#18
|
|||
|
|||
So you are against individual choice
[ QUOTE ]
Now even her family is tired of her unethical explotation of her son's death for political activism purposes. [/ QUOTE ] What is that supposed to mean? That's reactionary, anti-liberty crap, masquerading as a dignified call for decorum. A soldier dies in the war. His mother chooses to make a public political stand against the war. Other members of the family choose not to express publicly their opinion on the war. (Note that there is no inherent "disrespect" when using the death of someone -friend, relative, stranger- to bring attention to a political issue. It is done routinely and rightly so. It's the context and the message that are important, not the cause that is used.) So, both sides of the family are entitled to their respective opinions - and actions. The mother can continue to wage her campaign, if she so wishes. The other members can continue to be silent, or they can choose to come out and support the war and the president's actions. That, too, is their right. What is it exactly that you find reprehensible in all that? Say what you wanna say. Say that your underlying objection is that she's against the war. |
|
|