Defending the Truth

Never in the history of the world has any soldier sacrificed more for the freedom and liberty of total strangers than the American soldier.
And, our soldiers don't just give freedom abroad, they preserve it for us here at home.

For it has been said so truthfully that it is the soldier, not the reporter, who has given us the freedom of the press.

It is the soldier, not the poet, who has given us freedom of speech.

It is the soldier, not the agitator, who has given us the freedom to protest.

It is the soldier who salutes the flag, serves beneath the flag, whose coffin is draped by the flag, who gives that protester the freedom he abuses to burn that flag.

http://michellemalkin.com/

More of how the conservative base IMPROPERLY invokes symbolism and iconism to their cause which isn't easily attacked, and they have NO RIGHT claiming it as a symbol for their cause.

But you'll never see Ann Coulter or Alias complaining about that, now will you...

It is true that soldiers do protect our rights, but it is false to claim that they are solely responsible. Many freedoms have been tested and protected in peacetime through the courts. It is also reporters and protesters who make sacrifices for our freedom.

How hypocritical is this statement. Shouldn't it say freedom to agitate?

You're right that it isn't easily attacked. You can't attack it because if you attack it you are attacking American soldiers because it's the truth.

Nope. They are directly responsible. If not for the American soldier there would be no America. We didn't talk our way out of WWI and WWII, we kicked their damn asses and anihilated the enemy. It wasn't the New York Times that did that. It was every American soldier. If there is no America, you have nothing to protest or courts to decide anything. There is no America. You don't quite understand that do you?

This is ridiculous.
If I burn a flag, I AM NOT attacking American soldiers.

Here we go again. A conservative invoking somebody to his side because it's "difficult to attack".
CANNOT make his own argument, so instead he pretends that if you burn a flag you are "attacking American soldiers".

You ever read one of Al Franken's book alias?


Do you comprehend the difference in words?
Thenewnoise was pointing out that soldiers were not SOLELY responsible for preserving our freedoms.
Soldiers are responsible for preserving our freedoms from threats OUTSIDE of the United States.
But the threats to our freedoms which come from WITHIN the United States are protected by an entirely different group of people.

You have said it yourself. Our soldiers risk and give their lives to protect our freedom. Because of this, our freedoms should be respected and protected by the law, not denied. A flag is a piece of fabric, but the right to burn a flag is a freedom, and it's a freedom that our soldiers fought for as much as any other freedom.

Our soliders did not fight to strip people's freedoms, so it does not make sense that we should strip people's freedom unless we absolutely have to. Now tell me why we absolutely have to strip people's freedom to burn the flag? Stripping any freedom is far more an insult to our soliders than protecting that freedom.

I agree that without soldiers we could not have America. But without reporters we could not have a free America either. Many countries have soldiers who will fight for their country but the still lack freedom. There are countries with weak armies but have free press so those countries are free. That means soldiers are not the sole protectors of freedom.

But you don't have to listen to me, since you are so similar to the founding fathers, listen to Thomas Jefferson.

"Our liberty cannot be guarded but by the freedom of the press, nor that be limited without danger of losing it." --Thomas Jefferson to John Jay, 1786.

"...and were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter."--Thomas Jefferson to Edward Carrington, 1787. ME 6:57

"The most effectual hitherto found, is the freedom of the press. It is, therefore, the first shut up by those who fear the investigation of their actions." --Thomas Jefferson to John Tyler, 1804. ME 11:33

Perhaps, except for the small fact that none of our founding fathers were soldiers, minus one of coarse; being George Washington. I know its unbarable, but our Constitution was signed by those who you just listed so confidently as those who have not brought us freedom. I know its hard to believe, but it was signed by a pen, not the end of a rifle. Similarily, Democracy can not be brought upon by force, but only though peaceful means; for proof of this you need look no further than modern day Iraq.

I know its too comfortable to your whole chauvanistic and militaristic outlook on our country to believe this crap, but its just the simple fact that our soldiers are there to preserve our freedoms from foreign and domestic attack. True they played their part in the founding of our country, and in fact without them we would not be independent, but they didn't bring us freedom. They brought us independence, but for freedom and rights, you will need a collection of lawyers, judges, poets, scientists, physicians, and business men to give us our rights. Otherwise it would just be a military dictatorship. And I find it ironic that you would claim "the agitator" does not give us freedom; when, our bloody quest for independence and freedom from the thrown of England was an agitation.