03-04-2013, 04:00 AM
I do not expect that I am important enough in anyone's life here that they would hang on my every printed word, but for the record:
(1) I am a practicing Catholic who believes there are objective moral standards (the Ten Commandments) to which all men should be held;
(2) I am happy to interact with anyone who disagrees with me on that or any other point, preferably with evidence and logic;
(3) I want my country to practice virtue, not evil.
Further for the record, especially for those who have stated or inferred otherwise of me and others:
(4) I am not a Communist, Nazi, nut case, conspiracy theorist, anti-Semite, holocaust denier, paranoid, delusional, anarchist wannabe, or any of the pejorative inferences and outright name-calling allowed here to those who apparently believe in subjective morality, American exceptionalism, Zionist exceptionalism, "my country, right or wrong," and a double-standard of fairness and enforcement here.
My post was meant exactly as Montana understood it and I said so. I would think that everyone on this forum would understand that those German soldiers were not "nut cases" (an insult regularly allowed to some here), but virtuous soldiers for opposing Hitler's evil regime. Because I figured everyone on this forum would understand that it was virtuous to oppose Hitler's evil Nazi regime, it made an ideal analogy to support my contention that Brad Manning too is a virtuous soldier who is resisting a different evil regime.
So, is the policy here that one favored faction may freely insult, but an unfavored faction may not point out that good German soldiers violated their just-following-orders "duty" to resist an evil regime (von Stauffenberg was a serious practicing Catholic who long considered the morality of his resistance) and that Bradley Manning is in that great tradition of brave and virtuous soldiers?
Does anyone want my lunch money? If so, μολὼν λαβέ !
(1) I am a practicing Catholic who believes there are objective moral standards (the Ten Commandments) to which all men should be held;
(2) I am happy to interact with anyone who disagrees with me on that or any other point, preferably with evidence and logic;
(3) I want my country to practice virtue, not evil.
Further for the record, especially for those who have stated or inferred otherwise of me and others:
(4) I am not a Communist, Nazi, nut case, conspiracy theorist, anti-Semite, holocaust denier, paranoid, delusional, anarchist wannabe, or any of the pejorative inferences and outright name-calling allowed here to those who apparently believe in subjective morality, American exceptionalism, Zionist exceptionalism, "my country, right or wrong," and a double-standard of fairness and enforcement here.
My post was meant exactly as Montana understood it and I said so. I would think that everyone on this forum would understand that those German soldiers were not "nut cases" (an insult regularly allowed to some here), but virtuous soldiers for opposing Hitler's evil regime. Because I figured everyone on this forum would understand that it was virtuous to oppose Hitler's evil Nazi regime, it made an ideal analogy to support my contention that Brad Manning too is a virtuous soldier who is resisting a different evil regime.
So, is the policy here that one favored faction may freely insult, but an unfavored faction may not point out that good German soldiers violated their just-following-orders "duty" to resist an evil regime (von Stauffenberg was a serious practicing Catholic who long considered the morality of his resistance) and that Bradley Manning is in that great tradition of brave and virtuous soldiers?
Does anyone want my lunch money? If so, μολὼν λαβέ !