Tink says:
===============
If He is who He says He is, then you have to be prepared to deal with
God, if you are going to talk about dealing with Jesus.
=================

Tink, I'm going to acknowledge that there likely existed, some 2000
years ago, a fellow named JC, who had some pretty enlightened ideas
about how people ought to live their lives. I'm willing to accept those
elments of his philosophy which don't have a basis in mythology.

I'll read philosophers of all stripes. I'll reject any and all
references to dieties except as intellectual curiousities.

frtzw906

Tink says:
==============
Only someone with silly notions plays hot-patato with a nuclear bomb!
If you are naieve, you may do so in bliss, but the inevitable result is
the same!
==============

Translate please. Who/what is the "nuclear bomb"? Are you making
reference to a "god"? If so, are you again giving me some vengeful
version of your faith?

Tink, for guys like me, this religion stuff just won't fly if it's
always wrapped up in dire messages of doom and vengeful acts. Who buys
into that stuff?! Where's the attraction?! Tales of the boogeyman
worked for my Mom when she wanted me to behave, but I outgrew such
silly notions.

frtzw906

Tink says:
===============
Now many "Christians" try to live, according to this noble clause, and
noble indeed it is. But please understand that in so doing, they are
showing they do not have the foggiest idea about the New Testament
which Jesus spoke about.
=====================

OK, Tink, pardon my ignorance. I thought the OT was the boogeyman stuff
and the NT was the cool, new-age stuff. Are you telling me it's the
other way around? If so, please give me a few, better-known examples.

frtzw906

BCITORGB wrote:
Tink says:
===============
If He is who He says He is, then you have to be prepared to deal with
God, if you are going to talk about dealing with Jesus.
=================

Tink, I'm going to acknowledge that there likely existed, some 2000
years ago, a fellow named JC, who had some pretty enlightened ideas
about how people ought to live their lives. I'm willing to accept
those
elments of his philosophy which don't have a basis in mythology.

I'll read philosophers of all stripes. I'll reject any and all
references to dieties except as intellectual curiousities.

frtzw906

Then I assume that JC would be of no interest to you, and what He would
do regarding current political issues and concerns, of no importance or
interest as well. Game over! TnT

"Scott Weiser" wrote in message
...
A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:

in article , Scott Weiser at
wrote on 3/8/05 4:07 PM:

A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:

in article , Scott Weiser at
wrote on 3/8/05 12:39 AM:

A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:

Leave it to Fox to find someone who could turn a multiple victim
public
shooting stemming from a custody dispute resulting in the murder of
two
people and the wounding of four others into a pro-gun piece of
claptrap.

Well, a gun started it, and guns were the only thing that stopped it.
And
it's clear that Wilson saved lives by distracting the shooter, at the
cost
of his own life.

Only a complete asshole would denigrate this bravery and sacrifice.

Which would be, evidently, you.

The asshole(s) are those who are capable of such bizarre thinking as to
turn
that incident into a pro-gun platform. Amazing.

And yet you cannot refute the inescapable fact that without guns, nobody
would have been able to stop the killer.

Guns are merely inanimate objects
and tools that can be used for both good and ill. Most of the time, they
are
used for good. Only relatively rarely are they used for ill.

They are never used for good. They are only used for different degrees of
ill.

What a remarkably ignorant statement. The vast majority of the time, guns
are used to provide pleasure, and the only thing "harmed" is a piece of
paper or a tin can.

But your assertion utterly ignores the obvious fact that guns can be, and
very frequently are used to protect the innocent against violent attack.
That you would classify self-defense as a "degree of ill" indicates that
you
have lost touch with reality.

Take a pill.

Get off whatever pills you are taking.

People (normal people) don't feel good after they act in self-defense. They
wish they never had to do it in the first place. Find a cop that doesn't
describe using his gun as a "necessary evil" and I'll find you a cop that
should be off the force.

BCITORGB wrote:
Tink says:
==============
Only someone with silly notions plays hot-patato with a nuclear bomb!
If you are naieve, you may do so in bliss, but the inevitable result
is
the same!
==============

Translate please. Who/what is the "nuclear bomb"? Are you making
reference to a "god"? If so, are you again giving me some vengeful
version of your faith?

Tink, for guys like me, this religion stuff just won't fly if it's
always wrapped up in dire messages of doom and vengeful acts. Who
buys
into that stuff?! Where's the attraction?! Tales of the boogeyman
worked for my Mom when she wanted me to behave, but I outgrew such
silly notions.

frtzw906

Sorry about that, Game on, I should have read all your post before I
assumed game over.

A nuclear bomb is any idea or concept that should not be taken lightly.
You would not take paying your house insurance premium lightly, if
there was a fire, you could lose everything. That does not mean you do
not pay your premium because you can deal with the terror of the
consequence if you don't pay!

If He is who He says He is, then it can never be a casual philosopical
dispute to talk about JC. It is not the hazards that necessarily draw
us to boat in deep water, it is the sheer joy of exploration and
discovery, though some may be even attracted to the hazard.

If you out grew such silly notions of God as being the Boogey Man, then
you would know that He is not the Boogey Man. To live a crippled life
claiming He is not the Boogey Man, but acting as if He is, may appear
enlightened, but the fact is, your life is still crippled to the range
of motion allowed by this particular crippling disease, and your scope
of vision to that of someone who is blind. There is no enlightenment in
this, and in fact, you apparently have not out grown the idea at all
despite your claims. TnT

"Scott Weiser" wrote in message
...
A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:

in article , Scott Weiser at
wrote on 3/8/05 4:51 PM:

A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:

in article , Scott Weiser at
wrote on 3/8/05 12:35 AM:

A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:


I've
lived in Ottawa most of my life and never seen a gun that did not
belong
to
a member of a police force.

Just because you haven't seen them doesn't mean they don¹t exist. In
fact,
gun ownership in Canada is quite high on a per-capita basis.

I know they exist.

This is my point, it is not a gun culture.

Sure it is.

No, it isn't. We don't talk about guns, unless it's a conversation
about
"that idiot with the gun who shot those people in Texas" or something
like
that. We don't love guns and talk about the right to have a gun as
though it
is more important than oxygen. It's not a gun culture.

Just because YOU don't talk about it doesn't mean other people don't.
Clearly you don't know everybody in Canada. Besides, your definition of
"gun
culture" is specious.

I wasn't talk about all of Canada.

Evasion. Now you're trying to backpedal again.

No backpedal. I wasn't. There are parts of Canada that do have a gun
culture.

And yes, one could write books and books about what constitutes a gun
culture, but I know I am not in one. People here are more interested in
identifying bird species than they are in guns.

And you know this because you personally listen in on every conversation
in
Canada simultaneously? Your megalomania is showing.

I'm not talking about all of Canada. It's a big place with many extremely
diverse communities, a number of which likely have a gun culture.

I trust that we don't need to shoot each other.

Which is true, until it's not.

I should probably carry a machine gun waiting for that special day when
it's
not, and yet, I manage to carry on happily each day without it.

Well, a compact handgun is probably adequate...

What if it's not! I'll be underprepared!

What do you think the registry is intended to do?

It's intended to facilitate the confiscation of guns. It can have no
other
purpose, because no other purported purpose, particularly the ostensible
one
of reducing criminal access to guns, can possibly be accomplished by a
gun
registration program. You see, criminals don't register their guns
because
it's already illegal for them to possess them. The only people who
register
guns are law-abiding citizens, and there is absolutely no purpose
whatsoever
for having law-abiding citizens register guns except as a precursor to
eventual bans and confiscations.

The gun registry has the same intent as an automobile registry.

Not hardly.

Exactly.

Automobile registries are for collecting taxes and providing
information to police about a specific vehicle on the highway that may be
breaking the law.

Right.

Gun registries have nothing to do with that. They have no purpose or
effect
other than to provide a mechanism for eventual confiscation. They don't
prevent crime, they don't identify criminals, they don't track the
location
of guns. They merely identify who is the putative "owner" of the gun and
where the gun might likely be located at some point. The ONLY potential
benefit to a gun registry is that it might, in the odd case, allow a
stolen
gun to be returned to its rightful owner. However, it's usually more
efficient and less costly to simply wait for an owner who has had a gun
stolen to report it to the police, whereupon the serial number and
description is entered in the national stolen property database.

It's sophistry to suggest that universal gun registration is intended only
to facilitate the return of stolen guns.

It has the same intended effect as an automobile registry. It's a list. What
more do you want it to do? Dive in front of bullets?!?


How do you imagine it
differs from the registration of cars?

The government has no intention of confiscating cars.

Cars do get taken away from people who aren't supposed to have them, and
I
believe the fact that cars are registered enables this in many cases.

Almost never. Cars in the possession of those who aren't supposed to have
them are seized based on the direct observation of the police that the
occupant is doing something wrong.

Geezus, then I guess we should scrap the idea of registering automobiles
too!

Are you fighting against that at present?

Gun registries have no purpose other than giving authorities information
on
where to go to gather up gun when they are eventually banned. Nor can you
actually state a legitimate reason for gun registries. At best you can
provide specious analogies.

The purpose of a gun register is to assign a registration number to a gun
and match it up to who the owner is supposed to be.

For one thing, it's so damned easy to pick up a gun in the USA! You
can
buy
a wicked assault weapon like you are buying a pack of gum.

That is a flat-out lie. It's entirely untrue, and you know it.

What's so hard about acquiring an assault weapon in the USA?

Why don't you do some research and get back to me.

Done. They sell them in stores. You can buy them there.

Can you buy them there like you're "buying a pack of gum?"

There are some minor inconveniences, but if you can handle opening a bank
account, you won't be dettered by the process of getting a gun.

Well, there you go. You were lying, and you've been caught lying and now
you're trying to weasel out of your lie.

ROFL. I was not lying. I had no intent to deceive an obvious genius like
yourself, Scotty, into thinking that the purchase of guns and gum were
identical processes.

It's easy to buy a gun. That was the point of the obvious employment of
humour regarding the gum.

I like to live in a place where people don't get shot.

Who wouldn't.

Then perhaps we have little to argue about.

Problem is that your plan actually gets MORE people shot, and
victimized by violent criminals.

What plan?

I think the only concrete change I've advocated in any of these gun
threads
is the elimination of assault weapons.

Other than that, what plan have I put forth?

That'll do.

Why are assault weapons needed?

It's not a Bill of Needs, it's a Bill of Rights. Besides, "assault
weapons"
are the civilian equivalent of military arms, and as I've said before, one
of the primary purposes of the 2nd Amendment is to ensure that the whole
populace is armed with military-capable arms.

Why are assault weapons needed?

You think Gandhi was some sort of wimp, wherease
some asshole with a basement full of assault weapons is hot ****?

No, I just think that I'm not going to turn the other cheek, and I'm
going
to defend myself using reasonable and necessary physical force when
it's
required.

Yup, and every moron with a cache of assault weapons in that special
hole
in
the floorboards thinks they are capable of deciding what is resonable
and
necessary and when it is required, but what actually happens is
children,
wives, and husbands end up dead in their own house, shot by a member
of
their own family.

Not very often at all

Extremely often.

How often, exactly?

I note you cannot answer this question.

I not that you cannot answer this question.



particularly when compared to the number of times
that those same firearms are used to thwart a crime.

What is the ratio of gun deaths in the US where the dead person was a
relative or friend of the shooter vs a stranger committing a crime?

You made the claim, so you tell me.

A gun in the home is 22 times more likely to be used in an unintentional
shooting, a criminal assault or homicide, or an attempted or completed
suicide than to be used to injure or kill in self-defense.

You're parroting debunked gun-banner propaganda.

Prove it.

What happened to the police? And the armed forces?

Well, in a disarmed society, they most often become tyrants.

You have a tyrant now.

How so?

A ruler who exercises power in a harsh, cruel manner...sounds like Duhbyuh
to me!

Really eh? According to the Journal of Trauma (1998) a gun in the home
is 22
times more likely to be used in an unintentional shooting, criminal
assault
or homicide, or an attempted or completed suicide than to be used in
self-defense.

22 times more likely.

Which is a long-debunked and biased report based on cooked books.

Somehow I thought you would say that.

Truth hurts, doesn't it?

Your truth almost always causes pain to intelligent people.

But you sit down there in your safe room with your cache of weapons
waiting
for the stranger to pop out of the bush.

Nah, I'll just go about my daily life while carrying a handgun.

Sad.

No, happy. And free. And unafraid to walk down the street after dark.

If you were not afraid you would not need to carry a gun.

You have that exactly backwards. It is because I carry a gun that I am
unafraid. Walking through Capitol Hill at night without a gun is a pretty
scary proposition.

Right. As I said. You carry a gun because you are afraid.

Mhm. And most people don't seem capable of managing a credit card or
even
keep their shoes tied.

My, do you have a dim view of your fellow man.

Just the facts. Take a look at the state of personal debt in north
america.

Which has absolutely nothing to do with the issue.

I was pointing out that a lot of people have trouble with some basic
tasks
in life, and I'm not comforted by the idea of those same people walking
around with guns making decisions on whether or not to blow someone
else's
brains out.

Your statement is patently false and deliberately defamatory. The fact is
that "a lot of people" don't have problems with daily tasks, only a very
small number do, and if they are truly mentally impaired, they generally
aren't issued CCW permits.

I'm not talking about clinically impaired.

I'm talking about the tens of millions of folks who have trouble driving at
an appropriate speed and maintaining a reasonable level of personal debt
(other examples could follow, but hopefully you get the point.)

I don't want those same people, in the middle of their cell phone
conversation while giving the finger to the driver next to them, making a
decision about blowing someone's head off.


It makes me more than a little nervous that they are
carrying around concealed weapons.

Your paranoia is of but little interest. Get used to it because the
chances
are that one or more of the people you were around today was carrying
a
gun.
Most likely, up in Canada, it was a criminal. At least down here, it's
most
likely to be a law-abiding citizen.

LOL. Also known as a criminal in waiting. Carrying a gun around allows
a
law-abiding citizen to turn into a murderer quite easily.

So does driving a car, only more so.

Check your statistics. There's a lot of cars out there. Not too many of
them
get used as murder weapons. Not so for guns.

The issue is not the numbers, it's the potential.

The issue is the reality.

Cars get used to commit murder all the time. Much more frequently than
guns.

Evidence to support this bizarre assertion?!!?

The point is, however,
that merely possessing a tool that can be used to kill does not magically
turn people into raving homicidal maniacs, as much as you might like it to
be so to suit your anti-gun agenda.

An idiot with a gun is a lot more dangerous than an idiot with a jacknife.

Your wife has a vagina, which allows
her to turn into a prostitute quite easily.

ACtually, being a prostitute has very little to do with having a vagina.

Statistically speaking, the vast majority of prostitutes are females, but
again you miss the point.

The point was stupid.


Should we therefore concludethat she is a prostitute?

No, we should conclude that you are a blithering idiot, LOL.

Evasion.

Accuracy.

Dissing people who have courage only proves you a coward.

What is courageous about carrying a gun around?

It's not the carrying, it's the willingness to use it

Oh, that's just beautiful!

Particularly when you're waiting for someone to shoot you dead in the
Luby's
cafeteria and you don't have a gun.


, at significant risk
to one's own safety, to protect others that's courageous.

Man, you can't WAIT for the chance to play hero and kill somebody, can
you?
Really, be honest...you just can't WAIT!

I can wait.

But you WANT it. Bad.

I hope and pray that I'll never be called upon to draw my gun,
much less shoot someone with it. That doesn't mean that I can't or won't
if
it's necessary to do so. That's the difference between us. You are a moral
coward who wouldn't lift a finger to help someone in need

It doesn't sound like you've ever actually done much to help people in need.
A big part of my life has been doing just that, it's pretty much a daily
return. I just think of it as part of being human.

whereas I'm
willing to put my life on the line, just as Wilson did, to protect those
who
cannot protect themselves.

I'm willing to take daily action to help people rather than engage in grand
delusions about being a gun-toting superhero.

You really sound like a pathetic loser when you talk about this.

What's cowardly is refusing to take responsibility for either your own
safety or show any concern for the safety of others. By refusing to
provide
for your own safety, you put off your responsibilities onto the police,
or
on other armed citizens who aren't going to inquire about how much you
deserve to be protected (or not) at their risk before they put their
safety
on the line to save your pathetic, cowardly ass. That's immoral and evil
and
cowardly.

I've actually devoted most of the last ten years of my life to supporting
some of the most vulnerable people in our community, and doing my best to
ensure their safety has had nothing to do with carrying a gun.

Good for you. Too bad you're wrong, and too bad that you can't "ensure"
anything, and too bad that people believe your claptrap...it might get
them
killed.

Too bad I do good every day while you walk around dreaming of the day you
get to kill someone.

Not everyone
has to carry a gun in order to be responsible or courageous.

Quite right. Nor is anyone required to do so. What's really reprehensible
is
when you advocate PREVENTING people who wish to do so from doing so. When
you do that, you take direct moral responsibility for their complete
safety,
and if they get hurt because your advocacy supported their disarmament,
their blood is on your hands.

I'll I've asked so far is why it assault weapons are needed.

I don't like gun culture.

I think gun nuts like you are scary freaks.

But I haven't done a thing to try and take away your guns. Unless you happen
to have an assault rifle, in which case I think that's nutty and you don't
need to have one and should not have the option.

The police here
don't feel that their safety is on the line because citizens don't all
carry
weapons around.

What the police feel about is is not relevant.

The police were relevant to you a while ago when you said I was being unfair
by expecting them to do all the gun work for me.

They are public servants, and
if one of the things they have to get used to is that law-abiding citizens
may be armed, so be it.

LOL. Their lives are on the line every day, they carry guns. I think the
fact that they don't think having ordinary citizens like you walking around
waiting to shoot people is a good idea carries more weight with me that your
idiotic ramblings.

Fact is that on occasion, armed citizens come to the defense of officers
who
are being attacked and not infrequently save their lives. That's what
Wilson
did just the other day, and he died doing so.

The police here don't want that, and don't feel it makes the community
safer.

In fact, quite the opposite, their lives are at greater risk
were they carrying out their duties in a gun culture full of gun nuts
like
you.

Nope. They are far safer, in fact. And most line cops down here know that
full well. The major objectors to CCW are police administrators who are
trying to curry favor with anti-gun politicians.

There's no such political action up here, the cops don't want it because
they know it makes the community more dangerous.

Your tired "cops blood will be running in the gutters if we legalize CCW"
argument is noxiously false. It's simply a lie.

The cops don't want it. I'll go with their view over yours.

I warrant that you, faced with the situation Wilson faced, would fall to
the
ground, cower in fear and **** your pants, all the while hoping that
someone, anyone with a gun would stand up and save your life.

The irony is that the vast majority of armed citizens would do exactly
that,
for you

If you are representative of the vast majority of armed citizens, that's
because you spend much (if not most) of your day fantasizing out getting
the
opportunity to kill someone with your gun.

I know you'd like to think that¹s what I think, but in reality you are
just
trying to insult me because you have no cogent argument to make. So, I'll
respond in kind, just out of principle: Go **** yourself.

I bet you'd like to pull your gun on me right now eh?

one who can do nothing but denigrate and demean the gallant
sacrifice of someone who had no legal duty to intervene, but did so
because
it was the right thing to do. And he got killed for his altruism. Pity
you
weren't in his place, because he deserves life far more than someone
like
you does. People like you are a festering boil on the ass of society.
You
take from others and expect them to do for you that which you are
unwilling
to do for yourself, and then you insult them when one of them makes the
ultimate sacrifice for others. Despicable.

Interesting. All because I don't want to walk around with a gun.

No, because you demean and denigrate those law-abiding citizens (like
me...and there are millions like me) who choose to be armed, even when
they
make the ultimate sacrifice trying to protect others.

They may have delusions of grandeur that lead them to believe that is what
they are doing but that thinking is just as nutty as the preacher on the
corner keeping them out of hell.

I guess to you the bravest
person in the world is the drug dealer that shoots up the local park.

Yes, that would be your guess.

By the way, were you by any chance kicked out of the police academy for
being too trigger-happy?

Nope, I graduated and was certified and went to work as a police officer
for
many years.

Ah...I figured some involvement in law enforcement. What happened? Is that
why you are so angry and want to shoot someone?

That would explain a lot, particularly your latest
furious outburst.

What, you don't like being called a coward and a despicable piece of human
flotsam? Why ever not? You richly deserve it.

LOL. Doesn't bother me a bit, I live my life every day helping others in
real ways, not carrying a gun hoping I can shoot someone.

Michael commenting on Weiser:
==============
Dickhead likes to pretend that he supports freedom and rights.

===============

And then, interestingly, in one of his more recent posts, he's all over
the ACLU as some sort of subversive organization. If he REALLY cared
about freedom and rights, he'd be sending them a donation.

frtzw906

BCITORGB wrote:
Tink says:
===============
Now many "Christians" try to live, according to this noble clause,
and
noble indeed it is. But please understand that in so doing, they are
showing they do not have the foggiest idea about the New Testament
which Jesus spoke about.
=====================

OK, Tink, pardon my ignorance. I thought the OT was the boogeyman
stuff
and the NT was the cool, new-age stuff. Are you telling me it's the
other way around? If so, please give me a few, better-known examples.

frtzw906

Bingo! Some light are coming on!

We briefly have discussed that the high mark of the Old Testament was "
Thou shalt love your neighbor as your self." Actually this statement
was the second part of His summary, He preceded this statement in his
summary with the first part which said, "Thou shalt love the Lord your
God, with all your heart, soul, and strength!" Still all Old Testament!

He followed the summary of the Old Testament, with the Intro to the
New, " Thou shalt love one another, as I have loved you and given
myself for you."

Do you see any difference between these statements of Old vs. New, and
what that implies? What is the status of the Old Testament today, and
what is this New Testament all about! I ask the last question, to check
the depth of your philosophy, sort of like a dipstick on the engine to
check the oil. It does not change the status of the engine, but you
have an idea of its condition.

I do not mean to say this to be mean, but do you understand then why I
suggested that some of your notions are a bit silly, in light of this
current Revelation? TnT

"Scott Weiser" wrote in message
...
A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:

in article 1110340422.0f166db598e207fc9e839e738f0d5c7b@terane ws, Nisarel
at
wrote on 3/8/05 10:53 PM:

Scott Weiser wrote:

A Usenet persona calling itself Nisarel wrote:

Scott Weiser wrote:

But it cannot step one inch outside the
boundary we the people have established.

Patriot Act.

It's leaped way outside it.

Really? How, specifically? Can you name specific instances where
enforcements under the Patriot Act have illegally infringed on
protected rights?

You're that ignorant?

I find it interesting the the New York City Council (that's the city
where
most of the people in 9/11 actually perished) want the Patriot Act
revoked.

Many liberal twits (like most New York City Council members) want it
repealed (not revoked...you repeal a law). Who cares what they want? They
are liberal twits.

Hm.

Well, you might need to define "liberal twits" as that's obviously some sort
of sophisticated term of yours that few people are capable of understanding
at your level.

What I do know is they represent the very same municipality where the most
people perised on 9/11. It sure is ironic that those deaths resulted in
anti-rights legislation that is opposed by the very population that were the
main target of the event.

The ACLU is right at the top of the liberal twit-list in objecting to
virtually every government program to fight terrorists both within and
outside the US. They don't even want the FBI and INS to be able to inform
local police agencies about the identities of known illegal aliens, some
of
whom are certainly terrorist infiltrators.

Now, the ACLU is positively dangerous, and is likely to get more Americans
killed by terrorists.

They obviously aren't as informed as Scott Weiser, but they seem to feel
rather strongly that it infringes on fundamental rights and liberties.

Like most liberal twits, they are full of crap. Nor can they cite any
examples.


I find the most recent version of their resolution quite well written.

http://www.nycbordc.org/resolution0389-2004.html

Even the American Library Association is getting radical!

http://www.ala.org/Template.cfm?Sect...=/ContentManag
ement/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentID=11891

A search on

Patriot Act infringe on rights

or some such combination will give you a plethora of links to hundreds of
organizations that have come forward (at obvious risk) to stand up
against
the anti-freedom (aka Patriot Act) act.

And yet not one of them can actually cite an incident where enforcement of
the Patriot Act has unlawfully infringed on ANYONE'S civil rights.

It's easy to spout leftist/liberal anti-Bush propaganda, but it's somewhat
harder to actually prove that the Patriot Act reduces freedoms. Still,
there
is a war on. Get over it.

Oh, right. There's a war on. In a way that differs from...?

Talking about having a tyrant.

Just declare that you are at war and then do as you please.

There's your tyrant.

It's so ironic that at the very same time as US troops are fighting on
foreign soil - according to their President's revised mission to secure
freedom for the Iraqi people - freedoms in the USA are at one of the
lowest
points in decades.

Funny, I haven't noticed any substantial impairment to my freedoms. Have
you? What, specifically, has happened to you that impairs your freedoms?
Nothing, I bet.

I don't live in the United States. Plus I am a white male.