Taking a knee during the national anthem.

[The Folk Prophet]

37 minutes ago, Godless said:

Having a job or a degree won't keep cops (and others) from judging you soley on the color of your skin. 

Neither will disrespecting the flag and the national anthem.

[Just_A_Guy]

So many different issues, all rolled into one—and it seems like everyone’s a little wrong on this.

—Trump, as a government official, needs to stay the heck out of private-sector decisions regarding hiring and firing.  Also, this is a cynical move on his part that advances his short term political interests but divides the country as a whole.  

—Progressives:  if we can’t unite around respect for the flag and the anthem, there’s very little left holding us together as a nation and Balkanization isn’t far behind.  You guys are the ones who want the federal government to control everything and bring intransigent local populations into line; so I would think you’d quit undermining people’s loyalty to the federal government.  (And yes, kiddies, that’s what you’re doing.  Trump’s divisiveness is bringing us closer to civil war; but you guys are taking the bait in spectacular fashion.)

—Conservatives:  Patriotism is great; but I was unaware that we were ever really into enforced ritualistic worship of Big Brother; and last time I checked (I think it was about a month ago) we were adamantly defending people’s right to air their political views in the workplace without suffering government-greenlit retribution.  Also:  guys, we don’t have to step in every turd the Orange Orangutan-In-Chief leaves on the field, you know?

—NFL:  The league as a whole are cowards; muddying the waters with their attempts to split the difference (we’ll kneel.  Not during the anthem, but before.  Or maybe during.  And then we’ll stand and link arms in support of Kapernik and his donations to cop-killers—er, no, we’re just supporting him as a teammate and a brother—er, actually, BLM has a point—er, no; really we just hate Trump.  We love America too much to stand up for it.  Or something.)

—Civil libertarians:  yeah, any time you have armed police officers patrolling amongst the citizenry there are going to be abuses.  That’s human nature, and it needs to be dealt with.  But police departments are local entities, and you’re libertarians—why are you demanding a national response here?

—BLM:  hoo, boy; where do I even begin with you guys?  Look, I was there when you started—with Trayvon Martin, who was shot by George Zimmerman after beating Zimmerman to an inch of his life for having dared to follow him; and Michael Brown, who knocked over a convenience store and then attacked the cop who saw him and figured he matched the radioed description of the perp (which made sense since—you know—Brown WAS the perp).  Those shootings, tragic as they were, were justified incidents of self-defense; and your refusal to acknowledge as much makes it really hard not to conclude that what you *really* believe, is that black people should be able to rob and brutalize white people with impunity. We’ve seen the stats of white-on-black violence versus black-on-white violence; and we wonder why we’re supposed to just take it quietly and then be hectored about our “racism” for good measure.  We’re sick and tired of seeing a dysfunctional subculture rife with violence, drug use, unwed parenthood, demands for cultural separatism, and generalized contempt for education and authority and “acting white”—and rather than looking inwards to figure out how it can adapt to the (aspirationally, at least) color-blind, market-based meritocracy like modern America, its leaders rail against “white people” and bloviate on about “structural racism” and “safe spaces” (which of course, inevitably translates into “give us money.  Lots and lots and lots of money.”).

So, yeah.  A plague o’er all your houses, and get off my lawn.

Edited September 30, 2017 by Just_A_Guy

[The Folk Prophet]

12 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

—Trump, as a government official, needs to stay the heck out of private-sector decisions regarding hiring and firing.  Also, this is a cynical move on his part that advances his short term political interests but divides the country as a whole.  

I disagree with this. There are very few avenues for conservatism to fight it's battles. Trump is one of those avenues and he knows it. If he doesn't stand up and say such things as he says, who will? The media? Hollywood stars? Who?

Now how he says it -- problematic at times -- but at least he's saying it.

[The Folk Prophet]

15 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

—Conservatives:  Patriotism is great; but I was unaware that we were ever really into enforced ritualistic worship of Big Brother; and last time I checked (I think it was about a month ago) we were adamantly defending people’s right to air their political views in the workplace without suffering government-greenlit retribution.  Also:  guys, we don’t have to step in every turd the Orange Orangutan-In-Chief leaves on the field, you know?

Oh...and concerning this: should be re-titled Republicans or something. True conservatives probably believe that the response should simply be for the public to stop buying the product and things would easily resolve themselves.

[Just_A_Guy]

Just now, The Folk Prophet said:

I disagree with this. There are very few avenues for conservatism to fight it's battles. Trump is one of those avenues and he knows it. If he doesn't stand up and say such things as he says, who will? The media? Hollywood stars? Who?

Now how he says it -- problematic at times -- but at least he's saying it.

Ben Shapiro was saying today that two weeks ago, 85% of Americans disagreed with Kaepernik.  Now the figure is down to 65%.  POTUS has turned 20% of Americans against us in one week.

So I would say:  gee, Donny Boy; could you love us a little less, please?

[The Folk Prophet]

Just now, Just_A_Guy said:

Ben Shapiro was saying today that two weeks ago, 85% of Americans disagreed with Kaepernik.  Now the figure is down to 65%.  POTUS has turned 20% of Americans against us in one week.

So I would say:  gee, Donny Boy; could you love us a little less, please?

I see this as the natural result of war. And make no mistake -- we are at war (fortunately, at large, not a physical one yet).

In no way comparing Donny Boy to the great Captain Moroni...but still using the generic example: If Moroni raised the title of liberty in our day do you not think that it would have the effect of dividing the country in some measure? Would that make it the wrong choice?

The problem is that we've gone too long letting the left call the right stupid in the mainstream and just -- you know -- turned the other cheek so to speak. It's gone so far that now, at last, someone stands up and says in that mainstream, "No, you're the stupid ones" and, well...yeah...the country is divided. But it isn't Trump that's doing the dividing -- he is simply saying aloud what the one half thinks. The division is being made, and has been made, long since by the left. The left divides. Their policies divide. Their principles divide. Their morality (or lack thereof) divides. Their identity politics divide. The protests divide.

When Trump says, "Hey, you folk who are divisive are the actual problems" in so many words, and half the country says, "Yeah" and the other half says, "Nuh uh" it's not Trump's fault. (He's got plenty of faults -- don't get me wrong -- but his boldly speaking is not one of them).

Yeah...you raise the title of liberty in a day of corruption and it's going to be externally divisive...but only if the internal division already exists. (Once again...to be clear...I am not, in any way, comparing Trump to Moroni, character-wise. I am simply pointing out that the bold statements are not the divisive factor of themselves).

[Just_A_Guy]

14 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

I see this as the natural result of war. And make no mistake -- we are at war (fortunately, at large, not a physical one yet).

In no way comparing Donny Boy to the great Captain Moroni...but still using the generic example: If Moroni raised the title of liberty in our day do you not think that it would have the effect of dividing the country in some measure? Would that make it the wrong choice?

The problem is that we've gone too long letting the left call the right stupid in the mainstream and just -- you know -- turned the other cheek so to speak. It's gone so far that now, at last, someone stands up and says in that mainstream, "No, you're the stupid ones" and, well...yeah...the country is divided. But it isn't Trump that's doing the dividing -- he is simply saying aloud what the one half thinks. The division is being made, and has been made, long since by the left. The left divides. Their policies divide. Their principles divide. Their morality (or lack thereof) divides. Their identity politics divide. The protests divide.

When Trump says, "Hey, you folk who are divisive are the actual problems" in so many words, and half the country says, "Yeah" and the other half says, "Nuh uh" it's not Trump's fault. (He's got plenty of faults -- don't get me wrong -- but his boldly speaking is not one of them).

Yeah...you raise the title of liberty in a day of corruption and it's going to be externally divisive...but only if the internal division already exists. (Once again...to be clear...I am not, in any way, comparing Trump to Moroni, character-wise. I am simply pointing out that the bold statements are not the divisive factor of themselves).

But Trump didn’t raise a title of liberty.  He called for the economic oppression of people he doesn’t like politically; and a lot of people seem to have found that off-putting.

Moroni reminded the people of what they ought to love.  Trump tells the people who they ought to hate.  The substance is as problematic as the style.

Edited September 30, 2017 by Just_A_Guy

[The Folk Prophet]

1 hour ago, Just_A_Guy said:

But Trump didn’t raise a title of liberty.  He called for the economic oppression of people he doesn’t like politically; and a lot of people seem to have found that off-putting.

Moroni reminded the people of what they ought to love.  Trump tells the people who they ought to hate.  The substance is as problematic as the style.

I'm not sure those who Moroni strung up for refusing to honor his flag and what it stood for would see it that way. 

[NightSG]

You know, it's funny how the "political neutrality policy" in the rules is ignored as long as it's Trump being insulted.  Same for name calling rules in general.

We all know he's planning to run again in 2020, (and has, in fact, already filed the paperwork for the campaign) and to use his political pull in the meantime to support other candidates, so the "an office holder is different from a candidate" excuse doesn't hold water; for all practical and legal purposes, until he withdraws his candidacy, is disqualified, or is defeated in the primaries or general election, he is a candidate in the next Presidential election.

Edited September 30, 2017 by NightSG

[anatess2]

4 hours ago, Godless said:

Yes, they wish this country was the type of country that the flag and anthem are supposed to represent. Some segments of our society feel that America and its ideals have abandoned them, and that's why they kneel.

Okay, let's go with this.

So, you wish this country was the type of country THAT THE FLAG AND ANTHEM ARE SUPPOSED TO REPRESENT.

So, you disrespect the FLAG AND ANTHEM.  Idiots. 

Just think about it.  The American Flag fought to free slaves, the Confederate Flag fought to keep them.  Blacks went all out to take down the Confederate Flag.  And now they're disrespecting the American Flag.  And they're standing for the British one who started slavery in the USA in the first place.  Idiots.  All of them.

[anatess2]

4 hours ago, Godless said:

Who said anything about scholarships? The issue is police violence and the apparent lack of accountability for it. This is literally a life-and-death issue in black communities.

The issue starts with a MEDIA LIE:  Hands up, don't shoot.

The rest is a showcase of gullible black people buying into the lie because... they have been conditioned all their lives to feel victimized so they'll keep voting Democrat.  And you're supporting that system that is tantamount to ideological slavery.

Pull quote from Larry Elder:  "The Welfare System was a neutron bomb dropped in the heart of all communities especially the black community."

 

Edited September 30, 2017 by anatess2

[JohnsonJones]

6 hours ago, Godless said:

If that's what you think they're protesting, then you haven't been paying attention. 

90% of them don't even know what they are protesting.  They heard something about Trump ranting, and then decided to kneel because of that.

It started as basically a privileged kid that has some American African heritage, but was raised in what would be seen as a white home with white privilege and had made it big in pro football, was protesting something he really never experienced.  His idea was that he could not ever stand in respect for a flag as long as any police officer ever arrested another Black individual (sarcasm-but anyone else, that's okay, forget that there are actually other minorities out there...because Blacks are better than any other race...obviously).   It was saying as long as there was Police out there doing what he perceived was mistreatment of Blacks (specifically, as I said, forget that there are other minorities out there...it's a racist thing for him...not that many realize this) he said America (the United States) was not a nation he could respect, and hence could not respect it's flag.

The very idea is that one cannot respect the United States of America and hence kneel instead of showing respect to it's symbol in the flag and national anthem.

It's BS...but that's what he wanted to do.  It's free speech.  Others have jumped into the fray now.  The NFL allows them to do it, so let them do it.  Those opposed to it can stop watching the NFL.  IF, enough stop watching...eventually the NFL won't be able to pay their salaries and a change will occur (and I'd laugh as the only ones to blame for sabotaging their golden lottery in the NFL would be themselves).  If people keep watching, expect the protests of this to continue and the players to keep on kneeling. 

Either way, actions will have consequences.  Actions for not supporting the NFL will eventually cause repercussions, and Actions to support it for this, also have the repercussions of players continuing to kneel during the anthem most likely.

(Remind me again though, don't most NFL game happen on Sunday?  Isn't that like...the Sabbath anyways...does this really affect most Mormons at this point?  I think we had a thread on this recently, so I suppose it does affect some Mormons).

Edited September 30, 2017 by JohnsonJones

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

6 hours ago, Godless said:

Yes, they wish this country was the type of country that the flag and anthem are supposed to represent. Some segments of our society feel that America and its ideals have abandoned them, and that's why they kneel.

Yes, I agree.

6 hours ago, Godless said:

I agree. This past weekend especially, it felt like players were protesting Trump more than anything. And as cool as it was to see owners stand in solidarity with their players (and in defiance of Trump), it took the protest off-message. A few people in the black community took notice and called it out. Shannon Sharpe in particular had some scathing remarks for Ray Lewis and others who had never knelt prior to Trump's remarks.

Sadly yes.  

Sorry, I don't have time to stay and play (debate), but I'm swamped right now with life, so I'll just "like" everything Godless says.    

I do have one thing to add though...I really like the "next move" the Seahawks have chosen.  In part, because it should bring the focus back to the real topic of the protest...which I support.

http://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/20864725/seattle-seahawks-launch-fund-promote-equality-justice

[Grunt]

http://tribunist.com/news/harvard-study-on-police-shootings-and-race-offers-shocking-conclusion/

[Guest Godless]

4 hours ago, LiterateParakeet said:

 

Sorry, I don't have time to stay and play (debate), but I'm swamped right now with life, so I'll just "like" everything Godless says.    
 

Lol, same. My computer is at work and I don't feel like going back-and-forth on my phone all day. I really liked JAG's take for the most part. As usual, he explained things far better and more evenly than I ever could. There's a lot of suckers on both sides eating up Trump's poison (I'm guilty of it myself). I think the best protest at this point is to blow him off and not give him the attention he so desperately craves. 

[Guest Godless]

6 hours ago, NightSG said:

You know, it's funny how the "political neutrality policy" in the rules is ignored as long as it's Trump being insulted.  Same for name calling rules in general.

We all know he's planning to run again in 2020, (and has, in fact, already filed the paperwork for the campaign) and to use his political pull in the meantime to support other candidates, so the "an office holder is different from a candidate" excuse doesn't hold water; for all practical and legal purposes, until he withdraws his candidacy, is disqualified, or is defeated in the primaries or general election, he is a candidate in the next Presidential election.

The rule regarding discussion of candidates was rescinded last year. 

[Just_A_Guy]

8 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

I'm not sure those who Moroni strung up for refusing to honor his flag and what it stood for would see it that way. 

Sure; but it’s not just about what your enemies think of you.  It’s about what third-party observers think about you.  And again—Moroni gave his people a positive ideology to rally around.  Trump just whips up hatred for a group he hopes to make outcasts; and people do notice the difference.

[The Folk Prophet]

15 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Sure; but it’s not just about what your enemies think of you.  It’s about what third-party observers think about you.  And again—Moroni gave his people a positive ideology to rally around.  Trump just whips up hatred for a group he hopes to make outcasts; and people do notice the difference.

Maybe I expressed myself badly (It was late). But I do not agree. Trump is not "just" whipping up hatred any more than Moroni did. A big difference is that Moroni put dissenters to death. Trump expressed an opinion that dissenters should lose their livelihood. But both instances of dissent are, at their core, very similar in my opinion. Trump did not raise a title of liberty. But it is a title of liberty he is defending. Moroni's title of liberty was a flag that stood for the freedom of the people, their rights and property, their family and religion. That pretty much describes the American flag to a T.

I find the idea that Moroni wasn't stirring up hatred fallacious. Whether he was or not is very much in the eye of the beholder, just as it is with Trump. The fact that Moroni's followers were inspired by God and righteousness is a factor, yes. And it would be better if Trump were more a man of God, and certainly better if the conflict was more black and white because those on the "right" (pun intended) were, indeed, absolutely and unequivocally right. Of course, as we tend to suspect, the Book of Mormon itself does not give the history in enough detail to really know the politics of the times. It filters the stories. I suspect that the times of Captain Moroni were much more volatile and complex than what we read in the individual's lives who participated.

And the point is this: If Trump were an honest man of God akin to Moroni, and declared that any who would not pledge to the flag (as in give an oath to defend the standard of liberty) were to be put to death, do you believe it would be less divisive or more?

[anatess2]

1 hour ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Sure; but it’s not just about what your enemies think of you.  It’s about what third-party observers think about you.  And again—Moroni gave his people a positive ideology to rally around.  Trump just whips up hatred for a group he hopes to make outcasts; and people do notice the difference.

This (bolded), of course, is false.

[Just_A_Guy]

10 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Maybe I expressed myself badly (It was late). But I do not agree. Trump is not "just" whipping up hatred any more than Moroni did. A big difference is that Moroni put dissenters to death. Trump expressed an opinion that dissenters should lose their livelihood. But both instances of dissent are, at their core, very similar in my opinion. Trump did not raise a title of liberty. But it is a title of liberty he is defending. Moroni's title of liberty was a flag that stood for the freedom of the people, their rights and property, their family and religion. That pretty much describes the American flag to a T.

I find the idea that Moroni wasn't stirring up hatred fallacious. Whether he was or not is very much in the eye of the beholder, just as it is with Trump. The fact that Moroni's followers were inspired by God and righteousness is a factor, yes. And it would be better if Trump were more a man of God, and certainly better if the conflict was more black and white because those on the "right" (pun intended) were, indeed, absolutely and unequivocally right. Of course, as we tend to suspect, the Book of Mormon itself does not give the history in enough detail to really know the politics of the times. It filters the stories. I suspect that the times of Captain Moroni were much more volatile and complex than what we read in the individual's lives who participated.

And the point is this: If Trump were an honest man of God akin to Moroni, and declared that any who would not pledge to the flag (as in give an oath to defend the standard of liberty) were to be put to death, do you believe it would be less divisive or more?

Regardless of Trump’s individual virtue or vice, the tactic is what it is—Trump forced Americans to pick a side before the time was fully ripe in a remarkably ham-fisted, demagogic, ideologically bankrupt way; and as a result almost a quarter of his natural ideological allies bolted—practically overnight.

I don’t know that a close reading of Alma 46 supports the proposition that kneelers are akin to the kingmen of old.  The kingmen had already made their move—they attempted to execute a plan to leave Nephite jurisdiction and enlist the aid of their mortal enemies, the Lamanites, to effect a coup d’etat that would have cost many lives and end liberty of religious conscience as well as practice.  They had already outed themselves; the battle lines had been drawn. It was only on their enforced return that Moroni spared them the traditional legal penalty of death for treason in favor of an oath of loyalty.  That tactic was no more “divisive” than Lincoln’s sometime practice of releasing rebel POW’s in exchange for their oath of loyalty to the Union.

If Trump were a righteous man, I might be more willing to suspend my largely-secular analysis of human nature/behavior/polling data, in hopes that maybe the Spirit of he Lord was moving on him in some unknown way.  But Goon Donald, the West Side Rapist?  I wouldn’t bet the house on his sensitivity to the Spirit.

And the other thing to bear in mind about Nephite politics of the first century BC is that ultimately, a few decades later, the freemen lost and the governmrnt fell.  That calamity may be inevitable in our own day as well—but nevertheless, wo to him by whom it cometh!  You and I both know that whatever Trump is trying to do—he sure as heck isn’t trying to accelerate the Second Coming.

[Just_A_Guy]

9 hours ago, anatess2 said:

This (bolded), of course, is false.

So egregiously wrong.

And yet, such stunning penmanship.

 

Dilemma.  

[LoudLizard]

23 hours ago, Godless said:

Yes, they wish this country was the type of country that the flag and anthem are supposed to represent. Some segments of our society feel that America and its ideals have abandoned them, and that's why they kneel.

If they wear a black arm band, get a symbolic tattoo, or do a public service announcement that is standing for something.  Kneeling the national anthem because our nation is not progressing toward perfect equality fast enough is not going to work.

Any race in this nation must recognize that progress has been made toward equality.  Hoping for a perfect nation that accepts all people equally but rejects Christ is foolishness.

[Just_A_Guy]

Indeed.  In the exceedingly unlikely event that an American football team competed in the Olympics and took second to some human-rights backwater like North Korea or Venezuela or Saudi Arabia, you can bet your boots that Kapernik and his merry band of idiots wouldn’t have dared to take a knee while that nation’s anthem was played.  Because regardless of what they may say to ESPN now, they know darned well that doing so constitutes a slight to the *entire nation* and not just an act of exception to that nation’s current policies or problems.

It’s no cliche.  That subset of the kneelers who aren’t complete numbskulls, really do hate America.

[The Folk Prophet]

1 hour ago, Just_A_Guy said:

And the other thing to bear in mind about Nephite politics of the first century BC is that ultimately, a few decades later, the freemen lost and the governmrnt fell.  That calamity may be inevitable in our own day as well—but nevertheless, wo to him by whom it cometh!  You and I both know that whatever Trump is trying to do—he sure as heck isn’t trying to accelerate the Second Coming.

Without further debate on the comparison to Book of Mormon times (there is, I believe, more to be said, but not to anyone's benefit...so I'll drop it), obviously I agree that Trump's goal is not to accelerate the Second Coming. However, I do believe that one of the reasons we find our society in the state we do is because no one of influence has dared to stand up against the "politically correct" and call it out for its foolish. And I believe that there is only one of two potential solutions to the path we are going down. The best solution, of course, would be to convert all to the gospel of Christ. That's unlikely. The second is to fight the war that is actually occuring. It is a war on our culture. And it is being won because those who influence our culture to the greatest degree have had the strongest -- perhaps the only -- voice of influence for too long. Little by little they, the progressive left, have whittled away at traditional and conservative thinking and introduced and pushed the ideas of relative morality and political correctness (a thin, insidious disguise for fascist domination through destruction of freedom of speech and religion). The culture has, accordingly, changed, and as it has, due to the strong implication of "offense" no one -- at least no one with the same influence -- has stood up and pointed out the ridiculous nature of what's going on and how it makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. Without being able to bring the nation to Christ, the only way to take back what has been lost is to use the same tactics the left have been using for so long to win, battle by battle, the hearts and minds of the people. Those tactics, although sometimes in some ways a bit dirty, are the only means to fight back. Yes, the nature of war is sometimes dirty. It's war.

It is sad, in many a way, that Trump is the character needed in order to even remotely begin to accomplish this end. I am no Trump lover. But I can see things for what they are. The left's bull-oney needs to be called out for the bull-oney that it is. Trump is the one who, at present, can do that. Trump is the one doing that. It's crude. It's ugly. And he isn't particularly skilled at certain aspects of it (though in other ways the guy is a master). But he's doing it, and I have a hard time calling it mistaken when the alternative is to continue the vacant polite smile we on the right give as the left freely implies that everything about our way of thinking is evil and stupid. The vacant polite smile is not going to win the culture back.

The fact that our culture has been so very biased to the leftist ideology is seen even in these forums by those who are not leftists at all. See the thread on Crowder's undercover activity where he (Crowder) is referred to as a rabble-rouser. He's a comedian who makes fun of leftist ideology. Practically all comedians are leftists making fun of the right. No one calls them rabble-rousers though. It's just comedy. But make fun of the left and you're a horrible person who is just trying to incite unrest -- even according to the right. Well -- I suppose that's what comes of being on the side of Judeo-Christian values and morality. But it's still a losing cause, politically speaking.

So sure -- Trumps comments are often divisive. And sometimes they're stupid and ineffectual. In this case, however -- I think he was on the money. I don't like the crude manner he said what he said (crudeness is a surrender to leftism too), but the implication that those disrespecting our nation should lose their livelihoods...on point, imo.

Edited October 1, 2017 by The Folk Prophet

[Anddenex]

On 9/29/2017 at 3:49 PM, MormonGator said:

I think what conservatives need to ask themselves is: How would I feel if an athlete took a knee during the national anthem to protest gay marriage? Or abortion? Or the "immorality" that is occurring in the nation right now? 
 

Athletes have every right to do this, and the average citizen has every right to speak out against/or in support of athletes who do this.

I would feel the same, a mockery to all who died that we might have this privilege, and that ignorant "children" can take a kneel instead of respecting those who have fallen. The national anthem and the flag are not times, due to respect to those who have fallen, to show a disapproval for something. The nation already has venues and methods by which you can show your dislike toward something, and seek recompense.

It doesn't matter if you are a professional athlete, a school teacher, a jogger, a domestic engineer (Moms), or anything. Respect those who have fallen, or be like these ignorant children who think they are taking a "good" stand by kneeling. Oh, and by the way, I am still standing although I disagree with gay marriage, abortion, and all the immorality in this world.

EDIT: And just in case this is not missed. I do not like police brutality, and I do not like people who abuse the police either. I will stand, because it is the national anthem and the reason why I am able to protest, that I am able to even be Mormon (although under this nation and flag people tried to snuff it out), that I am able to choose my own vocation, and that I am able to enjoy freedoms that no other nation can enjoy as we enjoy.

Edited October 1, 2017 by Anddenex