Quote:
Originally Posted by Claeren
Where were your arguments in 1982 when it was changed in the first place?
Wouldn't the desire to restore something like this anthem to its ORIGINAL form actually be supported by your argument?
And wouldn't someone who argues against restoring a national anthem to a less divisive version based solely on 'homos need to get a life' be the one who needs a life?
Claeren.
|
I was 2 and didn't have any at the time. I probably said NO a lot though...
I guess what I'm saying is that it doesn't really matter. Why this is a big deal one way or the other... I'm not sure. Why get all worked up about it? Aren't there better things to be worked up about? Maybe I do need to get a life. I must if I'm arguing about the wording of the national anthem on the internet, no?
I don't really care one way or the other if the anthem changes. There are excellent points on both sides of the coin. It's our history. It's what helped solidify us as a nation. If we're reversing the clock in this, why don't we just tell the Newfs to get a life too? They haven't been here that long and they're bleeding us dry...
I like having it in history. It's an excellent story to tell; the political motives behind changing the wording of the anthem. You want to take it out again, I say why bother?
Again, change for change's sake is silly. It's probably why the anthem was changed in the first place. This is what the leaders of our nation decided upon together, 26 years ago, and the people seemed okay with it then.
Anyway, now you've got me rambling when I said this is a dumb argument to be having in the first place.