I just wanted to share with you this letter to the editor from my local paper. I love the logic therein.
Proud American offended by 'cowards'
To the Editor of THE EAGLE:-
I would like to respond to the letter in The Eagle today on "Democracy and what it looks like" pertaining to the demonstrations in Washington, D.C.
The writer said that she was proud to be an American and standing with all those in Washington, mothers, children, bikers, hikers, etc. participating in the rally against war in Iraq with millions of other supporters. She also said that she was very proud to stand in front of the Lincoln Memorial and think about what Lincoln had stood for, namely freedom.
My, how ironic that she should say these things. What would Lincoln think today if freedom stood for demonstrating in the nation's capital? And what would he say to people like her who say they are for freedom and then don't back up our president? She has the right to demonstrate because of the freedom that we now enjoy but she would not have that right in Iraq.
What about September 11, 2001? Does she think that this is a good response to that? During World War II we had young men gladly joining the armed forces to keep our nation free but today I hate to think of these cowards who feel they have the right to protest war. They are making Saddam Hussein very happy by protesting against our president. When she said that she was proudly marching with her sisters, shouldn't she have said her "comrades?"
As for being a proud American I am glad to say that we have a good president and one that cares enough about our country and has also brought back dignity to the White House. I am proud to call myself a true American.
BARBARA THOMAS
Becket, Jan. 28, 2003
― nick ring (nick ring), Friday, 7 February 2003 03:25 (twenty-three years ago)
most ironic point: What would Lincoln think today if freedom stood for demonstrating in the nation's capital? - she's got a point there!
― James Blount (James Blount), Friday, 7 February 2003 03:30 (twenty-three years ago)
I love letters like this, when people's arguments about current events seem strangely stuck on the key issues of long-gone decades. These damn flapper protesters with their "internal combustion engines!"
― nabisco (nabisco), Friday, 7 February 2003 04:42 (twenty-three years ago)
(also Lincoln the pre-corporate Prez would not have minded demonstrators one bit; something about the rights of free men and all that)
― suzy (suzy), Friday, 7 February 2003 09:01 (twenty-three years ago)
nabisco, your logic is "tainted by modernity"
― Daniel_Rf (Daniel_Rf), Friday, 7 February 2003 19:31 (twenty-three years ago)
suzy - you might wanna read a history book a little more closely
― James Blount (James Blount), Friday, 7 February 2003 20:18 (twenty-three years ago)
five years pass...
"Although PROUD AMERICAN is described as a documentary, it should be noted that the film contains a number of acted vignettes."
I find this comment rather insipid. By this do you mean that you have a definition of documentary that one should subscribe to? And, if so, what is that definition? Are you suggesting that because it has "acted vignettes" that is may not be a "documentary."
― ==つ~~~(o)(o) (libcrypt), Tuesday, 16 September 2008 04:11 (seventeen years ago)
Our troops have killed a lot of people who lack the right to protest just so you can have the right to protest, and yet you have the nerve to protest.
― Everything is Highlighted (Hurting 2), Tuesday, 16 September 2008 04:15 (seventeen years ago)