Why the Left is so dangerous
POSTED BY: AURaptor
UPDATED: Tuesday, April 8, 2025 14:10
VIEWED: 15600
PAGE 11 of 23
Quote:I’ve already explained that numerous times, I’m not sure what else I can say the will clarify it further.
Originally posted by SignyM:Quote:Huh? Where did I do THAT?
No what I did was point out how YOU are using the government and country in an equivalent sense.
Quote:Patriotism is the higher duty.
Originally posted by SignyM:
So, which in your mind is the higher duty: love of country or support of government? And AFA the potential conflict between patriotism and republicanism, do you see this as a possibility? If so, which is the higher duty?
Quote:No. Supporting a US withdraw from Iraq might be patriotic. But what makes it patriotic or not patriotic has nothing to do with the particular political opinion, but with the motivations and feelings of the person. I think both of you are trying to read too much into the word patriotic. It is not that complicated. Do you love your country? Do you want your country to succeed? These are separate questions from how, but they are important. You must answer them first and then decide the how.
Originally posted by citizen:
I don't know, it seems that Signym's position is that one doesn't have to support the actions of one's Government, inorder to support one's country. But, and forgive me if I have this wrong, you seem to be saying that you have to support, and want to succeed, the actions of Government, in order to support one's country. In other words, wanting America to withdraw from Iraq before the goals have been secured, would be a failure for America and thereby anyone supporting that position would not be 'patriotic'.
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I think that was my point.
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
No. Supporting a US withdraw from Iraq might be patriotic. But what makes it patriotic or not patriotic has nothing to do with the particular political opinion, but with the motivations and feelings of the person.
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
...
In the UK, Socialists have existed for a while; their beliefs and goals are better understood, but in the US socialism is a relatively new and untested idea.
...
What were Helen Keller's politics? What were the politics of the writer of the Pledge of Allegiance? Those are just the first two ardent socialists that came to mind when I read your comment. Socialism in the US was alive and well during the nineteenth and into the early twentieth centuries.
A large number of the people who fought for changes that we take for granted today (women voting, child labor laws, forty hour work week, workplace safety, etc.) considered themselves socialists.
To state that US socialism is a relatively new and untested idea is to deny a portion of our country's history and heritage. It is to purposefully write out the contributions of the American working class. Contributions that were, more often than not, paid for in blood and bodies.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
And Martin Luther King was a socialist. I think there are socialists or people with socialist tendencies involved or have been involved in US politics, but there is no major movement, and as far as I know never has been, that directly advocates socialism in the United States. Supporting the pledge of allegiance, suffrage and civil rights is not socialism.
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I guess that means I'm a republican first and a patriot second and supporting a specific government comes last. I was always under the impression that the Founding Fathers placed republicanism first. If they had been patriots first, wouldn't they have continued to support the monarchy, seeing as there was at the time no alternate government that demanded their loyalty?
So, which in your mind is the higher duty: love of country or support of government? And AFA the potential conflict between patriotism and republicanism, do you see this as a possibility? If so, which is the higher duty?- SIGNY
Patriotism is the higher duty. -FINN
Quote:You've used a phrase several times that I've specifically asked about which is And once again you correlate your opinion about how America could be successful with the desire for American success and therefore continue to confuse patriotism with politics. Is THAT your clarification? If so, could you use different phraseology or explain what you mean in more detail 'cause I'm not getting it.
No what I did was point out how YOU are using the government and country in an equivalent sense.- FINN
Huh? Where did I do THAT?- SIGNY
I’ve already explained that numerous times, I’m not sure what else I can say the will clarify it further.-FINN
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
And the reason you don't know about the various socialist movements in the US during the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries is because they are not included in US history text books. US history text books are notorious for bending over backwards to erase class conflict in our country's history.
It is one thing to make the claim that the contributions of various historical US socialist organizations are unimportant, it is quite another to deny their very existence. The first claim can be debated. The second claim is exclusionary. To deny the existence of historical US socialist organizations is to rely on the successful results of the attempt to remove their discussion from popular discourse. An absence of approved evidence should not be used as evidence of complete absence.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:If you assume, as evidently you do, that government is all there really is to country, and that patriotism necessary implies government. But government and country are two different things. And patriotism is not love for your government; it is love for your country. And in fact those who supported the Monarchy in Colonial America were not called patriots. They were called Loyalists. It was not their country they loved, but rather they remained “loyal” to a government that was thousands of miles away. So it still seems like you are misunderstanding the definition of patriotism.
Originally posted by SignyM:
I guess that means I'm a republican first and a patriot second and supporting a specific government comes last. I was always under the impression that the Founding Fathers placed republicanism first. If they had been patriots first, wouldn't they have continued to support the monarchy, seeing as there was at the time no alternate government that demanded their loyalty?
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SoupCatcher:
Socialism in the US was alive and well during the nineteenth and into the early twentieth centuries.
I remember being quite surprised when I learned the much of southeast Kansas was firmly socialist around the turn of the century (1900). Several counties formed governments that were avowedly socialist. It sometimes seems counter intuitive, but it our nation was definitely more open to new political ideas back then.
SergeantX
"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Well, technically prior to the secession of the colonies, their country was Britain.
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
It was not their country they loved, but rather they remained “loyal” to a government that was thousands of miles away. So it still seems like you are misunderstanding the definition of patriotism.
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Actually, I would say that a great many of them had probably never even seen Britain and knew nothing specifically of it. Many did not consider it their country – their government, perhaps, but not their country.
Originally posted by citizen:
Well, technically prior to the secession of the colonies, their country was Britain.
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME