National pride and patriotism [Archive] - Police Forums & Law Enforcement Forums @ Officer.com

Urban Jedi

03-29-2003, 11:03 AM

I am very jealous of the US. Its citizens appear to always be 'proud to be an American' and the level of patriotism in the US is fantastic, I think.

There is notihing like it in the UK, I have to say. Anyone spouting pro-UK or pro-English sentiment is branded a right wing racist virtually immediately. It would be nice to be able to stand up proudly when ones national anthem is played, and have some pride in ones country, just as the Americans appear to.

Why is it you think that the Americans have such a strong sense of national pride, and great patriotic feelings (do schoolkids still pledge allegiance to the flag daily???). Patriotic imagery is always very strong in times of crisis as well (9/11, Iraq conflict) and the honour and respect afforded to the US armed forces and even the emergency services is quite something.

Can I come and live there????

Watchman

03-29-2003, 11:52 AM

Come on!

Come this way and I will personally show you around. :D

BrickCop

03-29-2003, 02:23 PM

For what it is worth, you should be proud of your country. PM Blair had the wisdom and courage not to cower with most other European lemmings. He did what he thinks is right, even if it wasn't popular- that's a leader.

Maybe you Brits are too formal to 'toot your own horn' so to speak. :confused:

Long live the UK. :cool:

wing & a prayer

03-29-2003, 04:12 PM

Urban Jedi:
Thank you for the kind words towards our country. They are nice to hear when there seems to be so much bashing of the United States lately, even from within. Maybe we can trade one of the bedwetting, America bashing, crybabies from San Francisco for you!

SGT Dave

03-29-2003, 04:25 PM

I'd say we could trade ALL the bedwetting, America bashing, crybabies from San Francisco for him!

Mike Tx

03-29-2003, 05:49 PM

Thank you Urban Jedi. It's nice to hear someone from abroad compliment us. I too think Blair showed just what he and other Brits are made of. Thank you.

n567

03-29-2003, 07:56 PM

Well, I do recall reading an article about how nationalism/patriotism is more subdued in Europe than the United States. I believe the strong nationalism displayed by nations like Germany and Italy during WW2 caused patriotism to fall into bad company. That's just one theory, however...

Sig220Man

03-29-2003, 09:02 PM

UJ, it hasn't always been like this. Not too long ago, if you displayed an American flag in front of your home, you were thought of as "old fashioned."

Put that same American flag on your car, and people thought you were really weird. Maybe one of those "militia-types."

Tell people that you were proud to be an American, and now you'll be labelled as racist, narrow-minded, the prototypical "ugly American."

Those attitudes changed on September 11, 2001. The next day, stores across the US couldn't keep American flags in stock.

Not only do many cars on American roads have some sort of American flag on them, but now (at least in California) you can have Old Glory as the background of your <a href="http://www.dmv.ca.gov/online/elp/elp.htm" target="_blank">license plate.</a>

And now being an American is once again something to be proud of.

Watchman

03-29-2003, 11:53 PM

And now being an American is once again something to be proud of.

For those of us that knew better,we NEVER stopped being proud to be an American.

CinaC

03-30-2003, 10:26 PM

I think what he meant was "now that it's hip on MTV to be proud of being American, we can all run down to the GAP and buy $20 t-shirts with the American flag on it."

[ 03-30-2003, 10:27 PM: Message edited by: C in a J ]

IPDBrad

03-31-2003, 12:21 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by n567:
Well, I do recall reading an article about how nationalism/patriotism is more subdued in Europe than the United States. I believe the strong nationalism displayed by nations like Germany and Italy during WW2 caused patriotism to fall into bad company. That's just one theory, however...<hr /></blockquote>UJ, thanks for your post, as a proud American, I appreciate it.

n567 hit it on the spot. WWII launched most of Europe into a mindset that patriotism=evil. This arose out of the hyper-nationalism or more correctly stated, fascism that arose from Germany and Italy. However, this is an oversimplification and overreaction. Fascism, as we all know, had a discriminatory, imperialistic and evil goal.

Like guns, pride in ones nation is not inherently evil. This was one tool, along with brute force used by fascists to obtain power and motivate their public.

Look at Winston Churchhill. Was he a patriot? Did he motivate his people using the concept of history and pride in their nation? Did it lead to evil?

I would be curious to hear what our European friends say about patriotism in Eastern Europe and how it is viewed. After so many years under the domination of the USSR, I wonder if Hungry, Poland, Slovakia and the Czech Republic have overwhelming pride in their nation?

UJ, come to the US, celebrate our freedom and pride. Or better yet, foster and support patriotism for your nation.

Brothers in Arms, again.

Bill R

03-31-2003, 12:33 PM

UJ, I can't speak for everywhere in the US but in my area, yes, school kids recite the Pledge every morning. As far as I'm concerned, I think you would make a good American.

Urban Jedi

03-31-2003, 01:40 PM

I find all of your points very interesting. I don't know if its the same over there, but fostering any sort of national pride is deemed politically incorrect, verging on racist over here. I feel that because of this attitude, many disraceful rightwing facist/nazi/racist thugs have adopted the 'patriotic' theme and the Union flag as their symbols. This inherently means that people often see their national flag in the UK and immediately link it with racism/far right nationalism.

This may well be the same in the former Soviet bloc states. Having said that, the sense of pride that swells from certain nationalities there, like the Estonians,Lithuanians, Czechs, Slovaks and Hungarians, is immense. I have visited these places and they are inestimably proud of their national identity. This is whether they are born and bred, or immigrants, much like I suspect a foreign born naturalized US citizen would be proud of his national idenitity as a US citizen - it doesn't mean he/she has to forgo the trappings of their culture, surely?

:D Can all of you email the INS for me and sponsor me to become a citizen - having read through the rigamarole one has to go to even to live/work there....sheesh. Understandable I s'pose, but I am a law abiding copper!!!

JRT6

03-31-2003, 02:11 PM

Come to America in twenty years and we'll be in the same boat as you UJ. The trend towards globalism in Europe is slowly gaining momentum in the US. Ex president Clinton was a big one world government proponent. You can't have a one world gov't if people still hold on to their national identities. I'm not talking the right wing conspiracy crap I'm refering to the European Union, the UN, and all that is actually going on.

It's a slippery slope that in the US has simply hit a speed bump as of late. A couple of years now we'll be right back on tract with Europe.

On another note I converse with British military members and police firearms trainers from time to time. I gather being in the military makes one about as popular as the guy who put the turd in the punch bowl. Very professional people the UK military types are, very proud and elite group.

[ 03-31-2003, 05:49 PM: Message edited by: JRT6 ]

Bill R

03-31-2003, 02:54 PM

UJ, I think that the push for the EU is partly to blame for the negative attitudes towards national pride over there. The globalists are trying to eliminate your sovereign nations. My guess is they've probably been trying to condition your school kids for some time now how great it will be to eliminate borders and everyone is just a citizen of the EU. We are hit by some of the same tactics over here also. For example if a person takes a position against uncontrolled/illegal immigration many will label that person as being racist.

Watchman

03-31-2003, 07:12 PM

I'm not talking the right wing conspiracy crap

Sounds like it too me... :D

Ex president Clinton was a big one world government proponent. You can't have a one world gov't if people still hold on to their national identities.

Hillary said that people that beleive this are part of the "Vast Right Wing Conspiracy". If she said it, it MUST be true ! <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" />

3/4s

04-01-2003, 06:05 AM

I heard a local radio show Sunday where a University of Scranton Prof. was saying Briton was taking a hard 2nd look at the E.U. It seems their laws, rules or whatever would be against E.U. policies.

I think the "new" Europe, maybe helped by Briton, should form their own Union leaving the French and Germans to swing in the breeze.

Another reason might be that the U.K. hasn`t had an attack like the U.S. did. Not a good way to unite the country but look at how p***ed you get when the I.R.A. bombed someplace in London.

jarhead6073

04-01-2003, 08:49 AM

If liberals are so patriotic, why aren't they associated with national banners?

n567

04-01-2003, 10:42 AM

Because they don't need to have 2 flags hanging off their cars, and a plethora of stickers to be patriotic?

Regardless though, they are associated with the flag, at least, around here they are.

[ 04-01-2003, 10:43 AM: Message edited by: n567 ]

Chief Wiggum

04-01-2003, 05:33 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by C in a J:
I think what he meant was "now that it's hip on MTV to be proud of being American, we can all run down to the GAP and buy $20 t-shirts with the American flag on it."<hr /></blockquote>Have you turned on MTV lately? I don't watch it much any more but everyime I do it's very anti-war and anti-law enforcement.

jarhead6073

04-01-2003, 06:24 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by n567:
Because they don't need to have 2 flags hanging off their cars, and a plethora of stickers to be patriotic?

Regardless though, they are associated with the flag, at least, around here they are.<hr /></blockquote>And yet again you miss the point completely. Nobody needs 2 flags and a plethora of stickers to "be" patriotic. Simply displaying a flag does not make you patriotic. It is merely a symbol of patriotism. I despise those fairweather "patriots" who flew a flag when it was sheik to do so.

The flag is a symbol of the nation in which you live (American, British, or otherwise). UJ posted that symbols of nationalism are equated with racism and/or white supremecy in the UK. In America, displaying of the flag is associated with rednecks, conservatives, senior citizens, etc.

Why is display of the flag not associated with being (a) liberal? It isn't. Anywhere. What is anyone's first thought when they see someone displaying a flag or wearing a flag pin? It sure as hell isn't "Oh, that must be a Clinton person".

Why, in the UK, was the national banner even available to be associated with racism? Why weren't liberal groups wraping themselves in the flag to protect it from such shame? Why aren't they working to change the perception the Union Jack? Instead, they demean and degrade those who want express their feelings of pride in their country.

n567

04-01-2003, 08:52 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />If liberals are so patriotic, why aren't they associated with national banners?<hr /></blockquote> <blockquote>quote:<hr />And yet again you miss the point completely. Nobody needs 2 flags and a plethora of stickers to "be" patriotic. Simply displaying a flag does not make you patriotic. It is merely a symbol of patriotism. I despise those fairweather "patriots" who flew a flag when it was sheik to do so.<hr /></blockquote>Wait, you were just accusing liberals of not being patriotic for not being associated with the flag (national banner), and now you're saying it doesn't matter one way or another in regards to the flag?

In the end, the flag is going to be associated with strong nationalism - nationalism has a somewhat bad history from Nazi Germany to Imperialist England, from Soviet Russia to McKarthy America... There might be good aspects, but by and large they're drowned out by the evils nationalism has wrought upon the world.

Hey Urban Jedi... I have a question, how prevelant is the flag among the B.N.P when compared to more mainstream political parties? Like at press conferances and the like?

[ 04-01-2003, 09:04 PM: Message edited by: n567 ]

Jim Burnes

04-01-2003, 08:58 PM

N567, Because the flag is alive. It is the living symbol of this nation. It is not an inert piece of cloth; people have died to protect it, you have the duty to carry on that protection. Why can't you understand?

Jim Burnes

n567

04-01-2003, 09:15 PM

I think our minds are on differant tracks...

You see the flag as representing the freedom and rights we Americans hold dear, yes? And so in dying for the flag, you die for these ideals?

I just cut out the middleman - I couldn't care less what my flag was as long as it was for a nation that grants me these rights and freedoms. I could be German, I could be Japanese, I could be American. It's really a moot point in my view. The U.S is no better than any of those countries (nor no worse) as long as a nation gives us these freedoms...

Sorry, kinda hard to explain, I suppose...

Mike Tx

04-01-2003, 09:24 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr /> I could be American<hr /></blockquote>Perhaps you would make a pimple on ones backside, but with your remarks, I would not classify you as any kind of an American. The starving Iraqi pow's are more American than you and some others on this forum will ever be.

[ 04-01-2003, 09:27 PM: Message edited by: Mike Tx ]

CinaC

04-01-2003, 09:39 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />The starving Iraqi pow's are more American than you and some others on this forum will ever be.<hr /></blockquote>Mike, I almost forgot, thanks for the Valentines Day Card. I thought you'd forgotten about me.

Mike Tx

04-01-2003, 09:57 PM

Can't tell the date either? No wonder you don't know what country you infest.

CinaC

04-01-2003, 10:07 PM

Well, Mike, you'll notice I said "I almost forgot." Which is to say, I forgot to drop you a nice note thanking you for the card (but "no thanks"), and then forgot about it until I saw your post here. And I thought, "gosh, I forgot to thank Mike for his nice card."

So, belated thanks boss, love you.

star

04-02-2003, 01:22 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Urban Jedi:
I am very jealous of the US. Its citizens appear to always be 'proud to be an American' and the level of patriotism in the US is fantastic, I think.
<hr /></blockquote>Don't be jealous. Patriotism is immoral and generally associated with bigots.

lone ranger

04-02-2003, 01:35 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by jarhead6073:
If liberals are so patriotic, why aren't they associated with national banners?<hr /></blockquote>For the left in this country, flag waving is an epithet.

They'll call it "a joke," "silly, "very, very, dumb," and "not cosmopolitan."

They will cite examples of how the flag wavers are just not intellectual enough to understand how silly they are.

Liberals like to think that they are above flag waving. But it boils down to the fact that they are not patriotic. Being patriotic means that you believe in things that can't be seen. Like Duty, Honor, Country, and maybe even (at the risk of offending the left) God.

The very thought that something could be more important than themselves is repulsive to a liberal. It is contrary to their chosen religion, politics.

star

04-02-2003, 01:50 AM

Why do conservatives think they have a claim on God? I happen to love God. I just don't want your idea of him shoved down my throat.

n567

04-02-2003, 02:27 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />For the left in this country, flag waving is an epithet.

They'll call it "a joke," "silly, "very, very, dumb," and "not cosmopolitan."

They will cite examples of how the flag wavers are just not intellectual enough to understand how silly they are. <hr /></blockquote>Conservative rhetoric. I'm sure I can come up with an equally insutling diatribe about how all conservatives are gun loving, racist, dinosaurs of a forgotten era... But that doesn't make for a very accurate statement either, does it?

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Liberals like to think that they are above flag waving. But it boils down to the fact that they are not patriotic. Being patriotic means that you believe in things that can't be seen. Like Duty, Honor, Country, and maybe even (at the risk of offending the left) God. <hr /></blockquote>Country could matter not, god is left up to you, and duty and honor have nothing to do with patriotism. Being a decent human being and defending the ideals this (and many other) nations have set forth is what matters.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />The very thought that something could be more important than themselves is repulsive to a liberal. It is contrary to their chosen religion, politics.<hr /></blockquote>*cough*hypocrite*cough*

jarhead6073

04-02-2003, 02:35 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by star:
 <blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Urban Jedi:
I am very jealous of the US. Its citizens appear to always be 'proud to be an American' and the level of patriotism in the US is fantastic, I think.
<hr /></blockquote>Don't be jealous. Patriotism is immoral and generally associated with bigots.<hr /></blockquote>Wow, did you read his original post then? Cause that's exactly what he said about patriotism in England.

jarhead6073

04-02-2003, 02:47 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by n567:
 <blockquote>quote:<hr />For the left in this country, flag waving is an epithet.

They'll call it "a joke," "silly, "very, very, dumb," and "not cosmopolitan."

They will cite examples of how the flag wavers are just not intellectual enough to understand how silly they are. <hr /></blockquote>Conservative rhetoric. I'm sure I can come up with an equally insutling diatribe about how all conservatives are gun loving, racist, dinosaurs of a forgotten era... But that doesn't make for a very accurate statement either, does it?

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Liberals like to think that they are above flag waving. But it boils down to the fact that they are not patriotic. Being patriotic means that you believe in things that can't be seen. Like Duty, Honor, Country, and maybe even (at the risk of offending the left) God. <hr /></blockquote>Country could matter not, god is left up to you, and duty and honor have nothing to do with patriotism. Being a decent human being and defending the ideals this (and many other) nations have set forth is what matters.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />The very thought that something could be more important than themselves is repulsive to a liberal. It is contrary to their chosen religion, politics.<hr /></blockquote>*cough*hypocrite*cough*<hr /></blockquote>pa

occiferdave

04-02-2003, 04:02 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by star:
Patriotism is immoral and generally associated with bigots.<hr /></blockquote>Wow.... <img border="0" title="" alt="[Eek!]" src="eek.gif" /> :rolleyes:

As many here know, I am on the left on most issues. However, I find your post very offensive. I believe Patriotism is the duty of all good Americans. There are 'patriots' on both sides, the right AND the left.

Being patriotic is not immoral

lone ranger

04-02-2003, 05:03 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by n567:

<hr /></blockquote>Conservative rhetoric. I'm sure I can come up with an equally insutling diatribe about how all conservatives are gun loving, racist, dinosaurs of a forgotten era... But that doesn't make for a very accurate statement either, does it?

<blockquote>quote:<hr />The very thought that something could be more important than themselves is repulsive to a liberal. It is contrary to their chosen religion, politics.<hr /></blockquote>*cough*hypocrite*cough*[/QB][/QUOTE]

To answer your first question. It's not conservative rhetoric. I can cite examples of well known liberals making the very comments I mentioned. I will post them as soon as I can double check.

To answer the second question. I spent eight years in a mechanized infantry unit. I know the warrior code, honor, duty, that there is something in this world that is more important than myself.

In the last three years my unit has been to both NTC and CMTC. My unit played OPPFOR in a Field Training Exercise for the 4th Infantry Division, while at NTC, and the 173rd Airbore while at CMTC.

Men of both of these units are now facing hostile fire in a far away desert. I can only hope that my unit did it's job well enough for these men to have learned something that will help them stay alive and do their job.

My unit and myself may not be the tip of the spear. But we helped get them there.

Like I said, something larger than myself.

While I was doing that, where were you?

Watchman

04-02-2003, 06:23 AM

While I was doing that, where were you?

I'll take a quess !

N567 and Star were probably doing something important like playing TiddlyWinks with each other...

lone ranger

04-02-2003, 06:23 AM

OK here's my sources

#1 Michele Kayal, "Flag Flying Causes Stir at Palace in Honolulu," New York Times, November 25, 2001. (Quoting Dan Boylan, a political analyst at the University of Hawaii-West Oahu, " This is when people start acting very, very dumb in their patriotism and flag waving.")

#2 Felicia R. Lee, "Flag-Waving:Reading Between the Stripes," New York Times, September 30,2001. (Quoting David Nasaw, a historian at the City University of New York Graduate Center: "New York has just been too much of a cosmopolitan town for flag-waving." )

#3 Sorry I don't have a date but: Director Robert Altman was quoted in the New York Post saying "When I see an American flag flying,it's a joke."

I guess now when you quote a liberal at their own words when they are making a liberal statement, it's conservative rhetoric. Their patriotism didn't even last long enough for the ashes to stop smoking.

Urban Jedi, as you can see the grass isn't always greener. There are some in this country who look down on those who show a sense of national pride.

And there are those in your country that show pride in it. Your military has a long history of professionalism. The ceremonial unit of Household Cavalry for example, takes spit and polish to a whole different level, and they are not too bad when they are in their tanks either.

That being said, we would like to have you. We can dig up Old Glory and a Union Jack and you can wave them both.

That will really drive them crazy!

SpecOpsWarrior

04-02-2003, 06:28 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by star:
 <blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Urban Jedi:
I am very jealous of the US. Its citizens appear to always be 'proud to be an American' and the level of patriotism in the US is fantastic, I think.
<hr /></blockquote>Don't be jealous. Patriotism is immoral and generally associated with bigots.<hr /></blockquote>Maybe in your twisted and perverse opinion!

I'm betting you're one of those people who waves the flag only when it suits your needs.

You truly sicken me!

Watchman

04-02-2003, 07:11 AM

I'm betting you're one of those people who waves the flag only when it suits your needs

the ONLY flags that people like that ever wave are the WHITE ones...

IPDBrad

04-02-2003, 11:51 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by star:
 <blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Urban Jedi:
I am very jealous of the US. Its citizens appear to always be 'proud to be an American' and the level of patriotism in the US is fantastic, I think.
<hr /></blockquote>Don't be jealous. Patriotism is immoral and generally associated with bigots.<hr /></blockquote>WOW, that is about the dumbest thing I have read, Michael Moore aside, in a long time.

How you equate immoral with love of one's country is beyond me. Wake up and smell your Starbuck's.

n567

04-02-2003, 03:15 PM

I have no problem fighting for a good cause. But I'll fight for the cause, not the nation. If the cause is noble, it's importance transcends petty nationalism.

Wait, are you saying that you can judge every single liberal on the quotes of a mere three?

jarhead6073

04-02-2003, 03:35 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by n567:
petty nationalism.
<hr /></blockquote>Well why didn't you say so in the first place? What was your point in arguing about why liberals are not associated with patriotism if you think that patriotism is petty? Just come on out and say what you mean in the first place. Don't pretend that you are being a patriotic American when you denounce our government and it's policies. You don't even believe in patriotism so how can you say that you are more patriotic than someone loves their country and is willing to fight for it?

I disagree with just about everything officerdave posts but I have a hundred times more respect for him than I do for you. At least he knows where he stands and what he believes in. You don't even know that. Or if you do, you've been lying this whole time. This is why I don't like you. You run off at the mouth without even knowing what you're saying, what you believe, or what words like liberal, libertarian, or patriotism mean. Gimme a break. How bout you think or at least use a dictionary before you post ridiculous comments.

[ 04-02-2003, 03:36 PM: Message edited by: jarhead6073 ]

n567

04-02-2003, 04:51 PM

I don't believe I've ever claimed to be a liberal (you've labeled me as such, with little knowledge of my political leanings). I've also never claimed to be a patriot, either. I thought this was made clear in the draft thread. That I'd fight for this country in defense of certain ideals and qualities, but it has nothing to do with nationality.

The badge of being a liberal was presented to me by you. If you label me without consulting me, obviously you'll have some trouble grappling with my posts.

Niteshift

04-02-2003, 05:36 PM

"If you label me without consulting me, obviously you'll have some trouble grappling with my posts."

Trouble grappling with them? No. Trouble stomaching them? Oh yeah.

JRT6

04-02-2003, 05:42 PM

It amazes me how some people can hate our country with all their hearts yet woundn't think about leaving it for one second. These people somehow think that the freedom we enjoy wasn't won by the death and the sacrifice of patriotic Americans but that freedom always was; like the laws of physics.

n567,
Your not quite to the left of Hillary Clinton but you ain't far away. Maybe it's perspective, maybe all your freinds are left wingers so you think your more middle of the road because of it.

Star,
Troll on.

Jarhead,
Very good posts on this matter.

jarhead6073

04-02-2003, 05:49 PM

You claimed to be a libertarian. Your subsequent posts proved you a liar. Those same posts also proved you to be a liberal, quite possibly a socialist, but definately a liberal. I did not hand you a badge, you hoisted a banner.

<blockquote>quote:<hr /> Country could matter not, god is left up to you, and duty and honor have nothing to do with patriotism. Being a decent human being and defending the ideals this (and many other) nations have set forth is what matters.
<hr /></blockquote>This proves you don't even know the meaning of words you argue about.

<blockquote>quote:<hr /> 1. I think I'm patriotic because I come from a country that by and large values noble qualities such as democracy, freedom, and justice, and because we value these things, I'm proud of where I come from.
<hr /></blockquote>No, you never claimed to be patriotic did you? Oh, and this is from the draft thread. If you don't care about patriotism. If you think it is petty. Why are you even arguing about it? Why should it concern you? You seem to want to have it both ways. If you think that nationalism is petty, don't caim to be patriotic. Unless of course admitting that you are petty (which I happen to think).

n567

04-02-2003, 08:36 PM

Well, first, what have I said that makes me so liberal? I'm for the death penalty, I don't like welfare, I support abortion, I don't think I'm any one thing, though libertarian might be the closest I come to; so say the online polls I've taken (reliable things, those). Perhaps I'm a patriot of humanism, of which our nation does subscribe to.

This proves you don't even know the meaning of words you argue about.

I wasn't refering to patriotism per say... I was refering to some of the ideals patriotism (ours at least) represents, and saying those are good qualities. I thought the paragraph got that point through...

No, you never claimed to be patriotic did you? Oh, and this is from the draft thread. If you don't care about patriotism. If you think it is petty. Why are you even arguing about it? Why should it concern you? You seem to want to have it both ways. If you think that nationalism is petty, don't caim to be patriotic. Unless of course admitting that you are petty (which I happen to think).

So I did, you got me there. Though you do see in my post even then, that when I say I'm patriotic, it's only because of a set of ideals we aspire to.

Oh, it's petty, and I argue about it to attempt to show other people why it's petty, and to perhaps change their view on it. Just because it's a petty thing (in my view), that doesn't mean other people aren't possibly greatly influenced by it.

Niteshift

04-02-2003, 08:54 PM

Jarhead, don't forget this little gem from n567 in the same thread:

Makes me more of an American than those that would blithely go along with whatever they're told"

He's more of an American than we are and doon't you forget it. :rolleyes:

n567

04-02-2003, 09:48 PM

Well, I suppose if you're admitting you go along with whatever the government tells you without putting an ounce of thought into it...

jarhead6073

04-02-2003, 10:13 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by n567:
Well, first, what have I said that makes me so liberal? <hr /></blockquote>You want me to make a list? The most glaring to me is your complete lack of libertarian arguments for or against anything. Every argument you use could be taken out of the good liberal handbook.

You have made comments to the following;

It's bad for the government to be pro-business
We (I'm assuming you mean society) should provide education and social programs for disadvantged groups
You support the UN and are greatly concerned by Bush's policies and how they affect "our standing in the world"
You blame America first when discussing most geopolitical topics

This is what I come up with off the top of my head. I'm sure I could get the quotes if you really want but that is a pita and I'd rather not. The point is, it seems to me that you are either confused, misguided, unsure of your position, and/or too sure of positions it doesn't seem that you completely understand. A lot of the latter actually.

Also, just because the government says something doesn't automatically make it wrong. Doesn't automatically make it right either. Someone who agrees with what the government is doing doesn't mean that they "blithely go along with whatever they're told". Other people are capable of rational thought and many actually come to the same conclusions as the offical government line. Many people who have much more wordly experience and college education than you and I even agree with the government. Many disagree too. The point to this is that when you make comments about blithely towing the party line you insult a lot of people who happen to be independent thinkers and agree with the government's assessment out of their own free will.

I tell you this because it seems that you don't understand why you are responded to with such negativity on this forum. There are many bits of advice that I think you could benefit from but I'll save those for later.

[ 04-02-2003, 10:15 PM: Message edited by: jarhead6073 ]

Watchman

04-02-2003, 10:47 PM

Pigteaching.

n567

04-02-2003, 11:14 PM

It's bad for the government to be pro-business

By pro-business, I mean the government shouldn't favor businesses over the workers to the degree it has in the past. The government should remain as impartial as possible, a mediator, if you will.

We (I'm assuming you mean society) should provide education and social programs for disadvantged groups

Conservatives think public education is a bad thing? Odd, our founding fathers were quite explicit in its necessity. And I certainly don't think its use has waned over the centuries.

Social programs? Only in a very limited manner; say to allow someone who would otherwise be unable to get an education, for example. Guy stays poor? Or government helps him get an education, which in turn means he'll make more money, which means he'll pay more taxes? A sound investment, in most cases. I don't believe that makes me a flaming liberal...

You support the UN and are greatly concerned by Bush's policies and how they affect "our standing in the world"

I support the idea of the U.N because it creates a dialogue between nations, and supposedly works towards the common good. It may have some flaws, true, but I think we'd be worse off without such an organization. I certainly don't like the idea of it creating international gun laws, or taxing us to support the poor in far off nations (where the money would invariably end up in corrupt pockets). I also think our standing throughout the world is important, true, I'm sure there are plenty of conservatives that don't want the world to hate our guts too.

You blame America first when discussing most geopolitical topics

Well, believe it or not, the United States has been something of an aggressor over the years. In some cases it's justified. That's not to say we haven't been provoked by hostile acts like in WW1 and 2.

Also, just because the government says something, doesn't automatically make it wrong. It Doesn't automatically make it right either. Someone who agrees with what the government is doing doesn't mean that they "blithely go along with whatever they're told". Other people are capable of rational thought and many actually come to the same conclusions as the offical government line. Many people who have much more wordly experience and college education than you and I even agree with the government. Many disagree too. The point to this is that when you make comments about blithely towing the party line you insult a lot of people who happen to be independent thinkers and agree with the government's assessment out of their own free will.

I don't believe I ever said it was wrong to agree with the government. I said it was wrong to agree with the government without thinking about it. Additionally, I've been told by some on this forum I should do whatever the government tells me in regards to war, I don't agree with that.

Pigteaching.

Say what? I'm not a cop... :)

Watchman

04-02-2003, 11:40 PM

Pigteaching.

Means only one thing.

You cant teach a pig to sing.It just annoys the pig and wastes your time.

In other words,it means that discussing,cussing or arguing about certain subjects with certain people is a complete waste of time and effort.
Rather than saying all that it is simpler to say "Pigteaching <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" />

n567

04-02-2003, 11:44 PM

Well, I'm not being taught anything, so I suppose that couldn't have been in referance to me!

Just having to set Jarhead straight on his perceptions about I.

jarhead6073

04-02-2003, 11:49 PM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by n567:
It's bad for the government to be pro-business

By pro-business, I mean the government shouldn't favor businesses over the workers to the degree it has in the past. The government should remain as impartial as possible, a mediator, if you will.

Wrong answer. Should have said that there would be ZERO government involvement and the free market will determine who works where and what they're paid.

We (I'm assuming you mean society) should provide education and social programs for disadvantged groups

Conservatives think public education is a bad thing? Odd, our founding fathers were quite explicit in its necessity. And I certainly don't think its use has waned over the centuries.

Missing the point.

Social programs? Only in a very limited manner; say to allow someone who would otherwise be unable to get an education, for example. Guy stays poor? Or government helps him get an education, which in turn means he'll make more money, which means he'll pay more taxes? A sound investment, in most cases. I don't believe that makes me a flaming liberal...

Still missing the point.

You support the UN and are greatly concerned by Bush's policies and how they affect "our standing in the world"

I support the idea of the U.N because it creates a dialogue between nations, and supposedly works towards the common good. It may have some flaws, true, but I think we'd be worse off without such an organization. I certainly don't like the idea of it creating international gun laws, or taxing us to support the poor in far off nations (where the money would invariably end up in corrupt pockets). I also think our standing throughout the world is important, true, I'm sure there are plenty of conservatives that don't want the world to hate our guts too.

Still missing the point.

You blame America first when discussing most geopolitical topics

Well, believe it or not, the United States has been something of an aggressor over the years. In some cases it's justified. That's not to say we haven't been provoked by hostile acts like in WW1 and 2.

There's that condesneding tone I've been waiting for.

Also, just because the government says something, doesn't automatically make it wrong. It Doesn't automatically make it right either. Someone who agrees with what the government is doing doesn't mean that they "blithely go along with whatever they're told". Other people are capable of rational thought and many actually come to the same conclusions as the offical government line. Many people who have much more wordly experience and college education than you and I even agree with the government. Many disagree too. The point to this is that when you make comments about blithely towing the party line you insult a lot of people who happen to be independent thinkers and agree with the government's assessment out of their own free will.

I don't believe I ever said it was wrong to agree with the government. I said it was wrong to agree with the government without thinking about it. Additionally, I've been told by some on this forum I should do whatever the government tells me in regards to war, I don't agree with that.

Still more missing of the point.

Pigteaching.


It appears that he's right.

You seem to have read alot of books so how bout you read something about libertarianism. I recommend looking for John Hospers. <a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0840211635/qid=1049344737/sr=1-6/ref=sr_1_6/104-4288097-2485500?v=glance&s=books" target="_blank">Libertarianism: A Political Philosophy for Tomorrow</a> Or an essay in <a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/088229511X/qid=1049344640/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/104-4288097-2485500?v=glance&s=books" target="_blank">Libertarian Alternative: Essays in Social and Political Philosophy</a>

BTW, the reason that people don't always respond to everything you post. Isn't because you have made a superior point that has no rebuttal. It's because they don't feel like explaining every concept to you in it's entirety. That and your general insulting condecending tone.

[ 04-02-2003, 11:51 PM: Message edited by: jarhead6073 ]

Watchman

04-03-2003, 12:19 AM

BTW, the reason that people don't always respond to everything you post. Isn't because you have made a superior point that has no rebuttal. It's because they don't feel like explaining every concept to you in it's entirety. That and your general insulting condecending tone.

AMEN to that brother !!!

I second that ! :D

n567

04-03-2003, 01:39 AM

So I guess I'm not a true libertarian, I'm not a true liberal either. I suppose I'm just not of any particular political affiliation.

What point did I miss? You set forth several reasons why I was a liberal, and I responded with how I actually feel. Did my responses fit the parameters of what you percieve to be a liberal?Am I supposed to be reading in between the lines and picking up some subtle message?

Watchman

04-03-2003, 07:13 AM

Perhaps you are a GLOBALIST ?

Chief Wiggum

04-03-2003, 12:20 PM

Why this incessant need to label people in regards to a political affiliation? :confused:

jarhead6073

04-03-2003, 12:25 PM

n567

04-03-2003, 01:58 PM

Come on Jarhead, share the secret! What's the point we're missing?

Apparently this point doesn't have to do with political affiliation (mine, at least), but with a hidden message woven into the words?

jarhead6073

04-03-2003, 03:05 PM

The point is that you don't know what you're talking aobut much of the time but it doesn't stop you from pretending that you know the 'truth' and the rest of us are ignorant slobs. You want to argue about words you don't know the meaning of. You claim one thing then reverse yourself. You display ignorance constantly. Not about certain facts, I'll grant that you have read some books and know some facts, though often they are one sided. But ignorance of true understanding about people and histroy. There is a much larger picture of the world, people, cultures, and individual intellect that you don't seem to grasp.

It's not about what you believe as much as it is about your ignorance and hypocracy. All the examples I posted are just microchasms of the larger problem. They are just examples of your basic lack of understanding of your own views.

I don't actually have the time (or the patience) to play this game anymore. I have tried offering constructive criticism in the hope that you would be able to grasp a fairly simple concept but I'm done. You can continue to show your azz to the world in your ignorant posts or you can actually stop, think, reflect, and give other people's intelligence some credit before you post, or you can continue on the same path that you are on and continue to watch as negativity toward you grows. Your choice.

n567

04-03-2003, 04:58 PM

Well, I understand what you're getting at, even if I do see some problems with the point.

CinaC

04-03-2003, 10:08 PM

N567:

You can't define your political position based on where you stand on certain issues. I'm pro-gun, but you'd have to be blind to see I'm not about as liberal as MikeTX is conservative.

OTOH, using "liberal" and "conservative" to define political ideology is about as useful as using "car" and "truck" to define every model of automobile available to the consumer. "What do you drive?" "I drive a truck." Wonderful. A pickup? A Jeep? Did you know bluebooks classify caravans as trucks?

lone ranger

04-03-2003, 11:07 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Chief Wiggum:
Why this incessant need to label people in regards to a political affiliation? :confused: <hr /></blockquote>The government in this country is based on a two party system. I realize that some issues are complex. But then again a football game or chess game can have infinate combinations of "moves." But each can be played with only two sides.

9 times out of 10, if someone says that they don't "believe" in "labeling" someone, or that the issues are much too "complex." The flags go up that the person is very liberal.

[ 04-04-2003, 12:42 AM: Message edited by: lone ranger ]

n567

04-03-2003, 11:16 PM

"Did you know bluebooks classify caravans as trucks?"

Anything built on a truck chassis, eh?

"You can't define your political position based on where you stand on certain issues. I'm pro-gun, but you'd have to be blind to see I'm not about as liberal as MikeTX is conservative."

Gotcha, heh, I was just trying to point out that my views don't necessarily make a liberal out of me, as so many would assume.

CinaC

04-03-2003, 11:22 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />The government in this country is based on a two party system. <hr /></blockquote>So what? Until the sixties, there was a liberal wing in the Republican party, and a whole bunch of conservative Democrats (the so-called "Dixie-crats"). Political parties become associated with political ideology is rather recent in the US. Even today, it's hard to define -- someone is a Democrat. Okay ... are they a moderate Democrat, a left-leaning Democrat, or a liberal Democrat? If someone is a liberal, are they a Democrat, a Green, or have you misidentified a libertarian? Too complex for you non-liberals out there? Hey -- news flash: stuff is complex. It gets that way.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />9 times out of 10, if someone says that they don't "beleive" in "labeling" someone, or that the issues are much too "complex." <hr /></blockquote>No offense dude, but life IS complex. Look at that list circulating about ... y'know, "Who blew up this? Mr. Rogers, Big Bird, Muslim Males ..." A lot (but certainly not all) of right-leaners were all like, "yay, stupid liberals." And a lot of liberals were like, "wait a sec, what about Ok City? What about the IRA, or the German Red Faction? What about Muslims who aren't Arab?" And the same right-leaners said "oh, bah, stupid 'complex' liberals."

[ 04-03-2003, 11:24 PM: Message edited by: C in a J ]

jarhead6073

04-04-2003, 12:01 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by C in a J:
 <blockquote>quote:<hr />The government in this country is based on a two party system. <hr /></blockquote>So what? Until the sixties, there was a liberal wing in the Republican party, and a whole bunch of conservative Democrats (the so-called "Dixie-crats"). Political parties become associated with political ideology is rather recent in the US. Even today, it's hard to define -- someone is a Democrat. Okay ... are they a moderate Democrat, a left-leaning Democrat, or a liberal Democrat?

But there are still certain core beliefs that they all have in common which is the reason for being a democrat or republican (only naming two for simplicity's sake). I'm assuming that you know what they are. The only difference is how socialist the democrat is, not the basic ideology. There may be varying degrees of liberal, you can be a little liberal or a lot liberal but you are still different in fundamental ideology than a republican.

If someone is a liberal, are they a Democrat, a Green, or have you misidentified a libertarian? Too complex for you non-liberals out there? Hey -- news flash: stuff is complex. It gets that way.

Hmmm, that condesention sounds very familiar... There are differences in each of the parties that you mention. Most people believe that when somebody labels themselves, they know those differences and know what they are saying when they give themselves a lable. A democrat and libertarian may very well hold an anit-war view for instance. The differnece is in the reasoning behind the view, not the view itself. I would think that a smart liberal like you would know that.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />9 times out of 10, if someone says that they don't "beleive" in "labeling" someone, or that the issues are much too "complex." <hr /></blockquote>No offense dude, but life IS complex. Look at that list circulating about ... y'know, "Who blew up this? Mr. Rogers, Big Bird, Muslim Males ..." A lot (but certainly not all) of right-leaners were all like, "yay, stupid liberals." And a lot of liberals were like, "wait a sec, what about Ok City? What about the IRA, or the German Red Faction? What about Muslims who aren't Arab?" And the same right-leaners said "oh, bah, stupid 'complex' liberals."[/QB]<hr /></blockquote>Typical. Let's take one situation and pretend that it applies to another. A list of those who have perpatrated terrorist attacks on America and American interests (embassies, warships) gets you one list which is dominated by militant islamic extremists. When you look at those responsible for terror attacks on other countries you will get a different list. One does not necessarily relate to another. But I guess that's just too simple a concept for a smart liberal like you.

Hemtt

04-04-2003, 12:11 AM

I was not aware that Conservative and Liberal had anything to do with our Two Party Dominated Government. I've always thought it was Democrats and Republicans.

I get long winded...

The complexity of this issue is due to the fact that people seem to base their standards of Political Labeling on prominent people in Government, Which helps to create titles such as "Moderate Republican" such as John McCain. That is, someone who's Voter registration card says Republican, but may side with more Democrats on certian subjects. the same is reciprocal for the Moderate Democrat. We hear the term Moderate because The Media has applied that term rather that creating the Conservative De. and Liberal Rep. Ect, due to the fact that it would cause an obvious uproar with politicians who are so party bound that they can no longer excersize common sense. (On both sides of the house.)

There are shades of grey that can only be measured in a topic by topic comparison to judge right from left. Someone who thinks Abortion is OK and still hates Gun controlmight be a Dem or A Rep.
My Point(I'm sure you've been waiting...)
Liberal, Republican, Democrat,Conservative, Green Party, Whig, Wahetever. These are all silly lables that people use to side with one club or another. All the names aside the basics always come down to two groups Those who want the people to have the power, and those tho want the power.

Which side wants the Government to regulate everything. from Education to firearms? This is also the side that somehow acts like the Govt has too much power.

Which side thinks the government is already too involved in everyones lives, and people should have more individual responsibility for their lives?

Democrats are: Americas Managers, Kennedys, Clintons, and the like. Who will create governments to serve themselves. Because common people are not bright or rich enough to rule themselves.

Republicans are Americas Leaders, Reagans and Bushes, Ect. Who while great at envisioning an end goal, don't really define themselves by any ideal other than not liking Democrats.

Libertarians think the rest are all silly. Because they are afraid to pick sides.

Will Coy

I work in a socialist society that protects capitalist societies from other socialist societies.

CinaC

04-04-2003, 12:13 AM

Jarhead,

Hardly. But since the list was written (as best as I can tell) in response to those who were upset that profiling at airports wasn't limited to Muslims males between the ages of 17-40, in a "war on terrorism" (not a "war on *Islamic* terrorism"), one wonders why the author of said list only specified Islamic terrorists. In addition, since Muslims exist in every race on the planet, and since Al Queda exists on just about every continent (or, they did at the time), its reasonable to assume that not every Islamic Al Queda terrorist would be Arab. They could be Eastern European, African, or Asian. And since you can't identify a person based on their religious beliefs if they wear no identifying marks, how could profiling "Muslim Males between the age of 17 and 40" possibly help? Since the list mentioned acts of terrorism perpetrated by ARAB Muslims, it was pretty clear what the author wanted people to believe. Okay, wonderful, only Arabs should be profiled, and potential members of non-Islamic terrorist organizations should be ignored.

Therefore, myself and other liberals (and some conservatives, I'm sure) found the list nothing more than a hearty, gung-ho, 'screw the complex' cheer for those who don't care to analyze the situation. I guess this, however, is too complex a situation for a libertarian like you, huh? :)

-Edit-

Oh, I forgot, they were supposed to profile "EXTREMIST Muslim Males" ... because, as we all know, Al Queda members tatoo "EXTREMIST" on their forehead when they reach that rank.

My point, Jarhead, is that that list served no purpose whatsoever except to rally certain conservative elements against common-sense, anti-terrorist precautions. Terrorist groups do not limit themselves to a specific religion, continent, or race. Look at the Irish, look at Germany's Red Faction, and look at Oklahama City. Am I truly mixing? I don't think so. If we are really in a "war on terrorism", then all are our enemies, and stereotyping one group over another (especially when the first group has operatives in many races) makes us all that more vulnerable.

[ 04-04-2003, 12:18 AM: Message edited by: C in a J ]

jarhead6073

04-04-2003, 12:15 AM

What list are you talking about?

CinaC

04-04-2003, 12:19 AM

I can try and find it ... it's been posted here a few times, I'm sure you've seen it. It lists 8 or 10 terrorist attacks (the embassies, the Cole, the WTC), and then each has a multiple-choice answer as to who committed it, something like: a) Big Bird, b) Mr. Rogers, c) Captain Kirk, d) Extremist Muslim Males between the ages of 17 and 40.

-Edit-

Found it. It's in <a href="http://www.officer.com/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=32;t=000684;p=1" target="_blank">this</a> thread, first page ... bout halfway down or so.

[ 04-04-2003, 12:27 AM: Message edited by: C in a J ]

jarhead6073

04-04-2003, 12:42 AM

I have seen that list but I don't believe I made any reference to it in my post. Nor have I ever claimed that only Arab Muslims are militant Islamic extremists (see John Mohammad or Jose Padilla). I have only said militant Islamic extremists, and as you pointed out, Muslims are represented by all races so I thought that it was implied. Too simple a concept I guess. Though I don't think that that list evne specified Arab Muslims.

When I said "list" I'm refering to the same incidents but for different reasons. I don't know how or why you got on a profiling kick. I didn't mention it. I'm simply saying that MOST but not all terrorist attacks against America have been carried out by militant Islamic extremists (MIE from now on 'cause it sucks to type that out every time). This has nothing to do with who has commited terrorist attacks against other countries or what color those terrorists are. They are seperate issues becaue they attacked different countries for different reasons.

Again, those who attack other countries are not necessarily the same people who attack America. Are you saying that there is a connection between Timmothy McVeigh and the IRA because they're white? That's stupid.

I think what you're getting at is that we should be attacking every terrorist organization in the world right now. That we shouldn't focus on those who are the greatest threat to America first. What ever happend to the Democrat's battle cry "Where's Osam bin Laden? We haven't gotten him yet so why are we going to/at war with Iraq?" Do you want us to attack everyone or focus? Which is it?

You are putting words spoken by others into my mouth. I thought stereotyping was something that only conservatives did?

Oh, and I never claimed to be a libertarian as others have. The only time I have ever posted my political affiliation was to claim independant (not the Independance Party, just independant). I don't agree with a lot of what republicans do (I think they have too much religion in their politics) but I'm anti-democrat. So about as close as I come to claiming a political party is to say independant-conservative. The difference is that I never claimed otherwise.

[ 04-04-2003, 12:47 AM: Message edited by: jarhead6073 ]

Niteshift

04-04-2003, 01:01 AM

"Why this incessant need to label people in regards to a political affiliation?"

Does it differ that much from your need to label people as "ignorant rednecks"? :rolleyes:

Seems a little hypocritical to me. Can you say double standard? :rolleyes:

lone ranger

04-04-2003, 01:03 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Hemtt:

There are shades of grey that can only be measured in a topic by topic comparison to judge right from left. Someone who thinks Abortion is OK and still hates Gun controlmight be a Dem or A Rep.

Democrats are: Americas Managers, Kennedys, Clintons, and the like. Who will create governments to serve themselves. Because common people are not bright or rich enough to rule themselves.

Republicans are Americas Leaders, Reagans and Bushes, Ect. Who while great at envisioning an end goal, don't really define themselves by any ideal other than not liking Democrats.

Libertarians think the rest are all silly. Because they are afraid to pick sides.<hr /></blockquote>I understand what you're saying, but I wouldn't lump JFK into the same catagory as Ted Kennedy and Bill Clinton.

Something has happened to the Democratic Party since the 60's. I'm not sure what to call it. But it isn't pretty.

I may have voted for JFK if I was old enough to vote in the 60's.

Chances are if you see everything as a shade of grey, you're probably a liberal.

As for the media labeling people as "moderate" that's would take an entire post of it's own.

[ 04-04-2003, 01:06 AM: Message edited by: lone ranger ]

CinaC

04-04-2003, 01:05 AM

Jarhead,

I brought up the list in response to your comment of, "9 times out of 10, if someone says that they don't "beleive" in "labeling" someone, or that the issues are much too "complex."

Since the list dealt with labeling, it seemed to fit as a explanation of where I and others are coming from.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />I don't know how or why you got on a profiling kick. I didn't mention it<hr /></blockquote>I brought up the list not because you brought it up, but rather, because you made a quip about liberals always seeing things as "complex." I brought up the list as an example of something liberals see as something that is more complex than its target audience might. Now certainly I don't mean to imply that only liberals dismiss the list as "silly", because they don't. But I do think its a good example of "complex" over "simple."

<blockquote>quote:<hr />This has nothing to do with who has commited terrorist attacks against other countries or what color those terrorists are. They are seperate issues becaue they attacked different countries for different reasons<hr /></blockquote>I disagree. If we are indeed in a War Against Terrorism, then all Terrorist organizations are being targeted. Thus, it's reasonable to assume that various terrorist organizations or individuals will target us (certainly, many have). They can't be stereotyped by race, religion, or even ideology.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Are you saying that there is a connection between Timmothy McVeigh and the IRA because they're white? <hr /></blockquote>No. Let's say you have a big box, and you write "terrorist" on the side. Then you pick up Osama, Timmy, and a bunch of Irish Terrorists. You throw them in the box together. Why? They're terrorists. And we're at war with them.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />You are putting words spoken by others into my mouth. <hr /></blockquote>I believe you're mistaken. If I've given you the perception that I believe you to have fallen into the category of "ra-ra-ra-ing" into the list, I apologize. As I said before, I brought it up as an example of (and I quote myself here, bolding mine) "myself and other liberals (and some conservatives, I'm sure) [who] found the list nothing more than a hearty, gung-ho, 'screw the complex' cheer for those who don't care to analyze the situation."

If you mean my remark of, "I guess this, however, is too complex a situation for a libertarian like you, huh?" Then I apologize for calling you a libertarian, I thought you were. You will, however, notice that this particular remark is a crib of your own "But I guess that's just too simple a concept for a smart liberal like you."

<blockquote>quote:<hr />I think what you're getting at is that we should be attacking every terrorist organization in the world right now. That we shouldn't focus on those who are the greatest threat to America first. What ever happend to the Democrat's battle cry "Where's Osam bin Laden? We haven't gotten him yet so why are we going to/at war with Iraq?" Do you want us to attack everyone or focus? Which is it?<hr /></blockquote>No, that's not what I'm getting at all. What I'm getting at is WHY liberals believe situations to be more complex than others (the ra-ra crowd). The list is nothing more than my attempt to explain to you why liberals tend to view things as "complex", as compared to certain conservative elements.

I do believe (getting off topic), that even as we focus on one group, our internal security should be geared to protect us from all. Because I don't believe that terrorist group B would wait for us to finish off terrorist group A before striking.

[ 04-04-2003, 01:08 AM: Message edited by: C in a J ]

jarhead6073

04-04-2003, 01:08 AM

JFK may have been a Democrat but he was far and away different from the demoncrats of today. He knew what was what. He would also qualify as what is a derogatory name to some, a Hawk.

jarhead6073

04-04-2003, 01:40 AM

I said "But I guess that's just too simple a concept for a smart liberal like you."

which was in response to Too complex for you non-liberals out there? Hey -- news flash: stuff is complex. It gets that way. which you said. Since I am a non-liberal I felt compeled to respond.

<blockquote>quote:<hr /> Jarhead,

I brought up the list in response to your comment of, "9 times out of 10, if someone says that they don't "beleive" in "labeling" someone, or that the issues are much too "complex."
<hr /></blockquote>That actually wasn't me.

<blockquote>quote:<hr /> No. Let's say you have a big box, and you write "terrorist" on the side. Then you pick up Osama, Timmy, and a bunch of Irish Terrorists. You throw them in the box together. Why? They're terrorists. And we're at war with them. <hr /></blockquote>This hunting and pecking quotes is a pain in the azz too.

Anyway, I don't disagree that all terrorists are bad and that technically we are at "war" with them. I wasn't actually refering to the War On Terror as a whole though. I was limiting my remarks to those who have attacked America relatively recently. And off the top of my head, the score (not counting plane hijackings) is MIE 6, Others 1.

<blockquote>quote:<hr /> I do believe (getting off topic), that even as we focus on one group, our internal security should be geared to protect us from all. Because I don't believe that terrorist group B would wait for us to finish off terrorist group A before striking.
<hr /></blockquote>While I don't agree with profiling only Middle Easterners, I fail to see how searching 80 year old women, and confiscating Joe Foss' CMH is going to further our security needs. I know that you don't want to see discrimination or racial profiling and we should search white Americans the same as everyone else, but I think that we can eliminate little old ladies and Joe Foss as threats to national security.

lone ranger

04-04-2003, 06:15 AM

Liberals always think that issues are too complex and nuanced for conservatives to understand.

After the 9/11 attack. New York University sociology professor Todd Gitlin agonized over the decision tto fly a US flag outside his apartment (less than a mile from ground zero) Stating that "It's very complicated."

Come on you're a educated professor. It's not really that complex of a decision. Either you do it, or you don't do it.

Sometimes it is a complex issue.

But sometimes you have to make a yes or no decision.

CinaC

04-04-2003, 10:10 AM

Deciding to fly a flag isn't complicated.

And when it comes to security against terror, it's not hard either. When anyone can be a terrorist, everyone gets scrutinized.

IPDBrad

04-04-2003, 10:40 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Niteshift:
"Why this incessant need to label people in regards to a political affiliation?"

Does it differ that much from your need to label people as "ignorant rednecks"? :rolleyes:

Seems a little hypocritical to me. Can you say double standard? :rolleyes: <hr /></blockquote>Come on Nite,

You should know it is wrong to label liberals in any general terms. Any sort of stereotyping is wrong. Those of "us" that lean to the left would never stoop to clouding the issues by going off on such an unfactual, generalizing, simplifying rant.

“You know what is good about these Dixie Chicks burnings or bashings? It's a wonderful, wonderful way for really stupid people to hook up. They meet, they throw some things on the fire, they talk about Vin Diesel, they tell stories about who their favorite Fox anchor is, they exchange phone numbers and in some cases has led to marriages.”

--Janeane Garofalo

lone ranger

04-04-2003, 01:25 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by IPDBrad:

“You know what is good about these Dixie Chicks burnings or bashings? It's a wonderful, wonderful way for really stupid people to hook up. They meet, they throw some things on the fire, they talk about Vin Diesel, they tell stories about who their favorite Fox anchor is, they exchange phone numbers and in some cases has led to marriages.”

--Janeane Garofalo[/QB]<hr /></blockquote>That kind of proves my point. Look at the source. Janeane isn't exactly "fair and balanced." Also sounds like she may have been shut down by Vin Diesel.

You don't have to label the Chicks. They put the label on themselves. But if you are a thinking person and want to look into the grey areas of the issue...

You may want to go back to Ask a Cop and check out the post on the Calibre Press article "Conspiracy Theory?"

Before the Chicks announced (actually just Natalie) how embarassed they were to be from Texas, they put themselves on the list of Mummia supporters.

If you read the article and check out some of the links you'll see the same names over and over again supporting a long list of liberal "causes" de jour.

Don't get me wrong alot of liberals "mean well." But despite the fact they consider themselves smarter than the average conservative, they haven't done their homework.

If you follow the proverbial money trail, they all seem to lead back to the same place.

BTW the most popular Fox anchor breaks down like this.

Males 13-99 (as long as they have a heartbeat) seem to think that Laurie Dhue

Females seem to favor Shep Smith.

CinaC

04-04-2003, 02:39 PM

Of course it's perfect wrong for Janeane to stereotype all conservatives as Dixie Chick bashing, Vin Diesel loving, Fox anchor crushing folk. But it's perfectly okay for people to stereotype all people as Garafolo :rolleyes: (personally, I'd love her bank account).

Lone Ranger, this is what you said:

<blockquote>quote:<hr />if someone says that they don't "believe" in "labeling" someone, or that the issues are much too "complex." The flags go up that the person is very liberal.<hr /></blockquote>I used the infamous list as an example of a situation more complex than the author made it out to be. Since you were the one who made the assesment that if someone believed the "issues are much too complex ... the flags go up that the person is very liberal", I don't mind taking your assertion and running with it. By your own definition, if thinking a situation is "complex" indicates a liberal, than thinking a situation is "simple" indicates a conservative.

For my own, I don't believe this to be neccessarily true -- which is why I never said ALL liberals this, or ALL conservatives that. If you disagree with any of this, please, let me know -- but remember, I'm just helping you make your own "liberals = complex, conservatives = simple" arguement.

[ 04-04-2003, 02:45 PM: Message edited by: C in a J ]

lone ranger

04-04-2003, 08:07 PM

Maybe it didn't come out exactly how I wanted to word it.

An example of what I was trying to get across was that something as simple as running the flag up the flagpole after 9/11 was a simple decision for a conservative.

But then it will be attacked by a liberal who will say that it's a "complex" choice. They will say that the conservative is not educatated enough to "understand." They always play the snob angle. Remember how the media always fawned over Clinton for being a "Rhodes Scholar?" They never mention that he never finished his classes.

I understand about your list example. That is a complex problem. the Israeli's seem to be doing OK with the way they are "profiling." They still have bombs go off in public places, but I don't think they have had a hijacking since the Entebbe thing. Politics would enter the equation in this country and we wouldn't be allowed to do it the same way.

You may come up with a simple answer that may work. After a while the bad guys will change their game plan. Which will make you have to come up with a new solution.

CiJ, there is still hope for you yet. I suspect you're not as liberal as you think you are. At least you're too polite to use the typical "You're stupid" argument. You live right outside the East coast epicenter of liberalism, you can't help but being influenced. A college campus is also a bad place if you want to get both sides.

I guarantee you, if you enlist in the navy, after two years you'll have a different political prospective.

Here's some recommended reading to get you started in the Right (ha, ha) direction.

"Slander," Liberal Lies About the American Right, by Ann Coulter.

"When I Was Young, This Was a Free Country," by G. Gordon Liddy

I realize that both of the authors are well known conservatives, so I will add, to round off the list.

"The New Thought Police," by Tammy Bruce (a self proclaimed lesbian feminist-activist) who was once the President of the LA chapter of NOW.

Coulter and Bruce come to alot of the same conclusions. After reading them I had my eyes opened. It's kinda scary in a way.

You'll see what I mean.

CinaC

04-04-2003, 08:40 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />CiJ, there is still hope for you yet. I suspect you're not as liberal as you think you are. At least you're too polite to use the typical "You're stupid" argument.<hr /></blockquote>I'm going to disagree with this statement, but you might be right. I was much more conservative when I was in high school, but on some things I've stayed positively to the left since I can remember (noteably, abortion and gay rights). OTOH, with regards to "gun control", even at my most conservative point, I was in favor of it (and was until about a year ago when I - with MikeTX's help - realized how stupid it is).

Also, I try not to use the "that's stupid" arguement because, well, it's a stupid thing to do. Assuming you've reached your opinions on your own, and knowing I've reached mine on my own, it's not my purpose so much to debunk what you say, but rather to offer you my viewpoint on the situation.