Quote:
Originally posted by theking
I anwsered a) and b) as well as responded to the rest of your post and that is your response. Well, OK Joe.
|
Hmm let's see then
"I am not aware that we do."
Many Americans do.
"I suspect, without actually knowing it to be fact, that some things that are legal in the US are not legal in Finland. Unless you have at your finger tips all laws in existence in both countries, you cannot factually deny, what is my suspicion. "
You are just confirming my point. All the differences are fine-tuning. American freedom is not that different from any other western countries
"Freedom and national interest, while technically having different meanings, are often used interchangably. "
Another one of my points. When US government takes care of national interest, it uses the word "freedom" to back up those interests. American people must have another reason for wagin war than money; somebody came up with "Hey Mr President, how about word "freedom"? Everybody wants to be free. So we say they threaten our freedom and they'll accept the war"
"Kill more yes, the rest of the statement is arguable and might be good for debate. "
Exactly. When the threat is foreign, the counter measures that will be taken are always CALLED pro-freedom. But when the threat is domestic., it's not about freedom, although the freedom of individual people could be even more threatened than in the case of a foreign threat.
One question, though, how the fuck do you quote separate parts of post without copy&paste?
