Coombz, I'm trying to find a straight line through two of your posts. On this thread you post what seems to be jab at America spending so much on a military presence, obviously in other countries. Is it safe to say we are a bit heavy on this?
On another thread there is a video of an American citizen being stopped at a checkpoint in Texas, well beyond the international border. You make a few comments in jest about Americans being worried about a police state.
If I were to draw a simple conclussion you don't like America doing the heavy thing in other countries but you do like America doing the heavy thing in our own country? Is that how you would see it? Help me out here...
Boo
My comments in the other thread are more about Americans NOT being worried about a police state
The whole slippery slope of letting the govt + military breach the rights of citizens for what is on the surface a good cause (stemming the flow of illegal immigrants) is kind of interesting.
The reason I find it interesting (and worthy of jesting about in the other thread) is that generally folks in the US are very protective and outspoken when it comes to their rights as citizens, and how they cannot have them abused by a tyrannical government because the populace is mostly armed.
Not suggesting that this particular case of dodgy checkpoints is in itself worthy of an armed rebellion, but it's something to think about and discuss. I find it interesting how a lot of people automatically assume it's OK because it's guys in uniform doing it, and therefore everyone should 'respect their authoritah'
Perhaps in some people's minds it is OK for the govt to have the power to abuse people's rights, as long as they are doing it in the cause of getting rid of something that they themselves don't like (illegal immigrants in this case). I'll let you draw the parallel to another country/historical situation yourself
Now, in THIS thread my jab wasn't really at America spending so much on their military. That's not really any concern of mine (and if I WAS going to have a jab, it'd be at America giving so much funding to Israel
).
My comment in this thread was poking fun at Bodhi. You can see that he is annoyed by a recent and much-reported event in which (naming no names) someone he dislikes strongly made fun of someone he likes. His post indicates that he feels it's juvenile and immature to take the piss out of someone and put them down, in the way that this person that he doesn't like did.
I was trying to point out the irony and obvious partisan bias of him being mad at the guy who made the mocking comment. Surely the guy who was trying to make the ridiculous assertion that America is somehow lacking in military might (and that it's the other guy's fault) set himself up to be made fun of by saying such a stupid thing?
Instead of being upset and annoyed that his guy made such a gaffe, which has since been widely publicized in world media, he is going down the route of 'THE OTHER GUY WAS IMMATURE TO MAKE FUN OF HIM'.
In fact, the other guy probably couldn't resist after being given such an easy target, which is the same way I feel a lot of the time when posting on these forums
So really, I guess what I'm trying to say is, you kind of misinterpreted my comments in both threads, but there really isn't much of a 'straight line', as you put it, between them, unless the link is me being thoughtful, objective, and generally a swell guy
