Why the Left is so dangerous
POSTED BY: AURaptor
UPDATED: Tuesday, April 8, 2025 14:10
VIEWED: 15600
PAGE 12 of 23
Quote:
Why the Left is so dangerous
AURaptor, your thread title itself is fear-mongering Neo-con style bull. And your attack on Kennedy comes down to his use of the word "traitor" when we have been treated to the Neo-cons calling everyone left of the farthest far right "traitors" for the past 6 years..."if you're not with us, you're against us." "opposing the war gives aid and comfort to the enemy" "Michael Moore is a terrorist" etc.
But then, this is an AURaptor post, so calling the left "dangerous" because one man uses utterly unremarkable politically charged rhetoric against Bush & co. is right up there with claiming America is "in danger" of dhimmification because of a single unbelievably lucky terrorist attack.
But then, it is in the nature of the totalitarian mind-set to see the slightest whiff of dissent as a grave danger that must be put down.
And for cryin' out loud, at this crazy moment in our history, the "left" in this country is all but defunct! So defunct, and forgotten, that we got Finn the History Professor saying here that socialism is a new idea in the U.S. LOL! *cough*labor unions*cough*
To paraphrase Santayana, "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to swollow whatever fable the ruling elite want to shovel."
HKCavalier
Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Okay Finn, I see where you're coming from, and I made the same error of using country and government interchangeably. But just because the FF called themselves Patriots doesn't necessarily mean that they met YOUR definition of patriotism. This wouldn't be the first or the last time that a group called itself by a nice-sounding name. There were so many different mores, economies, religions, customs, and politics between colonies that it would be hard to say they identified themselves as "Americans"; the only thing they had in common was that they wanted the British out.
In your opinion, what constitutes a "country"?
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:It’s a land or region that someone feels a personally connection with.
Originally posted by SignyM:
In your opinion, what constitutes a "country"?
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
Does that include the people, economy, customs, language, religion, and government? Or is it strictly place-related?
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Well, I think it is place-related, but I think it could have something to do with the culture as well, so language, customs and religion could be factors. Economy and government could both be factors as well, but these are more functional, less aesthetic. People normally become attached to aesthetic properties of their country. For me, economy and government fall more into the “how,” and less the “what.”
Originally posted by SignyM:
Does that include the people, economy, customs, language, religion, and government? Or is it strictly place-related?
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:
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.
no its there, but its delivered more subtly, to avoid the controversy that it truly deserves. take a typical high school history book, and read through the section of colonial America, and the founding of the constitution; and then notice what they leave out (but ill make it easy.. our religious heritage, ie the source of our principles). the whole books like that.. its how socialists have attempted to redefine cultural norms and established values and ethics, while re-writing them to better suit their envisioned secular socialist utopia. it takes time, and a lot of persuasion, to take arms and property and wages away from a free people, in exchange for false promises wrapped in servitude
the argument is really centered around whether socialism is a positive thing, and if its even compatible with our constitutional republic. i would argue that its actually lethal to it.. but then it has never been formally proposed to us as a substitute, so that we can again debate the merits of the two systems(as they did during our founding). we decided long ago that it wasnt.. and i assumed we were all under the impression that we were to defend what we were given by our fore fathers. thats what i object to the most.. the deception and trickery of it all
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Then they must have all been blind from birth, since prior to the war of Independence, the colonies were part of the British Empire, and therefore part of Britain. So all they had to do to see Britain was look at what they were standing on.
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
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.
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:So says the conqueror.
Originally posted by citizen:
Then they must have all been blind from birth, since prior to the war of Independence, the colonies were part of the British Empire, and therefore part of Britain. So all they had to do to see Britain was look at what they were standing on.
And I suspect that if Britain had put more interest into the America’s, treated them more like a part of Britain and less like some colony to serve Britain, there might not have been as much animosity towards the British Crown.
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
I don't know that there is any problem with the definition of patriotism. I think in the end this debate is skating around the real issue -- what is the role of a loyal opposition in a time of national crisis? In those situations are politics as usual suspended? Is the party in opposition supposed to audit the government during these times or act as cheerleaders?
During peacetime we would never discuss what patriotism means because love of country is self evident. However in peacetime the nation and it's government are more distinct from one another.
I think most people accept that the government should act in the national interest, after all it's elected by the people of it's nation and should owe no loyalty to anyone else. However in times of crisis it becomes essential that people accept the government as working in their interest and look to government for guidance and security. During those times the distinction between government and nation start to blur and that leaves the opposing party with a problem. Any criticism of the government could be seen as criticism of the nation and this has to be avoided. However, if there was ever a time for an opposition to keep an eye on the conduct of government a crisis is the one, not so much because government cant be trusted as that you simply can't afford mistakes and misplays. The more people that look at a problem, the more alternative views are considered, the fewer mistakes get made.
So the opposition is in a pickle. Ideally they should be able to seperate the government from the state and treat them both differently, in practice public feeling makes that hard.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Antimason, if you want to talk about US rebranding take a look at the Cold War. A lot of what is currently taught in US history courses is based on an editing of our history to accentuate the differences between the US and the USSR. In many ways, what we redefined ourselves as, as a country, was anti-Soviet. The USSR was godless, therefore it was necessary that the US become more godfearing. The USSR was seen as socialist, therefore it was necessary that the US remove all references to socialist movements from our history. The USSR needed to exert control over new territory or else it would wither, therefore it was necessary to minimize our own country's tendency to expand the territory over which we exerted influence.
Those of us who grew up in the Cold War were educated to believe in a vision of the US that left out a whole hell of a lot. The real story is much richer and more heroic. The real story is much more about We the People than about the privileged few. The real story is less about the great men of history and more about how citizens of the world can come together in one place and recreate themselves and build something different. The real story acknowledges mistakes and teaches us what to look out for and where we went wrong. The real story treats us like adults with the agency to change. The real story requires us to question the present and look for possible improvements. The real story, in short, is anathema to the status quo and those who benefit the most from the status quo. The real story, then, must not be told.
There's a reason why we only focus on the name Thomas Paine and not on what he actually wrote.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME