and morons

donation2007.gifdonation2008.gifdonation2009.gifdonation2010.gif

donation2011.gifdonation2012.gifdonation2013.gifdonation2014.gifdonation2015.gifdonation2016.gif

 

donation2017.gif

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
The Strandlof decision, which started off as the focus of this thread, was exactly about criminalizing speech, which is precisely what the "false claims" portions of the SVA did.

 

I don't think anyone here is advocating lying (or even argung that lying is acceptable). But I certainly don't advocate making every lie ("yes, dear, your sauerkraut and dill pickle casserole was delicious") into a federal crime.

 

I'm not advocating making every lie a federal crime,if I did I would be in prison for life for telling my mother how good her Turkey Tetrazzini was,yuch.

 

What bothers me is this law was admitedly poorly written and defined.But some politicians have been called out on this in it's use to garner votes from a certain segment of the population.If they use a lie to get elected what kind of person do you have representing you.If the number of voters deceived by the lie are sufficent for him to win over another candidate or as in the Calumet,Illinois case where the one who violated the Stolen Valor Act,in effect at the time, is now suing the person who made public the fact he was lieing about his service record for defamation of character,where does this all end.To what extent is free speech protected when it involves people like Strandlof or someone running for office lieing to a significant number of people to gain office or raise money or whatever and the lie is a significant factor in their success or for that matter failure.I guess I'm looking at it as more like truth in advertising than about medals and phonies claiming that they're something they're not and the effect it has at large on the public instead of in a bar or office or home between one or two or three people.Perhaps the law should have addressed the fraud issue rather than the speech issue.As is the common practice now,lets blame it on Bush,he was President when it was made law.

Link to post
Share on other sites

a lot of good views going here and we all have our own idea on it -- my 2 cents worth these type of people are all around us and you see this type of BS all the time - someone trying to get a job fabricating there work experience or the guy trying to empress a woman for a date - all the same - don't bother me I like to think I'm smart enough to know and pick them out IMHO if a person want to say he was awarded a medal to impress someone thats his business in the end it will be between him or her and the big guy above but if they uses it to get money then I call it fraud and they should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law - I write this not to take away anything from the hard working soldier out there risking his/her life for our freedom for thats what its all about -freedom- again just my opinion and you know what they say about them

Link to post
Share on other sites

The SVA seems to be a law written to enforce existing laws (fraud). Kinda sounds like the Arizona immigration law.

TEC5 Robert W. Anderson - Purple Heart - HQ BTR 347th FLD ART BN 91st ID - Rome, Northern Appennines, Po Valley Served Sept 1940 - May 1945

MSgt John J. McNichol - Distinguished Service Cross, BSx3, PHx2 Served: May 1941 - April 1971 WW2 - 22nd AFA, 4th Armored Division - Normandy, Northern France, Ardennes, Rhineland, Central Europe.

Vietnam - 8th FA, 25th ID. - Cu Chi.

 

donation2012.gifdonation2013.gif

Link to post
Share on other sites
The SVA seems to be a law written to enforce existing laws (fraud). Kinda sounds like the Arizona immigration law.

 

I was asked to elaborate on this in a PM. I thought I would place my reply here as well.

 

I was simply referring to the fact that there were laws already in place that says that if you are here illegally, you will be deported. Weather the laws are enforced or not is not my point. The point is that there ARE laws against being in this country illegally. There are laws about fraud as well, and they could be applied in the case of stolen Valor. If I am wrong in this thinking than I am sorry & will retract my original statement. - Dave

TEC5 Robert W. Anderson - Purple Heart - HQ BTR 347th FLD ART BN 91st ID - Rome, Northern Appennines, Po Valley Served Sept 1940 - May 1945

MSgt John J. McNichol - Distinguished Service Cross, BSx3, PHx2 Served: May 1941 - April 1971 WW2 - 22nd AFA, 4th Armored Division - Normandy, Northern France, Ardennes, Rhineland, Central Europe.

Vietnam - 8th FA, 25th ID. - Cu Chi.

 

donation2012.gifdonation2013.gif

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah, I smell a good debate.

 

Let's be clear; If a guy wears a uniform or claims military service in connection of that uniform then he will be outed sooner or later and I think that it shouldn't be illegal unless he seeks favor for personal gain. Claiming veteran status and especially combat veteran status can and does garner a person privelidges, promotion and employment points, benefits and curries special treatment and personal deference.

 

Some reenactor wearing Patton's uniform is harmless as he's in costume. Go ahead and wear the costume, reenactors do it all the time. The moment a person makes the uniform or decorations his perosnal claim then the clock will start clicking. The moment he seeks or garners any professional preivelidge, benefit or favor is the moment he should be prosecuted if he's lying.

 

Now if I caught some guy claiming to be this or that and falsly wearing this or that I'd tell him to take it off NOW! In an extreme case I'm sure that USMC Recon and I might assist the guy in removing his falsley claimed uniform, badges or medals if he asked us politely. It might sound politically incorrect to say so but I know of paratroopers that assaulted non-airborne-personnel (naps) for wearing jump boots. One major was beaten up and his jump boots cut off. If you're going to wear a false uniform, decorations, medals and badges then do so around Politicans, who can't tell the difference. If you claim them falsley around some of the guys I know then you do so at your own risk- The answer is an affirmative-- These guys (former/current Paratroopers/Marines/Green Beenies) are willing to go to jail for assault.

 

It is what it is.

 

Rock

2RO2.jpg

 

2/505th (RA) 5/502nd (RA) 2/505th (REEN)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Fraud is already covered under other statutes; impersonation is covered under other statutes; wear of a military uniform is covered under US Code, Title 18, Section 702, as follows:

 

"Whoever, in any place within the jurisdiction of the United States or in the Canal Zone, without authority, wears the uniform or a distinctive part thereof or anything similar to a distinctive part of the uniform of any of the armed forces of the United States, Public Health Service or any auxiliary of such, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than six months, or both."

 

If you look at the other Title 18 sections in the low 700-series, you will find a number of things prohibited if done "with fraudulent intent". When the SVA and its predecessor were being staffed, a number of us (in the collecting community and the federal government itself) tried to get that simpe phrase inserted appropriately into the SVA. We were blown off. Had that phrase been inserted, I think the SVA would have withstood judicial scrutiny because the purpose would have been to deal with fraud, not to stifle First Amendment rights.

Jeff Floyd

The universe is made up of neutrons, protons, electrons and morons

donation2007.gifdonation2008.gifdonation2009.gifdonation2010.gif

donation2011.gifdonation2012.gifdonation2013.gifdonation2014.gifdonation2015.gifdonation2016.gif

 

donation2017.gif

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

My two cents:

 

I have thought long and hard about the SVA and have the following for consideration. I see the act of making false claims as not an issue of legal vs. illegal. But rather an issue of what is morally right vs what is morally wrong. To me, laws are created to prevent actions that interfere with the basic tenants (or human rights) of our Nation, they being… life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The question related to the Stolen Valor Act (fraud is a different issue) is, does the act of wearing a uniform or making a false claim interfere or violate these basic precepts?

 

Or is the law there to prevent something else? To me, the law is there to prevent individuals from committing an immoral or shameful act. But as shameful as the act may be, does it violate another individual’s life, liberty or pursuit of happiness? Yes, the act of false representation is repugnant, but does it distract from the pride and honor of an individual who served?

 

To me the issue of Stolen Valor goes to moral values. As a nation, we have diluted morals (what is right and what is wrong). There is no shame related to poor actions. In fact we see our society validating and encouraging poor behavior.

 

So, to me, the real issue surrounding the SVA is, “is it the role of government to set laws that establish morals”. Those who fly the Gadsden should seriously consider this question. Do we want government establishing what is moral, or is that the responsibility for parents and social leaders bare? Should governments punish shameful acts that do not violate one of the three basic human rights? Or is it the responsibly of individuals to teach our children what is right and what is wrong? To me, the best way to confront stolen valor to provide a strong moral foundation and respect in our children such that stealing valor will be seen as a truly shameful act.

 

Making a claim to something unearned is shameful. Society should condemn such actions.

 

 

donation2010.gifdonation2011.gifdonation2012.gif

Link to post
Share on other sites
My two cents:

 

............ To me the issue of Stolen Valor goes to moral values. As a nation, we have diluted morals (what is right and what is wrong). There is no shame related to poor actions. In fact we see our society validating and encouraging poor behavior.

 

So, to me, the real issue surrounding the SVA is, “is it the role of government to set laws that establish morals”. Those who fly the Gadsden should seriously consider this question. Do we want government establishing what is moral, or is that the responsibility for parents and social leaders bare? Should governments punish shameful acts that do not violate one of the three basic human rights? Or is it the responsibly of individuals to teach our children what is right and what is wrong? To me, the best way to confront stolen valor to provide a strong moral foundation and respect in our children such that stealing valor will be seen as a truly shameful act.

 

Making a claim to something unearned is shameful. Society should condemn such actions.

 

I wasn't going to make another post here and I apologize in advance for going against what I had said earlier but after sending a PM, I had to make brief comment here to take a particular point here just a bit farther.

 

The primary responsibility for instilling ethics/integrity, morals, respect, and courtesy lies with parents. Unfortunately, to a great extent, that chain has been broken. Those who are having children today are, themselves, the children of the "me first" generation and that's where the breakdown began. Many children of the "me firsters," were brought up to think that they are the most important person on earth and that what they want is paramount to the detriment of anyone else. When they had children, the decay continued of these ideals continued and accelerated as they failed to instill these traits in their children.

 

Add to that, the basic breakdown of the family unit; with single-parent households, households where the parents either partially or completely abrogate their parental responsibilities to others, or they just don’t care at all and let the kids run wild. That's why respect for others is on a downward slide; why a kid will kill another for nothing more than his jacket or shoes; why someone can get shot in the face for simply disagreeing with another.

 

Sadly, the leftist/socialist/liberals in this country are doing everything they can to continue the and accelerate the breakdown of our society in favor of an entitlement-dependent, instant gratification society where nothing is honored beyond self, with no bounds, no morals, little or no structure, no ambition, little honesty, and no respect for anyone or anything.

 

These walking, talking rectum fakers/valor thieves who walk around wearing uniforms and decorastions they didn't earn and don't possess the guts to have earned, are just a manifestation of the overall breakdown of society, respect, and honor and the fact these actions are condoned/ignored by so many as not hurting anyone.

 

OK; off my soap box....again.

Semper fi; Bill











donation2008.gifdonation2009.gifdonation2010.gifdonation2011.gif
donation2012.gifdonation2013.gifdonation2014.gifdonation2015.gifdonation2016.gif

Link to post
Share on other sites

USMCRecon.....

 

....I'm on the same page with you for the most part....I'm a conservative with a touch of libertarian thrown in.

 

That libertarian sense tells me to follow the K.I.S.S. principle......there are already laws on the books that would apply to someone if they have financial gain through misrepresenting themselves as veterans. We don't need repetitive laws; and we don't need to retroactively make owning a medal illegal.

 

Think about that. One day it's perfectly fine to own a valor medal, and the next day your collection is illegal to own because some legislator got a hair up his posterior.

 

We need less government intrusion; not more....imho.

donation2009.gifdonation2010.gifdonation2013.gifdonation2014.gifdonation2015.gifdonation2016.gif

 

 

Always interested in the 166th Infantry, 42nd Division, A.E.F.

Quality WW1 studio portraits and real photo postcards of Distinguished Service Cross recipients; showing steel helmets; or other interesting content.

Link to post
Share on other sites

One thing the Liberals and Conservatives seem to have on common all of a sudden is this need to create a parent in the government. The liberals want the government to give you everything (so long as you fit into one of the many categories of VICTIM), and the conservatives want the government to control, regulate, tax, and punish everything. Neither one of them seem to grasp the concepts of basic human freedom. Both sides are only too willing to see every aspect of life in America turned over to the government because in their eyes nobody in this country is capable of sustaining themselves and abiding by any sort of moral code that isn't pressed on them by big brother.

Is anyone being killed or injured? No. Is anyone being screwed out of money or property? If they are, that's theft and it's already illegal. Is it any of the government's business to make sure people tell the truth 24/7? Absolutely not. Lastly -- apart from a few people who have taken it personally to a frightening level despite never having been harmed themselves by it, 99% of the veterans I know and have discussed this with haven't been personally affected by anyone being full of crap. Pity, anger, disgust...sure, but personal injury? No way. These fools do more harm to themselves in the long run than to anyone who ever earned medals. Any liberal or conservative who wants to see more government spending and more heavy-handed inconsistent enforcement of a hard to understand law that was more politically driven than actually needed ought to take a moment to examine his conscience and decide if this is a fight worth putting another hole in the already tattered and torn blanket of freedom in America.

donation2008.gifdonation2009.gifdonation2010.gif

donation2011.gifdonation2012.gifdonation2013.gifdonation2014.gifdonation2015.gif

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Any liberal or conservative who wants to see more government spending and more heavy-handed inconsistent enforcement of a hard to understand law that was more politically driven than actually needed ought to take a moment to examine his conscience and decide if this is a fight worth putting another hole in the already tattered and torn blanket of freedom in America.

 

Amen!

TEC5 Robert W. Anderson - Purple Heart - HQ BTR 347th FLD ART BN 91st ID - Rome, Northern Appennines, Po Valley Served Sept 1940 - May 1945

MSgt John J. McNichol - Distinguished Service Cross, BSx3, PHx2 Served: May 1941 - April 1971 WW2 - 22nd AFA, 4th Armored Division - Normandy, Northern France, Ardennes, Rhineland, Central Europe.

Vietnam - 8th FA, 25th ID. - Cu Chi.

 

donation2012.gifdonation2013.gif

Link to post
Share on other sites
One thing the Liberals and Conservatives seem to have on common all of a sudden is this need to create a parent in the government. The liberals want the government to give you everything (so long as you fit into one of the many categories of VICTIM), and the conservatives want the government to control, regulate, tax, and punish everything. Neither one of them seem to grasp the concepts of basic human freedom. Both sides are only too willing to see every aspect of life in America turned over to the government because in their eyes nobody in this country is capable of sustaining themselves and abiding by any sort of moral code that isn't pressed on them by big brother.

Is anyone being killed or injured? No. Is anyone being screwed out of money or property? If they are, that's theft and it's already illegal. Is it any of the government's business to make sure people tell the truth 24/7? Absolutely not. Lastly -- apart from a few people who have taken it personally to a frightening level despite never having been harmed themselves by it, 99% of the veterans I know and have discussed this with haven't been personally affected by anyone being full of crap. Pity, anger, disgust...sure, but personal injury? No way. These fools do more harm to themselves in the long run than to anyone who ever earned medals. Any liberal or conservative who wants to see more government spending and more heavy-handed inconsistent enforcement of a hard to understand law that was more politically driven than actually needed ought to take a moment to examine his conscience and decide if this is a fight worth putting another hole in the already tattered and torn blanket of freedom in America.

 

Partial agreement except that conservatives want to roll back regulations, roll back taxes, change the tax system to *not* punish job creators, and to punish behaviors that are not moral. Morals are based upon our founding principals, laws, reasonable religious principles, tradition, and natural law. Liberals have a tendency to become all smarmy and try to knee-jerk laws and programs through that are intended to do something good. While the wisdom of the road to hell being paved with "good intentions" gets ignored.

 

Good intentions: Assist families in need.

Unintended result: Families on welfare for generations. They think it's a right!

 

Good intentions: Unemployment assist those get by that lose their job.

Unintended result: Three years of living off taxpayers while you play video games.

 

Good intentions: "everyone needs healthcare" (ie..Insurance)

Unintended results: to be seen, likely not good.

 

Good intentions: We need to help the poor and disabled and education (I cite California where I live)

Unintended result: Highest taxes in the nation. Combined with lower tax base= 20 BILLION Shortfall.

 

Good intentions: job creation

Unintended result: temporary Government jobs must be paid for by taxpayers. There are fewer taxpayers because most of our cash comes from the private sector, which is faltering. Government meddling, takeover of private companies, union influence and paybacks, wall street bailouts, bank bail outs, ALL leave the rest of us living off of the same or less than we had before. Then Government is perplexed as to why Americans are not purchasing as before. WE HAVE NO MONEY!! YOU GAVE IT TO THE BANKS, AUTO COMPANIES, UNIONS, etc....

 

Good intentions: "Don't ask/Don't tell" "Repeal of Don't ask don't tell"

Unintended results: The military environment is HIGHLY STRUCTURED and highly diciplined. A soldier wears the same clothing, appearance and behavior standards as the rest. A soldier is a part of a machine. He moves like everyone else (like lightning), he walks, talks, and does what he 's told. Mission essention tasks are the only tasks his unit needs. Political preferences sexual preferences, menu's, clothing preferences, decorative billets, ARE NOT part of military life. Any soldier that tries to make a personal preference public is trying to garner separate and special treatment not afforded other social groups. A Gay soldier has no right to speak his opinion any more than a soldier who has other sexual prefernces....NOBODY CARES! SHUT UP, PICK UP YOUR RIFLE, PUT ON YOUR HELMET AND MOVE OUT!! Do your job, and only your job because everything else is a distraction to the mission. The moment some guy thinks that his personal preferences makes him more special and trumps his team is the minute he is not to be trusted. A guy you can't trust is a liability and must be removed.

 

Good intentions: Everyone should have the American Dream (a house with picket fence)

Unintended result: Government artifically inflated the market demand with people that couldn't pay. BUBBLE (BURST!) The housing market must auto-correct but the Government is trying to keep prices up artifically using taxpayers money. SMALLER BUBBLE (BURST!).

 

Good Intentions: Anytime the Government gets involved in trying to "equalize" a percieved social financial inequality in the name of "helping the less fortunate", they screw up the natural market for something. Then they worsen it by trying to blame others and then patch up their own failed program.

 

 

So all of the above programs are not conservative based or republican in nature. They're highly controlling, highly taxable and end up punishing people that they're supposed to assist. They're generally Democrat, Liberal agenda wish list items that have come to fruition and are harming our country. Political correctness is a disease.

 

Rock

2RO2.jpg

 

2/505th (RA) 5/502nd (RA) 2/505th (REEN)

Link to post
Share on other sites

"and to punish behaviors that are not moral."

 

And thats the part that scares the hell out of me. Who decides what is moral? You? The government?

 

The real questions is: What gives anyone else the right to decide what is moral for me?

 

You cannot legislate morality. It has been tried over and over again, with incredibly dismal results.

donation2011.gifdonation2014.gifdonation2015.gifdonation2016.gif

donation2017.gifdonation2018.gif

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
"and to punish behaviors that are not moral."

 

And thats the part that scares the hell out of me. Who decides what is moral? You? The government?

 

The real questions is: What gives anyone else the right to decide what is moral for me?

 

You cannot legislate morality. It has been tried over and over again, with incredibly dismal results.

 

Our country has had a moral code for centuries. We were founded on Biblical principles and they are only now passe'. The moment we started diverty from Christian based morality, we ended up with "whatever feels good, do it" morals. Now we're too far left (do what you want, everybody gets a trophy), or the opposite (Sharia law).

 

We must tread carefully in that arena, I agree. Currently, this adminstration is mandating morality toward the left. Our country has lost it's moral compass in part. Most of us are morally on par as Americans but the more you add foreign and extreme behaviors to be defined as "the new normal".

 

Rock

2RO2.jpg

 

2/505th (RA) 5/502nd (RA) 2/505th (REEN)

Link to post
Share on other sites
Our country has had a moral code for centuries. We were founded on Biblical principles and they are only now passe'. The moment we started diverty from Christian based morality, we ended up with "whatever feels good, do it" morals. Now we're too far left (do what you want, everybody gets a trophy), or the opposite (Sharia law).

 

We must tread carefully in that arena, I agree. Currently, this adminstration is mandating morality toward the left. Our country has lost it's moral compass in part. Most of us are morally on par as Americans but the more you add foreign and extreme behaviors to be defined as "the new normal".

 

Rock

 

The country's legislation ought to be 1) Protecting people from violence (to include murder, assault, rape, abduction, etc. etc), 2) Protecting people from financial ruin and theft (being defrauded by liars, robbed, etc), and 3) Protecting people from corruption in any branch of the government. Left, right, doesn't matter. They're both equally guilty of trying to circumvent the nation's legal system for their own ends. Whether that's shoving the "anything goes" attitude down the throats of the American people, or some backwards ultra-strict form of christian moral doctrine. Fact is, it's not the government's job to tell you what's moral and what's not. It's the government's job to make sure your rights don't interfere with the rights of anyone else. That's it. An ardent atheist and a bible thumping Mormon can live in peace so long as they don't kill each other.

 

Beyond that, what this amounts to is special interest groups getting their own agendas pushed through congress. Just because one person has a moral code that says miniskirts are evil doesn't mean that's true for everyone. Rock, brother, I agree with you that the nation has gone a bit nutty lately (look at the entertainment industry, continuously selling this slutty image to our daughters as the hip cool thing to do). But just like lying, and well, pretty much other individual behavior...is it REALLY any of the government's business to control that? Not the way I read the constitution. Social problems in the past were dealt with by society, not Uncle Sam. They have a lot more to worry about than whether or not one of the millions of Americans out there is doing something someone finds objectionable. Politicians capitulating to the loudest, biggest, or richest special interest groups in America serves nobody.

donation2008.gifdonation2009.gifdonation2010.gif

donation2011.gifdonation2012.gifdonation2013.gifdonation2014.gifdonation2015.gif

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.