NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.welchreport.com/comment2.cfm?rank_cho=503

This is interesting and well written.
I agree with what Theodore Roosevelt and Ronald Reagan said.

One can only wonder at the number of protests/allegations/etc will be made against the validity of this article by the more, shall we say conservatively enthusiastic people?

A storm is coming.

As usual. :/

One can only wonder at the number of protests/allegations/etc will be made against the validity of this article by the more, shall we say conservatively enthusiastic people?

A storm is coming.

As usual. :/


I'm conservative. But I dont blindly support anyone. I will respect the President-I tend to like President Bush. I didnt like Clinton or agree with a lot, but still respected the office.
My Patriotism is toward my country and the way my life and my family's life is here. I like it for the most part. The things I dont like, I can change with effort and education.

I'll wager the worst of the cheerleaders in these parts'll give this thread a miss. They usually do, other than to periodically throw a figurative turd at the thread author.

It's the ones who actually respond that are worth watching, if only for their inherent 'cringe-making' factor. Go figure.

I'll wager the worst of the cheerleaders in these parts'll give this thread a miss. They usually do, other than to periodically throw a figurative turd at the thread author.

It's the ones who actually respond that are worth watching, if only for their inherent 'cringe-making' factor. Go figure.


I'm not making you cringe,am I ?

Stalin-like and Nazi-like, there is a good place to stop when reading a piece like that.

An intelligent writer that does not want to alienate readers would do better to refrain from such descriptions. It shows they have an agenda of their own and this makes me stop reading.

Cons want to restrict your rights under the patriot act is wrong, but the libs wanting to restrict firearms that were intended by people like Washington and Paine to keep the Gov in check is ok?

Hyprocracy knows no bounds on either side of the aisle.

I totally agree with this article. I think it's our patriotic duty to question the actions of the government.

Hyprocracy knows no bounds on either side of the aisle.

You're right. Listening to any politicians will get you in trouble. I dont feel George Washington and Theodore Roosevelt were so much politicans as they were statesmen. They were more profound and didnt seem to need to pander to evryone for support. They said what they meant, and did what they said they would.

It seems that to most conservatives today, if anyone dares speak against any federal program or initiative, he or she is categorized as being unpatriotic or even ungodly. Many conservatives even equate a person's support or lack thereof for our President as being a major determinant of his or her spirituality.

..ridiculous over-generalization.

Growing up and still living IN Kansas (would that be the center of the Bible-Belt? The Capitol of Conservatives? Probably so.), and keeping company WITH conservatives (by default, based on my social circles), I have yet to run into someone who exhibits the traits that "article" sets forth as "many conservatives' " actions.

What "conservatives" were they looking at, to arrive at that silly assumption, I have to wonder... :rolleyes:

I totally agree with this article. I think it's our patriotic duty to question the actions of the government.


Of course. It needs to be "checked and balanced" constantly. It needs to be questioned and prove itself.

I also agree with some of the complaints about this article. But the gist of it is that it's incorrect to call blind service patriotism. While I'm not a fan of the writer the message is correct.

I question Bush's Motives often, just as i did clinton's, but i still respect the office of the president....i would have respected and stiood ehind kerry....it's a respect for the leader....

I also don;t see how Bush is making a bigger government, he may have increased spending, but that is for existing plans and duh..a war.....i don;t theink he has increased the size of governemnt at all...

I also agree with some of the complaints about this article. But the gist of it is that it's incorrect to call blind service patriotism. While I'm not a fan of the writer the message is correct.

I think that's a fine statement to make.

Let's clarify a tad bit, tho:

"Blind Service" is not patriotism, but neither is "Blind Questioning".

Just because some liberal democrat automatically assumes that GWB's every action is wrong sure doesn't make them "patriotic", any more than the conservative republican who makes excuses across the board for any and everything.

I think that's a fine statement to make.

Let's clarify a tad bit, tho:

"Blind Service" is not patriotism, but neither is "Blind Questioning".

Just because some liberal democrat automatically assumes that GWB's every action is wrong sure doesn't make them "patriotic", any more than the conservative republican who makes excuses across the board for any and everything.

Amen....

part of the reason military spending has increased so much is that Clinton downsized the military during his eight-year reign.

I think that's a fine statement to make.

Let's clarify a tad bit, tho:

"Blind Service" is not patriotism, but neither is "Blind Questioning".

Just because some liberal democrat automatically assumes that GWB's every action is wrong sure doesn't make them "patriotic", any more than the conservative republican who makes excuses across the board for any and everything.

The difference is I've never heard anyone claim that to be anything other than a "bilnd questioning" automaton is to be unpatriotic. The opposite has been suggested (can anyone say Dixie Chicks).

part of the reason military spending has increased so much is that Clinton downsized the military during his eight-year reign.

Also part of the reason that some of the troops were ill-equipped. A fact that is often overlooked when criticizing the president.