OT-Interesting moral/ethical dilemma

awp101 · Post by **awp101** » Mon Apr 13, 2009 10:05 pm

Last year a friend of my wife's that she worked with joined the Peace Corps and went to Albania. Today my wife sent me an email stating the young lady was being terminated for visiting an area that is considered off limits for safety reasons. It seems that when her mother visited last October they decided to spend the night there without notifying the Country Director since several other volunteers told her they had visited there without incident and the travel guide book said "the scenery was not to be missed".

After the trip she posted pictures on her Facebook album, including one of her Mother next to a statue ID'ing the location. Someone in the Peace Corps saw the pics, notified the Country Director of the violation and he started the termination proceedings.

Of course the young lady, her family, my wife and the friends who know her are all up in arms and want the Country Director bombarded with friendly emails to reverse his decision since she admitted she made a mistake.

Now in my mind, I really fail to see the problem. The volunteers were told to stay out of certain areas for their own safety. She did not, nor did she contact the Country Director before the trip to request permission since she had family visiting or afterwards to at least give him a head's up and maybe report on the conditions there. I don't know what other disciplinary measures could have been taken other then termination but it seems that was an option since it was exercised.

Did she screw up? Yes. Did she admit it? Yes, but only AFTER getting caught.

My wife has accused more than once of being an old fuddy duddy and no fun, but am I missing some reason they seem to think they have a leg to stand on?

claybob86 · Post by **claybob86** » Mon Apr 13, 2009 10:11 pm

I don't see a dilemma at all. She shouldn't have done what she wasn't supposed to do.

Andrew · Post by **Andrew** » Mon Apr 13, 2009 10:16 pm

Rules are rules. If I had broken them, I wouldn't have presented the evidence either. I have no experiance with anything to do with the Peace Corps but I have a hard time believing they're a buch of cut throats looking for any way to get/stay ahead. She may have actually deserved termination. That's the way it looks, but further info into their own policies would be in order.

Old Ironsights · Post by **Old Ironsights** » Mon Apr 13, 2009 10:21 pm

Sorry. Peace Corps volunteers seem to have some insane idea that because they are Peace Corps volunteers that normal rules don't apply to them.

Typical Hippie/Liberal mindset. (I don't know your friend, but it IS a typical mindset there...)

I have a friend who was in the Peace Corps in Africa and he relates a standard joke - that is told in the Peace Corps to illustrate this very point...

A group of (Naturalists/PHs/Missonaries whatever) had just broken camp not far from a river when a couple of Rovers pull up and disgorge a clot of twentysomthings - all flinging off garments and getting ready for a swim.

One of the (N?P?Ms) calls out to them... "HEY! YOU CAN'T GO SWIMMING THERE!"

The reply? "SHOVE OFF! WE'RE FROM THE PEACE CORPS! YOU CAN'T STOP US!"

And lo, from the Crocodiles, there came much rending and gnashing of teeth...

......

Someday, the "Peace Corps" kids will learn that "Peace" only comes with/from superior firepower... but not before a few are eaten...

AJMD429 · Post by **AJMD429** » Mon Apr 13, 2009 10:21 pm

The only 'dilemma' for me would be participating in the Peace Corps and having a 1911 on me, which I'm sure is against the rules, whether you go in an area they perceive as 'hazardous', or not. I guess that's why I'm doomed to always be self-employed; I don't like others telling me what to do.

Still, I agree with you - like a stupid 'restrictive covenant' in a subdivision - they may be rules one doesn't agree with (which is why I won't live in a subdivision, either), but if you elect to live there, you did agree to the rules.

It is a shame though that so many good causes are dominated by lots of rules and bureaucracy. I realize the personnel and mission-endangering aspects of going out of bounds, however suspect it was more of a technical issue than a truly dangerous issue. (I also realize that I voice that admittedly uninformed opinion as one who has never been overseas in that kind of situation, though.)

Bear 45/70 · Post by **Bear 45/70** » Mon Apr 13, 2009 10:33 pm

Well we know we can't count on any of the 3 above posters when the revolution start, because it would be against the rules.

claybob86 · Post by **claybob86** » Mon Apr 13, 2009 11:47 pm

Bear 45/70 wrote:Well we know we can't count on any of the 3 above posters when the revolution start, because it would be against the rules.

Typical.

Griff · Post by **Griff** » Mon Apr 13, 2009 11:53 pm

Amp,

I believe you see the issue with clear eyes. And while rules are made to be broken... one doesn't provide the clear evidence of having done so.

Revolution? What revolution? We're all a little late for 1776!

Streetstar · Post by **Streetstar** » Tue Apr 14, 2009 12:05 am

Maybe there were other issues ------ people dont usually talk about "other issues" when relaying their termination story to friends and family, --- only the bad boss man knows if she was caught doing something else earlier, or was being a pain in the bee bee.

I fired a guy recently for being late twice in a week. Did that alone deserve a termination? heck no, --- but he had also been caught smoking grass weeks earlier and been warned about it informally, was known to drink too much and posted stupid "party pics" on a MySpace/Facebook type public website. Person had also been lectured about this behavior too, -------- all of which, in my profession, could have been easilly overlooked if the guy was a true to life "operator", but his work product was also sloppy and marginal -----

Point being ---- i was looking for a way to hand him his walkin' papers for weeks before the actual termination.

Unless its an impersonal layoff (Heven knows, there are a lot of those going on) --- there are usually as many unspoken reasons as spoken reasons why someone gets the ax

Blaine · Post by **Blaine** » Tue Apr 14, 2009 12:29 am

Well, I suppose you could vouch for the lady's character without declaring support for her violation?

I know...I'm riding the fence on that one...... I break rules all the time, but as nice and charming and easy to get along with as I am, I generally muster some support

Bear 45/70 · Post by **Bear 45/70** » Tue Apr 14, 2009 2:02 am

claybob86 wrote:
Bear 45/70 wrote:Well we know we can't count on any of the 3 above posters when the revolution start, because it would be against the rules.

Typical.

Typically factual and you really are dense if you don't see the logic in it.

El Chivo · Post by **El Chivo** » Tue Apr 14, 2009 3:20 am

look, if they were kidnapped and held for ransom, how many special forces soldiers would have to risk their lives to get them back?

How much would that cost us, the taxpayers, even if there was no loss of life?

Did you see "Wag the Dog"? Those Albanians can be vicious.

Bear 45/70 · Post by **Bear 45/70** » Tue Apr 14, 2009 3:36 am

El Chivo wrote:look, if they were kidnapped and held for ransom, how many special forces soldiers would have to risk their lives to get them back?

How much would that cost us, the taxpayers, even if there was no loss of life?

Did you see "Wag the Dog"? Those Albanians can be vicious.

And once again some know nothing bureaucrat makes and arbitrary decision that some place is unsafe, so it must be? Obviously it wasn't unsafe as they went there, took pictures and came away unharmed, unharassed, unkidnapped and safe. I suppose you really think Homeland Security is about keeping you safe? It's not me that needs to wake up and smell the roses. How naive can you get?

Scrateshooter · Post by **Scrateshooter** » Tue Apr 14, 2009 3:41 am

One thing I learned in the military was that certain rules were written in blood. No need to reinvent the wheel. She is lucky her life wasn't terminated. Lot of muslim extremist operate in that area.

FWiedner · Post by **FWiedner** » Tue Apr 14, 2009 6:42 am

She got what she asked for. She didn't want to listen to the rules, and now she doesn't have to.

The silver lining is that not only is the disobedient hippie off the payroll and cost out of the commune, but she is now free to go where the H she wants to and can tell her old boss to pack it in his back pockets as she does, although she may be required to get a "real" job.

Good for her.

Old Ironsights · Post by **Old Ironsights** » Tue Apr 14, 2009 7:08 am

Bear 45/70 wrote:Well we know we can't count on any of the 3 above posters when the revolution start, because it would be against the rules.

There is a fundamental difference between following the rules you agreed to (as an employee/homeowner) and as a citizen upon whom an unjust "rule" has been imposed.

A Revolution happens when un-agreeded upon rules become too onerous to bear... not because you decide to stop following the ones you agreed to.

Post by **Hobie** » Tue Apr 14, 2009 7:24 am

Old Ironsights wrote:
Bear 45/70 wrote:Well we know we can't count on any of the 3 above posters when the revolution start, because it would be against the rules.
There is a fundamental difference between following the rules you agreed to (as an employee/homeowner) and as a citizen upon whom an unjust "rule" has been imposed.

A Revolution happens when un-agreeded upon rules become too onerous to bear... not because you decide to stop following the ones you agreed to.

+1

Let's say you invite me to come float fishing with you. You do have some rules though. I can't fondle your wife, beat your dog, or pee in the bait well. I do all three but you don't actually see me grab your wife and you only hear the dog yelp. However, you do see me pee in the bait well (as does the wife and dog). Now, I agreed to your rules, are you going to let it go?

Rules on travel are intended (for well founded reasons or not) to keep the employee safe. The supervisor has to ensure the rules are followed. When somebody breaks the rules AND the supervisor knows it what else would we expect? You know that if she had gotten hurt the supervisor would have been open to lawsuit for "letting" her do it.

While we hope that we're a long way from revolution, the two things aren't related. Even among the revolutionaries there will be rules.

Tycer · Post by **Tycer** » Tue Apr 14, 2009 7:35 am

Old Ironsights wrote:
Bear 45/70 wrote:Well we know we can't count on any of the 3 above posters when the revolution start, because it would be against the rules.
There is a fundamental difference between following the rules you agreed to (as an employee/homeowner) and as a citizen upon whom an unjust "rule" has been imposed.

A Revolution happens when un-agreeded upon rules become too onerous to bear... not because you decide to stop following the ones you agreed to.

+1
Well said.
Bear45/70, please do not be so quick to cast stones at your brother levergunners. You must be spending a fortune on duct tape repairing that glass house. Disagreements settled in debate teach all, but name-calling ends all future of reasonable debate. I'm glad you're here to offer your veiws, but I wish you would be a little less harsh in your wording.

She should have been more careful in CYA practices if she didn't want to get caught.

nemhed · Post by **nemhed** » Tue Apr 14, 2009 7:51 am

Bear 45/70 wrote:Well we know we can't count on any of the 3 above posters when the revolution start, because it would be against the rules.

Based on why I've seen written in this forum, I believe I could count on those three in just about any situation. Like my Dad always told me "If you can't say anything nice, don't say anything at all, stupid."

alnitak · Post by **alnitak** » Tue Apr 14, 2009 8:19 am

Bear 45/70 wrote:
claybob86 wrote:
Bear 45/70 wrote:Well we know we can't count on any of the 3 above posters when the revolution start, because it would be against the rules.

Typical.
Typically factual and you really are dense if you don't see the logic in it.

Bear 45/70 --

I don't have a horse in this race, but I don't understand why you constantly have to demean people in your posts. You've been on this board only a short time, and yet a number of your posts refer to people as dense, moronic, idiotic, not a "real" veteran, etc. You've already gotten a thread or two locked. What's up? Did you come here to cause dissention? Does it make you feel better to abase other people? Is being right so important to you that you have to knock down the other person to make your point? I hear about all of your experience, yet I thought with years came wisdom and tolerance?

This forum is a place where people meet to offer opinions, get and give advice, and in many cases, share their life in a community of fellowship. I ask you not to bring the attitude found on so many other boards to this community, and show more respect for the members here. You obviously have a lot to offer and a ton of experience. It would be a shame to see that wasted, lost in the aggressive attitude you bring to many of your posts.

Bruce

rjohns94 · Post by **rjohns94** » Tue Apr 14, 2009 8:26 am

+1000 Alnitak!!!

I for one have had my fill of the name calling in the past month. This is suppose to be a polite forum. Attacking those who I have come to call friends and family really is starting to wear thin.

Post by **Hobie** » Tue Apr 14, 2009 8:44 am

alnitak wrote:
Bear 45/70 wrote:
claybob86 wrote:
Bear 45/70 wrote:Well we know we can't count on any of the 3 above posters when the revolution start, because it would be against the rules.

Typical.
Typically factual and you really are dense if you don't see the logic in it.
Bear 45/70 --

I don't have a horse in this race, but I don't understand why you constantly have to demean people in your posts. You've been on this board only a short time, and yet a number of your posts refer to people as dense, moronic, idiotic, not a "real" veteran, etc. You've already gotten a thread or two locked. What's up? Did you come here to cause dissension? Does it make you feel better to abase other people? Is being right so important to you that you have to knock down the other person to make your point? I hear about all of your experience, yet I thought with years came wisdom and tolerance?

This forum is a place where people meet to offer opinions, get and give advice, and in many cases, share their life in a community of fellowship. I ask you not to bring the attitude found on so many other boards to this community, and show more respect for the members here. You obviously have a lot to offer and a ton of experience. It would be a shame to see that wasted, lost in the aggressive attitude you bring to many of your posts.

Bruce

Thank you Bruce.

kirkwood · Post by **kirkwood** » Tue Apr 14, 2009 8:46 am

Bear 45/70 wrote:Well we know we can't count on any of the 3 above posters when the revolution start, because it would be against the rules.

Wow, you have it completely backwards.

There are concerned citizens who only want to continue following the rules we've been following for generations... in other words maintain the our rights that have been outlined in our Constitution. We don't want our government changing the rules and in doing so turning law-abiding citizens into criminals.

Blaine · Post by **Blaine** » Tue Apr 14, 2009 9:20 am

Let me be brief: There's not a man on this board that can't be counted on.

El Chivo · Post by **El Chivo** » Tue Apr 14, 2009 3:38 pm

Bear 45/70 wrote:
El Chivo wrote: Did you see "Wag the Dog"? Those Albanians can be vicious.

And once again some know nothing bureaucrat makes and arbitrary decision that some place is unsafe, so it must be? Obviously it wasn't unsafe as they went there, took pictures and came away unharmed, unharassed, unkidnapped and safe. I suppose you really think Homeland Security is about keeping you safe? It's not me that needs to wake up and smell the roses. How naive can you get?

Somebody please explain to this guy the concept of a joke.

brucew44guns · Post by **brucew44guns** » Tue Apr 14, 2009 3:56 pm

Hobie wrote:
Old Ironsights wrote:
Bear 45/70 wrote:Well we know we can't count on any of the 3 above posters when the revolution start, because it would be against the rules.
There is a fundamental difference between following the rules you agreed to (as an employee/homeowner) and as a citizen upon whom an unjust "rule" has been imposed.

While we hope that we're a long way from revolution, the two things aren't related. Even among the revolutionaries there will be rules.

Bear 45/70 · Post by **Bear 45/70** » Tue Apr 14, 2009 3:57 pm

El Chivo wrote:
Bear 45/70 wrote:
El Chivo wrote: Did you see "Wag the Dog"? Those Albanians can be vicious.

And once again some know nothing bureaucrat makes and arbitrary decision that some place is unsafe, so it must be? Obviously it wasn't unsafe as they went there, took pictures and came away unharmed, unharassed, unkidnapped and safe. I suppose you really think Homeland Security is about keeping you safe? It's not me that needs to wake up and smell the roses. How naive can you get?
Somebody please explain to this guy the concept of a joke.

I don't think it is a joke at all. More a long the lines of a crying shame. Following the rules of an out of control government is not patriotic but just foolish because it will change nothing. "Just following the orders (aka rules)" this is what the nazi guards at the concentration camps used as their excuse, not valid then and not valid now.

SFRanger7GP · Post by **SFRanger7GP** » Tue Apr 14, 2009 4:55 pm

In a former career, I used to work (not by choice initially) with the Peace Corps. I developed safety and emergency plans for them. When I was tasked to do this, all I knew about the Peace Corps was that they were a bunch of worthless hippies. Here's some worthless, yet interesting facts. My data may not be current but it was the last time I did this a few years ago. At any one time, most of our Ambassadors served in the Peace Corps. Most of them have a 4+ years of college. They have a higher casualty rate than the US military. Why is this? Because they don't listen to people like me that lived in country for years that speak the language fluently and deal with bad guys on a daily basis. As far as they were concerned I was a know nothing bureaucrat making an arbitrary decision that some place is unsafe. Fortunately, congress withheld their budget until they stopped the "we always do it this way" lifestyle and developed a safety program. Like them or not, they are US citizens and its not their fault they are ignorant of life and their environment due to youth and inexperience. I took this task very serious because I was probably talking to a future Ambassador somewhere in the classes. I was happy to see the program we developed lower their rape, assault, robbery, missing persons, etc. casualty rate. But like any program, it only works when it is enforced. They made the right choice sending her home.

JJ_Miller · Post by **JJ_Miller** » Tue Apr 14, 2009 5:00 pm

Bear, this is my home, this is the first page that comes up on my computer when it comes on. I don't know why you are so literal in all your posts. I have met lots of posters here, even hunted with a few, I consider all here of like mind thus friends. You too will find friends here if you tone it down some. This is a good friendly board. The very best of the firearms world post here. But if they get attacked they don't argue back, they quietly leave then you have deprived yourself ( and me ) of their knowledge.

We have vets who have seen lots of action, even wounded. LEO's who are survivors of multiple gunfights and like I said great gunsmiths. All right here. So relax and enjoy yourself. I doubt you have seen it all. You are not impressing anyone with your tag line " an old man will shoot you " there are members here who have been shot.

I hope you take this in the spirit in which it was intended. Relax

, enjoy the vast amount of experience here and be happy

...................JJ

awp101 · Post by **awp101** » Tue Apr 14, 2009 9:08 pm

Wow, didn't quite see this thread making that particular left turn...

More on that later.

Blaine, I can't vouch for her because AFAIK I've never met her or had any contact with her. I do know she has a college degree (BBA?) in insurance but that's about it.

7GRP, thanks for the insight! I figured the State Dept would handle such things.

Honestly, I find it hard to have any real sympathy but I've been called callous and cold hearted as well (once again, usually by my wife....

). Breaking the rules is one thing. Breaking them and then posting the evidence, well meaning or not? Not the brightest thing to do. Since others told her they had done it and had no problems, perhaps she's being made the example? Again, "Authority" will only look away for so long before someone pays the price for the group.

I was just curious if the others were overreacting (the mother likened it to being put in prison for speeding

) or if I was underreacting.

As far as the tangent this thread took off on I'm glad to see it's not just me. Bruce, Mike, Hobie, et al, thanks for the assistance!

Bear 45/70 · Post by **Bear 45/70** » Tue Apr 14, 2009 9:20 pm

JJ_Miller wrote:Bear, this is my home, this is the first page that comes up on my computer when it comes on. I don't know why you are so literal in all your posts. I have met lots of posters here, even hunted with a few, I consider all here of like mind thus friends. You too will find friends here if you tone it down some. This is a good friendly board. The very best of the firearms world post here. But if they get attacked they don't argue back, they quietly leave then you have deprived yourself ( and me ) of their knowledge.

We have vets who have seen lots of action, even wounded. LEO's who are survivors of multiple gunfights and like I said great gunsmiths. All right here. So relax and enjoy yourself. I doubt you have seen it all. You are not impressing anyone with your tag line " an old man will shoot you " there are members here who have been shot.

I hope you take this in the spirit in which it was intended. Relax , enjoy the vast amount of experience here and be happy ...................JJ

You are talking to the choir. I'm a disable Viet Nam veteran. So someone else being shot at does not really impress me. I've been an amateur gunsmith since I was a teenager. But inane responses and the "kiss the governments rear end" because it's the rules attitude just upsets me. Being a good citizen is not about doing what the government wants, but doing what is right. We have way to many of the "follow the rules no matter what" types in this country. The Founding Fathers fought a war to free themselves from a government not near as out of control and opressive as the one we have now.

Blaine · Post by **Blaine** » Tue Apr 14, 2009 11:06 pm

The Founding Fathers fought a war to free themselves from a government not near as out of control and opressive as the one we have now.

No where near what it was in the 1700s..........

Bear 45/70 · Post by **Bear 45/70** » Tue Apr 14, 2009 11:20 pm

BlaineG wrote:
The Founding Fathers fought a war to free themselves from a government not near as out of control and opressive as the one we have now.
No where near what it was in the 1700s..........

Let's see:

Taxation without representation.

Excessive Taxes.

Tell me honestly the ATF and HSD (just to name two) are not out of control besides being unConstitutional.

How about the FBI and the CIA? Doing their jobs properly? NOT!

Then there is the EPA and the FDA.

Shall I go on?

Blaine · Post by **Blaine** » Tue Apr 14, 2009 11:47 pm

I'm not thrilled with present day gubment, but it don't even come close to this:

The Declaration of Independence: A Transcription

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.
He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences
For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our Brittish brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Travis Morgan · Post by **Travis Morgan** » Wed Apr 15, 2009 12:04 am

Idiots like this are the bane of my existence; they think, "Oh, well, if I get in trouble, someone will save me!". Rareley do these idiots consider that those "someones" will probably risk life and limb doing so. At least do the search and rescue folks the courtesy of not having to risk their lives saving you from something preventable.

My wife and kid want to spend $3,200 EACH!!! to go to Nicaraugua on a mission trip with their church. You know this church; every major metro area has one; they have a jumbotron, featured singers who are selling CD's,.... everything but slot machines! I doubt anyone there has even READ a *******' bible, but they're so excited about going to a place they don't belong, to do things they're not equipped to do, that they're completely ignoring common sense..... and the state dept.!
My wife seems to think that, if you go through life thinking nothing but good can happen to you, nothing bad will happen.

FYI to young guys: If she's stupid when you marry her, she's sure as hell NOT gonna get over it!!!

claybob86 · Post by **claybob86** » Wed Apr 15, 2009 1:07 am

Just to get back on the topic, accepting a job and taking the pay represents an agreement that the employee will do what the employer wants, or else quit the job or get fired. This has nothing to do with politics, revolutions or anything else. VERY SIMPLE.

Bear 45/70 · Post by **Bear 45/70** » Wed Apr 15, 2009 1:10 am

claybob86 wrote:Just to get back on the topic, accepting a job and taking the pay represents an agreement that the employee will do what the employer wants, or else quit the job or get fired. This has nothing to do with politics, revolutions or anything else. VERY SIMPLE.

If what you say is true, please explain how every elected offical in this country stays in office?

claybob86 · Post by **claybob86** » Wed Apr 15, 2009 1:25 am

If the employer (the voters) chooses not to enforce the terms of employment, the errant employees (the politicians) keep their jobs.

Travis Morgan · Post by **Travis Morgan** » Wed Apr 15, 2009 1:29 am

Bear 45/70 wrote:
claybob86 wrote:Just to get back on the topic, accepting a job and taking the pay represents an agreement that the employee will do what the employer wants, or else quit the job or get fired. This has nothing to do with politics, revolutions or anything else. VERY SIMPLE.

If what you say is true, please explain how every elected offical in this country stays in office?

TAKE YOUR MEDS!

El Chivo · Post by **El Chivo** » Wed Apr 15, 2009 3:02 am

We have way to many of the "follow the rules no matter what" types in this country.

I doubt if there's anyone on this board like this.