Quote:
|
I personally do not have a problem with a former (such and such/so and so) saying anything, either pro or con. This Republic was built on the ability of it's citizens to criticize not only the government, but specifically the CinC.
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Ferratus
I agree, Sigi. I too am a lib.
|
The difference, you two, is that they aren't saying "I am Joe Blow, US citizen and I have an opinion on this matter and have a right to express it just like every other citizen."
They are saying "I'm FORMER GENERAL/UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR NORTH POLE AFFAIRS and I demand you listen because I am somebody more important than the rest of you."
You think anybody would write an article about your or my opinion - either pro or con on ANYTHING? They are politicians using their FORMER positions for political and personal gain. They are not average citizens expressing their right to exercise free speech and discuss issues. When you assume the mantle of responsibility you accept the conditions that go along with it. Once you receive the trust and accept the compensation (no, not just financial) of the public and swear an oath, you don't get to back and be Joe Blow again when your time is up.
They want to be recognized as FORMER - they have to accept the conditions that go along with it. Not to mention they are implying, by the use of their fancy titles and FORMER, that they have some kind of insider knowledge which weights their opinions over everyone elses.
They are either FORMERS who should keep their mouths shut and contribute or Joe Blows who's opinion holds the same weight as yours or mine - not both.