Kandahar obviously thinks one has to be brainwashed to be loyal to and to love his country.jfuh said:There's a big variance between loyalty, and blind and absolute loyalty.
You have yet to make the distinction that nationalism is not brain washing.
Kandahar said:English must not be your first language...
Let's try this again, real slow. Why should I care any more about the welfare of some random person in Alaska than I do about the welfare of some random person in France or Argentina or Ghana?
You simply do not understand context. At all.
If George Washington was anything like the other powerful people of his day, he didn't have any problem with abortion.
George Washington certainly supported equality...for white property-owning men. The definition of equality has simply expanded since then, and it's still what I would call an American value.
George Washington certainly had no problem with flag-burning, as he favored an absolute right to freedom of speech.
Completely irrelevant to anything I just wrote.
You didn't answer the question. What exactly does that mean, if it isn't a meaningless cliche?
That is quite possibly the dumbest thing I've heard since...umm...the last time you topped yourself.
Do you love or hate Bhutan? How about Togo? French Polynesia? C'mon now, no fence-sitting.
Loyalty to countries IN GENERAL is stupid, whether it's the United States or North Korea.
Seems completely consistent with what I've stated already.jamesrage said:North Korea is a commuinist dictatorship, Kim Jong-il rules his country with a iron first.Up until a few years The North Koreans used to blast propaganda across the DMZ with huge speakers.
These people are brainwashed
http://www.pbs.org/frontlineworld/stories/northkorea/thestory.html
The soldier points out North Korean "jammers," which block foreign radio and television broadcasts. "So they have no idea of what actually goes on in the outside world," says the soldier. "They think that a BMW is manufactured by North Korea."
Before leaving for North Korea, Anderson meets in Seoul with a group of North Korean refugees who had fled from famine and political repression. "The moment a child utters a word they start him on ideological training," one refugee says. "So they can't think for themselves."
snip..
Anderson's obligatory first stop is an enormous statue of the "Great Leader," where he is told to place flowers and bow.
snip..
In a giant indoor stadium, Anderson views 100,000 performers doing elaborate card stunts and choreographed marching routines in praise of the Great Leader and blaming the United States for preventing the reunification of Korea.
jamesrage said:You leftist make it too easy for someone to prove that alot of you all are anti-american.
jamesrage said:I think he would have a problem.The founding forefathers would have made abortion a right if they didn't have problem with it.
jamesrage said:Equality is is not changing the rules to suit someone else.Equality is where the rules apply to everyone.
jamesrage said:http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/loyalty
loyalty
n 1: the quality of being loyal [ant: disloyalty] 2: feelings of allegiance 3: the act of binding yourself (intellectually or emotionally) to a course of action; "his long commitment to public service"; "they felt no loyalty to a losing team" [syn: commitment, allegiance, dedication]
jamesrage said:It is not dumb to ask someone to take a stand.
jamesrage said:Why are you asking me if I am loyal to another country.The last time I checked I am a citizen of the United States of America.What about you?
jamesrage said:Theodore Hall and Benedict Arnol felt the same way you do.I hope you do not work in any government offices,with friends like you who needs enemies.
hipsterdufus said:The kind of Nationalism is akin to how a two year old feels about his mom.
akyron said:Sooo are you thinking a nationwide revolt of two year olds would turn out great? There is a reason for the parental bond.
It is more likely the children would suffer "heightened emotional disorders, fear, tension, and behavioral disorders.
....Sounds like a DNC gathering right there....I take it back. Maybe the two year old analogy works after all... nevermind.
jfuh said:Seems completely consistent with what I've stated already.
Brainwashing with Nationalist propaganda.
The Facist were exactly as such. The Hitler's Germany "For the fatherland". Stalin's Soviet Russia "For the motherland" - all nationalism..
Nationalism brainwashes and is the pinnacle of anti-freedom, the very definition of what is anti-american.
Flag burning may seem in bad taste, but it is an expression held by some, suppression of which would be anti-free speech - which is why the supreme court agreed.
To put limits on such expression with calls of "un patriotism"
vergiss said:Patriotism = good
Nationalism = stupid
::Major_Baker:: said:Jamesrage and Kandahr.
Your back-and-forth is quite interesting.
I am not sure I agree completely with what Kandahar is saying, as I think if I had to append my 'alligience' to one country or the other, I would choose USA over say, Mali, because I am american. This is not to say however, that the USA is right in every situation.
But Kandahar also makes a point that alligience to one's country should and can be questioned, especially if those leading the country are making blatant errors in policy, as we see recently. Questioning, and even disagreeingwith your country's policies, does not make you anti-american, or even unpatriotic.
jamesrage said:Kandahar thinks loyalty to one's country is absurd,should I go and get his statement.His heroes more than likely are Benedict Arnold and Theodore Hall,individuals who obviously thought that loyalty to one's country is absurd..
Kandahar said:You keep citing Benedict Arnold, and that is an interesting choice. Setting aside his revolutionary achievements on behalf of the colonies for a moment, let's assume for the sake of argument that his only role in history books had been as a traitor.
Now at what point would he have stopped being a patriot to England, and become a traitor to the United States? On July 4, 1776? If (assuming for the sake of argument) his behavior had been entirely consistent before and after this date, would his beliefs suddenly have gone from laudable patriotism to despicable anti-Americanism?
If YOU had been alive on July 3, 1776, would you be accusing the revolutionaries of being unpatriotic anti-English scum? Why or why not? How about on July 5, 1776?
And if you consider America's founding fathers to be patriots, do you also consider Robert E. Lee and Jefferson Davis to be patriots?
Aaron Burr was aquited.How about Aaron Burr?
jamesrage said:Oh good
jamesrage said:No I do not consider them to be patriots considering the fact they sided with the confederate.
jamesrage said:Aaron Burr was aquited.
Kandahar said:Again, please answer the questions instead of responding with meaningless crap like this. Would you have condemned George Washington on July 3, 1776 for his despicable unpatriotic actions?
What distinguishes Robert E. Lee and Jefferson Davis from, say, George Washington and John Adams...besides the fact that the latter WON their war of independence?
Do you deny that he orchestrated a conspiracy to claim the Western United States as his own country? If he had been successful, would you applaud his patriotism?
jamesrage said:Your antiamerican moral releativism only works with liberals and other antiamerican individuals
Nearly every single instance of nationalist regimes results in one conclusion. Totalitarian dictatorship. That is what you are advocating for. Blind and unquestioning loyalty.jamesrage said:To certian degree you are right.Nationalism sometimes gets abused
Who then is to say what is and what isn't garbage? What is and what isn't propaganda? You? Nationalism goes beyond the love and loyalty you state. It has far more reaching controls then you have been led to believe.jamesrage said:Nationalism is loyalty and love for your country.It is not about beleaving every single piece of information the government puts out.
Is this patriotic? Damning the courts because you don't agree? Quite anti-american it seems. The courts did put Bush into the white house, indeed they are ideological, they were not following by the constitution.jamesrage said:Supreme court rullings change,supreme court rulings are based on the ideology of the judges which is why alot of times there is no %100 agreement on everything and why liberals do not want Bush's nominations for judiciall benches.
Semantics, nothing else. Next?jamesrage said:There is no such thing as freedom of expression in the constitution.Speech is either vocal or written words.
My thought on the 2nd amendment are irrelevent here in this thread. We're not arguing about amendments here.jamesrage said:If you believe limits on what you believe to be a right,what are your views on the second amendmen,do you feel the same way about the right to bear arms?
http://www.debatepolitics.com/polls/7362-what-extent-you-support-1st-2nd-amendment.html
Here's where you start trying to turn this into a liberal - conservative argument. Things aren't always black and white.jamesrage said:Why do you believe loyalty to your country is a bad thing?And you wonder why alot of conservatives think liberals are anti-american.
dragonslayer said:what other type of nationalism is there?
jfuh said:Nearly every single instance of nationalist regimes results in one conclusion. Totalitarian dictatorship. That is what you are advocating for. Blind and unquestioning loyalty.
Welcome to N. Korea.
Who then is to say what is and what isn't garbage? What is and what isn't propaganda? You? Nationalism goes beyond the love and loyalty you state. It has far more reaching controls then you have been led to believe.
Nationalism
Again I bring to light of "states" that adhered strongly to nationalism - Nazi Germany, Facist Italy, Soviet Russia (though, not quite), N. Korea, Maoist China, Imperialist Japan, the list goes on.
Is this patriotic? Damning the courts because you don't agree? Quite anti-american it seems. The courts did put Bush into the white house, indeed they are ideological, they were not following by the constitution.
Semantics, nothing else. Next?
My thought on the 2nd amendment are irrelevent here in this thread. We're not arguing about amendments here.
The presentation I've presented is that nationalism is anti-freedom, the sole principle of US culture.
So again borrowing from your questions:
Why do you hate this country?
I am not a anti-american,I actually believe in loyalty to the USA.Unlike you and certian other liberals I believe loyalty is a good thing.I do not mock patritismHow long have you been anti-American?
Why do you advocate facism (extreeme nationalism)?
Really? I gave you examples, Musolini, Franco, Hitler, Stalin - Unquestioning blind loyalty to the nation. I've already provided the source, now go read it.jamesrage said:I do not see nationalism requiring blind and unquestioning loyalty.Blind and unquestioning loyalty could lead to globalism/multinationalism and the destruction of this country which contridicts nationalism.
And in this country, the minutemen, KKK, Neo-Nazis all throw over themselves with the cover of nationalism.. Yet clearly they've a seperate agenda. Nationalism is only for those with irrational fears.jamesrage said:THose are cases where nationalism and love for country has been misused and abused.
Banning AK-47's is unpatriotic when it keeps such weapons out of the hands of violent criminals? Interesing. And nationalism would do away with all these so called abominations? How do you make such a relation?jamesrage said:Altering the definitions of the constitution to support such abonimations as abortions,strick gun control laws and so on is unpatriotic.
So says you. But wasn't it a conservative court that allowed for flag burning?jamesrage said:Several more conservative judges could equal freedom of speech consisting of verbal(sign languaged or spoken) or written speech and ban flag burning.
I'm not questioning patriotism now am I? I'm questioning how you're defining nationalsim to solve any of these problems as well as pointing out the inherent problems with nationalism itself being used by such figures as Mussolini and Stalin. Same old rhetoric.jamesrage said:It is a very relevant question when state that rights should not be restricted in any way and it is very relevent when you want to question patriotism.
You want to limit freedom through nationalistic overtures, that's as anti-freedom - anti-american as you can get. So with your rhetoric, why do you hate freedom.jamesrage said:How can I hate this country when I am loyal to it?
Your argument is nationalism, not patriotism, the two are completely different. Thus the neccessity for two different vocabulary and no, they are not synonomous with each other either. A patriot of freedom understands that nationalism would destroy the very essence of this country, that being freedom. Doesn't get any more anti-american then that. So indeed, as with your rhetoric, you sir are a traitor.jamesrage said:I am not a anti-american,I actually believe in loyalty to the USA.Unlike you and certian other liberals I believe loyalty is a good thing.I do not mock patritism
Ahh looking it up in a dictionary? Then you should understand then the intimate relationship between fascism and nationalism. Nation above all else.jamesrage said:Where do you see facism in these definitions?Do you just make up the meaning of word?
jfuh said:Really? I gave you examples, Musolini, Franco, Hitler, Stalin - Unquestioning blind loyalty to the nation. I've already provided the source, now go read it.
Funny you'd bring up globalism, because you're boyo Bush loves it.
And in this country, the minutemen, KKK, Neo-Nazis all throw over themselves with the cover of nationalism.. Yet clearly they've a seperate agenda.
So when it comes to certian rights you think there should be restrictions even though the constitution saysBanning AK-47's is unpatriotic when it keeps such weapons out of the hands of violent criminals?
Interesing. And nationalism would do away with all these so called abominations? How do you make such a relation?
So says you. But wasn't it a conservative court that allowed for flag burning?
I'm not questioning patriotism now am I? I'm questioning how you're defining nationalsim to solve any of these problems as well as pointing out the inherent problems with nationalism itself being used by such figures as Mussolini and Stalin. Same old rhetoric.
No they are not different,do I need to bring out the definitions for the 5th or 6th time on this thread?**** it, I will bring out the definitions again and even make the definition jumbo size so you can read it.Your argument is nationalism, not patriotism, the two are completely different.
Thus the neccessity for two different vocabulary and no, they are not synonomous with each other either.
A patriot of freedom understands that nationalism would destroy the very essence of this country, that being freedom. Doesn't get any more anti-american then that. So indeed, as with your rhetoric, you sir are a traitor.
Patriotism also means not letting some schmuck not totally contridict the values your country was founded upon.So if a Hitler person took over the US and disreguarded our founding documents I would do everything I can to remove this individual from office.Kandahar said:Jamesrage, I'm curious about something. Please actually answer the question instead of responding with your same irrelevant talking point. If a Hitler-type figure came to power in the United States, and all of our current allies decided to liberate us by invading the United States (assuming for the sake of argument that they had the military might to do so)...
Would you be a patriot to your country, or a patriot to the cause of freedom? In other words, which side would you be on?
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?