NationStates Jolt Archive

I sincerely believe that people in America (for the most part) have lost sight of what patriotism is.

Our country was founded on revolution and rebellion, but liberal has become a dirty word. Thomas Jefferson advocated revolution as a frequent movement, but patriotism has come to mean supporting a president no matter what. Our founding fathers were anti-imperialists, but patriotism has come to mean spreading American democracy to every country that we can spoon-feed it to. Religion was meant to never even graze politics, but patriotism is now supporting a theocrat. Though slavery persisted, equality was a goal to aim for. Now a president is elected on a platform of hate, and we call it patriotic.

To love America, to truly embrace America and its ideals, is to question everything and believe that it can live up to be the greatest it can be. To burn a flag or to protest the president is the most American activity. I truly love this country, and I show it the way Washington, Adams, Franklin, Jefferson, and the others did- by protesting and changing things.

What happened to the patriots of old? Martin Luther King, Jr., Bobby Kennedy, and Frank Korematsu would all be ostracized and called cowards and communists (just as the war hero John McCain was in the 2000 primaries by one George Bush).

Why has patriotism come to mean standing blindly behind a fascist, imperialist, hateful theocrat?

The founding fathers are surely turning in their graves.

You're right. What is called "patriotism" in America would rightly be called Nationalism everywhere else.

Congratulations! You have now created a new flamebait thread! :D

Congratulations! You have now created a new flamebait thread! :D
Shut up, Eutrusca; he makes a very valid point, and one I happen to agree with completely.

John McCain is a traitor. He's a Manchurian Candidate whose revoltingly fawning behavior and lovey-dovey attitude toward the Hanoi butchers is astonishing in light of the treatment they gave him years ago. With traitor Kerry, he helped cover up evidence that POWs are still being held by those bastards. In spite of their rampant human rights abuses and the failure to account for hundreds of MIAs and POWs, McCain still strongly favored renewing relations with those monsters.

That is not at all what patriotism is. "Patriot" used to mean "compatriot". Going back even further, it has the obvious stem of the Greek word patros, "father". What was derived from that was patris, which means "fatherland". So, essentially, patrotism is synonymous with nationalism.

John McCain is a traitor. He's a Manchurian Candidate whose revoltingly fawning behavior and lovey-dovey attitude toward the Hanoi butchers is astonishing in light of the treatment they gave him years ago. With traitor Kerry, he helped cover up evidence that POWs are still being held by those bastards. In spite of their rampant human rights abuses and the failure to account for hundreds of MIAs and POWs, McCain still strongly favored renewing relations with those monsters.
What the flying hell did that have to do with this thread?

MLK, Jr. is a traitor as well. He never was about 'non-violence.' He himself wrote an article for the Saturday Review, published in the first week of April 1965, where he outlined his strategy for deliberately inciting violence. King had no problem with the Vietcong, who committed the worst atrocities in the history of the planet. He also had no qualms with Red China, which he desperately wanted to be admitted to the UN (which he also loved). He was a full-fledged sexual psychopath who hired prostitutes with church money, beat them up, and had so many adulterous affairs he made JFK and Bill Clinton look faithful in comparison. He was also a rampant plagiarist, who stole much of his "I Have a Dream" speech from a speech given by a preacher at the 1952 Republican National Convention. His books also 'borrowed' heavily from others. He was nothing but a fraud. Most damning of all, however, was his intimate relationship with communists, among them Carl and Anne Braden (who were convicted of bombing a house in Louisville), Fred Shuttlesworth, Abner W. Berry, Hunter Pitts O'Dell (who local newspapers kept exposing at the time as a communist, prompting King to pretend to fire O'Dell over and over again), Stanley Levison (a KGB agent and King's speechwriter), Bayard Rustin, James Dombrowski, and many others.

What the flying hell did that have to do with this thread?

Read post #1.

MLK, Jr. is a traitor as well. He never was about 'non-violence.' He himself wrote an article for the Saturday Review, published in the first week of April 1965, where he outlined his strategy for deliberately inciting violence. King had no problem with the Vietcong, who committed the worst atrocities in the history of the planet. He also had no qualms with Red China, which he desperately wanted to be admitted to the UN (which he also loved). He was a full-fledged sexual psychopath who hired prostitutes with church money, beat them up, and had so many adulterous affairs he made JFK and Bill Clinton look faithful in comparison. He was also a rampant plagiarist, who stole much of his "I Have a Dream" speech from a speech given by a preacher at the 1952 Republican National Convention. His books also 'borrowed' heavily from others. He was nothing but a fraud. Most damning of all, however, was his intimate relationship with communists, among them Carl and Anne Braden (who were convicted of bombing a house in Louisville), Fred Shuttlesworth, Abner W. Berry, Hunter Pitts O'Dell (who local newspapers kept exposing at the time as a communist, prompting King to pretend to fire O'Dell over and over again), Stanley Levison (a KGB agent and King's speechwriter), Bayard Rustin, James Dombrowski, and many others.

Roach-Busters...just please, be quiet. You have no idea what you're talking about; all you do is bash some of the few decent people that have existed in this world. Please, for all of our sakes, quit posting your bullshit and leave.

MLK, Jr. is a traitor as well. He never was about 'non-violence.' He himself wrote an article for the Saturday Review, published in the first week of April 1965, where he outlined his strategy for deliberately inciting violence. King had no problem with the Vietcong, who committed the worst atrocities in the history of the planet. He also had no qualms with Red China, which he desperately wanted to be admitted to the UN (which he also loved). He was a full-fledged sexual psychopath who hired prostitutes with church money, beat them up, and had so many adulterous affairs he made JFK and Bill Clinton look faithful in comparison. He was also a rampant plagiarist, who stole much of his "I Have a Dream" speech from a speech given by a preacher at the 1952 Republican National Convention. His books also 'borrowed' heavily from others. He was nothing but a fraud. Most damning of all, however, was his intimate relationship with communists, among them Carl and Anne Braden (who were convicted of bombing a house in Louisville), Fred Shuttlesworth, Abner W. Berry, Hunter Pitts O'Dell (who local newspapers kept exposing at the time as a communist, prompting King to pretend to fire O'Dell over and over again), Stanley Levison (a KGB agent and King's speechwriter), Bayard Rustin, James Dombrowski, and many others.

For proof of King's plagiarism, read The Martin Luther King Jr. Plagiarism Story (Rockford Institute, Rockford, IL, 1994), by Theodore Pappas; "Martin Luther King Papers Project" by Stanford University; Bearing the Cross by Professor David J. Garrow; the December 3, 1989 issue of the British Sunday Telegraph; and the September 1990 issue of Chronicles.

MLK, Jr. is a traitor as well. He never was about 'non-violence.' He himself wrote an article for the Saturday Review, published in the first week of April 1965, where he outlined his strategy for deliberately inciting violence. King had no problem with the Vietcong, who committed the worst atrocities in the history of the planet. He also had no qualms with Red China, which he desperately wanted to be admitted to the UN (which he also loved). He was a full-fledged sexual psychopath who hired prostitutes with church money, beat them up, and had so many adulterous affairs he made JFK and Bill Clinton look faithful in comparison. He was also a rampant plagiarist, who stole much of his "I Have a Dream" speech from a speech given by a preacher at the 1952 Republican National Convention. His books also 'borrowed' heavily from others. He was nothing but a fraud. Most damning of all, however, was his intimate relationship with communists, among them Carl and Anne Braden (who were convicted of bombing a house in Louisville), Fred Shuttlesworth, Abner W. Berry, Hunter Pitts O'Dell (who local newspapers kept exposing at the time as a communist, prompting King to pretend to fire O'Dell over and over again), Stanley Levison (a KGB agent and King's speechwriter), Bayard Rustin, James Dombrowski, and many others.

For evidence of King's communist connections, read It's Very Simple by Alan Stang, and I Testify by former undercover FBI agent Julia Brown.

For evidence of his sexual psychopathy, read the March 31, 1965 issue of the Atlanta Journal, and the commentaries by Mary Starrett.

Roach-Busters...just please, be quiet. You have no idea what you're talking about; all you do is bash some of the few decent people that have existed in this world. Please, for all of our sakes, quit posting your bullshit and leave.

Please, for all of our sakes, post proof of your own, and prove to us all that what I'm posting is b.s.

For evidence of his sexual psychopathy, read the March 31, 1965 issue of the Atlanta Journal, and the commentaries by Mary Starrett.
What in the hell is "sexual psychopathy"? Do you have any idea what psychopathy is?

Please, for all of our sakes, post proof of your own, and prove to us all that what I'm posting is b.s.
I wish I could; I seriously wish most of the time that I had links like that at my fingertips. I don't.
But all I've seen from you regarding practically every famous, good person, like King and McCain basically boils down to them being communistic, and you throwing around your communist conspiracy theories. Frankly, the fact that you keep doing that makes me want to simply discount all of your posts as useless.

*Sigh*

I can see what the topic creator means...

*Glares at RB*

I wish I could; I seriously wish most of the time that I had links like that at my fingertips. I don't.
But all I've seen from you regarding practically every famous, good person, like King and McCain basically boils down to them being communistic, and you throwing around your communist conspiracy theories. Frankly, the fact that you keep doing that makes me want to simply discount all of your posts as useless.

McCain allegedly investigated the fates of POWs who never made it home. He said that the Vietnamese were no longer holding any of them. This is a bald-faced lie. In 1973, not all POWs returned. According to hundreds of eyewitnesses, many POWs were still being held. That makes him a liar. And thus, a traitor.

Let's see you hate McCain, a war hero. You hate the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King a National Hero. You got anything under that white hooded robe about the founding fathers's, Masons, Jews, Catholics, Latinos,........?

To love America, to truly embrace America and its ideals, is to question everything and believe that it can live up to be the greatest it can be.

Three cheers for you.

Jesus.

RB, you really, honestly make me sick. Communists and Vietnamese are inherently bad and evil? So what if someone has Communist connections? So what if they support a country as legitimate as our own? The Vietnamese people committed no more attrocities than our own. Have you heard of Abu Ghraib? Maybe not- maybe your head is so far in the sand that you deny anything that goes against your idealist bullshit.

As for MLK inciting violence...I would hope so. He opted for non-violent protest, but I salute Nat Turner and John Brown and all those people who used violence to stand up for the rights of blacks. You should take break between your 2:00 and 4:00 lynchings and think about the violence without reason committed against black people in this country.

And as for the etymological post, I meant the idea of loving America and embracing American values. American Patriotism.

Please try to play nice, people. That you disagree with each other is absolutely fine; however, it's not fine to descend to personal insults. Take a moment to think about how what you post makes the other person feel, OK?

~ Tsar the Mod.

His post makes me feel like America is dying.

That is not at all what patriotism is. "Patriot" used to mean "compatriot". Going back even further, it has the obvious stem of the Greek word patros, "father". What was derived from that was patris, which means "fatherland". So, essentially, patrotism is synonymous with nationalism.

American "Patriotism" as founded in the beginning of our nation was contrary to the "nationalism" ideals of other nations.

American foundational principles, the "Patri" that is "the head" is the people of your country... To quote Thomas Paine... talking about the American Patriot, "The first duty of the patriot is to protect his country from its government." The concept of "Patriotism" being alligned with a "governmental order" was overturned in favor of patriotism to your fellow citizens; in the Revolutionary order of America...

As such, the idea, in America, is turning "Patriotism" back into its Anti-American order of meaning; adverse with the principle as it existed in Revolutionary America.

Jesus.

RB, you really, honestly make me sick. Communists and Vietnamese are inherently bad and evil? So what if someone has Communist connections? So what if they support a country as legitimate as our own? The Vietnamese people committed no more attrocities than our own. Have you heard of Abu Ghraib? Maybe not- maybe your head is so far in the sand that you deny anything that goes against your idealist bullshit.

As for MLK inciting violence...I would hope so. He opted for non-violent protest, but I salute Nat Turner and John Brown and all those people who used violence to stand up for the rights of blacks. You should take break between your 2:00 and 4:00 lynchings and think about the violence without reason committed against black people in this country.

And as for the etymological post, I meant the idea of loving America and embracing American values. American Patriotism.

I said the Vietnamese government were monsters, not the people. Sorry if I didn't make that clear.

Let's see you hate McCain, a war hero. You hate the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King a National Hero. You got anything under that white hooded robe about the founding fathers's, Masons, Jews, Catholics, Latinos,........?

McCain was a war hero, but he lost all honor after his actions in the 90's. And I don't "hate" him or MLK, I just don't see why they're so glorified, especially MLK. Now Booker T. Washington, he's a real hero.

MLK, Jr. is a traitor as well. He never was about 'non-violence.' He himself wrote an article for the Saturday Review, published in the first week of April 1965, where he outlined his strategy for deliberately inciting violence.

Outlining a plan for deliberately inciting violence does not make one a traitor.

King had no problem with the Vietcong, who committed the worst atrocities in the history of the planet.

Having no problem with the Vietcong does not make one a traitor.

He also had no qualms with Red China, which he desperately wanted to be admitted to the UN (which he also loved).

Having no qualms about Red China does not make one a traitor, nor does wanting it to be admitted to the UN.

He was a full-fledged sexual psychopath who hired prostitutes with church money, beat them up, and had so many adulterous affairs he made JFK and Bill Clinton look faithful in comparison.

Being a 'full-fledged sexual psychopath' doe snot make one a traitor, nor does having adulterous affairs.

He was also a rampant plagiarist, who stole much of his "I Have a Dream" speech from a speech given by a preacher at the 1952 Republican National Convention. His books also 'borrowed' heavily from others.

Plagarism does not make one a traitor.


He was nothing but a fraud.


Being a fraud does not make one a traitor

Most damning of all, however, was his intimate relationship with communists, among them Carl and Anne Braden (who were convicted of bombing a house in Louisville), Fred Shuttlesworth, Abner W. Berry, Hunter Pitts O'Dell (who local newspapers kept exposing at the time as a communist, prompting King to pretend to fire O'Dell over and over again), Stanley Levison (a KGB agent and King's speechwriter), Bayard Rustin, James Dombrowski, and many others.

Having intimate relationships with communists does not make one a traitor.


Your point was what, exactly?

I sincerely believe that people in America (for the most part) have lost sight of what patriotism is.

Our country was founded on revolution and rebellion, but liberal has become a dirty word. Thomas Jefferson advocated revolution as a frequent movement, but patriotism has come to mean supporting a president no matter what. Our founding fathers were anti-imperialists, but patriotism has come to mean spreading American democracy to every country that we can spoon-feed it to. Religion was meant to never even graze politics, but patriotism is now supporting a theocrat. Though slavery persisted, equality was a goal to aim for. Now a president is elected on a platform of hate, and we call it patriotic.

To love America, to truly embrace America and its ideals, is to question everything and believe that it can live up to be the greatest it can be. To burn a flag or to protest the president is the most American activity. I truly love this country, and I show it the way Washington, Adams, Franklin, Jefferson, and the others did- by protesting and changing things.

What happened to the patriots of old? Martin Luther King, Jr., Bobby Kennedy, and Frank Korematsu would all be ostracized and called cowards and communists (just as the war hero John McCain was in the 2000 primaries by one George Bush).

Why has patriotism come to mean standing blindly behind a fascist, imperialist, hateful theocrat?

The founding fathers are surely turning in their graves.
Have you read any of the founding fathers' writings? They were more conservative than George Bush, by a mile.

Having intimate relationships with communists does not make one a traitor.


Your point was what, exactly?

Having intimate relationships with people who openly advocate the overthrow of one's country makes one a traitor.

I sincerely believe that people in America (for the most part) have lost sight of what patriotism is.

Our country was founded on revolution and rebellion, but liberal has become a dirty word. Thomas Jefferson advocated revolution as a frequent movement, but patriotism has come to mean supporting a president no matter what. Our founding fathers were anti-imperialists, but patriotism has come to mean spreading American democracy to every country that we can spoon-feed it to. Religion was meant to never even graze politics, but patriotism is now supporting a theocrat. Though slavery persisted, equality was a goal to aim for. Now a president is elected on a platform of hate, and we call it patriotic.

To love America, to truly embrace America and its ideals, is to question everything and believe that it can live up to be the greatest it can be. To burn a flag or to protest the president is the most American activity. I truly love this country, and I show it the way Washington, Adams, Franklin, Jefferson, and the others did- by protesting and changing things.

What happened to the patriots of old? Martin Luther King, Jr., Bobby Kennedy, and Frank Korematsu would all be ostracized and called cowards and communists (just as the war hero John McCain was in the 2000 primaries by one George Bush).

Why has patriotism come to mean standing blindly behind a fascist, imperialist, hateful theocrat?

The founding fathers are surely turning in their graves.
I would not call him hateful
He is just doing what the left-wingers are doing: standing strongly for what they believe in.
And obviously, after recent elections, most americans want to be Fascist, imperialists, and "hateful" theocrats

Having intimate relationships with people who openly advocate the overthrow of one's country makes one a traitor.


Incorrect. If one is a person that advocates overthrowing your own country, then that may make you a traitor, but having intimate relationships with them does not.

Incorrect. If one is a person that advocates overthrowing your own country, then that may make you a traitor, but having intimate relationships with them does not.

How so?

Pray tell, Cockroach, what a communist like myself would find wrong with associating with other communists?

You know, not everyone in this "great" country America is some commie-bashing child of McCarthy and the Cold War. Get over it. The 50's are over. The USSR is gone.

Then again, a person such as yourself, a person like you who aspires to become the Grand Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan, doesn't forget the valiant fight the Confederacy had with those meddling Northerners! :rolleyes:

How so?


How so? Because we do not share the opinions of all we have intimate relationships with.

Pray tell, Cockroach, what a communist like myself would find wrong with associating with other communists?

You know, not everyone in this "great" country America is some commie-bashing child of McCarthy and the Cold War. Get over it. The 50's are over. The USSR is gone.

Then again, a person such as yourself, a person like you who aspires to become the Grand Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan, doesn't forget the valiant fight the Confederacy had with those meddling Northerners! :rolleyes:

Disliking MLK doesn't make someone a racist, retard.

How so? Because we do not share the opinions of all we have intimate relationships with.

Aha...good point.

Lol, you always make me feel stupid BWO, but in a good way! :D

Have you read any of the founding fathers' writings? They were more conservative than George Bush, by a mile.
False. They were not Conservative. Bush isn't even a conservative. So its funny you said that.

The Founders were mostly Free Masons. Not all, but most.

Having intimate relationships with people who openly advocate the overthrow of one's country makes one a traitor.

Funny, intimate correspondence between the Colonials and the Loyalists of the Revolutionary period, was not classified as treachery.

And intimate correspondence between State citizens in America and the British loyalists in Canada and Great Britain was not classified as treachery during the war of 1812.

An attempt was made at classifying those who sympathized and conversed with the French during the French and Indian War, through the Alien and Sedition Acts... However two of the Founding Fathers overturned that idea in the Kentuky Resolutions...

---

Conclusion:

Your argument is baseless, and moronic.

Martin Luther King Jr. commited no acts which would be constitutionally classified as treason by the bulk of the founders of these United States...

As such, your "criteria" of "Treason" is one of your own invention. And has no bearing in truth in relation to these United States. But is the pure invention of your own dimented mind.

Aha...good point.

So, do you actually have any reasons that you will stand by when you claim that he was a traitor?

So, do you actually have any reasons that you will stand by when you claim that he was a traitor?

Please read the rest of the post you quoted.

(In other words, 'No')

Please read the rest of the post you quoted.

(In other words, 'No')


I asked because I wondered if you had any other reasons that you may not mentioned yet.

I asked because I wondered if you had any other reasons that you may not mentioned yet. Do you still believe that he was a traitor?

(Sigh) You win, BWO. :( Please don't rub it in.

(Sigh) You win, BWO. :( Please don't rub it in.

I edited out the second sentence in the post when I realised that you had in fact conceded the point, I wasn't actually trying to rub it in.



Sidenote: consider my previous post to have had the missing 'have' inserted.

False. They were not Conservative. Bush isn't even a conservative. So its funny you said that.

The Founders were mostly Free Masons. Not all, but most.
Quite true
My teacher did not vote for bush because he thought he was too liberal
He voted for some super conservative, probably

Bush isn't even a conservative.
Yes, he is actually a theocratic authoritarian.

Quite true
My teacher did not vote for bush because he thought he was too liberal
He voted for some super conservative, probably

Lemme guess...Michael Peroutka?

Lemme guess...Michael Peroutka?
No clue
I am not that knowledgable in the runners for the elections

I was thinking Buchanan...

You see, all you dudes out there do not understand that Patriotism in its simplest, clearest, and most indubitable meaning is nothing but an instrument for the attainment of the government's ambitious and mercenary aims, and a renunciation of human dignity, common sense, and conscience by the governed, and a slavish submission to those who hold power. That is what is really preached wherever patriotism is championed. Patriotism is slavery.

And all to stupid to realise this do not understand why their leaders do many terrible and corrupt things, because these people are using tactics of enforcing patriotism to make their citizens fail to realise their aims and goals.

:mad:

You see, all you dudes out there do not understand that Patriotism in its simplest, clearest, and most indubitable meaning is nothing but an instrument for the attainment of the government's ambitious and mercenary aims, and a renunciation of human dignity, common sense, and conscience by the governed, and a slavish submission to those who hold power. That is what is really preached wherever patriotism is championed. Patriotism is slavery.

And all to stupid to realise this do not understand why their leaders do many terrible and corrupt things, because these people are using tactics of enforcing patriotism to make their citizens fail to realise their aims and goals.

:mad:

Well, at least you're not flaming. :)

This election did, indeed, prove that most Americans are down with a facist, hateful theocrat.

That's why I started this thread. I thought that was pretty clear.

Second, I fully agree that George Bush sticks firmly to his policies. That doesn't mean they aren't hateful. He says outright that gay people are worse than straight people. Give me a break.

Third, to say that the founding fathers were conservative, is acurate. To say that George Bush is conservative is absolutely not. Classical conservatism (in terms of what the founding fathers were saying) is much akin to modern libertarianism. Small, inobtrusive governments. That's pretty much anathema to Bush's regime.

Like I said, fascist theocrat. Fascism, according to one of its fathers, Mussolini, is "the marriage of government and corporation." Case in point. Theocracy is rule by religion. When George Bush says that he "gets advice from a higher father," when he is so opposed to gay marriage and abortion and stem cell research, when he is in such support of faith-based initiatives, when he believes that fighting terrorists is what God tells him to do, that's theocracy.

And all to stupid to realise this do not understand why their leaders do many terrible and corrupt things, because these people are using tactics of enforcing patriotism to make their citizens fail to realise their aims and goals.
My friend, I believe you have just stumbles upon propaganda.

You see, all you dudes out there do not understand that Patriotism in its simplest, clearest, and most indubitable meaning is nothing but an instrument for the attainment of the government's ambitious and mercenary aims, and a renunciation of human dignity, common sense, and conscience by the governed, and a slavish submission to those who hold power. That is what is really preached wherever patriotism is championed. Patriotism is slavery.

And all to stupid to realise this do not understand why their leaders do many terrible and corrupt things, because these people are using tactics of enforcing patriotism to make their citizens fail to realise their aims and goals.

:mad:
I will always stand w/ Bush
unless he goes against my beliefs, highly doubtful
this goes for all like him also

I agree with this, because patriotism is used or was used specifically in fascist nations to get the populace worked up and this all led to the German Father commiting many terrible crimes during the Great Wars

And I am sorry if I seemed a bit nasty with my last tel ;) egram

I will always stand w/ Bush
unless he goes against my beliefs, highly doubtful
this goes for all like him also


"I will always stand with someone who does what I agree with, unless they do something I do not agree with" - what does this have to do with patriotism?

McCain was a war hero, but he lost all honor after his actions in the 90's. And I don't "hate" him or MLK, I just don't see why they're so glorified, especially MLK. Now Booker T. Washington, he's a real hero.
Silly RB, MLK was a man, and despite that he managed at the constant risk of his life for two long decades, to drag America up by its better intentions out of an Apartheid society. We as a nation owe him more than we will ever realize.

I was a kid back in the days of segregation and a black man's life wasn't worth very much in the South. The life of a Black man who made trouble was worth even less. When King became too famous to casually kill many settled for just casually assassinating his character. A habit of conservatives to this day.

Now on John McCain, if you got ten dollars you can buy an "Eye Witness" account of live American POWs all over South East Asia. If you have a loved one that is missing I am sorry, but they have probably passed on the trials of this world. The Viet Cong were not known to take much stock in transporting prisoners all the way back to Hanoi, and of the solders that may have been mistakenly caught in a friendly fire incident with a B52 strike or Napalm would have left little behind.

I suppose that George W. Bush doesn't really use patriotism with his ideals aa a president, but you have to admit that the whole yankee nation get worked up whenever he does something; wrong or right

And he sure has done some terrible things ;)

You see, all you dudes out there do not understand that Patriotism in its simplest, clearest, and most indubitable meaning is nothing but an instrument for the attainment of the government's ambitious and mercenary aims, and a renunciation of human dignity, common sense, and conscience by the governed, and a slavish submission to those who hold power. That is what is really preached wherever patriotism is championed. Patriotism is slavery.

And all to stupid to realise this do not understand why their leaders do many terrible and corrupt things, because these people are using tactics of enforcing patriotism to make their citizens fail to realise their aims and goals.

:mad:

ha ha, another fine post, to quote Thoreaus' modified statement from the masthead of the Democratic Review (1837-1853) "that government is best which governs not at all"...break free from the bonds of slavery!

I will always stand w/ Bush
unless he goes against my beliefs, highly doubtful
this goes for all like him also

WHAT exactley are your beliefs Culex, I have to ask this of you because I would like to find out, What do you think of Bush?

How do you think he should react?

And how does his actions in the past relate to my first telegram? :confused:

I suppose that George W. Bush doesn't really use patriotism with his ideals aa a president,

You, sir, are severely mistaken.

I agree. It's true.

I find this thread about patriotism (and whatever other topics have happened to emerge from the main one) very interesting. It's good to know that there are some people out there who actually put some decent thought into something before completely spouting off. And it is also fairly interesting when people spout of anyways :). And Culex, isn't there [I]anythin[/Ig that President Bush does that might piss you off somewhat? I mean, not doubting your statement, but... I mean I'm a liberal and I certainly wouldn't agree with everything that say, Dennis Kucinich did. Enlighten me.

ha ha, another fine post, to quote Thoreaus' modified statement from the masthead of the Democratic Review (1837-1853) "that government is best which governs not at all"...break free from the bonds of slavery!


Well actually, I got this form a famous Russian author called Leo Tolstoy, but the words were a bit out of date so I refurbished them :)

ha ha, another fine post, to quote Thoreaus' modified statement from the masthead of the Democratic Review (1837-1853) "that government is best which governs not at all"...break free from the bonds of slavery!


Well actually, I got this from a famous Russian author called Leo Tolstoy, but the words were a bit out of date so I refurbished them :)

Third, to say that the founding fathers were conservative, is acurate. To say that George Bush is conservative is absolutely not. Classical conservatism (in terms of what the founding fathers were saying) is much akin to modern libertarianism. Small, inobtrusive governments. That's pretty much anathema to Bush's regime.


Hmmm.... Thought that was Classical Liberalism, lotsa political freedoms, lotsa economic freedom. Small, limited, but strong government.

Classic liberalism and classic conservatism were one and the same. That's why we didn't have political parties.

That's why we didn't have political parties.
That's why there were Federalists and Anti-Federalists, right?

None of the Founding Fathers were "conservative" for their day... Conservatism of that day was synonymous to the British Loyalists (aka the Torries)...

The Founders were extreme liberals for their time... And only varied in their degree of liberalism.

To believe that "All men are created equal" was revolutionary for its time when all the world was ruled by hereditary monarchs. In many nations it still is a revolutionary concept.

There is a propaganda rush by the religious right wing to cast our founding fathers in a fundamentalist light. The truth is our founding fathers ran the gamut of social and ethical behavior of the time. Washington, Franklin, and Jefferson slept around a lot. Some of them were thieves, some pirates, and most were slave owners. My own family came over one step ahead of the death penalty for being related to the wrong prince. We were the discarded scum of Europe, yet we came up the Constitution and the Bill Of Rights.

Were they divinely inspired or just tired of being pushed around, perhaps a bit of both. They were still first class bastards to the upright loyalists that supported the King.

Not to mention the fact that there were mulitple deist Framers.

None of the Founding Fathers were "conservative" for their day... Conservatism of that day was synonymous to the British Loyalists (aka the Torries)...

The Founders were extreme liberals for their time... And only varied in their degree of liberalism.
Although, on of histories uber-conservatives, Edmund Burke, did support independence for the colonies.

That's why there were Federalists and Anti-Federalists, right?

Federalists and Anti-Federalists centered around a debate over the new constitution. President George Washington belonged to no party and urged the country to stay that way.

Federalists and Anti-Federalists centered around a debate over the new constitution. President George Washington belonged to no party and urged the country to stay that way.
Would it be accurate to describe them as factions?

My knowledge of US history is fairly limited :(

Would it be accurate to describe them as factions?

My knowledge of US history is fairly limited :(

Factions would be somewhat accurate... After all the factional debate led to death at one point when Democratic-Republican VP Aaron Burr and Federalist Alexander Hamilton, both founders present in the nation, dueled....


Hamilton lost BTW.

Were they divinely inspired or just tired of being pushed around, perhaps a bit of both. They were still first class bastards to the upright loyalists that supported the King.

But during the revolution, the 'founding fathers' DID support the King. They didn't want independence, they wanted representation in the House of Parliament. very night during the war, Washington and his aides would toast the king's health.

It was only because of the French that the US became independent at all. They wouldn't help you win the war otherwise, and you needed them. Shame, really, since your current president then turned around and ripped them to shit when they suggested invading Iraq would be illegal, unethical and impermissable.

It was only because of the French that the US became independent at all.

Don't forget about people like Tom Paine, who were very important in creating an independance mentality

Don't forget about people like Tom Paine, who were very important in creating an independance mentality

It was still never a major goal. The independence that was dreamed of was more just having a voice in the over all scheme of running the Empire. Look at it sensibly. The US was in no state to be an independent country at the time. Militarily, it was laughable compared to the Imperialist nations of Europe. Technologically and infrastruturally, it was hopelessly backward, and the opulation was made up of everyone Europe didn't want (this is not meant offensively. It's just true. Anyone who didn't fit in with the ideology was more or less forcibly deported to the Americas).

On the other hand, Britain had the strongest navy in the owrld by that point, and it was pretty much between Britain, France and Russia for the world's premier power. The revolutionaries considered it far better to be a full part of the British establishment than to be a struggling independent nation. But the French wanted to weaken British power, and so agreed to help the Americans gain independence, but not if they wanted simply to be a more active part of Britain.

Twisted, really, isn't it? Nowadays, the US does this to everyone else.

Congratulations! You have now created a new flamebait thread! :D
Better than your extremely old, extremely crappy joke threads.

Roach-Busters...just please, be quiet. You have no idea what you're talking about; all you do is bash some of the few decent people that have existed in this world. Please, for all of our sakes, quit posting your bullshit and leave.
He knows what he is talking about. Roach's problem is tht he uses little known imperfections to make his targets look evil. To some of us the fact that MLK liked the UN and communism does not make him evil.

Let's see you hate McCain, a war hero. You hate the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King a National Hero. You got anything under that white hooded robe about the founding fathers's, Masons, Jews, Catholics, Latinos,........?
No, Roach-Busters isn't a KKK member, or a bigot of any kind. He's just a very conservative constitutionalist.

He is right that Ho Chi Minh and his associates were genocidal monsters. any of the actions they took during the Indo China wars made My Lai look tame.

Have you read any of the founding fathers' writings? They were more conservative than George Bush, by a mile.
Depends on what you mean by "conservative". Bush is in many ways not conservative at all, particularly in the issues of markets, size of government and foreign policy.

You know, not everyone in this "great" country America is some commie-bashing child of McCarthy and the Cold War. Get over it. The 50's are over. The USSR is gone.

Then again, a person such as yourself, a person like you who aspires to become the Grand Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan, doesn't forget the valiant fight the Confederacy had with those meddling Northerners! :rolleyes:
Roach-Busters is NOT racist or KKK. I have always had the suspicion, however, that he liked Joe McCarthy.

You see, all you dudes out there do not understand that Patriotism in its simplest, clearest, and most indubitable meaning is nothing but an instrument for the attainment of the government's ambitious and mercenary aims, and a renunciation of human dignity, common sense, and conscience by the governed, and a slavish submission to those who hold power. That is what is really preached wherever patriotism is championed. Patriotism is slavery.

And all to stupid to realise this do not understand why their leaders do many terrible and corrupt things, because these people are using tactics of enforcing patriotism to make their citizens fail to realise their aims and goals.

:mad:
That is what nationalism is to me, and that it why it is an ugly thing.

Patriotism is simply love for your country. It doesn't necessitate liking the government.

King had no problem with the Vietcong, who committed the worst atrocities in the history of the planet.

What with the what now?

Classic liberalism and classic conservatism were one and the same. That's why we didn't have political parties.

Just a heads up, but politics does exist outside of the United States of America. If you want to know where the terms "conservative" and "liberal" came from, in the political sphere, I suggest a brief reading of British political history. You may come to see why the statement "Classic liberalism and classic conservatism were one and the same" is a very strange one to make.

Just a heads up, but politics does exist outside of the United States of America. If you want to know where the terms "conservative" and "liberal" came from, in the political sphere, I suggest a brief reading of British political history. You may come to see why the statement "Classic liberalism and classic conservatism were one and the same" is a very strange one to make.

Right, I'm pretty learned in political theory. I was just referring to those terms in America, just I was to American patriotism.

Silly RB, MLK was a man, and despite that he managed at the constant risk of his life for two long decades, to drag America up by its better intentions out of an Apartheid society. We as a nation owe him more than we will ever realize.

I was a kid back in the days of segregation and a black man's life wasn't worth very much in the South. The life of a Black man who made trouble was worth even less. When King became too famous to casually kill many settled for just casually assassinating his character. A habit of conservatives to this day.

Now on John McCain, if you got ten dollars you can buy an "Eye Witness" account of live American POWs all over South East Asia. If you have a loved one that is missing I am sorry, but they have probably passed on the trials of this world. The Viet Cong were not known to take much stock in transporting prisoners all the way back to Hanoi, and of the solders that may have been mistakenly caught in a friendly fire incident with a B52 strike or Napalm would have left little behind.

Thank you, thank you very much for not flaming. :):):):):):):)

Better than your extremely old, extremely crappy joke threads.


He knows what he is talking about. Roach's problem is tht he uses little known imperfections to make his targets look evil. To some of us the fact that MLK liked the UN and communism does not make him evil.


No, Roach-Busters isn't a KKK member, or a bigot of any kind. He's just a very conservative constitutionalist.

He is right that Ho Chi Minh and his associates were genocidal monsters. any of the actions they took during the Indo China wars made My Lai look tame.


Depends on what you mean by "conservative". Bush is in many ways not conservative at all, particularly in the issues of markets, size of government and foreign policy.


Roach-Busters is NOT racist or KKK. I have always had the suspicion, however, that he liked Joe McCarthy.

Thanks for sticking up for me, Siljhouettes. :)