Patriotism


DigitalShadow
 Share

Recommended Posts

Pakistan and Saudia Arabia do this to this day. While we have sent some missles into Pakistan of late, I can't help but notice we are not at war with them.

But I guess the patriotism thing where.... "you are either for us, or against us", is a lot easier to grasp then the reality of the various geopolitical dynamics as to why we have to wink at what Pakistan and Saudi Arabia (among others) does.

Which gets right back to the - in this country - you are either with us, a Patriot, or against us, supporting terrorsim. Which is nothing more than cynical political game playing.

Sigh.........sorry you feel that way Rastler. I don't feel that way and it's to bad that the national dialogue hinges on misstatements and misunderstandings. President Bush's speech certainly was not alluding to anything like that. You really should read the speech....it was very well written and delivered just 12 days after 911. I am not a huge fan of President Bush', but I think he gets a raw deal and I am for honesty.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 71
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Quotes from Osama Bin Laden: (Just trying to keep the lie going, Brenton)

"Hostility toward America is a religious duty, and we hope to be rewarded for it by God . . . . I am confident that Muslims will be able to end the legend of the so-called superpower that is America. Time Magazine

"The pieces of the bodies of infidels were flying like dust particles. If you would have seen it with your own eyes, you would have been very pleased, and your heart would have been filled with joy." -- At the wedding of his son in southern Kandahar about the 17 sailors who died suicide bombing of the USS Cole off the coast of Yemen

"Every American man is an enemy to us." -- Independent.

" . . . It is far better for anyone to kill a single American soldier than to squander his efforts on other activities." -- May 1998

"We--with God's help--call on every Muslim who believes in God and wishes to be rewarded to comply with God's order to kill the Americans and plunder their money wherever and whenever they find it. We also call on Muslim ulema, leaders, youths, and soldiers to launch the raid on Satan's U.S. troops and the devil's supporters allying with them, and to displace those who are behind them so that they may learn a lesson." Feb. 1998 - Bin Laden edict

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sigh.........sorry you feel that way Rastler. I don't feel that way and it's to bad that the national dialogue hinges on misstatements and misunderstandings. President Bush's speech certainly was not alluding to anything like that. You really should read the speech....it was very well written and delivered just 12 days after 911. I am not a huge fan of President Bush', but I think he gets a raw deal and I am for honesty.

I am a huge fan for what Bush did in the days after 9/11. I am a huge fan of what originally went down in Afganistan. Heck, I was even cool with taking Saddam out. But after that it has been a mess.

Does saying this make me unpatriotic? If so then my dad, 30 years in the military, two tours in Vietnam, to this day helping recruit kids, supporting the troops with money and time, and a lot more than that, is also not a Patriot. Because my views are similar to his.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Hostility toward America is a religious duty, and we hope to be rewarded for it by God . . . . I am confident that Muslims will be able to end the legend of the so-called superpower that is America. Time Magazine

I would agree that the they will be able to do so as long as our Federal government continues the course it is on.

-a-train

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quotes from Osama Bin Laden: (Just trying to keep the lie going, Brenton)

"Hostility toward America is a religious duty, and we hope to be rewarded for it by God . . . . I am confident that Muslims will be able to end the legend of the so-called superpower that is America. Time Magazine

"The pieces of the bodies of infidels were flying like dust particles. If you would have seen it with your own eyes, you would have been very pleased, and your heart would have been filled with joy." -- At the wedding of his son in southern Kandahar about the 17 sailors who died suicide bombing of the USS Cole off the coast of Yemen

"Every American man is an enemy to us." -- Independent.

" . . . It is far better for anyone to kill a single American soldier than to squander his efforts on other activities." -- May 1998

"We--with God's help--call on every Muslim who believes in God and wishes to be rewarded to comply with God's order to kill the Americans and plunder their money wherever and whenever they find it. We also call on Muslim ulema, leaders, youths, and soldiers to launch the raid on Satan's U.S. troops and the devil's supporters allying with them, and to displace those who are behind them so that they may learn a lesson." Feb. 1998 - Bin Laden edict

The fact that you seem so "scared" of OBL from my POV means he has won. He dictates what we do by us being scared of him. All he has to do is "say something" and we jump through hoops.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am a huge fan for what Bush did in the days after 9/11. I am a huge fan of what originally went down in Afganistan. Heck, I was even cool with taking Saddam out. But after that it has been a mess.

Does saying this make me unpatriotic? If so then my dad, 30 years in the military, two tours in Vietnam, to this day helping recruit kids, supporting the troops with money and time, and a lot more than that, is also not a Patriot. Because my views are similar to his.

Rastler....when I have called you un-Patriotic???? And for the record, me too. I think Iraq has been a mess....better now, but an unnecesarily prolonged mess. Even if you opposed the war from the beginning I would not accuse you of being unpatriotic. So where do we disagree? :confused:

I am defending the way Bush's speech is twisted by those with an ax to grind. I think we can desent and be honest and be Patriotic, don't you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rastler....when I have called you un-Patriotic???? And for the record, me too. I think Iraq has been a mess....better now, but an unnecesarily prolonged mess. Even if you opposed the war from the beginning I would not accuse you of being unpatriotic. So where do we disagree? :confused:

I am defending the way Bush's speech is twisted by those with an ax to grind. I think we can desent and be honest and be Patriotic, don't you?

I agree. I think your context tended to suggest others were not patriotic just because they didn't agree with a speach right after 9/11 is all. One of those flaws of communicating on disucssion boards I guess.

Were good? :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Terrorism is a big lie. An enemy image to "keep us together".

I'm not sure what you mean by this. Please explain. From my point of view, 9/11 did in fact happen, and it was in fact an act of terrorism.

Ofcourse it happened, but the lie is the circumstances of the fact (for example: many of the supposed hijackers are still alive). The other lie of the of the circumstance is that terrorism is a big danger to the world. The US terrorist list has over 1 million people on it now.

And "terrorist" is used by the govt for any who doesnt stick to the status quo, basically.

Just let me say this. The North American Air Space Command failed 4 times on 9/11, they'd had full accuracy beforehand. It's just a little too strange that they didn't get fighter jets up in the air after the first tower was hit, or even after the second. It took about 80 or so minutes for NORAD to respond, its just unheard of, the only logical thing is that they were deliberately confused.

"We will never forget, what a government did to its own people, to start a war."

I just cannot believe that people dont see this, okay -- you have your right to say whatever you think, but I do too.

We are given to believe that some guy in a cave, had NORAD stand down, the best air security in the world.

Quotes from Osama Bin Laden:

This is just bull. THINK!

The Bush family has had great ties with the Bin Laden family.

Just months before 9/11 the cia was ordered to back off investigations on the bin laden family ... HELLO!?!

It's not him I fear, It's his ideology.

The problem is, most of the "muslim hate" towards the west (which is very much not mainstream in muslim society, let me assure you) stems from the fact that the us insists on presence in middle eastern countries, and thats because the us is building an empire, and getting cheaper resources from it -- whether its the world bank insisting on the privatisation of foreign infrastructure to sell it of to corporations in us for example, they have bases literally everywhere -- only recently did the US get out of iceland, which is now falling apart economically in some major part due to american corporations.

It's interesting to note that the Bush family came from the oil business. ;)

If this is too political for this board (because of the NFP), then sorry.

Edited by Brenton
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was correcting Elphaba's statement.

Then you should have addressed it to me, not to the board in general. We can't read minds, and there was no way CC could have known you were correcting me. I didn't even know it until you just said so.

Speaking of corrections, Bush has also said: "You're either with us or against us in the fight against terror."

The point being, his is a common, and juvenile, theme of "with us or against us," and regardless of how he words it, Bush's use of this theme is simplistic and insulting. I am not a member of Bush's "us," and I am not a terrorist.

It is not Bush's place to define who, or what, I am.

Elphaba

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then you should have addressed it to me, not to the board in general. We can't read minds, and there was no way CC could have known you were correcting me. I didn't even know it until you just said so.

Speaking of corrections, Bush has also said: "You're either with us or against us in the fight against terror."

The point being, his is a common, and juvenile, theme of "with us or against us," and regardless of how he words it, Bush's use of this theme is simplistic and insulting. I am not a member of Bush's "us," and I am not a terrorist.

It is not Bush's place to define who, or what, I am.

Elphaba

Elphaba,

I stand corrected, in the future I will direct my comments appropriately and as for your correction, it still wasn't a comment aimed at you or any US citizen, it was directed to other nations.The context of the speech, that I quoted, is directed at rogue nations that aid and comfort terrorists. It was gived 12 days after a brutal attack. The comments were not directed at you.......and that is my point. The visceral hatred some feel toward Bush causes them to believe things that are not true and your characterization of his comments made in a speech.....are not factual. Bush wasn't defining you, he was issuing a warning to state sponsers of terrorism. I am not saying you are any of these,..... but,you can dislike Bush or hate him if you need to, be a flaming liberal or just a staunch anti-war person regardless of the cause and still be honest. The comments hurled at Bush and the twisting of his comments are intellectually dishonest. One can argue there position effectively, without resorting to cliched commentary and anti-Bush talking points.

Edited by bytor2112
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think patriotism has to go beyond love of country. In my view, that is what's called Nationalism, which is not a good thing.

Patriotism is devotion to the principles of the Constitution, which allows us the blessings of this nation.

Capt Moroni's reasons for patriotism of his nation went beyond love of country. It was a plea for freedom and defense of family and religion. When our nation forgets that and becomes nationalistic, as is Russia, then we will only be bullies and Gadianton Robbers, like are found in many nations in history.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The context of the speech, that I quoted, is directed at rogue nations that aid and comfort terrorists. It was gived 12 days after a brutal attack. The comments were not directed at you.......and that is my point.

But here lies the problem. We have an American leadership that has endorsed an unapologetic bully foreign policy. It openly characterizes nations as "rogue" and uses threats of sanctions, invasion, and warfare to promote action. Such a policy has been long proven to be a path to war and sorrow.

The process also breeds division among the American populace itself, while certain groups paint those who do not endorse such a policy as "soft on terror", or "weak on foreign policy", or even "unpatriotic". In the most nasty examples, those who do not buy this policy are considered as sympathizers of terrorists or even familial with their cause.

-a-train

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But here lies the problem. We have an American leadership that has endorsed an unapologetic bully foreign policy. It openly characterizes nations as "rogue" and uses threats of sanctions, invasion, and warfare to promote action. Such a policy has been long proven to be a path to war and sorrow.

The process also breeds division among the American populace itself, while certain groups paint those who do not endorse such a policy as "soft on terror", or "weak on foreign policy", or even "unpatriotic". In the most nasty examples, those who do not buy this policy are considered as sympathizers of terrorists or even familial with their cause.

-a-train

We have characterized nations as rogue or as state sponsers of terrorism long before Bush and we were gearing up for a military response to 911. Previous administrations had been soft spoken and done nothing with regard to the growing terrorist threat. A little tough talk aimed at nations that encourage terroristic aggressions is way over due.A policy of doing nothing will yield results such as 911 and the attack on the Cole. Th threat of terrorism is real and should be dealt with as aggressively as possible and the nations labeled by past and present administrations should be warned of impending consequences if corrective actions aren't taken. The argument over patriotic or unpatriotic is distasteful to me and is a lot of hype and political posturing on both sides of the aisle. Burning the President of the United States in effigy and some of the ridiculous slanders that are presented by so-called anti-war groups are nothing more than an attempt to divide our country. Take a hard look at some of protest groups and see who they really are and what they really represent.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We have characterized nations as rogue or as state sponsers of terrorism long before Bush and we were gearing up for a military response to 911. Previous administrations had been soft spoken and done nothing with regard to the growing terrorist threat. A little tough talk aimed at nations that encourage terroristic aggressions is way over due.A policy of doing nothing will yield results such as 911 and the attack on the Cole. Th threat of terrorism is real and should be dealt with as aggressively as possible and the nations labeled by past and present administrations should be warned of impending consequences if corrective actions aren't taken. The argument over patriotic or unpatriotic is distasteful to me and is a lot of hype and political posturing on both sides of the aisle. Burning the President of the United States in effigy and some of the ridiculous slanders that are presented by so-called anti-war groups are nothing more than an attempt to divide our country. Take a hard look at some of protest groups and see who they really are and what they really represent.....

This makes evident some fundamental distinctions. The first is that the persons involved in the 9/11 attacks did not and do not constitute a state or nation, but are citizens of a state acting on their own. Second, their actions are not the result of U.S. soft spokenness against terrorism or the specific cause of certain terrorists, but rather they are the result of U.S. interventionism.

The designation of "state sponors of terrorism" and the policy of war against such designated states is a doorway through which conflict can be infinitely multiplied. It is an audacious and ridiculous notion. The logic would have us invade every country from which illegal drugs are imported. Perhaps a single murder could be considered an act of war to which a military effort for regime change would be the response.

I will quickly admit that the doctrine is not new. Let the slaying of Archduke Franz Ferdinand and the accusation of "state sponsored" assassination serve as our reminder of the possible dangers of such designation. Perhaps a better policy could have avoided the tremendous bloodshed that followed.

Let those who argue that the first World War could have developed without the introduction of that murder and the subsequent alliance of Austria-Hungary with Germany against the Serbians remember that their argument still admits that a singular act of violence only needed to appear to be aligned with a usurpation of some balance of European power to precipitate the war through attempts at intervention by any given alliance.

The disassembly of diplomatic relations with Serbia, the delivery of an ultimatum, and the propagandizing of Serbian/Austria-Hungarian tension fueled public support to military action against Serbia and Serbian support for the military repulsion thereof.

Bin Laden believes that he can use the same tactics on the west as he did on the Soviet Union. He hopes to draw us into war and into bankruptcy, just as he did the Soviets. Now, we can either show the world how tough we are and spend the fortune of future generations policing the world and trying to prove Bin Laden wrong and the Austria-Hungarians right, or we can demonstrate as did Reagan the ability to know when to say when.

-a-train

Edited by a-train
Link to comment
Share on other sites

He hopes to draw us into war and into bankruptcy

If I could actually trust the stuff in the newspapers, then I'd believe that. ;p

It's pretty funny because, his plan is working perfectly if that's true because the american debt is going to be unaffordable in less than a decade and the whole world is going to become bankrupt in turn.

Edited by pam
BS is considered swearing
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The comments hurled at Bush and the twisting of his comments are intellectually dishonest.

Did you seriously just call me intellectually dishonest?

Bad form, Bytor.

But since you brought it up, let's explore "intellectual dishonesty" a bit. I offer the following to give this subject some perspective.

Numerous high-level members of Bush’s team have left his employ, and gone on to write a book about their experiences working with Bush. The ones I have read, to a book, are full of their frustrations trying to be “intellectually honest” with him. Unfortunately for all of our dead and wounded soldiers, and the tens of thousands of obliterated Iraqis, he refused to listen to the experts in their various fields. I think that merits at least a few “hurls” at the man, and I do not apologize for it.

The following are four of these books, written by key players in the Bush administration after they resigned their posts. And just so there is no question about my intellectual honesty, I have culled an excerpt from the first Amazon customer review of each book. None of the commentary is mine.

1. Scott MacLellan, What Happened: Inside the Bush White House and Washington's Culture of Deception. First Amazon customer review:

Here are a few of his [MacClellan’s] observations:

*Bush believes his own spin (better known as [...]) and demonstrates a remarkable lack of inquisitiveness.

*Bush favored propaganda over honesty in selling the war. Cheney steered war policy behind the scenes, leaving no fingerprints.

*Bush and his team repeatedly shaded the truth, manipulated public opinion, and sold the Iraq situation in such a way that the use of force appeared to be the only feasible option.

*Contradictory evidence was ignored or discarded, caveats or qualifications to arguments were downplayed or dropped, and a dubious al-Qaida connection to Iraq was played up.

*The Bush administration didn't check their political maneuverings in at the door after the win - instead, they maintained a permanent campaign mode, run largely by Rove.

*Presidential initiatives from health care programs to foreign invasions were regularly devised, named, timed and launched with one eye (or both eyes) on the electoral calendar.

*Operating in the campaign mode means never explaining, never apologizing, never retreating. Unfortunately, that strategy also means never reflecting, never reconsidering, never compromising.

*Bush is out of touch, operates in a political bubble, and stubbornly refuses to admit mistakes.

*The press is partially responsible for giving Bush soft questions and enabling the president.

*Despite the expose, McClellan describes Bush as a man easily intelligent enough to be President, possessing personal charm, wit, and enormous political skills, who did not consciously set out to engage in these destructive practices.

*McClellan asserts, "What I do know is that war should only be waged when necessary and the Iraq war was not necessary."

So, is Scott MacClellan intellectually dishonest? Is the Amazon customer reviewer?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

2. Richard Clarke: Against All Enemies: Inside America's War on Terror. Excerpt from first Amazon customer review:

. . . . Instead, they seemed preoccupied, as former Treasury secretary Paul O'Neil suggested in his recent book, with regime change in Saddam Hussein's Iraq. Astonishingly, the morning after 911 Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld suggested attacking Iraq in the total absence of any evidence linking Saddam Hussein's regime to the attack on New York City or Washington, since Iraq represents a target-rich environment, as opposed to Afghanistan, which has so few. President Bush himself cornered Clarke and attempted to pressure him into finding a link between Hussein and the attack on the World Trade Center on 911 attack. To Mr. Clarke, the Bush administration was intent from that time on to use 911 as a convenient excuse to attack Iraq, something they seem to have desired to do from the very outset of the administration.

. . . .

Indeed, the available public record suggests as much, with not only Mr. Bush, but also Mr. Cheney and Ms. Rice, as well as Mr. Rumsfeld trotting out a garden variety of ostensible rationales for invading Iraq in the post-911 time frame, all the way from the original "Axis Of Evil" comment in the 2002 State of The Union speech to the spurious linking of Saddam with Al Qaeda to the use of nerve gas against the populace some dozen years before to failure to comply with United nations resolutions since the 1991 attack by the international coalition that deliberately stopped short of regime change due to fear of destabilizing the region.

So, is Richard Clarke being intellectually dishonest? Is the Amazon customer reviewer?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

3. Paul O’Neil, in collaboration with Ron Suskind: The Price of Loyalty: George W. Bush, the White House, and the Education of Paul O'Neill. Excerpt from first Amazon customer review:

The book shows that a number of White House insiders or heads of government institutions (notably Alan Greenspan at the Fed) are not very comfortable with the ideologues currently running the White House. Lost in a lot of the attention that O'Neill is getting is the fact that other White House folk have also spoken off record. Reading the book--and I generally find it is easier to talk about something you have actually read instead of something you merely make up in your head--it is pretty certain that Alan Greenspan was also interviewed for the book and is one of those who spoke off the record. I would also bet that Christine Todd Whitman, former head of the EPA (another one who wanted policy to be based on verified data), was another. It is absolutely definite that either Colin Powell or several members of the State Department (unquestionably with his blessing) cooperated in the making of the book. Possibly other nonideologues like Condileeza Rice or one of her aides talked with Suskind.

So is Paul O’Neill being intellectually dishonest? Is the Amazon customer reviewer?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

4. George Tenant, They Want to Change the World. Excerpt from first Amazon customer review:

Anyone who claims this book is former CIA director George Tenet's self-exonerating backlash against his former agency or his one-time boss, President George W. Bush, has not yet read At the Center of the Storm, and is in for a surprise. If no other part of this book is read, I'd urge anyone to turn to the chapter entitled "They Want To Change The World" and then defy anyone to walk away without feeling slightly less secure. Yes, Tenet does give his side of the story for his now-infamous "slam dunk" remark, and has select critical words for the current administration, particularly Secretary of State Rice, and Vice President Cheney, but instead of using this work as a vituperous denunciation of Washington insiders, he makes what I found to be a responsible criticism of exactly what was mishandled in the time between September 11, 2001, and the period that followed the end of the (first stage of the) Iraq War, and what has come to be termed the occupation of that country.

So, is George Tenant being intellectually dishonest? Is the Amazon customer review?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Need I go on?

The point of this post is to demonstrate why people react viscerally to Bush. We didn’t just wake up one day and decide to hate our president.

Rather, his stubborn refusals to listen to anyone who tried to explain the dangers of this war, including Muslims in his White House, has resulted in tens of thousands of deaths, all in the name of God. And yes, I despise him for that, and will not apologize for it.

Believe it or not, I am not intellectually dishonest, nor are most people who hate what Bush has done. We are people who care deeply about our

country, and how this man has torn it asunder.*

And when even those who worked with him closely, including the very loyal, write exposes about the man, then there is obviously something concrete and disturbing about him.

You obviously feel differently, and that can be a good thing as it motivates us to have the conversation. In my opinion, as long as we can have the conversation, there is hope.

Elphaba

*I can't believe I just used the word "asunder." :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I voted for W twice. I wasn't too excited the first time, but he was better than Al Gore. The second time, I thought better of him because of his actions right after 9/11.

Since then, his hubris and incompetence have come out in spades. He pretended to be a conservative, and ended up being something else. He followed the neo-conservative Bush Doctrine of preemptive strikes, and then bungled Iraq until last year when he finally listened to Collin Powell and others, who had insisted on more troops in Iraq.

He has worn our military out. He allowed Congress and himself to spend like drunken sailors, not vetoing hardly anything at all. He tried to foist upon us Harriett Meyers as Justice. He promised a reformed education system with vouchers, and then turned it over to Ted Kennedy to create a monstrosity that has gotten our kids further behind the world in science and math. He had 8 years to get us drilling and developing alternative energies. Instead of a new national driving goal to accomplish that, he chose to take us back to the moon and Mars. Should I go on?

IMO, he rates in the bottom group of presidents with Jimmy Carter. Both were extremely incompetent and uninspiring. Both have led us into huge economic problems by not being able to aptly lead our nation. Both could have prevented some of the economic issues of their day by using some good sense and by guiding the nation in proper directions. Now, it is too late. No one is listening to Bush without a sense of suspicion.

I'm not too excited about the two candidates we have before us now. But I do know that neither could do much worse than W has to our country.

Hmmmm. Did that sound bitter?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmmmm. Did that sound bitter?

Let us call it "righteous indignation". Perhaps the best paradigm is that which admits the relatively small impact of George W. Bush himself in the far greater contest at hand. While he certainly taught one doctrine and lived another, we must recognize that it is policy that matters in a government rested on the rule of law.

The monarchies of old were often beset by the bitterness of the people to throw the rascals out. The same feeling can exist in our system, but often we rid our government of the creators of bad policy without extricating the bad policies from our system.

We know for certain that presidents, senators, and congressmen will come and go, but our concern should be policy. A policy platform avails nothing from mudslinging campaigns. Good policy is good policy regardless of the identity of those who pursue it.

Fascism and socialism, the rejection of our constitution, the evils of nation building and interventionism, bailouts galore through nationalism, these things will continue to remain with us past January of 2009. Man has fought the battle between liberty and slavery from the days of Adam. George W. Bush will simply be added to an already endless list of those who fell victim to the philosophy and appeal of the world.

Let our efforts first be to ascertain and rally around the principles of freedom. Then, we will have available to us the better leadership we need.

-a-train

Vote third party

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since then, his hubris and incompetence have come out in spades.
Hubris indeed.

IMO, he rates in the bottom group of presidents with Jimmy Carter. Both were extremely incompetent and uninspiring. Both have led us into huge economic problems by not being able to aptly lead our nation. Both could have prevented some of the economic issues of their day by using some good sense and by guiding the nation in proper directions. There is a major difference between the two, in that President Carter is a humble man, while Bush defines arrogance.

Did that sound bitter?
Finally, we agree on something.

Elphaba

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Elphaba.....first of all, you have quoted a bunch of guys that want to sell books and no one wants to buy a book that is favorable to a sitting president....IMO. Secondly, I am not defending the Bush presidency........I voted for him twice, because Gore was nuts and Kerry was way to liberal....again IMO. I was merely pointing out the misinterpretation of the comments from his speeches. I am going to hold my nose and vote for * and hope for the best. I wish we could completely start over....new congress....throw the bums out and new candidates from both sides. I am disgusted with politics, politicians and the state of our country. :mad: I manage millions of dollars...retirement plans and individual savings...for a living and I have just watched 25% of my clients assets sucked down the drain the past two weeks because of ineptitude from elected officials and there is blame o'plenty to go around :mad: :mad:.......It's kind of like Nero fiddling while Rome burned. I haven't slept in a week and feeli like I need a Xanax drip.....:D

Edit: Site rule #7 Violation: Do not post or upload any names of political candidates or posts that insinuate a particular candidate. Do not make post, messages, videos, or uploads in reference to political candidates. You may not use LDS.NET to endorse any candidate running for political office. You may not use LDS.Net to intervene directly or indirectly in the election process by endorsing a political candidate. Any post that speaks favorably about one candidate, even in a religious context, can be construed as indirect intervention in the election process.

Edited by skalenfehl
Violation of rule #7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest HEthePrimate

What does the word Patriotic mean to you?

It means loving one's Fatherland. In my case, that's the U.S. However, it does not mean ignoring the rest of the world. Everybody's in this together.

Do you consider yourself patriotic? If so, in what way?

Yes, I love my country. I obey the laws, vote, do my job to the best of my ability, pay my taxes, and try to generally be a good citizen and help other people.

Is patriotism always a good thing? Why or why not?

That depends. If a person loves his/her own country and says 'To h*ll with the rest of the world,' no it's not good. However, if one is a responsible world citizen in addition to being patriotic for his own country, it's just fine. I think of it in terms of stewardship--I have good feelings towards other countries and am willing to work with and help them, but my primary responsibility is to my own country.

Can someone be patriotic but still criticize aspects of their government? Why or why not?

Of course. Just as loving oneself involves self-improvement, so does loving one's country involve striving to make it better.

The phrase "love it or leave it" is idiotic. It seems to me that if there is a problem in our country, if we simply leave it indicates we don't care enough about our country to stay and fix the problem.

HEP

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share