- Joined
- Mar 7, 2018
- Messages
- 62,605
- Reaction score
- 19,336
- Location
- Lower Mainland of BC
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Centrist
What you described (above) as "nationalism" is, in reality, patriotism, a form of patriotism.
A patriot is the one who "believes, however imperfect our country may be, it is the best on the planet."
Nationalists never admit to any imperfections, AND...(and this is key to the definition) they believe that not only are there never any imperfections, but also that other countries and their people are vastly inferior, and unacceptable.
That's not the same as thinking your country is the best, because one can think their country is the best while still having respect for other countries. Nationalism does not allow for such an idea, because nationalism is identification with one's own nation and support for its interests, especially to the exclusion or detriment of the interests of other nations.
You described healthy patriotism, which is perfectly just and honorable.
Oh but there is an orwellian plan.
Just read Jonah Goldberg's book "Liberal Fascism" and you'll have the needed epiphany on that.
Trust me, there's no way you can come away from reading that book without coming to the conclusion that the Right is purposely destroying and manipulating the meaning of words in a way which is eerily reminiscent of NewSpeak and Doublethink.
Huh? Have to assume these are urban areas. I presume the same might be true in other societies, or in our own in years gone by. But your point is that more defense spending would prevent the violence in those counties?
How do nuclear weapons or aircraft carriers prevent me from being shot by a robber who has easy access to guns?
We spend more money on defense than the next several nations combined, yet have higher homicide rates than any of them.
and if you factor out FIVE COUNTIES, all run by Democrats, we rank about 135th in the world in terms of murders
no.... getting rid of the war on drugs would be a better start
Doesn't that mean that the obvious solution is to ban "Democrats" (I don't know if making "being a 'Democrat'" a capital offence is really needed because they can always be sent off to those concentration camps that they were secretly building in the deserts and that should suffice).
PS - Would you please be so kind as to provide a link to the source of your rather startling claim?
PPS - Do you know how seriously claims along the lines of "X" absolutely proves "Y" PROVIDED that we ignore all of the contrary data." are treated by educated people?
When stuff has been stated dozens of times here, and someone again demands someone find it for them, I normally see that as dilatory.
There are some basic facts that you should know if you want to argue gun issues
Sorry but with all due respect, YOUR definition of "nationalism" is not the generally accepted one, it is something you've crafted for your own use and it is somewhat unique.
What you described (above) as "nationalism" is, in reality, patriotism, a form of patriotism.
A patriot is the one who "believes, however imperfect our country may be, it is the best on the planet."
Nationalists never admit to any imperfections, AND...(and this is key to the definition) they believe that not only are there never any imperfections, but also that other countries and their people are vastly inferior, and unacceptable.
That's not the same as thinking your country is the best, because one can think their country is the best while still having respect for other countries. Nationalism does not allow for such an idea, because nationalism is identification with one's own nation and support for its interests, especially to the exclusion or detriment of the interests of other nations.
It has nothing to do with racism other than the fact that, down through history, the MOST nationalistic countries seem to also have serious racial or ethnic issues, particularly where hostility toward other foreign races and cultures are concerned.
Few things incense real actual nationalists more than the very thought of "outsiders" taking up residence in their country.
Is it a negative when Democrats recognize this issue as a core part of nationalism? I don't think so, because if it is, then owning a dictionary is problematic.
So you see, I am attempting to explain to you that you might have your terms switched around somewhat.
You described healthy patriotism, which is perfectly just and honorable.
You know what..... I researched it exhaustively. I stand corrected. However well intentioned I was in my post, I was wrong, and you my friend are correct. Thankyou for pointing that out in a civil way. I will heretofore label my self a patriot. You didn't belittle or berate me while pointing out my error. I appreciate that.eace
I admit that
The first big problem with American education is that the children are taught that "The American Way" is the ONLY way. That means that absolutely no attention has to be paid to any potential solution to any problem if that potential solution has been tried anyplace else but the United States of America. The second big problem with American education is that the children are taught that 'myths' are, in fact, 'realities'. That means that, since the 'myths' portray America as 'perfect' (or so close thereto as to make no difference) no attention has to be paid to ACTUAL realities.
is overstating the case, but it does sort of sum up some of the roots of the problems America currently faces.
I have no issue with teaching children what the various political doctrines are, but I do have issues with teaching them falsely.
I have a REAL issue with teaching which is "political indoctrination" in the guise of teaching what "political doctrines" are.
Teaching
The Founding Fathers believed that all men were equal.
without coupling that with,
And what they meant by that was that everyone - UNLESS you were NOT male, white, educated, and reasonably wealthy - was equal to everyone who WAS male, white, educated, and reasonably wealthy was equal to everyone else who WAS ALSO male, white, educated, and reasonably wealthy AND that it was those "equal" people who had the natural right to run the country. HOWEVER, we have progressed from that point and what we mean by "All men are equal" today means something completely different than it did to the Founding Fathers.
creates a different outcome than it does if you do couple those two together.
I don't WANT to belittle anyone, unless they're acting like a jerk.
The only reason I am even aware of the difference between patriotism and nationalism is because "nationalism" was a term my German Jewish refugee father used quite often.
"Their sense of wounded pride turned into a lethal form of exaggerated nationalism."
That was something he told me once as a kid and I never forgot it because I did not understand the word "lethal" yet.
I think I might have been six or seven years old.
"Lethal?"
"Yes my son, lethal, which means deadly. It was lethal for the Jewish people. Herr Hitler killed six million of us."
I also remember my oldest brother trying to explain nationalism to me. He said that the closest synonym was "jingoism".
Later I heard the term "hatriotism" which was a Yippie favorite and which was used to beat many dead horses, of course.
My father's great uncle Ludwig fought for the German Army in WW1, so that made the sting of "exaggerated German nationalism" even more severe.
View attachment 67263689
Oh you can rest easy my friend. The left is teaching the evil of our country, and are tearing down monuments everywhere.
If you watched the democrat debate, you would love O'Rourke. He was shouting to the rooftops how racist and bigoted our country was and IS.
"Mayor Pete", not to be out done, went on to say "We can't treat everybody equal and think it make everything OK",...
...and spoke of some type of 25% quota for something or other, I'm paraphrasing.
This election will be a turning point of our great country if one of these socialists gain power.
I support education regarding the WHOLE of the ACTUAL cause of whatever it is ANY monument relates to. "Tearing down monuments" is as much "educating" people as shooting dissenters or other "enemies of the state" is.
Indeed, and some on "The (American) Right" responded very (well, you pick the word here) with
which, of course, shouldn't be in the least bit confused with "racist and bigoted" - right?
When taken in the context of "everyone, regardless of need or qualification or skill or talent has to be treated exactly the same as someone who has a need, qualification, skill, or talent that it higher" he happens to be 100% correct. People who think otherwise are about as in tune to reality as those who think that (as an [extremely silly] example) "10% of the US equestrian marksmanship team should be composed of blind paraplegics because 10% of the US population is composed of blind paraplegics.".
When taken in the context of "we simply don't have enough money to provide everything for everyone" he also happens to be 100% correct. People who think otherwise are like those who believe that 60% of the budget should be spent on education, 60% of the budget should be spent on healthcare, 60% of the budget should be spent on eliminating homelessness, 60% of the budget should be spent on environmental protection, 60% of the budget should be spend on economic expansion, 60% of the budget should be spent on crime prevention, and the remaining 40% of the budget should be spent on everything else.
I don't think "paraphrasing" is the term that you are looking for with regard to the statement " We're a community, we're about 25% African American, about 45% non-white.". I think that the correct term is "making it all up".
The debate stage was all about, medicare for all, free college, forgiveness of college loans, confiscation of certain types of rifles, yada yada yada. Free everything.
Socialist :a person who advocates or practices socialism.
What is an example of socialism?
The former Soviet Union is an example of a socialist system. Cuba is an example of a socialist nation. Its economy is state run and it lacks a stock exchange. ... The country of North Korea is a socialist state, lacking a stock exchange, supporting many social programs, and the economy is state-run.
You'll have to excuse me for only dealing with the part of you post that I could figure out the meaning of.
I asked
By the way, what is YOUR definition of "socialist"? Is it "Someone who is less reactionary than I am."?
and you replied:
That is what is known as a "circular definition". Another example of a "circular definition" would be "A 'Christian' is someone who advocates or practices 'Christianity'.".
You then continued with
You might want to consider that a better description of the former Soviet Union would be "Stalinist" rather than "Socialist" as the vast majority of "socialists" do NOT support either dictators or police states.
Cuba, forced into isolation by the actions of the government of the United States of America, is an unusual case and, because of the US government's attempts to bankrupt Cuba and force all of its people to chose between starvation or supporting a VERY "command economy" didn't really have much choice as to which way it organized its economy. BTW, I don't think that the US government's attempts to force the Cubans to give the Mafia back its member's property were particularly admirable.
There is no such country as "North Korea" (both the government of the ROK and the DPRK are 100% in agreement on that point [in fact, they are both also in agreement that "There is only ONE Korea."]). The DPRK is, quite frankly a kleptocratic oligarchy (and a dictatorial one at that).
You do know that the economy of every country (yes, even the United States of America) is "state run" to some extent, don't you? You do know that things like "tariffs", "duties", "price support", "investment incentives", and the like are merely the ways that governments that want to punish other countries who are more able then they to compete economically (because those other countries are paying "subsidies" and controlling their internal economy) disguise the fact that they are paying subsidies and controlling their own internal economy.
Of the (roughly) 190 countries in the world, do you know how many of them are "lacking a stock exchange"? Did you know that the PRC has a stock exchange? Does the fact that the PRC has a stock exchange mean that it IS NOT a "socialist" country? Does the fact that that Turkmenistan (GDP/capita ~US$9,510) does not have a stock exchange mean that it IS a "socialist" country?
Did you know that countries like Canada, Mexico, Australia, the UK, Sweden, Finland, Germany, Japan, the ROK, and the United States of America all are "supporting many social programs"? Does the fact that countries like Canada, Mexico, Australia, the UK, Sweden, Finland, Germany, Japan, the ROK, and the United States of America all are "supporting many social programs" mean that they are "socialist" countries?
So, I ask you again,
What is YOUR definition of "socialist"?
To help you in getting started thinking about how to answer that question WITHOUT any mindless repetition of cant, slogans, labels, or false information that has been given to you to deliberately misinform you, you might want to start with "What socialism really is—and what it isn't" which will, at least, let you know that there is no monolithic
!!Sssss!Ooooo!C!Iiiii!Aaaaa!Lllll!Iiiii!Sssss!Mmmmm!!
as opposed to
**F*R*E*E*D*O*M**
**A*N*D**
**C*A*P*I*T*A*L*I*S*M**
I'll excuse you, if you'll excuse my TBI. I try the best I can, as my thought process can be kind of disjointed leading to weird sounding posts, sorry.
This forum helps as does some puzzle books the Dr. gave me with that.
Ok, back to the topic(s). I agree with the dictionary definition of socialist. The question with many definitions is "socialism".
(W)e spend roughly 900+ billion state and federal social programs, not including SS and medicare which is like a trillion. I don't feel that we need more social programs. Period.
Socialism, to me, is concerned more about the collective, and capitalism is concerned more with the individual.
TBI and PTSD both get "passes" as long as I remember that they are factors (which is pretty hard to do if I don't have any information that the poster has them).
With both TBI and PTSD, communicating (which is one of the functions that both tend to mess up) practice and "mental games" both have a track record of helping. The other thing (without drugs or high priced professional help) that has a definite positive impact on recovery is a strong belief that you WILL recover.
The people who think that there is ONLY ONE type of "socialism" are (in my experience) the same type of people who think that there is ONLY ONE type of "democratic society" or that there is ONLY ONE way of governing a "free society". In fact they are often (in my experience) the SAME people who think that the statement "'Socialism' is THE SAME THING AS 'a dictatorial communist state with its total control over every aspect of everyone's life'." makes sense.
Which, as it is your opinion, I agree you are completely free to hold. I don't happen to agree with it (and I might even disagree with you on which of the existing "social programs" are actually needed. Of course that disagreement might be rooted in differing definitions of "social programs" since I look at ANY program that pays money to individuals/groups for ANYTHING that is not a DIRECT SUPPLY of services to the government as a "social program".
I can see how someone could come to that conclusion IF they thought that socialism was an economic program and capitalism was a political program. They aren't. It is quite possible to have a socialist political program in a capitalist economy and it is equally possible not to have a socialist political program in a capitalist economy. It is also quite as possible to have a socialist economic program in a kleptocracy as it is not to.
Funny you should speak of PTSD. Another malady of the FD left me with. Yep, I come with plenty baggage. I have always been a servant of the people, so to speak. My happiest days were spent in the marines and the fire dept.
Until recently, I haven't pondered so deeply about these things.
As far as I know, the US is a constitutional republic with democratic principles.
I'll give you an idea of the way I think. It may give you insight to where I'm coming from. I worked in a ship yard for a while when after I was discharged, and was laid off a couple times. I could've collected unemployment (which most shipyard employees did when laid off). I felt that as an able bodied male, if I could work some other job to make ends meet, that is what I should do. So I took a job as a brick layers helper, with a non-union outfit, that worked me like a dog for less pay than what I could've gotten on unemployment. My buddies said I was crazy (stupid when out of earshot). But I felt it would be hypocritical to collect unemployment if I didn't need to. I feel that if everybody that didn't really need these programs got off of them, there would be plenty for a "safety net". Thanks for your understanding BTW
In case no one has mentioned it to you lately "Your service is very much appreciated."
Which put you in with a whole lot of people UNTIL you started to think about them, then it put you in with a much smaller number of people.
I know that I'm being picky, but "constitutional republic" is redundant since you cannot have a "republic" WITHOUT a "constitution".
I can see where you are coming from but you should also remember that "Unemployment Insurance" is just that - insurance. You pay the premiums and you are entitled to the benefits. No one is going to give you ANY insurance benefits that you haven't paid the premiums for.
I will agree with you that "sitting on your butt and not looking for work until your unemployment benefits run out" is NOT what unemployment insurance was intended for. It was intended to carry you over until you could find work that was equally remunerative (or to carry "seasonal" workers over between the times that work is available for them). Collecting UI benefits while ACTIVELY searching for decent quality work is NOT "leeching on the system" because that is exactly what UI is intended for, and that is why people pay into it.
If you HAD drawn UI AND found work that paid better while not exploiting you, would you have been worse off or better off? After all, the crap job would still have been there when your UI ran out. (Crap jobs have such a high turnover that they are almost always available, and they are almost always available because they are crap jobs that people don't want to do.)
First of all, thankyou, serving was my pleasure.
Secondly, the 2 major parties here have the electorate polarized. Although I am a republican, I chose the lesser of 2 evils (I think). The problem is, there is no party that lines up with the positions I support on every issue. As a matter of fact, I part ways on many issues, with both parties. Here's the million dollar question: Do you believe it is possible to have a successful political system, without political parties? I mean, it's not unusual here, to vote for one party candidate at the federal level, and the other at the local level.eace
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?