I hear the Soviet Union was very patriotic in some circles. So was, as I recall, Nazi Germany.
Yea, whihc is why germany was ble to rise to a world superpower after the treaty versalies. But Hitler was a madman, and as a reusult germany fell. Bush isnt a madman..see?
Yea, whihc is why germany was ble to rise to a world superpower after the treaty versalies. But Hitler was a madman, and as a reusult germany fell. Bush isnt a madman..see?
Bush being a madman is debated in some circles :winky:
The madness of the leader means nothing, it is the methods used.
BG: Just sayin' that patriotism isn't always positive.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Sing lustily and with good courage.
Be aware of singing as if you were half dead,
or half asleep:
but lift your voice with strength.
Be no more afraid of your voice now,
nor more ashamed of its being heard,
than when you sang the songs of Satan.
BG: Just sayin' that patriotism isn't always positive.
But that's because it was directed at countries with negative ideals. From the perspectives of those countries, it was positive, just like American patriotism is positive from an American perspective. I doubt America's enemies see American patriotism as a good thing.
@Earl Pants-I voted against bush for many reasons, not the least of which is that he seems hell bent on returning the usa to a cromwellian england style of theocracy. I am not christian and therefor do not believe what the bible has to say about many things. This administration has sold out to the ultra-right wing religious concervatives with the anti-gay propaganda and uberfacist churchstate meldings.
This nation was founded so that congress and the president would make no laws respecting or demanding the practice of any one religion and we are teatering on the brink of violating that part of the bill of rights.
Thats not all however, I resent the implication that you are a better american because you vote republican. I happen to look at both parties carefully as well as the impact on rights, especialy reproductive and human rights and have come to the conclution that the republicans will never represent what I believe in.
Then there is the possability that our own government was complicit in the 9/11 attacks, and if you don't want to listen to that thats fine, but be aware that that is a real possability and that parts of the world would agree with me.
To the rest of the "liberals" out there, try googling the 'pnac' sometime and do some reading, its a scary plan the republicans have, and we need to be ready.
Laton, is there any reason that Bush couldn't be a self-appointed watchdog, even if his decisions did go with the majority? I don't necessarily think he is, but the two things aren't mutually exclusive, as far as I can tell. You can still do something based on your own opinions whether people are with you or not.
Calling Bush a "self-appointed" watchdog implies (at least it did to me) that he pulled strings illegally to get himself elected. That isn't true, despite what people still say about the 2000 election. I take offense at those whiners - get over it, the vote was close, they had a bunch of recounts, and the Supreme Court decided the matter. End of story.
But I digress - to answer your question, I don't think that the US President can "act on his own opinions" alone, when determining policy. Yes, he has his own opinions and values, and yes, they do have an influence on his decision. That's why we have Congress. They are there to prevent any President from implementing policy that the majority of the representatives disagree with. You must understand that there will always be people who don't agree with certain issues. That's why it's important that the majority be heard, not the select few who disagree with the issue in question.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Truth is my mission, and Logic and Reason are my weapons. - Rush Limbaugh
Calling Bush a "self-appointed" watchdog implies (at least it did to me) that he pulled strings illegally to get himself elected. That isn't true, despite what people still say about the 2000 election. I take offense at those whiners - get over it, the vote was close, they had a bunch of recounts, and the Supreme Court decided the matter. End of story.
Indeed. People expect us to be a democracy. We really arent at all. If it was,
Gore would have been elected. What happened happened and the election afterwards just told me that most of the nation thinks my generation should go to hell.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
When I down a fairy you know I'm only getting started mother f***er.
There's a wide range of Americans, past and present, who I would consider patriots. IMO, a patriot is someone who, despite pressure to the contrary, does what he thinks is best for the nation. Not all patriots are warmongers, yet not all of them are hippies either. Not all of them seek to greaten their country at the *expense* of other countries.
I would like to list some of the people that are not often enough associated with being "patriots".
I consider all of these people (and of course, many more) to be American patriots:
Michael Moore, Martin Luther King, Jr., Howard Dean, Huey P. Newton and Bobby Seale, Susan B. Anthony, Upton Sinclair, Mumia Abu Jamal, Clarence Darrow.
I'd also list some of the more conservative-friendly people from history, but they are already "patriots by default"
Quote from Reality Twister »
A lot of people already posted how patriotism does not lead to succes.
I would like to point out that, even if it would lead to the succes of one country (America, in this case), that does not make patriotism a 'good' thing.
Sometimes it does.
Quote from Reality Twister »
Do you think the world would be a worse place, if Americans (and others, however, patriotism seems to be most prominent in the USA) were not so patriotic? I doubt it. I think that, if people were less patriotic and countries would be less protective of themselves, the world as a whole would be a better place.
That's quite possible. However, concern for ones country and concern for the world do not have to be mutually exclusive.
Concerning Iraq: I think that, while we should accept that much of the world is upset about the war - the rest of the world should also accept that much of Iraq isn't upset about the fact that they just voted in an incredibly flawed election, which was sadly much less flawed then the ones they voted in earlier.
Coming halfway means just that... halfway. Neither American conservatives nor the general population of Europe and the world seem willing to do so.
The media certainly doesn't help. Alot of people in the US get news from FOX, which is BEYOND biased and unfair. Alot of people in Europe get news from sources that are BEYOND biased in the opposite direction. The media doesn't report the news anymore, it fuels division.
would like to list some of the people that are not often enough associated with being "patriots".
I consider all of these people (and of course, many more) to be American patriots:
Michael Moore, Martin Luther King, Jr., Howard Dean, Huey P. Newton and Bobby Seale, Susan B. Anthony, Upton Sinclair, Mumia Abu Jamal, Clarence Darrow.
I agree with all of those people except for Michael Moor,I hoeslty believe the man is not a patriot but a man with worse bias then fox news and who wants money more then anything.
Quote from Ljossberir »
The media certainly doesn't help. Alot of people in the US get news from FOX, which is BEYOND biased and unfair. Alot of people in Europe get news from sources that are BEYOND biased in the opposite direction. The media doesn't report the news anymore, it fuels division.
The Media is the worst thing to happen to the civilized world ,in one way controls on the media would be better.I have largly stopped watching the news except for entertainment value.CNN is also almost as bad as fox and MSNBC Is still bad but not as bad as the otheres.Europe is even worse.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Nyarlathotep must all things be told
for he is the messenger between the spheres
and the traveler between the realms of the living and the dead.
He shall summon forth the ancient ones
and wake them from their deathly slumber
then shall the elder signs be shattered. Trade Thread
I do wonder: how do you know the media in Europe (and the others) are so extremely biased? What source of information do you have you can compare it with to come to this conclusion? Couldn't it be that all non-European media are extremely conservatively biased? (or that all non-Fox media are extremely biased the other way?)
Of course the issue of bias is subjective!
As to your question, take a glance at the BBC or Le Monde and just stop for a moment and consider whether they are presenting the news in an objective manner.
Couldn't it be that all non-European media is extremely conservatively biased?
-Yes.
But then, couldn't it also be that all European media is extremely liberal biased?
As I said, I think both the American and European media is to blame. It's easy to live in a bubble. It's hard to step outside of it, and examine the information independently of our own personal feelings. You feel, as I do, that FOX is an incredibly unfair and biased media source. Can you not accept that it is also possible for a media source to be biased left?
It really sounds as if you have been indoctrinated by the leftist media. It's perfectly normal for someone to identify with the left, or to be a liberal, but news is different.
We need media sources that cover every story from both angles. Equal amounts of time, equal amounts of coverage, equal representation from all parties involved. When I turn on the news or read it, I want to find out what is going on in the world! What our conflicts are, what our dreams are, what our problems are, how our economic and social systems are doing and so on. I don't want to hear or read any propaganda from FOX or the BBC or CNN. Know what I mean?
edit: Has anyone seen OUTFOXED yet? It looks really cool, I'd like to get a copy but I'm not positive it's worth it.
Yea, whihc is why germany was ble to rise to a world superpower after the treaty versalies. But Hitler was a madman, and as a reusult germany fell. Bush isnt a madman..see?
Bush being a madman is debated in some circles :winky:
The madness of the leader means nothing, it is the methods used.
BG: Just sayin' that patriotism isn't always positive.
Be aware of singing as if you were half dead,
or half asleep:
but lift your voice with strength.
Be no more afraid of your voice now,
nor more ashamed of its being heard,
than when you sang the songs of Satan.
But that's because it was directed at countries with negative ideals. From the perspectives of those countries, it was positive, just like American patriotism is positive from an American perspective. I doubt America's enemies see American patriotism as a good thing.
This nation was founded so that congress and the president would make no laws respecting or demanding the practice of any one religion and we are teatering on the brink of violating that part of the bill of rights.
Thats not all however, I resent the implication that you are a better american because you vote republican. I happen to look at both parties carefully as well as the impact on rights, especialy reproductive and human rights and have come to the conclution that the republicans will never represent what I believe in.
Then there is the possability that our own government was complicit in the 9/11 attacks, and if you don't want to listen to that thats fine, but be aware that that is a real possability and that parts of the world would agree with me.
To the rest of the "liberals" out there, try googling the 'pnac' sometime and do some reading, its a scary plan the republicans have, and we need to be ready.
But I digress - to answer your question, I don't think that the US President can "act on his own opinions" alone, when determining policy. Yes, he has his own opinions and values, and yes, they do have an influence on his decision. That's why we have Congress. They are there to prevent any President from implementing policy that the majority of the representatives disagree with. You must understand that there will always be people who don't agree with certain issues. That's why it's important that the majority be heard, not the select few who disagree with the issue in question.
Trade with me - over 130 refs!!
Indeed. People expect us to be a democracy. We really arent at all. If it was,
Gore would have been elected. What happened happened and the election afterwards just told me that most of the nation thinks my generation should go to hell.
I would like to list some of the people that are not often enough associated with being "patriots".
I consider all of these people (and of course, many more) to be American patriots:
Michael Moore, Martin Luther King, Jr., Howard Dean, Huey P. Newton and Bobby Seale, Susan B. Anthony, Upton Sinclair, Mumia Abu Jamal, Clarence Darrow.
I'd also list some of the more conservative-friendly people from history, but they are already "patriots by default"
Sometimes it does.
That's quite possible. However, concern for ones country and concern for the world do not have to be mutually exclusive.
Concerning Iraq: I think that, while we should accept that much of the world is upset about the war - the rest of the world should also accept that much of Iraq isn't upset about the fact that they just voted in an incredibly flawed election, which was sadly much less flawed then the ones they voted in earlier.
Coming halfway means just that... halfway. Neither American conservatives nor the general population of Europe and the world seem willing to do so.
The media certainly doesn't help. Alot of people in the US get news from FOX, which is BEYOND biased and unfair. Alot of people in Europe get news from sources that are BEYOND biased in the opposite direction. The media doesn't report the news anymore, it fuels division.
I agree with all of those people except for Michael Moor,I hoeslty believe the man is not a patriot but a man with worse bias then fox news and who wants money more then anything.
The Media is the worst thing to happen to the civilized world ,in one way controls on the media would be better.I have largly stopped watching the news except for entertainment value.CNN is also almost as bad as fox and MSNBC Is still bad but not as bad as the otheres.Europe is even worse.
for he is the messenger between the spheres
and the traveler between the realms of the living and the dead.
He shall summon forth the ancient ones
and wake them from their deathly slumber
then shall the elder signs be shattered.
Trade Thread
Of course the issue of bias is subjective!
As to your question, take a glance at the BBC or Le Monde and just stop for a moment and consider whether they are presenting the news in an objective manner.
Couldn't it be that all non-European media is extremely conservatively biased?
-Yes.
But then, couldn't it also be that all European media is extremely liberal biased?
As I said, I think both the American and European media is to blame. It's easy to live in a bubble. It's hard to step outside of it, and examine the information independently of our own personal feelings. You feel, as I do, that FOX is an incredibly unfair and biased media source. Can you not accept that it is also possible for a media source to be biased left?
It really sounds as if you have been indoctrinated by the leftist media. It's perfectly normal for someone to identify with the left, or to be a liberal, but news is different.
We need media sources that cover every story from both angles. Equal amounts of time, equal amounts of coverage, equal representation from all parties involved. When I turn on the news or read it, I want to find out what is going on in the world! What our conflicts are, what our dreams are, what our problems are, how our economic and social systems are doing and so on. I don't want to hear or read any propaganda from FOX or the BBC or CNN. Know what I mean?
edit: Has anyone seen OUTFOXED yet? It looks really cool, I'd like to get a copy but I'm not positive it's worth it.