Is national security more important than civil rights?

we do care about national security but not to the extent it's been portrayed under Bush administration.
we do care about national security but not to the extent it's been portrayed under Bush administration.

National security vs your Civil Rights ...what do you think.

National security in its broader sense includes both, internal and external security. External security involves states implementations of legal codes as a mean to prevent attacks against US borders, infrastructures, terrorism and potential foreign invasion. It use can also help maintained immigration control and international trade.

Whereas internal security has more of a domestic feel to it. It use encompass the expression of political power through democratic process. The security codes that are employed under internal security relate more with finances, public dissatisfaction with governmental issues such as the US patriot Act.

Therefore, to answer the question “Is national security more important than civil rights”; we must first identify which part of national security we’re referring to. Because if it is internal security, I hold the position that a threat against our freedom does exist.

Civil rights is the right for us the citizens of this country to have privacy, the right of peaceful protest, the right to a fair trial, the right to personal freedom and the right of equal protection. Honestly, as a black person it would not have been unreasonable if I were to ask if I’m included under those rights. As you all should know, if I want I can make this whole article base on the violation of black people’s civil rights.

However, this issue is not about me, the violation of civil right I’m debating here is a threat against all American citizens who lives in this country. The US Patriot Act is not just in place to monitor and listen to potential terrorist conversation. It has become a business, one that is well known to the American people. Manny companies have profited from its use. You see, just because we exercise our civil rights (free speech) by expressing ourselves does not makes us a terrorist. It makes us a concern citizen who cares about his country.

Therefore, when you take our freedom away for expressing ourselves, you violate our civil rights. And it is precisely the reason why we’re so skeptical about the implementation of national security over our civil rights. As we all can see here, the question address for this debate focused on “national security” which is a broader term than internal security. One must understand that the problem that is in conflict with our civil rights here, relates more to internal security than it does to external.

This Patriot Act enacted by George W. Bush was met to strengthen America by tighten up on external and internal security through surveillance such as telephone interception, e-mail communication, invasion and retrievement of citizens financial and medical records. Thus the act included domestic terrorism, is not the problem. It became a problem when innocent people being convicted of terrorism act which their new nothing about. When that happens, as citizens we become fearful for our lives and civil liberty. We then peacefully protested against the notion of national security which led to more arrest, which is another violation of our civil rights.

Now you have asked us to choose between national security & our civil right. Well you have it 14/3 what a sweep, you must think that we’re some kind of idiot. The reason why you have 14 out of 3 people who debate against the notion of national security, dictates a sense of uncomfortability. As citizens of this country, we don’t feel comfortable sacrificing our civil rights for national security, especially when it’s projected in such a vague term.

The Patriot Act has been used illegally against its citizens. Countless individuals have been falsely detained & deported for terrorist act which they did not commit. It does not matter who the president is in this case, our civil rights is a right that we the American people hold dear to our harts, one we’re willing to fight for, because without it we’re nothing.

One must also keep in mind that the Patriot Act was passed under pressure. It came in effect during the post 9/11 hysteria. Americans were all afraid, even members of congress were clueless as to what had happened. From this standpoint, we can say most decisions that derived from this tragedy could have been miscalculated. We have seen the effect and the outcome of its deliberation in Iraq. Now it’s time for us to carefully calculate our decision process and make correct measure not to repeat our mistakes.

We can propose that the national security that is now in question to focus its attention on external security without violating our civil right. It is understood, if regulation must be enacted to secure our territory from terrorism, the regulation should be placed on communication that relates to foreign and domestic countries. Only small emphasis should be placed on our citizen liberty.

But that’s only because we understand that authorities may need to intercept a domestic phone conversation every now and then in order to obtain valuable information. In this case strict regulation must be placed on oversight. We the American people would need to have an independent branch of the government that can investigate intercepted call and know for sure whether or not authorities had probable cause for the interception.

More by this Author


Comments 43 comments

tony0724 profile image

tony0724 7 years ago from san diego calif

There Is an old saying by I believe Ben Franklin ,that he who barters his rights for security ends up with neither !


Coolbreezing profile image

Coolbreezing 7 years ago from New York, New York Author

That's right our civil rights come first without it we're nothing.


AEvans profile image

AEvans 7 years ago from SomeWhere Out There

Civil Rights First, National Security second and the government has continue to invade our privacy without respect to its American people. You should write an article on the violations of Civl Rights amongst the Black People your voice needs to be heard, as the entire country is not made up of white people. Speak out, Martin Luther King did, Malcolm was up and coming until Farakhan had his way. :)


Coolbreezing profile image

Coolbreezing 7 years ago from New York, New York Author

Well, maybe another time but thanks for the proposition.


Mary Neal profile image

Mary Neal 7 years ago from Atlanta, Georgia, USA

Hello, Cool. My answer is DEFINITELY NOT. National security DEPENDS on civil rights being honored. As MLK said, "No justice, no peace." Who wants to live under Martial Law? When people's civil rights are trampled, people lose faith in government. When that happens, anarchy is not far behind. The government natually answers anarchy with Martial Law. Therefore, national security rests on the government honoring the civil rights of its citizens, unless the U.S. is to have another type of government altogether - not government of, by, and for the people. Civil rights and human rights have got to be PRIORITIES in any democracy, and those rights must not be eroded for the sake of security. In fact, making civil rights a priority is what keeps the country secure.

Blessings!

Mary


Jane Taxpayer 7 years ago from Your innermost conscience

I believe it was Benjamin Franklin who once said:

"Any society willing to sacrifice a measure of freedom for a little security will deserve neither and lose both."

A well written hub!


Dan 7 years ago

National Security comes first. Always and forever.


Tackle This profile image

Tackle This 7 years ago

Nothing to hide, nothing to fear and I could care less of that which you are involved in -- collectively speaking, unless of course, a person is looking to strike fear in the collective heart of law abiding folk.

I've got a solution for America. Anyone that draws a gun on a law abiding citizen in an effort to obtain anything of value is truly saying, "Give me X,Y or Z or I'll kill you."

Zero tolerance should immediately come into play for the "perp." I think the United States should by a ranch, dig a few wells on that ranch, give people with a rap sheet a few starter cattle, chickens and seed and if they cannot fend for themselves -- they die.

Oh but God bless the USA, praiz-ya-Jesus, we live in a weak nation that is not willing to truly protect law abiding folk. Pretty sick really and probably far more expensive collectively than if we were to follow the aforementioned plan.


Michael Achilles 7 years ago

Covert tryin to be transparent. Ft. Meade had massive Ears to begin with and now they need hearing aids because the sheer volume of chatter is piercing.Seems like a waste to me. The funds would have payed dividens in HUMINT. Orewellian?


MikeNV profile image

MikeNV 7 years ago from Henderson, NV

If you and I were in a fight face to face we would know our enemy... But as the current state of affairs goes we are fighting a faceless enemy. Who is the enemy? Who is the terrorist that we have to spend billions of dollars each month to defend ourselves from on soil that is not ours? The enemy might just be the bully picking the fight?

The bottom line is we can not trust the Government to come clean and tell the truth. So what's the real point in the war? Who are we fighting?

And people don't want war. People want to live their lives and be free and be happy and to have homes, and families, and children and worship as they believe.

But the United States likes to play world police and inflict their views on others thus generating the hatred.

You can not legislate morality. There are one and a half billion Muslims in the World. And that represents 25% of the World's population. And you are not going to legislate their belief systems.

Personal rights and liberties as defined by the consitution are being continually curtailed in the name of "security". I agree with the first comment entirely.


Coolbreezing profile image

Coolbreezing 7 years ago from New York, New York Author

Well I'd like to believe that we fighting Al-Queda, Talibin - at least something to justify our tax money. But who to say that the apples that have said to found benighted the apple tree really came from it. What if someone placed it there? So in that sense you right "the enemy might just be the bully picking the fight" After all, as you put it "You can not legislate morality" As much as i would have liked to see all women to have the ability to do as they wish, it can't be possible if some of them sees their restrictions as a religious practice.

However, it can be said if countless women are being harass, especially rape then this condition can becomes a violation of human right, which may call for action on the United State part.

We should also keep in mind that our engagement in Afghanistan is partly an offensive move on the president part as a way to alter Al-QUEDA'S dedication to attack US soil. I know you view this issue differently - but not include this possibility, would mean that we're too much of powerful nation to be attack.

And you know as well as i know that no horse is too big to ride.


johnjones profile image

johnjones 7 years ago from USA

Sometimes, the government seems to be more preoccupied with national security than protecting our civil rights. Civil Rights protection and ensuring national security seem to be "irreconcilable" nowadays.


someonewhoknows profile image

someonewhoknows 7 years ago from south and west of canada,north of ohio

The S.S. in Germany's Nazi party during worold war two comes to mind when talking about national security or lack of because of such an organized independent organization ,like the a C.I.A only more pervasive.


bountyhunter_ga profile image

bountyhunter_ga 7 years ago from Dwasonville,Ga

The collapse of our civil rights as we know them started a long time ago.Our personal beliefs about politics should not have an effect on our civil rights ,however this administration is pushing it.


outdoorsguy profile image

outdoorsguy 7 years ago from Tenn

having read the comments I have noted, that its all black and white, no considerations of circumstances or debate of what price security.

though I to hold that national Security at the expense of our Rights is unconstitutional, and should be fought in any way we can. I also believe in a strong defense.

here in lies the problem, how to do both, is it even possible. over the years the courts have stepped beyond their powers and issued opinions that have become defacto laws, and several of these laws deny us the ability to defend ourselves. they also leave us open to law suits, and possible jail time if we do something to stand up for our security.

somewhere along the line, the idea that the founding fathers had that we are responsible not only for our personal defense but that of our nation and communitys. has been replaced by, only the experts can deal with these issues.

then add in any attempt to find solutions no matter which side of the aisle your on is met by Screams of racism, fascism, intolerance, and bigotry.

so how do we deal with it.. because sure as Im sitting here typing some one out there is plotting an attack. some one is walking thru a Mall in America thinking how easy it would be to kill all these fat, happy sheep as they waste oxygen.

if we act proactive, we might violate rights if we are reactive, then there are screams of conspiracy, and failure to act. and god knows how many innocents might die.

Decide for yourselves. its easy to state No way.. or take my rights and make me safe. but its hard to actually study the problem and find a solution that preserves our rights and provides safety.


lenyvenus profile image

lenyvenus 7 years ago from Davao City, Philippines

National Security, whether internal or external, is nothing if civil rights of a person is curtailed. No person wants his freedom of movement and expression be suppressed, even a two-year old child who can walk and say "mom and dad" would resist this.

National Security is threatened only if there is dissatisfaction from its citizenry if not in the system of government but because of its leaders and how these leaders execute or implement their leadership that would best serve the interest of its people.


GetAtMe 7 years ago

Personally, i believe National Security is good for us all. just because they have to power to search through our private information doesn't mean they are going to spend days reading emails you've sent to loved ones, no matter how juicy the topic. The National Security works as our back-bone, and without it we would simply fall to the ground. and what's the problem with it if you've got nothing to hide? and if you do have something to hide, why'd you do it? just ask yourself those questions. We've all got to have a little more trust in our Nation.


Ragnar Taltos 6 years ago from The Deep Swamps of the South

I recall right after 911, out of the blue all the news stations began asking people if "they would be willing to give up some freedoms if it would make the nation more secure". I couldn't understand where that came from, no politician ever said anything about it. It was almost like the news stations were given a script, and were following it. Then came the Patriot Act. Before his election Obama said he would end the wiretapping provisions and many of the draconian infractions that the patriot act allowed, sadly enough he lied. Not only did he not end the atrocities committed by the patriot act, he expanded their powers and scope.

Are we more safe today then in 2001? I surely don't feel so. Our boarders are still an open door to anyone wishing to saunter into this country. If the patriot act is such a good law, why didn't they catch the Ft. Hood murderer? And do you know that the Ft. Hood killer was on Obama's transition team hired to facilitate his move into the white house?

It's not Denmark, but something sure stinks! I say repeal all provisions of the Patriot Act, and return to the American people all freedoms that have been taken away from us. We are adults, we can handle it.


truthsayer86 profile image

truthsayer86 6 years ago from United States of America

I see that this hub was written months ago, but I just want to say that I'm glad you're sppeaking up. I'm trying to. All American Citizens should have Civil Rights. The Patriot Act itself should be against the law. I don't understand why Obama hasn't gotten rid of it. But I DO want our country protected from terrorists. I think all politicians phones and internet should be monitored. JK


mike 6 years ago

Some cases are not quite as simple as all that. society, in the last 20 years or so has allowed the justice system extraordinary latitude in interpretation of drug laws, for example, in laws that protect children, and the use of lethal force where a police office feels threatened, though the suspect was backing away.

In the absence of trial or legal proceedings, a jailhouse(such as Orange County California) with the

tacit approval of guards saw an enraged mob of inmates beat a newly arrested suspect to death, believing as the arresting officer suggested, he was a child sexual predator. His real crime wasn't disclosed but it seemed to have something to do with internet pornography.

Now, if society wants to kill sex offenders, or cut of their hands, or put them in stocks, then it should get on with it and pass the laws. Once the laws are passed, perhaps we could go back to real investigations and not trial by community, or scapegoating, and pushing for convictions regardless of guilt or innocence. Get the stalkers of alleged criminals out of the process. Hang-up late-night phone calls, break-ins to get information off computers, constant drive by's by groups riding around in big trucks, and making slashing across the throat gestures seem downright terrorist in nature. Acid attacks on the car, as well as tire cuttings and mail theft also seem extreme and do happen. happen.Allowing para-police types to flood neighborhoods and businesses with "information" about accused suspects--such as alleged crimes, whether true or false.

The largest and fasted growing organizations center around capturing the imagination of youth, recruiting them over the internet and other media, then giving them adult supervised permission to gather and disseminate information about former offenders of any kind. Who would suspect, for example, that the young neighbor is a spy gathering information of potentially criminal or other damaging information. This, of course can lead to tragic consequences, such as the jailhouse murder, and, the house recently bombed on a street, formerly peaceful, that had a recently released burglar move in. Of course he moved out immediately, as did several of the neighbors, most whom had lived in the area for many years.

If this is what you want for your community, then why is there so much secrecy surrounding these clandestine activities. America has never been a country that encouraged civil spying, especially from para-police groups. When agents are non-sworn, especially, those with lots of zeal and little training, abuses can and do occur. If spying is necessary, and sometimes it is the only way to "get the goods," it should be used under the authority of a judge who has the power to issue (or not) a warrant, so that sworn police or agents may do their job so that rights are defended and the case will hold up in court.

My image of police is not of gangsters in uniform throwing their weight around.In just the last couple months in California, several officers have been killed in the line of duty, including two highway patrolmen who were risking their lives to help stranded freeway motorists. Several friends from high school went on to become sworn officers of the law. Our scoutmaster was a detective, later chief of police in Long Beach, California. Officers who took my classes excelled academically and were welcome and informed participants. I, among others, organized a police soft-ball team which is still active after 20 years.


Coolbreezing profile image

Coolbreezing 6 years ago from New York, New York Author

Thanks for the info Mike..


poopoo 5 years ago

im bored. poopoopoopoopoopoopoopoopoo


Cpl H / USMC 5 years ago

You had me until you referred to yourself as a black person. What the fuck does your race have to do with this subject. I have literally bled in combat and the hand of our nations enemies. and people like you piss me off that pull the race card when it suites you. We are the "United States" correct, not the "Segregated States". Well then stop segregating yourself. Your first reaction to this is "Oh he is a racist", But I have 120,000 brothers in Green and it makes no difference what color they are. There is a bond that nothing can break, not even the fiercest enemy of our nation. I know that they have my back, and I theirs, and that is in every sense of the word, "United."


Coolbreezing profile image

Coolbreezing 5 years ago from New York, New York Author

Hi! there soldier

The topic in question is:

Is national security more important than civil right? You asked "what the fu_k does my race have to do with this subject"? That's an excellent question because not everyone can see the relationship. Civil rights was the reason why we had a civil war. Civil rights was the reason why the Federal Government intervene to stop race riots.

National security issues can be related to black issues if for example black people choose to organize in favor of a particular interest. Any situation where people organize for a particular function can be investigated by the government whether or not the purpose of they unity is not a threat to national security.

You may want to ask yourself why would the government wants to know why people are organizing. Now, if you believe the countries citizens can also be a threat to national security it would have been easy for you to understand why. But in some cases citizens organize for their own personal interest not for anything else.

The way most people sees it is that government should not intervene in their activities if there are not a threat to society. You have to keep in mind that they have been people who were held hostage by the government and latter these people were found not guilty. The Guantanamo Bay issues is a good example of that. If we are a Country that stands for freedom we should try to protect it whenever possible. And by letting free those who are not a threat to our national is one way to start.

I would advise next time you debate someone try to put your anger aside. You will never be effective if you allow your anger to direct your reason. Your reasoning will be fragmented with cloudy concepts. Thanks for your reply - Check me at http://peoplebreeze.com


eli 4 years ago

Yes, The Patriot Act is way out of hand. Yes, we as American Citizens deserve to have our Civil Liberties. Yes, it is wrong to invade the Privacy of American Citizens by the Govt., by the Police, and by other U.S. Citizens, and non-citizens/residents of the U.S. Unfortunately, sometimes there are no "easy answers" for Govt./ Our President. We have inside and outside threats in our Country, and many delicate issues and challenges in assessing these threats, identifying them, and in our dealings with other countries. Yes, mistakes have happened, and Yes, mistakes will continue to happen, but it is not all on our Govt. U.S. Citizens and non make plenty of mistakes, too. And No, our Judicial/Justice System is not perfect by any means. Laws/ The Law, in general needs a serious overhauling. It is entirely frustrating. But what are you going to do about it, beyond trolling comment sections and misquoting quotes? Which among you are by any means perfect, perfectly innocent, and even well-informed? What do you intend to do to attempt to improve the situation, or even just pick one good and worthy battle to fight? Instead of worsening matters for those who do try, and do want a proper balance? I'd say that rampant online and off piracy, malicious hacking, harming others, etc., is doing absolutely nothing to help anyone out. And then who is to say what percentage of what people/citizens and non/ residents of other countries, and their govts., are doing more harm than good, and as opposed to our own govt.? In the end, we all have blood on our hands, in one way or another, but it is up to each individual to decide whether or not to take good actions and informed actions, rather than taking bad actions. So, who are you, and what is your agenda, and do you need to rethink your own ideas, ideals, methods, motives, and actions? Together we stand, divided we fall. And we do not stand together, as a people, at all.


Coolbreezing profile image

Coolbreezing 4 years ago from New York, New York Author

Mostly Everyone on this forum who have posted their comments are members of this society. The agenda is to share our concerns, because any form of change start with communication first. The purpose of this article started as contest national security v. civil right. Only 3 out of 14 people argued for national security over civil right. The majority prefere civil right first then national security.

If members of congress were to look at this article and the replies, they would have realized the value that American people places on their civil right. And that alone could have influenced some members of congress which could have triggered a change in policy. Therefore, by discussing it we are doing something about it, may be not directly but indirectly. Thanks for your comments.


Coolbreezing profile image

Coolbreezing 4 years ago from New York, New York Author

Also the concept of National Security being thought of as one branch was kind of too much, braking it down into two branches Internal and external security made it easy for government to minimize the use of force by concentrating mostly on external security with less emphasis on internal security.

Although internal security has to do with people who lives within the US boarder, does not make homeland security less dangerous, but it does to some extent provide more comfort to authority being that they're already familiar with the terrain. Whereas, abroad they are on different territorial ground.


adagio4639 profile image

adagio4639 9 months ago from Brattleboro Vermont

Hey Breeze...very good writing. I think that our civil rights are always under attack in one form or another. And we have a long and bloody history in this country of trying to preserve them. That's especially true with the Black community. They can easily be over-ridden under the guise of "national security". We saw that after 9/11 and we can see it today with the FBI v Apple. The problem comes when we give up our rights in the name of "national security", it's next to impossible to restore them. Even when it's not a matter of national security, we can see the erosion of civil rights in things like the reversals of the Voting Rights Act. People died and shed lots of blood for that right. The fact that it took an act of congress to insure something that should be fundamental to everybody should give us reason to believe that given the opportunity, the States will undermine our rights under the concept of "States Rights", which is bogus to begin with. States don't have rights. They have powers. People have rights. I'm always suspect about national security when our rights come into conflict with that excuse. It can be used to justify almost anything, including the loss of our civil rights. I think that National Security must always be weighed against our civil rights, and we should defer on behalf of civil rights. Unless of course people are willing to live in a police state, which I have no interest in doing. What good is being safe if your rights as a citizen are lost? I for one don't think that the boogy man is waiting to conquer America. I don't walk around in a state of fear. At least not from terrorists. The only fear I really have is with a government that would take away my rights as an American and justify it by claiming "national security" as the reason. Once they're gone, they're gone. And that means for good.


adagio4639 profile image

adagio4639 9 months ago from Brattleboro Vermont

" What the fuck does your race have to do with this subject. "

Well Marine, actually it has a lot to do with the subject. We have this thing called the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that was enacted specifically because of assholes denying blacks their civil rights. Maybe you're too young to remember what it was like in the days of Jim Crow. Breeze actually made a point of saying that this was NOT about race, although it could have been. But for you to get so defensive over that disclaimer says more about you than you might want to be known.

" and people like you piss me off that pull the race card when it suites you."

And people like YOU piss me off with your attitude of entitlement over what you think your service in the military gives you. My own son is a Green Beret with three tours of Iraq not to mention other deployments which took him to other countries that we don't even talk about. But none of that denies or can ever diminish the assault on the civil rights of African/Americans throughout American history.

" I have literally bled in combat and the hand of our nations enemies."

And we have people right here in this country that bled and died at the hands of our internal enemies just for the right to fucking vote. Just because they walked across a fucking bridge in Alabama, or tried to register African/Americans so they could vote in Mississippi. Your blood is no more Red then theirs, and theirs was shed for the sake of something that you take for granted. It's attitudes just like yours that would go to any lengths to deny blacks their civil rights. Don't tell us about blood being shed when African/Americans endured 70 years of racial terrorism from the end of Reconstruction to the Civil Rights Act of 64.


Wild Bill 9 months ago

Coolbreezing,

Great Hub and great response to the passionate poster.

You said: "That's an excellent question because not everyone can see the relationship. Civil rights was the reason why we had a civil war. Civil rights was the reason why the Federal Government intervene to stop race riots."

This is true. It is also true that our country sent troops around the world in the name of national security while its own citizens were being denied rights/security by the very government that was supposed to protect them.


Wild Bill 9 months ago

Adagio said: "And people like YOU piss me off with your attitude of entitlement over what you think your service in the military gives you."

He never said he was entitled to anything. But what it does sound like is that this man was so selfless that he was willing to put his life on the line for fellow Americans and he cannot understand why anyone else would segregate the population. Have you ever thought about that?

Adagio also said: "It's attitudes just like yours that would go to any lengths to deny blacks their civil rights. Don't tell us about blood being shed when African/Americans endured 70 years of racial terrorism from the end of Reconstruction to the Civil Rights Act of 64."

This is another false assumption and a horrible thing to accuse someone of. Plus I am sure he was not even born in 1964.

Adagio said: "My own son is a Green Beret with three tours of Iraq not to mention other deployments which took him to other countries that we don't even talk about."

But did you ever lay your life on the line for your country? If not, maybe you should cut the guy some slack until you have walked a mile in his shoes. He sounds like he is passionate because he was willing to lay his life on the line for you, me, and millions of other Americans no matter what color they are.

(Also, this association/comparison is like George Costanza and Jerry Seindfeld saying they had friends that were gay or black when they were accused of being prejudice)


adagio4639 profile image

adagio4639 9 months ago from Brattleboro Vermont

"He never said he was entitled to anything."

He doesn't have to. His attitude speaks volumes. It's obvious that he feels a sense of entitlement because he served in the military and is "entitled" because he was bloodied, to say this; " and people like you piss me off that pull the race card when it suites you." Breeze was not pulling any race card. The title of this Hub is "Is national security more important than civil rights?, and what comes to most peoples mind when we speak of "civil rights" is MLK and the Civil Rights Act of 64. The FACT that it took an actual Act of Congress to address that very issue of civil rights, might be seen to suggest that Breeze was bringing race into the subject which he was NOT.

"But what it does sound like is that this man was so selfless that he was willing to put his life on the line for fellow Americans and he cannot understand why anyone else would segregate the population. Have you ever thought about that?"

That's not selfless. It's self-serving, and you should know the difference. And here's why; " I have literally bled in combat and the hand of our nations enemies..." Why was it necessary to bring his service up? A selfless person would not do that. What motivates that? He's drawing attention to HIS service as a justification for saying this; "What the fuck does your race have to do with this subject. I have literally bled in combat and the hand of our nations enemies. and people like you piss me off that pull the race card when it suites you." So anything that uses the very word RACE has no validity because he was bloodied? Does his service somehow mitigate the 70+ years of Jim Crow in which blacks were subjected to racial terrorism. That includes lynching, burning people alive, torturing men, women and children.

As for your comment; "But what it does sound like is that this man was so selfless that he was willing to put his life on the line"-- it wasn't self-less. He got paid to do it. Would he do that without being paid? That would be selfless.

"This is another false assumption and a horrible thing to accuse someone of."

You mean this? "It's attitudes just like yours that would go to any lengths to deny blacks their civil rights". It's not false at all. It's true. He clearly displays an attitude with this; "I have literally bled in combat and the hand of our nations enemies. and people like you piss me off that pull the race card when it suites you." So he's pissed off, which demonstrates an attitude, and feels that any time a person brings up civil rights, they should be on the receiving end of that attitude, even though Breeze issues a disclaimer by letting us know that he's black but that he's not speaking of civil rights in a narrow sense of race, but in a universal sense that applies to all of us regardless of race or ethnicity. Even after that, the attitude spills out.

"Plus I am sure he was not even born in 1964."

He probably wasn't but his age has NOTHING to do with this. I wasn't born in 1864 but I'm aware that slavery was evil. I'm also aware of the decades of Jim Crow that came after Reconstruction, even though I wasn't around back then. I'm very aware of the Civil Rights Movement and the blood that was shed at that time all for the sake of wanting the right to vote, or eat in any restaurant, or stay at any hotel, or drink at any water fountain. That blood that was shed is no less valuable than the blood shed on any battlefield. This country, especially in the South WAS a battlefield. Maybe YOU are too young to remember that.

"But did you ever lay your life on the line for your country? If not, maybe you should cut the guy some slack until you have walked a mile in his shoes."

I haven't. But my son has. Three tours of Iraq with the 82nd Airborne. And then becoming a total professional soldier by becoming a Green Beret; something that only 2% of the entire US Army can qualify for. That's takes a commitment and a willingness to reach beyond the average.

"He sounds like he is passionate because he was willing to lay his life on the line for you, me, and millions of other Americans no matter what color they are."

While I applaud his service, that doesn't entitle him to jump on Breeze for making his readers aware that his being black is not what this Hub is about. It's about Civil Rights that all of us have under the Constitution. The fact of the matter is that Blacks didn't enjoy those rights that you and I and everyone else takes for granted as part of our birthright until an Act of Congress forced the issue. Even though that is factually true, that's not at all what Breeze is getting at. So the Marine jumps on his case for making that clear?

"(Also, this association/comparison is like George Costanza and Jerry Seindfeld saying they had friends that were gay or black when they were accused of being prejudice)"

That's a terrible analogy which has literally no logical connection to this discussion. It seems like you're trying very hard to draw something that might be equivalent, but falls on it's face as a non-sequitur. It doesn't follow.


adagio4639 profile image

adagio4639 9 months ago from Brattleboro Vermont

The problem with putting National Security before Civil Rights is that it ignores the will of the people. Thomas Hobbes was a Monarchist. In prioritizing security over freedom, Hobbes pretends that he is constructing a social contract: instead, his theory supports a virtual dictatorship, which is a dreadful form of government because it ignores the will of the people.

When we abdicate our civil rights for the sake of national security, we give up the only weapon we have to offset a tyrannical dictatorship.


Wild Bill 9 months ago

Adagio said: "He doesn't have to. His attitude speaks volumes."

Attitude? You do realize that this is the internet and people type, whereas most communication is relayed non-verbally, so his "attitude of entitlement" is your feelings, not the fact.

While I do agree with you that Breeze is not pulling the race card, he took Cpl's comments and answered back in a non-confrontational way. I am sure he did this because he was looking to educate and not argue. I am not sure why you came in here guns blazing, especially since those comments were 4 years ago. My guess is that you like a good fight since you have nothing better to do with your life. Most trolls are like that.

Adagio said: "I haven't. But my son has."

So what? What does that have to do with anything. Most of us know someone who has served, but that doesn't mean we can relate. The question is; What have you done? You seem passionate, but have you done anything with that passion except troll for arguments in an online setting? Have you laid you life on the line for civil rights or national security?

(Btw, my Seinfeld reference must have gone over your head. I will not waste my time trying to explain that one to you.)


adagio4639 profile image

adagio4639 9 months ago from Brattleboro Vermont

"Attitude? You do realize that this is the internet and people type, whereas most communication is relayed non-verbally, so his "attitude of entitlement" is your feelings, not the fact."

Nonsense. When somebody types "people like you piss me off that pull the race card when it suites you." They're expressing in words the pissed off attitude that they hold. So do try to keep it real. I don't need to be in a face to face exchange with a person to read the "attitude" that they express in words that are typed. If I tell you to f*ck off would that convince that an attitude was being expressed?

"he took Cpl's comments and answered back in a non-confrontational way."

Of course he did. Because that's how Breeze rolls. As opposed to the confrontational way the Marine came across which was accusatory from the start.

" I am not sure why you came in here guns blazing, especially since those comments were 4 years ago."

I don't see where the time that has passed has anything to do with the words that were said. Can you explain that to me? I responded as I did because the Marine was completely off the mark and his accusatory "attitude" needed an adjustment, especially in a way that he could understand.

"My guess is that you like a good fight since you have nothing better to do with your life."

I love a good fight. And there are plenty of things that I find entertaining outside of this. But when I am on a political forum, I don't hold back when I see stupidity in play, and I call it as I see it.

"Most trolls are like that".

No. You have me confused with somebody that cares about what you think. A troll would probably be attacking Breeze and his article. That's not me. I'm not that one that jumped at the opportunity to misread and misinterpret what he said. That would be the Marine. Take it up with him.

" Most of us know someone who has served, but that doesn't mean we can relate."

It does when that someone is your own child. Then it becomes personal. it's a little more than just "knowing somebody". My direct family actually has skin in the game.

"Have you laid you life on the line for civil rights or national security?"

That's an interesting question, considering that it's the very topic of this Hub. "Is national security more important than civil rights?" If you were to ask the Marine, or even yourself that question, it offers and either/or option. Either Civil Rights, OR National Security. Which has priority? I would wager to say that most of those in the military would say it's about National Security. I don't know anybody that signed up for the purposes of defending civil rights, and claiming that it was their #1 priority for signing up. Do you? And I was involved in the Civil Rights movement in the late 60's, and the anti-war protests at that time as well. Where were you?

As for Seinfeld, it's not about it going "over my head". It's that the analogy fails. In other words it crashed and burned way before it could approach my head. I'm sure in your mind it may have seemed clever, but there's nothing to reference it to as a metaphor that would apply to this situation. Nice try but I'm afraid it failed.


Wild Bill 9 months ago

Adagio said: " When somebody types "people like you piss me off that pull the race card when it suites you." They're expressing in words the pissed off attitude that they hold. So do try to keep it real."

So now it is a PISSED off attitude? Well, I cannot argue with that because he is quite pissed off, but the problem is that you said attitude of ENTITLEMENT and that is what we were talking about until you moved the goal post to "pissed attitude". PISSED and ENTITLED are two different things. I guess you think you are slick but I think your age might be slowing you down a bit. The entitlement part is assumed by you plain and simple. My bet is that maybe you are projecting some kind of insecurity.

Adagio said: "No. You have me confused with somebody that cares about what you think."

I know for a fact you care what I think because you took the time to write that short essay! lol If you didn't care then you wouldn't reply at all.

I said: "" Most of us know someone who has served, but that doesn't mean we can relate."

Then Adagio replied: "It does when that someone is your own child. Then it becomes personal. it's a little more than just "knowing somebody". My direct family actually has skin in the game."

No it doesn't! lmao. None of us can relate to what a soldier has gone through in battle, so don't try to act like you can relate.

I said: ""Have you laid you life on the line for civil rights or national security?"

You said: "That's an interesting question, considering that it's the very topic of this Hub. "Is national security more important than civil rights?" If you were to ask the Marine, or even yourself that question, it offers and either/or option. Either Civil Rights, OR National Security."

I know what the Hub is about. I read it. But my question was "have you ever laid your LIFE on the line for civil rights or national security."

There you go moving that goal post again.

Then you said: "And I was involved in the Civil Rights movement in the late 60's, and the anti-war protests at that time as well."

Standing by a sign, smoking dope, and playing a guitar so you can pick up chicks does not constitute "laying your life on the line." Sorry.

As for the Seinfeld comment. I know for a fact you didn't get it, but you would never admit that, so whatever you say. I'll see you tomorrow because I know you can't help but answer back...since you care about what I think.


adagio4639 profile image

adagio4639 9 months ago from Brattleboro Vermont

"So now it is a PISSED off attitude? Well, I cannot argue with that because he is quite pissed off, but the problem is that you said attitude of ENTITLEMENT and that is what we were talking about until you moved the goal post to "pissed attitude".

Does this really need explanation for you? Probably since you seem to have this fixation on a Seinfeld episode and find some relationship between what I'm saying, and the classic; "Some of my best friends are...( fill in the blank)". The Marine begins with this, " What the fuck does your race have to do with this subject. " ( No attitude there??) You offered this; ""He never said he was entitled to anything.", and I responded with, "His attitude speaks volumes. It's obvious that he feels a sense of entitlement because he served in the military and is "entitled" because he was bloodied, to say this; "and people like you piss me off that pull the race card when it suites you." He attacks Breeze for his disclaimer, and then offers his military service as a justification for his "pissed off" attitude. He clearly, by his own reference to his military service feels entitled to his criticism of Breeze and accuses him of playing the "race card". The very word Entitlement means; the fact of having a right to something. The belief that one is inherently deserving of privileges or special treatment. In his case the privilege or special treatment he's entitled to, is as a Marine who was bloodied in combat. He has a right to be pissed. He's entitled to that right. Breeze is not.

"PISSED and ENTITLED are two different things."

No shit Sherlock. In his case he feels entitled to be pissed, because he was bloodied in combat. Why do you have such a problem with something this simple?

" I guess you think you are slick but I think your age might be slowing you down a bit. The entitlement part is assumed by you plain and simple. My bet is that maybe you are projecting some kind of insecurity."

.....he said while doing the very thing he's accusing me of. Projection. The entitlement is not assumed. It's demonstrated by the Marine. Some of us have the capability of recognizing a duck. If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it must be a duck. But this part of your comment is really priceless: "My bet is that maybe you are projecting some kind of insecurity." You're accusing me of projection.. by projecting. You're doing the very thing you're accusing me of. Bravo.

"I know for a fact you care what I think because you took the time to write that short essay! lol If you didn't care then you wouldn't reply at all."

That's probably true to some extent. I'm always up for a good argument, but I can't say that I take you very seriously.

"No it doesn't! lmao. None of us can relate to what a soldier has gone through in battle, so don't try to act like you can relate."

You obviously don't have any children that have served in Iraq or Afghanistan, or anywhere else for that matter. So don't try to tell a parent of a soldier what he can relate to and what he can't. Have you ever lost a child? Probably not. I can tell you from personal experience that there is nothing as painful in life as that. When your child bleeds, you bleed. When they suffer, you suffer. When they're in pain, you're in pain. When they're in fear, you fear for them and you'll do anything to remove the pain, the suffering or the fear that they experience. I don't know if you have kids or not, but if you do, then you would understand that. And if you ever lost one, you'd know that there is nothing in life that comes even close to that kind of pain.

"Standing by a sign, smoking dope, and playing a guitar so you can pick up chicks does not constitute "laying your life on the line." Sorry."

More projection on your part. It is when you're being beaten, clubbed, or being shot at. I've been beaten and clubbed. Never shot at. But then I wasn't at Kent State where four students were shot and killed. I wasn't a Freedom Rider in Mississippi, like Schwerner, Goodmand and Cheney who were murdered for the sake of voting rights for African/Americans. I was in Chicago at the Democratic Convention in 68. Maybe you've seen the news reels of that night. I was arrested and taken to Cook County Hospital for stitches, then spent the night in jail.

I went to high school with Fred Hampton. We graduated together. Fred was the head of the Chicago branch of the Black Panthers. Fred was assassinated by the Chicago Police and the FBI because J. Edgar Hoover said he was a threat. He was a threat because he wore an Afro and spoke out against injustice. He was the "black Messiah" that Hoover feared. He, and many others did indeed lay their lives on the line for justice and civil rights. So when you ask, "Have you laid you life on the line for civil rights or national security?", I can tell you that everyone that was an activist during that period, was laying their lives on the line. You're probably too young to know what it was like in the 60's. It was an entire decade that nothing else has come close to in terms of the culture of America. Take a good look at the footage taken on the Edmund Pettis Bridge on Bloody Sunday. Look at the firehoses and dogs in Birmingham, or the bombing of the 16th street Baptist Church by KKK terrorists that killed four young girls. When you spoke out, you were considered a threat to Nixon and you became a target. You can't possibly understand any of this.

The Seinfeld analogy is a failure. Pure and simple. And I generally respond to comments. I really don't care about WHAT you think. I do find it entertaining to point out and correct your errors in thinking.


adagio4639 profile image

adagio4639 9 months ago from Brattleboro Vermont

"So now it is a PISSED off attitude? Well, I cannot argue with that because he is quite pissed off, but the problem is that you said attitude of ENTITLEMENT and that is what we were talking about until you moved the goal post to "pissed attitude".

Does this really need explanation for you? Probably since you seem to have this fixation on a Seinfeld episode and find some relationship between what I'm saying, and the classic; "Some of my best friends are...( fill in the blank)". The Marine begins with this, " What the fuck does your race have to do with this subject. " ( No attitude there??) You offered this; ""He never said he was entitled to anything.", and I responded with, "His attitude speaks volumes. It's obvious that he feels a sense of entitlement because he served in the military and is "entitled" because he was bloodied, to say this; "and people like you piss me off that pull the race card when it suites you." He attacks Breeze for his disclaimer, and then offers his military service as a justification for his "pissed off" attitude. He clearly, by his own reference to his military service feels entitled to his criticism of Breeze and accuses him of playing the "race card". The very word Entitlement means; the fact of having a right to something. The belief that one is inherently deserving of privileges or special treatment. In his case the privilege or special treatment he's entitled to, is as a Marine who was bloodied in combat. He has a right to be pissed. He's entitled to that right. Breeze is not.

"PISSED and ENTITLED are two different things."

No shit Sherlock. In his case he feels entitled to be pissed, because he was bloodied in combat. Why do you have such a problem with something this simple?

" I guess you think you are slick but I think your age might be slowing you down a bit. The entitlement part is assumed by you plain and simple. My bet is that maybe you are projecting some kind of insecurity."

.....he said while doing the very thing he's accusing me of. Projection. The entitlement is not assumed. It's demonstrated by the Marine. Some of us have the capability of recognizing a duck. If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it must be a duck. But this part of your comment is really priceless: "My bet is that maybe you are projecting some kind of insecurity." You're accusing me of projection.. by projecting. You're doing the very thing you're accusing me of. Bravo.

"I know for a fact you care what I think because you took the time to write that short essay! lol If you didn't care then you wouldn't reply at all."

That's probably true to some extent. I'm always up for a good argument, but I can't say that I take you very seriously.

"No it doesn't! lmao. None of us can relate to what a soldier has gone through in battle, so don't try to act like you can relate."

You obviously don't have any children that have served in Iraq or Afghanistan, or anywhere else for that matter. So don't try to tell a parent of a soldier what he can relate to and what he can't. Have you ever lost a child? Probably not. I can tell you from personal experience that there is nothing as painful in life as that. When your child bleeds, you bleed. When they suffer, you suffer. When they're in pain, you're in pain. When they're in fear, you fear for them and you'll do anything to remove the pain, the suffering or the fear that they experience. I don't know if you have kids or not, but if you do, then you would understand that. And if you ever lost one, you'd know that there is nothing in life that comes even close to that kind of pain.

"Standing by a sign, smoking dope, and playing a guitar so you can pick up chicks does not constitute "laying your life on the line." Sorry."

More projection on your part. It is when you're being beaten, clubbed, or being shot at. I've been beaten and clubbed. Never shot at. But then I wasn't at Kent State where four students were shot and killed. I wasn't a Freedom Rider in Mississippi, like Schwerner, Goodmand and Cheney who were murdered for the sake of voting rights for African/Americans. I was in Chicago at the Democratic Convention in 68. Maybe you've seen the news reels of that night. I was arrested and taken to Cook County Hospital for stitches, then spent the night in jail.

I went to high school with Fred Hampton. We graduated together. Fred was the head of the Chicago branch of the Black Panthers. Fred was assassinated by the Chicago Police and the FBI because J. Edgar Hoover said he was a threat. He was a threat because he wore an Afro and spoke out against injustice. He was the "black Messiah" that Hoover feared. He, and many others did indeed lay their lives on the line for justice and civil rights. So when you ask, "Have you laid you life on the line for civil rights or national security?", I can tell you that everyone that was an activist during that period, was laying their lives on the line. You're probably too young to know what it was like in the 60's. It was an entire decade that nothing else has come close to in terms of the culture of America. Take a good look at the footage taken on the Edmund Pettis Bridge on Bloody Sunday. Look at the firehoses and dogs in Birmingham, or the bombing of the 16th street Baptist Church by KKK terrorists that killed four young girls. When you spoke out, you were considered a threat to Nixon and you became a target. You can't possibly understand any of this.

The Seinfeld analogy is a failure. Pure and simple. And I generally respond to comments. I really don't care about WHAT you think unless you're posting falsehoods. I have a commitment to truth and when I see something that doesn't correspond to fact or truth, I speak out. I do find it entertaining to point out and correct your errors in thinking.


Wild Bill 9 months ago

Wow, you troll so much you had to say that one twice! lol

First of all, I don't know why you are so obsessed with my Seinfeld reference, but I guess it is something for a more sophisticated humor. In the end, it is a reference that some will get and others will not. I guess for someone like you I should have done a fart joke...but I digress.

You said: "No shit Sherlock. In his case he feels entitled to be pissed, because he was bloodied in combat. Why do you have such a problem with something this simple?"

Ok, then by your definition we all feel entitled to something in this conversation. You felt entitled to stir up an argument with someone who has not appeared on this Hub for 4 years and does not have a Hubpages account, which means that he probably has not checked this Hub since that time. Breeze feels entitled to write this Hub. I feel entitled to call you out on your stupid trolling ways. I guess we are all entitled, so there is no reason to call anyone entitled because by your definition it should be assumed that everyone is. Let me know if that one goes over your head.

Adagio said: "You obviously don't have any children that have served in Iraq or Afghanistan, or anywhere else for that matter. So don't try to tell a parent of a soldier what he can relate to and what he can't. Have you ever lost a child? Probably not. I can tell you from personal experience that there is nothing as painful in life as that."

As for you losing your son in battle; I am sorry for your loss. This explains a lot of your anger, so I feel no need to pursue this conversation.

I hope you can find some happiness in your life. Try to focus on the good things in life.


adagio4639 profile image

adagio4639 9 months ago from Brattleboro Vermont

"First of all, I don't know why you are so obsessed with my Seinfeld reference,"

I'm not. But you seem to be. All I said was it made no sense in the context of the discussion. Whatever analogy you were thinking of didn't work. You've been reacting to that ever since.

" but I guess it is something for a more sophisticated humor. In the end, I guess for someone like you I should have done a fart joke...but I digress."

Jerry's a funny guy, you aren't. I guess you'll have to live with that. Humor is said to be the juxtaposition of opposing ironies. Your analogy amounted to pounding a square peg into a round hole. What ever point you were trying to make became lost in it's own obscurantism. In other words... that you might understand, it didn't fit.

"You said: "No shit Sherlock. In his case he feels entitled to be pissed, because he was bloodied in combat. Why do you have such a problem with something this simple?"

I need to explain that to you? His response to the author was a knee jerk "fuck you", and he immediately leapt on the author bringing up race, when the author went out of his way to make the disclaimer so that nobody would think that this was about race. So what does the Marine do? He jumps on him for even making the disclaimer. And on top of all of that, Breeze goes out of his way to be civil to him in his response.

"Ok, then by your definition we all feel entitled to something in this conversation. (??) You felt entitled to stir up an argument with someone who has not appeared on this Hub for 4 years and does not have a Hubpages account, which means that he probably has not checked this Hub since that time. "

Frankly I didn't even bother to look at when he posted it. I got a notification on new posts to this Hub and I saw his comment. It warranted a response, and I gave it. Did I feel "entitled"? No. I didn't "feel" that I was owed something when I wrote what I wrote. And I didn't bother to ask if I could post anything. It's an open Hub, and anybody can post. I don't know if he has a Hub Pages account. Why would I care about that? Somebody offered a post that I thought was offensive, and I commented on why. It seems to bother you more than it does him.

"I feel entitled to call you out on your stupid trolling ways. I guess we are all entitled, so there is no reason to call anyone entitled because by your definition it should be assumed that everyone is. Let me know if that one goes over your head."

First of all, I don't troll dude. If I'm notified by Hub Pages that a new post was made to a Hub that I've followed, then I come and read what's posted and if the mood strikes me, I comment. That ain't trolling. I'll give you an example of trolling. Lets say I'm a Bulls fan and I spend my days on a Cav's website, talking trash about the Cavs. That's what trolling is. Now, where exactly does "entitlement" come into play there? Care to tell me?

Secondly, before you get yourself twisted into a knot, over entitlement, you'd best be able to define what you mean. What I mean is this: Entitlement: " the feeling or belief that you deserve to be given something (such as special privileges". I have no such "feeling" or "belief' of any sort that I deserve some kind of special privileges to post any comment on this Hub. The Marine DOES feel entitled to call out Breeze for his disclaimer because as he said; "You had me until you referred to yourself as a black person. What the fuck does your race have to do with this subject. I have literally bled in combat and the hand of our nations enemies. and people like you piss me off that pull the race card when it suites you." So, he is using the point that he's "bled in combat at the hand of our nations enemies" Really? The title of the Hub centers on this theme; "National security vs your Civil Rights ...what do you think."

Obviously some people might take the very term "civil rights" to be in the context of a major socio/political movement that changed America which had everything to do with Race. Breeze states this:

"Honestly, as a black person it would not have been unreasonable if I were to ask if I’m included under those rights. As you all should know, if I want I can make this whole article base on the violation of black people’s civil rights."

He could indeed. There's a long history to point to on that front. But instead, he takes a more universal outlook. He says this: "However, this issue is not about me, the violation of civil right I’m debating here is a threat against all American citizens who lives in this country." He's making the universal case that we're all in this together. The Marine can't accept the truth of what Breeze has pointed out, and feels more entitled to speak on the subject since he's bled for Breezes civil rights. As if some of Breeze's own family may have bled themselves for the basic rights that you and I take as our birthright. You never had to bleed just to vote did you? So what's going on here? Does the Marine want to compare scars? Compare the amount of blood that was spilled for the sake of civil rights? He actually resents the FACT that Breeze could make a whole Hub on racial injustice in America, and thinks that his own service somehow mitigates all of that. It doesn't. They're separate issues.

"As for you losing your son in battle; I am sorry for your loss."

??? I didn't say that I lost my son in battle. I said hes a Green Beret. 10th Special Forces. He's out there kicking ass as far as I know. I have other children. So, I'm afraid that doesn't explain my "anger". In fact, I'm not the one with the anger issues. That would be the Marine. Just go back and read his comments. "What the fuck does your race have to do with this subject. I have literally bled in combat and the hand of our nations enemies. and people like you piss me off that pull the race card when it suites you." So, he is using the point that he's "bled in combat at the hand of our nations enemies" Sounds pretty angry to me. Maybe to you he's just being politically incorrect. But, nah...I'd call it anger. Anything less would be...Politically Correct.


Wild Bill 9 months ago

First you said: "I'm not. But you seem to be. All I said was it made no sense in the context of the discussion. Whatever analogy you were thinking of didn't work. You've been reacting to that ever since."

Then you said: "Jerry's a funny guy, you aren't. I guess you'll have to live with that. Humor is said to be the juxtaposition of opposing ironies. Your analogy amounted to pounding a square peg into a round hole. What ever point you were trying to make became lost in it's own obscurantism. In other words... that you might understand, it didn't fit."

I only made the Seinfeld analogy once, so I am not reacting by repeating the analogy. I am reacting to you obsessive comments about my Seinfeld reference. I will just chalk this up as troll-like behavior. If you aren't a troll, then just let it go. You didn't get it. Move on.

You said: "Frankly I didn't even bother to look at when he posted it. I got a notification on new posts to this Hub and I saw his comment."

Soooo...what you are saying is that there is a 4 year delay in Hubpages notifying you or is there something I am missing? To be honest, it sounds like you are making that up to cover your trolling ways.

You said: "Did I feel "entitled"? No. I didn't "feel" that I was owed something when I wrote what I wrote. And I didn't bother to ask if I could post anything. It's an open Hub, and anybody can post. I don't know if he has a Hub Pages account. Why would I care about that? Somebody offered a post that I thought was offensive, and I commented on why."

I see; you have a good reason for your actions, but no one else does? We are all entitled, but you have good reasons. Gotcha!

You said: "??? I didn't say that I lost my son in battle. I said hes a Green Beret. 10th Special Forces. He's out there kicking ass as far as I know."

But in the post before, you said: "You obviously don't have any children that have served in Iraq or Afghanistan, or anywhere else for that matter. So don't try to tell a parent of a soldier what he can relate to and what he can't. Have you ever lost a child? Probably not. I can tell you from personal experience that there is nothing as painful in life as that."

Ok, so I might need you to explain that. You are talking about soldiers going to war. You say you are the parent of a soldier. Then you ask me about losing a child. Then you say you know from personal experience about losing a child. How am I not supposed to take it that you lost a child in war? Either you like to stretch the truth a bit and make things sound a certain way when they are not; or you have lost a child, but not in battle; or you are not very good at expressing your ideas on paper; or you hit the sauce a bit when you wrote that? Let me know which one it is so I know who I am dealing with here.

btw; you said: "He's out there kicking ass as far as I know."

You sound as if you and your son don't talk much. Unusual since you are acting like you are so "emotional" about his being in the military.


adagio4639 profile image

adagio4639 9 months ago from Brattleboro Vermont

@Wild. "I only made the Seinfeld analogy once, so I am not reacting by repeating the analogy. I am reacting to you obsessive comments about my Seinfeld reference. I will just chalk this up as troll-like behavior. If you aren't a troll, then just let it go. You didn't get it. Move on."

It was let go by me a long time ago. You keep trying to insist that it makes some kind sense. I told you it doesn't. But that's not good enough for you. For example: "As for the Seinfeld comment. I know for a fact you didn't get it, but you would never admit that, so whatever you say."

You know for fact? Ok. demonstrate that fact for me. Facts are demonstrable. They're provable, so go ahead. Prove your fact. The problem here is that you can't. Because it's not a fact. It's your insistence that your analogy had some kind of meaning in the context of the discussion and it didn't. I'm sure in your mind it's as clear as day. Unfortunately that doesn't make it so.

"Soooo...what you are saying is that there is a 4 year delay in Hubpages notifying you or is there something I am missing?"

What I'm saying is exactly what I told you. I received a notice from Hub pages that had a post from a writer that I follow. I saw the post by the Marine and threw out my opinion, after which you decided to wade in which is why we are here right now. I didn't bother to look at when it was posted. The time was irrelevant as far as I'm concerned. I thought it was bullshit and deserved a response. End of Story. You on the other hand have decided to make an issue over my comment. You then toss out a lame attempt at an analogy and it failed. And now you can't let it go. As for "Trolling", I already explained what that is to you, and you obviously don't understand the concept. I don't Troll dude. I don't waste my time with that.

"I see; you have a good reason for your actions, but no one else does? We are all entitled, but you have good reasons. Gotcha!"

You don't see much at all. What you seem intent on doing is trying to make something out of nothing. I do have what I consider "good" reasons for whatever I write. And what I write is always a reasoned argument that exposes a logical fallacy or some error in critical thinking. I can tell an emotional argument, from a well reasoned argument. I have never once suggested that others don't have reasons for what they write. What always comes through in somebody's writing is their motivations. Are they emotionally driven or logically driven? And I've never said that "we are all entitled". Entitled to what? You're entitled to respect as a rational being, and the rights that go with that, but not much else. You can think what you want, but you'd better offer a good reason for your arguments if an argument is what you're intentions are. Otherwise you'll likely be taken to task.

" How am I not supposed to take it that you lost a child in war?"

Well, you might have asked rather than assumed.

" Either you like to stretch the truth a bit and make things sound a certain way when they are not; or you have lost a child, but not in battle; or you are not very good at expressing your ideas on paper; or you hit the sauce a bit when you wrote that?"

Actually I'm pretty good at expressing my ideas on paper. I've written two books. I've been published. So a publisher thinks that I'm pretty good at expressing myself on paper. What have you done? One thing you've done is assumed something that I didn't say. You read what you wanted to read into my comment. And you were wrong. If you did that with me, you've probably done that with a lot of things. As a fallible human being you're prone to error. We all are. You drew a conclusion based on a complete misinterpretation of what I wrote. You assumed. And you were wrong in your assumption.

"Let me know which one it is so I know who I am dealing with here."

That's called a false dichotomy. Either/Or. It's a logical fallacy. I'm either this or I'm that. But then again, maybe there's a third possibility that you failed to consider. That you simply made a mistake and never bothered to check your assumption. Yeah...that' sounds about right.

"You sound as if you and your son don't talk much. Unusual sincee y ou are acting like you are so "emotional" about his being in the military."

That's really none of your business. Where he goes and what he does is classified and I don't even know what that is. And your description of being "emotional" about his being in the military is another projection on your part. I'd stay away from that kind of thing if I were you. Stick with what you know and not what you assume. You sound like a Republican.


Wild Bill 9 months ago

Adagio said: "It was let go by me a long time ago. You keep trying to insist that it makes some kind sense. I told you it doesn't. But that's not good enough for you."

That is not true, seeing as you have mentioned in every comment. I have only responded to you calling it a 'failed' attempt, but whatever...

Then in the next paragraph Adagio said: "You on the other hand have decided to make an issue over my comment. You then toss out a lame attempt at an analogy and it failed."

Ok, so much for 'letting it go'. If this is how you 'let go' of things, then we have a problem.

As for me proving facts, I don't have to since you are proving that fact for me since every time you mention it, you show your ignorance.

I said: "" How am I not supposed to take it that you lost a child in war?"

Then you said: "Well, you might have asked rather than assumed."

Ok; I'll bite. Please explain the following statement you made:

"You obviously don't have any children that have served in Iraq or Afghanistan, or anywhere else for that matter. So don't try to tell a parent of a soldier what he can relate to and what he can't. Have you ever lost a child? Probably not. I can tell you from personal experience that there is nothing as painful in life as that."

You said you have "personal experience" in losing a child, but later you said: "You drew a conclusion based on a complete misinterpretation of what I wrote."

It doesn't sound like I made a mistake; it sound more like you are being misleading. Just like you did when you said:

"What I'm saying is exactly what I told you. I received a notice from Hub pages that had a post from a writer that I follow. I saw the post by the Marine and threw out my opinion, after which you decided to wade in which is why we are here right now. I didn't bother to look at when it was posted. The time was irrelevant as far as I'm concerned."

Yea, I'm calling bullshit on that one. I don't think anyone would believe that there is a 4 year delay in HP notifications. You keep making this claim about logic and facts, but nothing you say adds up. You obviously can't admit that a joke went over your head, you made a misleading statement about losing a child, and now you make up some bologna about receiving a notification 4 years later. I see what kind of person I am dealing with here and I think you are the Republican with the way you like to lie, rant, and can't admit you are wrong.

    Sign in or sign up and post using a HubPages Network account.

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    No HTML is allowed in comments, but URLs will be hyperlinked. Comments are not for promoting your articles or other sites.


    Click to Rate This Article
    working