The Flag

[Mr. Coffee]

This question is for political liberals here, but also for anyone else--

It is my perception that if you see someone displaying an american flag (like a flag lapel pin, or bumper sticker) you can pretty much bet that they're Republican. There are exceptions, but it's much more likely. Why is that?

The flag is a national symbol, not a partisan logo. No matter how much right wingers or left wingers want to change the status quo, we all share a basic love for this country. One of the ways that this is expressed is by cherishing the same national symbol.

Or so you'd think.

[Morpheus]

Liberals love the country at least as much as their conservative brothers. At different times we have had no problem with displaying the flag. What happens occasionally, like now, the flag becomes viewed as more than simply a symbol of our nation; it gets related to a narrow agenda where people are pushed into an either/or perspective. To explain I will use the present situation. Those of us that opposed the war in Iraq from the beginning were publicly framed by the administration as antiamerican. Nothing could be further from the truth, but they used that comparison in an attempt to shut us up. Since then if someone is displaying a flag or wearing one on their lapel it is assumed that he supports the president and his war. It is much the same with the magnetic yellow ribbons on trunk lids. Not that we don't want to see our soldiers return home safely, but we do not wish to promote the war that has put them in danger. My wife and I made some alternative magnets for our vehicles. They consisted of either a cross or an ichthus symbol with the words "pray for peace".

[Morpheus]

P.S. We not only love the country as much as conservatives, we are extremely concerned that it has been led down the wrong path by unscrupulous leadership. We wish to make it healthy again.

[Mr. Coffee]

Morpheus,

Thank you for your replies. A lot of Americans feel that liberals don't love this country. They dwell on the shameful aspects of American history in a lopsided way, and they speak in a whiny tonality (e.g. John Kerry's incurable groan) and none of this is winsome. It's the party of the sooo disappointed who don't know how to cheer. Not a big mystery why Republicans have control in state houses, governors mansions, congress, and the executive branch.

[Gerald]

Originally posted by ilyatur
Not a big mystery why Republicans have control in state houses, governors mansions, congress, and the executive branch. Yup, they're masters of playing on people's fears, and telling them what they want to hear.

[aikido7]

Republicans are beating people over the head with the "look-at-me-I-love-the-flag" tactic.

The sentimental, Norman Rockwell view of patriotism has been held up to the bright light since the 1960s.

More and more citizens are no longer willing to sit on their hands while this country inisists other countries follow rules and norms that America is not willing to follow as well.

Sooner or later we get back to Jesus. Hypocrisy, public piety and deceit are on the front burner in the 21st Century United States just as much as they were in ancient Palestine.

The map is not the territory, the menu is not the meal, nor is a colored cloth flag America.

[Mr. Coffee]

Originally posted by aikido7
More and more citizens are no longer willing to sit on their hands while this country inisists other countries follow rules and norms that America is not willing to follow as well. I guess they can't use a voting machine with those sore fingers, judging from election results.
Sooner or later we get back to Jesus. Hypocrisy, public piety and deceit are on the front burner in the 21st Century United States just as much as they were in ancient Palestine. Just to let you know where I'm coming from: the folly of the cross is the wisdom and power of God, and Jesus made it happen under the boot of the State. Not inside the boot. The idea that the Kingdom is actualized through the coercive power of human government does not sit well with me.

I'm just saying: patriotism is not naive. We've got a great country. You don't have to wait for a regime change to love this country. The flag is just a way of saying that.

[Mustard Seed]

Originally posted by aikido7

Republicans are beating people over the head with the "look-at-me-I-love-the-flag" tactic.

As opposed to the liberal "look-at-me-I-love-burning-and/or-descrating-the-flag-so-I'm-more-'american'-because-I'm-'openminded'-enough-to-disregard-
symbols-of-this-nation-and-use-their-desecration-and-destruction-to-show-my-discontent-with-'the-present-administration'"?


The sentimental, Norman Rockwell view of patriotism has been held up to the bright light since the 1960s.

And the 'freethinkers' have likewise held up the flag as a symbol of 'free thinking' since the 60's. Just because I don't burn the American flag and I see it as a symbol of freedom does not mean I'm some demagauge led minion of the Republican Party.

More and more citizens are no longer willing to sit on their hands while this country inisists other countries follow rules and norms that America is not willing to follow as well.

What rules would those be? I think you're trying to be a bit selective here as to what rule paradigm's are applied to the whole of foreign policy. If your going to bring up the whole 'usurping' of a popularly elected Mossadeq then you are willing to perpetuate the idea of critiqueing history without thought of alternatives and their likely results. The truth of the matter is that we do not carry out our foreign policy in a vacuum. It's not a simple do this something bad happens, don't do this nothing happens. I have a feeling the Iranians alternate to having the US usurp their apparent choice was having the USSR do it instead. What comisar do you think they would have placed that would have been more favorable to the Shaw?

Sooner or later we get back to Jesus. Hypocrisy, public piety and deceit are on the front burner in the 21st Century United States just as much as they were in ancient Palestine.

On all sides aikido7. On all sides. Whether it's more 'red-white-and-blue than thou' or more 'free-thinking than thou' or virtualy whatever every part of the political spectrum and all the cracks in which resides any political ideology (yes even yours) there exists strongholds "Hypocrisy, public piety and deceit".


The map is not the territory, the menu is not the meal, nor is a colored cloth flag America.

Show me a territory without a map and I'll show you an entity with no name or differentiating property whatsoever.

Can't be done? Exactly my point.

Here's a question for you. Can any sovereign nation exist without a symbol to set it apart? Would the US exist if it had never used a flag? A symbol? They are seperate entities but you cannot seperate them as simply as you try to.

[keypurr]

Here in Kennedy land a lot of flags are flying. I would say that there are more liberals here than anywhere.

[Mustard Seed]

Originally posted by Gerald

Yup, they're masters of playing on people's fears, and telling them what they want to hear.

That's how the democrats held power over congress for over six, almost uninterupted decades. It's called politics. Is someone suppose to run for office with the line-- "If you don't vote for me all will likely be fine as my opponent is just as capable as I am and you'll likely be as well off without me as with me, perhapse even better off without me because I have a few views that I plan to carry out simply because they fit my specific ideology and since many of you don't share some of the utmost specific beliefs of my ideology I'm going to disregard your views on these items until right before the next electoral season."

To put such off as being just the reason republicans made it into office is rather disingenuous. All of politics seems to require at least some degree of charlitanism, at the very least a pompus self perception of being the most adequate person for the job.

[aikido7]

As opposed to the liberal "look-at-me-I-love-burning-and/or-descrating-the-flag-so-I'm-more-'american'-because-I'm-'openminded'-enough-to-disregard- symbols-of-this-nation-and-use-their-desecration-and-destruction-to-show-my-discontent-with-'the-present-administration'"?
...as opposed, rather, to those who do not need an outward proclamation of an inner certainty. No need to let your feelings toward the liberal spectrum get out of control here. Besides, I always thought flag-burning was not to show one's discontent with Bush but to get under a Bush-supporter's skin. Rather like a satanist reading the Bible backwards or turning a crucifix upside down.
And the 'freethinkers' have likewise held up the flag as a symbol of 'free thinking' since the 60's. Just because I don't burn the American flag and I see it as a symbol of freedom does not mean I'm some demagauge led minion of the Republican Party.
Now you're out of control....And wearing and parading the flag to cover a totalitarian agenda might be just as bad as destroying the flag by fire.
What rules would those be?
Similar to "Do unto others."
The truth of the matter is that we do not carry out our foreign policy in a vacuum.
That, I believe, was part of my point.
It's not a simple do this something bad happens, don't do this nothing happens. I have a feeling the Iranians alternate to having the US usurp their apparent choice was having the USSR do it instead. What comisar do you think they would have placed that would have been more favorable to the Shaw?
I don't follow you here.
On all sides aikido7. On all sides. Whether it's more 'red-white-and-blue than thou' or more 'free-thinking than thou' or virtualy whatever every part of the political spectrum and all the cracks in which resides any political ideology (yes even yours) there exists strongholds "Hypocrisy, public piety and deceit".
That is exactly why Jesus' admonishon to pay attention to the timber in your own eye before criticizing the speck of sawdust in another's is a favorite of mine.
Show me a territory without a map and I'll show you an entity with no name or differentiating property whatsoever.

Can't be done? Exactly my point.

Here's a question for you. Can any sovereign nation exist without a symbol to set it apart? Would the US exist if it had never used a flag? A symbol? They are seperate entities but you cannot seperate them as simply as you try to.
It's ALL metaphor. When someone says "I love America," they are actually claiming to love America as, say, the Land of the Free rather than professing adoration for the land mass south of Canada and north of Mexico. And when you say:
They are seperate entities but you cannot seperate them as simply as you try to.
Simply seperating them may mean doing some complex thinking, defining one's terms and calling things by their right name. Not always so simple. Your quote "They are seperate entities but you cannot seperate them" underlies the complexity of the argument nicely.

[Mustard Seed]

Originally posted by aikido7

...as opposed, rather, to those who do not need an outward proclamation of an inner certainty. No need to let your feelings toward the liberal spectrum get out of control here. Besides, I always thought flag-burning was not to show one's discontent with Bush but to get under a Bush-supporter's skin. Rather like a satanist reading the Bible backwards or turning a crucifix upside down.

The nations survival depends upon some degree of substantial symbolic employment.

Burning the flag existed long before Bush's political career.

If someone was to regularly take your picture and burn it in public do you think they're view was more than simple disagreement with your current stances? Perhapse they would do such because they simply want to see you destroyed.

We can play pretend that all symbol destruction has no real application to what we mean or feel towards what that symbol really represents but such is just lying to ourselves.

While simply holding to symbols does not guarentee that we are not hypocritical or that we for sure will perfectly effect all they represent but to trash, disregard or minimalize their importance INSURES that we will not hold to what they truly represent.

Now you're out of control....And wearing and parading the flag to cover a totalitarian agenda might be just as bad as destroying the flag by fire.

See above. Hypocrisy happens. I'm not saying such is not occuring and I'm not saying it's not dangerous.


Similar to "Do unto others."

Yes. If you look at the whole picture would you, if you were in the place of the Iranians, prefer that the U.S. depose your elected leader or that the Soviet Socialist Republic chose for you. In such a situation I'd chose the legacy of Lincoln and Washington to chose for me rather than a legacy of Hun, Mongol, Czar, and Stalin to be the one to depose the unstable current leader of my theoretical homeland.



That, I believe, was part of my point.

If it was then even you missed it. See above for a demonstration that it's not always a choice between 'good' support of an ellected leader and 'bad' deposing of one. Rather were given choices like bad-usurp an unstable though undemocraticaly elected leader to maintain alliances that will be most advantageous to ensuring the survival of democracy in light of Marxist Revolution in the form of Soviet Russian supremacy OR worse support an unstable leader who might, possibly, get a better hold on power eventualy, if he's lucky, and simultaniously tick off your most substantial allies at the same time the world is in balance and starting to teeter towards the control of a largely united Soviet front. Or worst play isolationism as Russia does what we could have done and takes possesion of a good portion of the worlds easily accessable hydrocarbon energy supply.

I don't follow you here.

Hopefully the above cleard it up a bit. If not just say so.


That is exactly why Jesus' admonishon to pay attention to the timber in your own eye before criticizing the speck of sawdust in another's is a favorite of mine.

The question of course comes to mind as to whether or not you believed Christ had any impedement in his eye. Or would you be one that would say that a statement like Christ's is an indicator of arrogance? It's important to avoid hypocrisy but if we all held our toungues 'till we reached perfection the only words that would have ever been spoken against anything or anyone would have been those words of Jesus. I wonder if such words would be rebuke for remaining silent with the excuse of one's own impiety as impeeding the correction of fellow man. Accute awareness of our own short comings is vital but not meant to being a means of shutting others up because we perceive them to be unduly critical.


It's ALL metaphor. When someone says "I love America," they are actually claiming to love America as, say, the Land of the Free rather than professing adoration for the land mass south of Canada and north of Mexico. And when you say:

I always saw it as professing a love for the whole. Sure there's metaphor but that's not the crux of it. Can one truly love a spouse and openly hate a key feature or symbol of who their spouse is? There may be aspects that could improvve but one cannot go long just hating those things which symbolize a person and love them with any profound depth (if love can exist at all). To only say to a person "I love you for what you can become" is not a viable option. Likewise to say you love america just for what it could be is not, in my curent view, to genuinly love America.


Simply seperating them may mean doing some complex thinking, defining one's terms and calling things by their right name. Not always so simple. Your quote "They are seperate entities but you cannot seperate them" underlies the complexity of the argument nicely.

True there is complexity. But to think that as long as you do enough 'complex thinking' will allow you to seperate two items is rather trusting in an unproven idea.

[Morpheus]

Originally posted by Mustard Seed

That's how the democrats held power over congress for over six, almost uninterupted decades. It's called politics. Is someone suppose to run for office with the line-- "If you don't vote for me all will likely be fine as my opponent is just as capable as I am and you'll likely be as well off without me as with me, perhapse even better off without me because I have a few views that I plan to carry out simply because they fit my specific ideology and since many of you don't share some of the utmost specific beliefs of my ideology I'm going to disregard your views on these items until right before the next electoral season."

To put such off as being just the reason republicans made it into office is rather disingenuous. All of politics seems to require at least some degree of charlitanism, at the very least a pompus self perception of being the most adequate person for the job. It's not the deception used to get into office that is most disturbing. We've come to expect that from all politicians of all stripes. The disturbing deceptions are more substantive. They were not invented by the Republican Party or GW, they can be found throughout our history. I do believe that GW and his crew have taken it to a new level though. Fabrication of fiction to manufacture consent for an illegal war, (or series of wars), are deception of an immense magnitude. At least in Vietnam there was a fear, although paranoid and unfounded, that fed their deceptions. In Iraq there is no such fear. The lies are for purely power-hungry, monetary motives.

[BillyBob]

Hey Mustard Seed, you messed this thread up in post #8. Edit a few spaces in there, will ya?

[Turbo]

Originally posted by BillyBob

Hey Mustard Seed, you messed this thread up in post #8. Edit a few spaces in there, will ya? No luck. It's still messed up. :doh:

[Turbo]

Originally posted by Turbo

No luck. It's still messed up. :doh: Oh, I hadn't see that aikido7 had quoted the problematic post. All better now. :)

[Frank Ernest]

Originally posted by :mock:Moribundius

It's not the deception used to get into office that is most disturbing. We've come to expect that from all politicians of all stripes. The disturbing deceptions are more substantive. They were not invented by the Republican Party or GW, they can be found throughout our history. I do believe that GW and his crew have taken it to a new level though. Fabrication of fiction to manufacture consent for an illegal war, (or series of wars), are deception of an immense magnitude. At least in Vietnam there was a fear, although paranoid and unfounded, that fed their deceptions. In Iraq there is no such fear. The lies are for purely power-hungry, monetary motives.
:blabla: :blabla: :blabla: :nananana:

[Gerald]

Originally posted by Mustard Seed
To put such off as being just the reason republicans made it into office is rather disingenuous. All of politics seems to require at least some degree of charlitanism, at the very least a pompus self perception of being the most adequate person for the job. I never claimed that only Republicans played that game; I was specifically addressing ilyatur's comment.

AFAIC, all politicians are scum.

But some of that scum is useful...:chuckle:

[Morpheus]

Originally posted by Frank Ernest

:blabla: :blabla: :blabla: :nananana: Are you off your meds again?

[cattyfan]

Originally posted by aikido7

...as opposed, rather, to those who do not need an outward proclamation of an inner certainty. No need to let your feelings toward the liberal spectrum get out of control here. Besides, I always thought flag-burning was not to show one's discontent with Bush but to get under a Bush-supporter's skin. Rather like a satanist reading the Bible backwards or turning a crucifix upside down.



aikido7 has inadvertantly found the perfect analogy and description for the extreme left's behavior: the satanist.

[Mr. Coffee]

How To Lose Elections 101:
Originally posted by aikido7
Republicans are beating people over the head with the "look-at-me-I-love-the-flag" tactic.
Originally posted by Morpheus What happens occasionally, like now, the flag becomes viewed as more than simply a symbol of our nation; it gets related to a narrow agenda where people are pushed into an either/or perspective. To explain I will use the present situation. Those of us that opposed the war in Iraq from the beginning were publicly framed by the administration as antiamerican. Nothing could be further from the truth, but they used that comparison in an attempt to shut us up. Since then if someone is displaying a flag or wearing one on their lapel it is assumed that he supports the president and his war.
Folks, I'd love to be a pro-life Democrat, but The Party Of The Morally Obtuse won't give me a pro-life candidate. That makes me a Somewhat Reluctant Default-Republican. But go ahead ninnies, give morality and patriotism to the other side!

As if displaying the flag is a way of condoning torture at Guantanamo! :confused: Are you for REAL? Are you feeling OK? Gee, way to prove Dubya wrong when he calls you un-American--stop displaying the flag! It's this kind of thing that keeps liberals out there in the Irrelevant Fringe.

For those in our studio audience who look forward to better days in the Democratic Party, see here (http://www.democratsforlife.org/) and here (http://www.democratsforlife.org/National/blogsandbooks.htm).

[Mustard Seed]

Originally posted by Morpheus

It's not the deception used to get into office that is most disturbing. We've come to expect that from all politicians of all stripes. The disturbing deceptions are more substantive. They were not invented by the Republican Party or GW, they can be found throughout our history. I do believe that GW and his crew have taken it to a new level though. Fabrication of fiction to manufacture consent for an illegal war, (or series of wars), are deception of an immense magnitude. At least in Vietnam there was a fear, although paranoid and unfounded, that fed their deceptions. In Iraq there is no such fear. The lies are for purely power-hungry, monetary motives.

Your view on history is distorted. That leaves an unfit foundation for determining our present state. Your analysis of what is and isn't is way out of wack. I'm not saying I know perfectly what's gone on in history but I'm fairly sure I have a better grip on it than you're demonstrating. To ascribe their actions with iraq as being purely monetary gain is rather distorted. The oil companies would have been much better off if they'ed just continued playing Sadam's game and left him in power.

[Mustard Seed]

Originally posted by BillyBob

Hey Mustard Seed, you messed this thread up in post #8. Edit a few spaces in there, will ya?

Sorry y'all.

Disculpame. Bebachsheed.

[Gerald]

Originally posted by Mustard Seed
Disculpame. Bebachsheed. Gesundheit.

[Granite]

Fnord.

[Morpheus]

Originally posted by Mustard Seed

Your view on history is distorted. That leaves an unfit foundation for determining our present state. Your analysis of what is and isn't is way out of wack. I'm not saying I know perfectly what's gone on in history but I'm fairly sure I have a better grip on it than you're demonstrating. To ascribe their actions with iraq as being purely monetary gain is rather distorted. The oil companies would have been much better off if they'ed just continued playing Sadam's game and left him in power. Q. Why did most of the founding fathers and early politicians live in Virginia and commute to DC?
A. Slavery was illegal in DC.

Q. Were our early leaders honorable men?
A. No. Many used their wealth and position to enrich themselves at other's expense. “Many of our rich men have not been content with equal protection and equal benefits, but have besought us to make them richer by act of Congress.” Andrew Jackson, veto of Second Bank charter extension, 1832

Q. What were Lincoln's intentions for the freed slaves?
A. Sending most of them either back to Africa or creating a state for them. He believed in freeing them, but not in their equality by any means.

Q. Is using patriotism to manipulate the public a new practice?
A. No."To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." Theodore Roosevelt

Q. Are the media manipulated by politicians?
A. Yes, have been for years."Reporters are puppets. They simply respond to the pull of the most powerful strings." Lyndon Johnson Q. Are the arguments that the wealthy manipulate government a recent development?
A. No. Always been that way.“Corruption dominates the ballot-box, the Legislatures, the Congress and touches even the ermine of the bench. The fruits of the toil of millions are boldly stolen to build up colossal fortunes for a few, unprecedented in the history of mankind; and the possessors of these, in turn, despise the Republic and endanger liberty.” National platform of the Populist Party, 1892 Q. Are our leaders any less transparent than in the past?
A. No. They have always used manipulation to manufacture consent, and have covered up what they wanted kept hidden.“The only thing new in the world is the history that you don’t know.” President Harry S. Truman

[Morpheus]

http://thirdworldtraveler.com/Blum/US_Interventions_WBlumZ.html
I've posted it before, but it is still appropriate.

[drbrumley]

Originally posted by Mustard Seed

Your view on history is distorted. That leaves an unfit foundation for determining our present state. Your analysis of what is and isn't is way out of wack. I'm not saying I know perfectly what's gone on in history but I'm fairly sure I have a better grip on it than you're demonstrating. To ascribe their actions with iraq as being purely monetary gain is rather distorted. The oil companies would have been much better off if they'ed just continued playing Sadam's game and left him in power.

The oil companies would have it better off with Saddam? What a hoot. Why pay Saddam when you pretty much can get it for free?

[Mustard Seed]

First off it's rather juvenile to think that a single quote or statement for each establishes it as the inerant truth. Your entire argument is tied to so many extrapolations, assumptions and overall an overly cynical view of the world that it's no wonder your view on history is so radicaly distorted.


Originally posted by Morpheus

Q. Why did most of the founding fathers and early politicians live in Virginia and commute to DC?
A. Slavery was illegal in DC.

Have you ever bought an item that was produced by slave labour? Don't know? Ever benefited from a governmental subsidy, either directly or indirectly? My dear man, you must be aware that you, along with virtualy the whole of humanity throughout virtualy the entire span of history, were born into an imperfect system of which there are various injustices which you could never completely abolish in your life time on your own. Certain things are far too entrenched. For you to be such an ignoramous as to impugn the integrity of our founding fathers simply because they didn't give us an eternal Utopia is among the most pompus, hypocritical, and damnable stances to take. If you demand such of those men at there judgement can you begin to fathom what God, or whatever higher power that is that you may believe in, or at sometime in the future come to a knowledge of, will demand of you? You have so much greater capacity than those men did. You can travel further faster and with less discomfort than almost all that have existed on earth. Your voice reaches people in seconds with a few keystrokes and has the capacity to reach thousands upon thousands. You have access to books, libraries and other previously unfathomable resources that even the most erudite and wise of history would have gladly traded all their possessions for. You are indeed condemning yourself on a level you have not even started to imagine...


Q. Were our early leaders honorable men?
A. No. Many used their wealth and position to enrich themselves at other's expense.

They put on the line their lives, sacred honor, families, worldly possessions etc. to give you the opportunity to live in the most free, open, and safe nation that Earth has ever seen. Most of them lost a good portion. Some lost all. All you can do now is look back and magnify their faults as if a few blemishes on a supermodel render her the most hideous thing ever seen by the human eye. If your so willing to rip them apart for such things then reveal all of your life that we may see the great exemplar you are. Tell me how many lifes have you saved or liberated in your life time? Any? Tell me whose lives you've made better? Now once you delineate all your virtues lets examine all your falliures. As you dig through the refuse pile that is much of the garbage you've produced in your life I hope you begin to see the miserable wrech you are especilay when compared to the bright lights of our founding fathers. Have you found a cause to which you've dedicated all you are, have been and ever will be to such a cause? If not, why not? Surely if you're so enlightened as to properly discern the horrible nature of the founders of this nation and all who've ever led it, why would such a task of finding the most honorable task to which one could comfortably commit their whole being to be any difficult task for one as mighty and all discerning as yourself?


Q. What were Lincoln's intentions for the freed slaves?
A. Sending most of them either back to Africa or creating a state for them. He believed in freeing them, but not in their equality by any means.

So you think a man's ignorance should condemn them to the deepest abbys? Were you aware that almost every white American in the north and the south (even Canadians Europeans etc.) at that time and date had the same ignorant prejudices? Some thought it immoral to hold them as slaves but most all thought it common knowledge that the black race was somehow a lesser race? Do you condemn to hell all of them for that same ignorance derived from their culture? Will Arabs in the future be right in condemning your likely stance at some time in the current past (assuming such isn't the case now) that you thought that they are somehow not capable of self governance?



Q. Is using patriotism to manipulate the public a new practice?
A. No.

Q. Is using 'freethinking' to masqarade treason a new practice?
A. No

Q. Are the media manipulated by politicians?
A. Yes, have been for years.

We live in a culture where all sides are manipulating each other. That's a fact of reality. We are individual beings who are constantly affecting, acting upon and being acted upon by others. Are politicians manipulated by the media? Are you manipulated by Media (any kind, books, anything that can classify as a medium of communication)?

Get real man we are all manipulating each other to varying degrees. It's called Existance. As long as you're traped in your 'Matrix' philosophy that this is all some big lie that you've somehow miraculously figured out and can discern better than almost anyone, or anyone at all, then you're going to forever be stuck in this funk thinking your some kind of prophet. Stop watching the 'Matrix' and get away from that which is manipulating YOU into believing that you are so much more adept at discerning truth from error in history despite the fact that your grasp on history has not really ever left the realm of propeganda feed.



Q. Are the arguments that the wealthy manipulate government a recent development?
A. No. Always been that way.

No doubt they exercise a great deal of power. Have you ever stoped and tried to compare your reach to that of say ancient rulers of Egypt? Let's stop and look at what you have that they did not. Access to largely hydrocarbon or nuclear backed energy sources so I'd dare say you likely have at least two items a day that have been refrigerated. And unless you're in some third world country or you refuse to ever go to any source of plumbing I'd dare say you have even more ready access to water, cleanwater at that, sure there may be a few carcenogens in it... but hey, at least you live long enough now days for that to be a factor in your life. I mean with a life span of 50 years it's kind of hard to worry much about the capacity to develope cancer at 60. Now say the ruler of Egypt had the desire to do something other than what was cut out for him. Well he either changed his mind or there was a great likelyhood of regime change. Likely in the form of a nice burial chamber and mumification. You see even the rulers of the past had the freedom and capacities you do. Do you get a harem? Not likely. But internet access seems to act as such for many, unfortunatly.



Q. Are our leaders any less transparent than in the past?
A. No. They have always used manipulation to manufacture consent, and have covered up what they wanted kept hidden.

So how much money do you have in all your various assets? What are you investing in? Why do you expect some degree of privacy but feel leaders must abandon it entirely? Do you want all the developments from the CIA the moment the informants get them? How about the FBI announce all their leads as they receive them from informants? The concept you have of an entirely 'transparent' leadership is imposible for ANY leadership you expect to last longer than a few days or a week.

So get a life morphy. When you finaly get intouch with reality rather than floating around in a 'Matrix' of your own making then you might begin to see how screwy your expectations are and how out of wack your measuring sticks are for determining the comparative success. Or perhapse you'll tell us all what the most successful form of government is and where you've seen it's viability demonstrated.

[drbrumley]

Morph, I am not following your point. I have to agree with MS completely.

Can you elaborate as to your point?

[Mustard Seed]

Originally posted by drbrumley

The oil companies would have it better off with Saddam? What a hoot. Why pay Saddam when you pretty much can get it for free?


First off I'm not a big fan of big business as a general rule. I don't think all corporations are inherently evil but I'm plenty aware that capitalisms excesses are not a pretty thing.

With that said on to your statement.

Your exageration that they are getting it for free is rather absured. Iraq may not have a government as developed as others but they're not going to permit the oil or it's revenues to just be given away. I'm rather certain that the world's media and other forces that be would point such things out rather quickly.

With regard to Sadam staying in power it would be quite easy (we've seen it done with other corporations with regard to doing business with Iran) that it's a simple matter of back room negotiations, offshore corporate setups etc. to purchase oil from Iraq. Even the UN was a viable route for oil to be sold. If the corporations that are suppose to be buddy buddy with with the Bush administration could do business just fine without risking the loss of their point man in starting one of the most controversial wars in our history then why do it? Your going to need to show me some hard facts that prove profiteering. A simple reference to Haliburtan will not be sufficient. I need hard evidence that makes it clear who would make the money, how they would make it, and what kind of return they would receive for their investment. You can label just about any action on someones drive for money. Just about every caveat of our culture has some sort of an industrial complex built up around it so simply accusing someone of doing something for money is rather easy. I need to see the how, where and when of it. And if you have any more information then that then provide it.

[drbrumley]

If your are truly interested in making sure the I's are dotted and the T's crossed, I'll be glad to start a thread tomorrowgoing into detail what I know and believe and such things as is approriate. Deal?

[Mustard Seed]

Excellent.

[Frank Ernest]

Liberal displaying American flag.
Satan displaying a Bible.

No difference.

[Morpheus]

Originally posted by drbrumley

Morph, I am not following your point. I have to agree with MS completely.

Can you elaborate as to your point? The whole thing began when MS went on one of his tyrades.Your view on history is distorted. That leaves an unfit foundation for determining our present state. Your analysis of what is and isn't is way out of wack. I'm not saying I know perfectly what's gone on in history but I'm fairly sure I have a better grip on it than you're demonstrating. To ascribe their actions with iraq as being purely monetary gain is rather distorted. The oil companies would have been much better off if they'ed just continued playing Sadam's game and left him in power My response was only to point out their is more to history than what is written in "history books". If we were raised here we were taught basically the same positive all-american history while critiqueing foreign history. It was very selective and designed to breed "good citizens". That is why Americans usually have an underlying attitude that they are better than foreigners. That we have the right to run the world. My point is that we are no better than those we attack and despise. The rest of the world admired our nation until somewhere after WW2. Quietly we have changed all that. As an example, when we attacked Grenada it was sold here as a great victory for freedom. Almost everywhere else saw it for what it was, the most powerful nation in history invading a small island of 133 square miles with a population of 110,000 who's main exports are cocoa, nutmeg and bananas. They had not attacked anyone; socialist Maurice Bishop had just been deposed by a regime that was further to the left. The plan to invade was actually devised prior to Bishop's overthrow. You figure that one out.

Let's try another example. After the Japanese surrendered at the end of WW2, instead of returning home, 50,000 marines were deployed in China. By 1946 100,000 U.S. troops were still in China. The rarely reported public story was that they were there to repatriate Japanese soldiers stranded there. The truth was that those Japanese soldiers were armed and used to fight alongside U.S. troops."They ask me, too, why they're here. As an officer I am supposed to tell them, but you can't tell a man that he's here to disarm Japanese when he's guarding the same railway with [armed] Japanese." A Marine Lieutenant at Christmas-time 1945. Reported in the NY Times "It was perfectly clear to us that if we told the Japanese to lay down their arms immediately and march to the seaboard, the entire country would be taken over by the Communists. We therefore had to take the unusual step of using the enemy as a garrison until we could airlift Chinese National (Chiang's) troops to South China and send Marines to guard the seaports."
President Harry Truman, Memoirs, Vol. Two: Years of Trial and Hope, 1946-1953, p. 66 Those Communists that he was referring to were among our strongest allies during the war.
They had risked their lives numerous times fighting the Japanese, and whenever one of our planes went down behind enemy lines in China, it was the Communists who cared for and protected the crews while returning them safely to us. They never lost one. The fact is that they even returned them to us after the war while we were shooting and bombing them. Chiang Kai-shek on the other hand, was little more than a war-lord. In spite of all our efforts, the best we could do was negotiate for Chiang and his people to remain on Taiwan. I won't even go into the massacre of civilian villages.

My point is not that all of our history is evil; but then again, neither is it all glorious. Without getting the full view of what we have done in our past, we will be guided by only the spin we have been taught, (it could be called delusion). If we were so easily misdirected in the past, how much easier is it to lie to us now? Maybe it is easier on our conscience to claim ignorance, but we are still responsible for the path our nation takes.

If you ask most foreigners what they think of Americans, they admire us. If you ask the same foreigners what they think of our government and foreign policy, we are despised.No single raindrop believes it is to blame for the flood.

[aikido7]

Liberal displaying American flag.
Satan displaying a Bible.

No difference.

There's a BIG difference! The American flag was designed at the behest of George Washington by Betsy Ross and is the national banner for the United States of America.

The Bible is a collection of books written at different times by different people to be used at different times by different people. It is the sacred writings of the Christian religion.

Satan is now known as the personification of evil. A liberal is a conservative who got behind in his credit card payments and then got severely injured in a car accident while his child came down with double pneumonia.

[On Fire]

Look who the cat dragged in.... :Commie:

[Mustard Seed]

Originally posted by Morpheus
. My response was only to point out their is more to history than what is written in "history books". If we were raised here we were taught basically the same positive all-american history while critiqueing foreign history. It was very selective and designed to breed "good citizens". That is why Americans usually have an underlying attitude that they are better than foreigners.

I'd have to disagree with your above statement. Yes we are often taught in a way that's intended to bring up good citizens. I know of no successful civilization that could opperate under the assumption that it has done far more wrong then right in the world. The Japanese are almost completely ignorant fo what they did to China in WWII. Likewise many Chinese have no real clue as to the harm their government is doing. They might have an incling but none of them have the capacity to see the big picture while living under the cloak of tyrany.

Yet despite the needed enforcement that the US does more good than evil I doubt you could find any other civilization in the history of the world that even approaches the transparency of the US Government. All growing up I recall MANY history lessons on the terrible things done to the native americans, immigrants, slaves, post emancipation blacks, urban and rural poor. Can you show me a text book from another country that teaches that countries history that dwells as much upon past mistakes as our history classes do? Why right after 9-11 we were bombarded with all the things we've done wrong to 'deserve' what we got. I know full well we've screwed up many things. I'm probably one of the most outraged of any at the Abu Grhaib and Guantanamo abuses. But to say that just because there's some degree of idealism in the inculcation of Americas youth means that we're brainwashing all to believe our own supreem position is, in my view, hogwash. I'm not saying such attempts at brainwashing have never existed or don't still exist by some extreem elements. What I'm saying is that they are a fringe element. Fringe elements HAPPEN especialy in the most free and open society to exist. But to label the whole of the conservative movement under the banner of idealistic fundi brain washing is nothing more than a fringe liberal reactionary propeganda ploy. I'd dare say that the US is in far more danger of disintigrating due to those that advocate that we've done far more bad then good in the world than it is threatened by the other fringe on the 'super-patriotic' side. They're both dangerous and if both left unchecked will pull are nation into a not so civil 'civil' war that will make the original look like a quaint game of lawn darts for a spring afternoon.


That we have the right to run the world.

I don't think that is what is being taught outside a fringe. Your view seems even more damning and makes no sense. Since we caused some problems in the past we should not do anything now so that we don't 'create' any more problems. As if Great Britain, in seeing their mistaken concesions to Hitler decided to not make any more decisions and just play isolationism with the Nazi's.


My point is that we are no better than those we attack and despise.


Have you ever seen the movie Saints and Soldiers? The same point is made in that movie. I am keenly aware that we are not superior to any people. I firmly believe we are all God's childeren. I have been concerned at the overly self righteous stance of those on the right and the left, whether their blind allegiance be given to an ideology of patriotism or one of elitism with regard to either their view of national or ideological superiority. But I also cannot say that having the greatest capacity to influence the world and doing nothing should go together. Just because we may screw something up or just because we do not have the concensus of every nation in the UN should be a hinderance to doing what the majority of us believe to be correct.

Does our leadership make horrible decisions oft times. Yes. But the same is true for every other nation on earth and out of all those nations I'd dare say ours is one of the best at fessing up to it's mistakes. It may take a while and at times it may be fought tooth and nail by some but at least we are changing and adapting. We know we do wrong but so often we do not the wrongs which we are accused of by many in and outside of our nation.



The rest of the world admired our nation until somewhere after WW2. Quietly we have changed all that.

They've admired us and despised us since our conception to now. It will always be a combination of such. This whole idea that the picture changed some time around the cold war is a concoction. France, while they've been a key ally at times, and have often grasped aspects of our culture, have never really unconditionaly loved us. As we were mounting the invasion of normandy a prominent french writter was writting about how dangerous america and it's culture was to the french. Our french advocate in the Revolutionary war, LaFayette, was made an outcast in his own country for his affiliation with us. The dichotomy of admiration and detestation for america is as old as the Declaration of Independence.


As an example, when we attacked Grenada it was sold here as a great victory for freedom. Almost everywhere else saw it for what it was, the most powerful nation in history invading a small island of 133 square miles with a population of 110,000 who's main exports are cocoa, nutmeg and bananas. They had not attacked anyone; socialist Maurice Bishop had just been deposed by a regime that was further to the left. The plan to invade was actually devised prior to Bishop's overthrow. You figure that one out.

You're ignoring the context of the Cold War. When the likes of puny Cuba could be altered into a soviet missle base. By removing the context of that you can make it appear to be on of the most horrendous crimes commited by any nation. As if we'd done a mass crusifiction and lined up the crosses along some expansive highway. We are not the Roman Empire. We've commited atrocities and I can't say I'm comfortable with what we are currently entertaining ourselves with at the box office (our media and it's corrosive nature is by far a much greater contributer to the Muslim image of us as the great Satan then are any of our foreign policies).


Let's try another example. After the Japanese surrendered at the end of WW2, instead of returning home, 50,000 marines were deployed in China. By 1946 100,000 U.S. troops were still in China. The rarely reported public story was that they were there to repatriate Japanese soldiers stranded there. The truth was that those Japanese soldiers were armed and used to fight alongside U.S. troops. Those Communists that he was referring to were among our strongest allies during the war.
They had risked their lives numerous times fighting the Japanese, and whenever one of our planes went down behind enemy lines in China, it was the Communists who cared for and protected the crews while returning them safely to us. They never lost one. The fact is that they even returned them to us after the war while we were shooting and bombing them. Chiang Kai-shek on the other hand, was little more than a war-lord. In spite of all our efforts, the best we could do was negotiate for Chiang and his people to remain on Taiwan. I won't even go into the massacre of civilian villages.

In war and in the survival of nations alliances of convenience are unavoidable. You can't pick and chose your allies when self preservation is on the line. With the dismantling of the Axis powers the balance of power shift necesitated the dealing with of communism. Allies became enemies because, despiet their earlier plesantries and accomidations they too changed their view and aims in light of the removal of the common enemy. Comunism, through Marx, Ingles, Lenin, Stalin, Mao and others had made their desires to commpel us into their 'revolution' well enough known. Just because a man has helped you at one time in your life does not mean you have to lay down on his alter and be sacrificed to his God's.

Again your removal of the context of the situation is intended to paint us in the worst possible light. You portend that the simple description you have given is the whole of what needs to be considered. You may nail the conservative right for it's desire to avoid moral ambiguities, but the truth be told YOU as much as anyone are one of the "precious few at ease with moral ambiguities" Your's may not be presented as simply as others but they are nonetheless sufficiently simplified to take them out of their real context and render them, to the simpleton, great atrocities.


My point is not that all of our history is evil; but then again, neither is it all glorious. Without getting the full view of what we have done in our past, we will be guided by only the spin we have been taught, (it could be called delusion).

And my point is that your spin is just as bad as the other kind if not worse. Your view, despite your assertions of trying to avoid complete condemnation, is beyond even mere cynicism. It is a simple thing to criticize but quite another to offer alternative paths and honestly discuss all the potential outcomes of the proposed alternatives.


If we were so easily misdirected in the past, how much easier is it to lie to us now? Maybe it is easier on our conscience to claim ignorance, but we are still responsible for the path our nation takes.

I agree. But again assert that you're view is as off, if not more so, than any of the others you've critisized.


If you ask most foreigners what they think of Americans, they admire us. If you ask the same foreigners what they think of our government and foreign policy, we are despised.

I'm well aware of that and, in kind, share the same view of foreigners. I love them and admire them be they Mexican, Russian, Iranian, German, Lativan, Nigerian, Australian. But I likewise have a great many bones to pick with the foreign policies of ALL their governments, as much if not more so than with my own. We are all so similar it's scary sometimes.

[Mustard Seed]

Originally posted by On Fire

Look who the cat dragged in.... :Commie:

Stuff like this does not, in anyway beyond your own ego and that of shallow friends, help your cause.

[tomedward]

Are we talking about the flag that American's pledge their allegiance to ?


pledge
Pronunciation: 'plej
Function: noun

1 a : a bailment of a chattel as security for a debt or other obligation without involving transfer of
title b : the chattel so delivered c : the contract incidental to such a bailment
2 a : the state of being held as a security or guaranty b : something given as security for the
performance of an act
3 : a token, sign, or earnest of something else [earnest is defined as 1 : something of value given
by a buyer to a seller to bind a bargain. i.e. DOWN-PAYMENT 2 : a token of what is to come :
PLEDGE ]
6 a : a binding promise or agreement to do or forbear b (1) : a promise to join a fraternity,
sorority, or secret society (2) : a person who has so promised

Chattel
Pronunciation: 'cha-t&l
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English chatel property, from Middle French, from Medieval Latin capitale --
more at CATTLE. Moooooooooooooooooooooooo
1 : an item of tangible movable or immovable property except real estate, freehold, and things (as
buildings) connected with real property
2 : SLAVE, BONDSMAN

According to these definitions you can see why one who pledges allegiance to the United States
of America assumes the responsibility for the National Debt of the United States of America. i.e..a
bailment of a chattel (SLAVE, BONDSMAN) as security for a debt or other obligation. The state of
being held as a security or guaranty (like a co-signer on a bank loan). In addition a binding
promise is an oath.

Allegiance
1 a : the obligation of a feudal vassal to his liege lord b (1) : the fidelity owed by a subject or
citizen to a sovereign or government (2) : the obligation of an alien to the government under
which the alien resides
2 : devotion or loyalty to a person, group, or cause
What are the obligations of those who pledge allegiance ? Paying taxes for sure and a chance to
die for their country at the drop of a hat.

I nor my children can pledge allegiance to the United States of America because we have already
pledged our allegiance to Jesus Christ.
The Bible says that no man can serve two masters
No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will
hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon. Matthew 6:24
I prefer to serve God. He has a far better retirement plan !
Nor can I swear an oath i.e. a binding promise.
"Again, ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time, Thou shalt not forswear thyself,
but shalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths: But I say unto you, Swear not at all; neither by
heaven; for it is God's throne: Nor by the earth; for it is his footstool: neither by Jerusalem; for it
is the city of the great King. Neither shalt thou swear by thy head, because thou canst not make
one hair white or black. But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is
more than these cometh of evil." Matthew 5 :32-37
"But above all things, my brethren, swear not, neither by heaven, neither by the earth, neither by
any other oath: but let your yea be yea; and your nay, nay; lest ye fall into condemnation. James
5:12

So many times we say things unaware of what it is we are saying because we have been trained to
do so. Is it any wonder that the
government schools have their children recite this oath daily ?


bailment
security for a debt
obligation
contract
earnest
down-payment
binding promise
Cattle
Slave
Bondman
owed by a subject
being held
agreement
chattel so delivered

Do the above terms used to define the words “pledge” and “allegiance” indicate terms of freedom
and liberty in Christ or the bondage of men ?

[SOTK]

Originally posted by ilyatur

This question is for political liberals here, but also for anyone else--

It is my perception that if you see someone displaying an american flag (like a flag lapel pin, or bumper sticker) you can pretty much bet that they're Republican. There are exceptions, but it's much more likely. Why is that?

The flag is a national symbol, not a partisan logo. No matter how much right wingers or left wingers want to change the status quo, we all share a basic love for this country. One of the ways that this is expressed is by cherishing the same national symbol.

Or so you'd think.

This is a great question and/or observation! I'm not sure if this has ever come up here. I've had a similar conversation with co-workers. You're right, most conservatives are the ones who display the American flag. At least, that's been my perception as well.

I found this was an uncomfortable subject with the liberals I talked to at work. In fact, they really didn't have an explanation for this. Most of them got defensive. I thought this was an interesting emotion or reaction.

[Frank Ernest]

Originally posted by :mock::aikido:7

There's a BIG difference! The American flag was designed at the behest of George Washington by Betsy Ross and is the national banner for the United States of America.
Nice historical bit. Your point being ...? :confused:

The Bible is a collection of books written at different times by different people to be used at different times by different people. It is the sacred writings of the Christian religion.
Cool! And your point is ...? :confused:

Satan is now known as the personification of evil. A liberal is a conservative who got behind in his credit card payments and then got severely injured in a car accident while his child came down with double pneumonia.
And, as usual, you have no point. :sigh: :dunce:

[Frank Ernest]

Originally posted by :SOTK:

This is a great question and/or observation! I'm not sure if this has ever come up here. I've had a similar conversation with co-workers. You're right, most conservatives are the ones who display the American flag. At least, that's been my perception as well.

I found this was an uncomfortable subject with the liberals I talked to at work. In fact, they really didn't have an explanation for this. Most of them got defensive. I thought this was an interesting emotion or reaction.
Display an American flag to a lie-beral.
Display a cross to Dracula.

No difference.

[Morpheus]

Originally posted by Frank Ernest

Display an American flag to a lie-beral.
Display a cross to Dracula.

No difference. I have begun to wonder how, with that attitude, you reached your advanced years without someone bustin' a cap on yer backside. That's just my opinion, but I apply it liberally.

[Morpheus]

Originally posted by Mustard Seed
I'd have to disagree with your above statement. Yes we are often taught in a way that's intended to bring up good citizens. I know of no successful civilization that could opperate under the assumption that it has done far more wrong then right in the world. The Japanese are almost completely ignorant fo what they did to China in WWII. Likewise many Chinese have no real clue as to the harm their government is doing. They might have an incling but none of them have the capacity to see the big picture while living under the cloak of tyrany. My point isn't that we are the only ones who distort history for indoctrinational purposes, it was just that we do it. As far as the Chinese go, I only offer Tianemen Square as an example. We saw those students as honorable for calling out their government for their lies, and heros when they were gunned down. When the same is done here the protestors are ridicled and often arrested and the rest say, "That's what they get for being disruptive. They're unamerican"
Originally posted by Mustard Seed
Yet despite the needed enforcement that the US does more good than evil I doubt you could find any other civilization in the history of the world that even approaches the transparency of the US Government. All growing up I recall MANY history lessons on the terrible things done to the native americans, immigrants, slaves, post emancipation blacks, urban and rural poor. Can you show me a text book from another country that teaches that countries history that dwells as much upon past mistakes as our history classes do? Why right after 9-11 we were bombarded with all the things we've done wrong to 'deserve' what we got. I know full well we've screwed up many things. I'm probably one of the most outraged of any at the Abu Grhaib and Guantanamo abuses. But to say that just because there's some degree of idealism in the inculcation of Americas youth means that we're brainwashing all to believe our own supreem position is, in my view, hogwash. I'm not saying such attempts at brainwashing have never existed or don't still exist by some extreem elements. What I'm saying is that they are a fringe element. Fringe elements HAPPEN especialy in the most free and open society to exist. But to label the whole of the conservative movement under the banner of idealistic fundi brain washing is nothing more than a fringe liberal reactionary propeganda ploy. I'd dare say that the US is in far more danger of disintigrating due to those that advocate that we've done far more bad then good in the world than it is threatened by the other fringe on the 'super-patriotic' side. They're both dangerous and if both left unchecked will pull are nation into a not so civil 'civil' war that will make the original look like a quaint game of lawn darts for a spring afternoon. The British Empire was more transparent. They openly admitted their empire and atrocities. They felt no shame for either. They also left a path of destruction wherever they went. We, on the other hand, do the same but call it by other names to make it sound better. As far as dividing the nation, I didn't lie to the nation and send our children to kill and die for those lies. I was against it from the beginning. I certainly am not going to sit back quietly now and nod in agreement just because what's done is done. Wrong is wrong, and if I agree with it I am wrong too.
Originally posted by Mustard Seed
I don't think that is what is being taught outside a fringe. Your view seems even more damning and makes no sense. Since we caused some problems in the past we should not do anything now so that we don't 'create' any more problems. As if Great Britain, in seeing their mistaken concesions to Hitler decided to not make any more decisions and just play isolationism with the Nazi's. So it's ok to manipulate elections, initiate and pay for coups, and if all else fails "preemptively" attack another sovereign nation to advance our national (business) interests, but that doesn't mean that we feel we should be able to run the world?
Originally posted by Mustard Seed
Have you ever seen the movie Saints and Soldiers? The same point is made in that movie. I am keenly aware that we are not superior to any people. I firmly believe we are all God's childeren. I have been concerned at the overly self righteous stance of those on the right and the left, whether their blind allegiance be given to an ideology of patriotism or one of elitism with regard to either their view of national or ideological superiority. But I also cannot say that having the greatest capacity to influence the world and doing nothing should go together. Just because we may screw something up or just because we do not have the concensus of every nation in the UN should be a hinderance to doing what the majority of us believe to be correct. So you do believe that we have the right to run the world?
Originally posted by Mustard Seed
Does our leadership make horrible decisions oft times. Yes. But the same is true for every other nation on earth and out of all those nations I'd dare say ours is one of the best at fessing up to it's mistakes. It may take a while and at times it may be fought tooth and nail by some but at least we are changing and adapting. We know we do wrong but so often we do not the wrongs which we are accused of by many in and outside of our nation. The emboldened print above points out that those changes are not often made without a fight. Someone has to expose the incident, prove it and fight to get others to see that it was wrong before change can begin.
Originally posted by Mustard Seed
They've admired us and despised us since our conception to now. It will always be a combination of such. This whole idea that the picture changed some time around the cold war is a concoction. France, while they've been a key ally at times, and have often grasped aspects of our culture, have never really unconditionaly loved us. As we were mounting the invasion of normandy a prominent french writter was writting about how dangerous america and it's culture was to the french. Our french advocate in the Revolutionary war, LaFayette, was made an outcast in his own country for his affiliation with us. The dichotomy of admiration and detestation for america is as old as the Declaration of Independence. Never in our history have we been so near to being universally feared and despised. In polls most countries place us at the top of the list when asked which nation is the greatest danger to peace. That means before Iran, Korea and China. We're #1.
Originally posted by Mustard Seed
You're ignoring the context of the Cold War. When the likes of puny Cuba could be altered into a soviet missle base. By removing the context of that you can make it appear to be on of the most horrendous crimes commited by any nation. As if we'd done a mass crusifiction and lined up the crosses along some expansive highway. We are not the Roman Empire. We've commited atrocities and I can't say I'm comfortable with what we are currently entertaining ourselves with at the box office (our media and it's corrosive nature is by far a much greater contributer to the Muslim image of us as the great Satan then are any of our foreign policies). Concerning Cuba, you're ignoring the fact that we had huge air and missile bases in Turkey, Germany and Britain, as well as Polaris submarines loaded down with nukes long before the Soviets began moving missiles into Cuba. We just didn't want them having similar capabilities.
And as long as you bring up Cuba, we single-handedly still maintain an embargo and other economic sanctions against them after over 40 years. We have repeatedly dumped toxins on them. We've protected the most dangerous terrorist group in the western hemisphere in Florida (the Cuban exiles) while allowing them to mount their attacks on Cuba from Fla. And we maintain Guantanamo Military Base there against their will.
Originally posted by Mustard Seed
In war and in the survival of nations alliances of convenience are unavoidable. You can't pick and chose your allies when self preservation is on the line. With the dismantling of the Axis powers the balance of power shift necesitated the dealing with of communism. Allies became enemies because, despiet their earlier plesantries and accomidations they too changed their view and aims in light of the removal of the common enemy. Comunism, through Marx, Ingles, Lenin, Stalin, Mao and others had made their desires to commpel us into their 'revolution' well enough known. Just because a man has helped you at one time in your life does not mean you have to lay down on his alter and be sacrificed to his God's. The Japanese in China were not our allies; they were our conscripts.
Originally posted by Mustard Seed
Again your removal of the context of the situation is intended to paint us in the worst possible light. You portend that the simple description you have given is the whole of what needs to be considered. You may nail the conservative right for it's desire to avoid moral ambiguities, but the truth be told YOU as much as anyone are one of the "precious few at ease with moral ambiguities" Your's may not be presented as simply as others but they are nonetheless sufficiently simplified to take them out of their real context and render them, to the simpleton, great atrocities. They were great atrocities. And these were just a small sample. Many others were far more heinous, (you might want to check into CIA and special ops involvement in El Salvadore, Chile and Nicaragua to name a few). Besides, I never said that this was all that should be considered. I have no need to present what is commonly known. It is others who would prefer that you only consider what is commonly known. I present the little known to serve as a balance. To shoot down the pomposity that comes from always believing that we're the good guys. Do a little deeper study into Haiti and Jean Bertrand Aristide. See just what we've done in Haiti for the sake of business interests. Look into Guatemala and how we destroyed their economy beyond repair while leaving hundreds of thousands dead in the wake. We hear about our good side; the dark side is buried or spun to look good.
Originally posted by Mustard Seed
And my point is that your spin is just as bad as the other kind if not worse. Your view, despite your assertions of trying to avoid complete condemnation, is beyond even mere cynicism. It is a simple thing to criticize but quite another to offer alternative paths and honestly discuss all the potential outcomes of the proposed alternatives. Alternative path. Honesty, fairness and respect. Those alternatives not only improve international relations, but make us safer.
Originally posted by Mustard Seed
I agree. But again assert that you're view is as off, if not more so, than any of the others you've critisized. I'm glad we agree on something.
Originally posted by Mustard Seed
I'm well aware of that and, in kind, share the same view of foreigners. I love them and admire them be they Mexican, Russian, Iranian, German, Lativan, Nigerian, Australian. But I likewise have a great many bones to pick with the foreign policies of ALL their governments, as much if not more so than with my own. We are all so similar it's scary sometimes. I agree about the similarity. It scares me too. But imagine if the tables were turned and we were the smaller nation and Iran were the superpower. How would you view them interfering in our government? How would you feel about the threats? Wouldn't you do whatever you could to protect yourself? We should not be using our power to lord it over everyone else. They have as much right to exist and make decisions for themselves as we do.

[aikido7]

Display an American flag to a lie-beral.
Display a cross to Dracula.

No difference.

There's a BIG difference! Dracula was popularized by the actor Bela Lugosi and liberals are popularized by Barbra Striesand. Displaying a cross to Dracula is like kryptonite to Superman, water to the Wicked Witch in The Wizard of Oz and Rome to Jesus. Show a liberal a flag and we're all aware how they immediately shimmy up the flagpole with a can of flammable liquid and a fire source. That's why so many liberals want health care. Many of them fall down from the flagpoles and injure themselves.

The American flag is to Barbra Streisand as Imperial Rome was to the early Christian movement....





Thank God Constantine came along and finally converted. The politically correct thing to do at the time, wouldn't you agree?


Geeze, we had a true theocracy there for awhile....

[BillyBob]

Originally posted by aikido7
..... is to Barbra Streisand .....


Aikido thinks the title of this thread is 'The Fag'

:flamer:

[Mustard Seed]

Originally posted by Morpheus

My point isn't that we are the only ones who distort history for indoctrinational purposes, it was just that we do it. As far as the Chinese go, I only offer Tianemen Square as an example. We saw those students as honorable for calling out their government for their lies, and heros when they were gunned down. When the same is done here the protestors are ridicled and often arrested and the rest say, "That's what they get for being disruptive. They're unamerican"

Your attempts to compare American University protests with Tianemen Square is an apt demonstration of how srewed up your perseption and judgement is. The students in Tianemen Square were demonstrating for the rights of democracy, for the right to vote, to peacefully assemble, for self determination. Here in the US college students and others riot NOT to establish self determination, a right they already have at their disposal, but rather they protest either as an excuse to loot and riot or with the misconception that by screwing up life for the majority they will get there way. The truth is that protesters in China truly represented the will of the majority and were really fighting for their intrinsic inalienable rights. Whereas often portests here in america, like the WTO Seatle riots, are just an opportunity for the degenerates and the scum of our society to riot and pillage and wreak havoc in the guise of 'a cause'.


The British Empire was more transparent. They openly admitted their empire and atrocities. They felt no shame for either. They also left a path of destruction wherever they went. We, on the other hand, do the same but call it by other names to make it sound better. As far as dividing the nation, I didn't lie to the nation and send our children to kill and die for those lies. I was against it from the beginning. I certainly am not going to sit back quietly now and nod in agreement just because what's done is done. Wrong is wrong, and if I agree with it I am wrong too.

They were straight forward about building an empire but were NOT transparent when it came to what they did to acheive it. And when it came out what they were doing is when they started to eventualy dismantle their empire to a degree.

We are not doing the same and you've yet to demonstrate such. Show us how we 'do the same' (whatever that is) and make it sound better.


So it's ok to manipulate elections, initiate and pay for coups, and if all else fails "preemptively" attack another sovereign nation to advance our national (business) interests, but that doesn't mean that we feel we should be able to run the world?

To protect our capacity to survive as a nation, whether or not that entails protecting the economic viability of our nation or our literal homeland from attacks, subversion, or whatever the threat may be. We have a right to insure our existance. I'm not in agreement with giving other countries financial aid. This is largely given with the knowledge that it will be spent to purchase things from US corporations. I believe we should, for the most part stop financial aid to most of the world.


So you do believe that we have the right to run the world?

In asmuch as such is needed to ensure the continued solvency of our nation and hence it's security on all levels, yes.

The emboldened print above points out that those changes are not often made without a fight. Someone has to expose the incident, prove it and fight to get others to see that it was wrong before change can begin.
Never in our history have we been so near to being universally feared and despised. In polls most countries place us at the top of the list when asked which nation is the greatest danger to peace. That means before Iran, Korea and China. We're #1.

That's the natural tendancy of mankind, to hate the person on top. Every superpower of it's day, regardless the cumulative benefit it provided the world, has had overwhelming derision and fear of it. Michael Jordan, Walmart, Martha Stewart, Microsoft, Christianity, Islam. Whenever any of these was on top of their game the world hated feared and despised them largly. Does that mean that the moment one has reached certain heights that to appease others they should relinquish all? that they should allow themselves to be destroyed? It's far better to become aware of what you can do to better the world and then do it rather then to simply surrender your reach in the name of placating the masses because of their fear and loathing.



Concerning Cuba, you're ignoring the fact that we had huge air and missile bases in Turkey, Germany and Britain, as well as Polaris submarines loaded down with nukes long before the Soviets began moving missiles into Cuba. We just didn't want them having similar capabilities.

Here once again your idiocy is made apparant for anyone with any semblance of true perspective on the true context of history. Let's go over recent, at the time, soviet history. This will demonstrate why WE and NOT russia were the prefered ones to have both nuclear technology and capability and they were not. You don't by chance recognize the term Gulag? You see Russia had this nasty habit of killing millions of it's own people, a little legacy from Stalin (who killed more of his own Russians than Hitler managed to kill of the Jews). Now here in America we weren't perfect, yes we had Jap internment camps but we did not systematicaly kill them off, and while their lives in the camps weren't enviable to us they would have been greatly envied by any of those millions upon millions in the Gulag. Show me the millions upon millions of exterminated US citizens killed by their own government in systematic work/death camps. You see us having bases in Turkey is NOT something I'm ignorant of. I just have the rational capacity to realize the difference between the Russian legacy and the Anglo-American legacy with regard to the use/abuse of power. Now lets pretend Russia beat the US to having missle bases suround it. Do you honestly believe that they would have shown the compasion we did and permited us time to build up counter measures or would they have forced a comunist revolution on the world at the point of nuclear warhead tiped ICBMs?


And as long as you bring up Cuba, we single-handedly still maintain an embargo and other economic sanctions against them after over 40 years. We have repeatedly dumped toxins on them. We've protected the most dangerous terrorist group in the western hemisphere in Florida (the Cuban exiles) while allowing them to mount their attacks on Cuba from Fla. And we maintain Guantanamo Military Base there against their will.

Yes because we are aware of what Castro would do if he was given a carte blanche economicaly etc. It's tough love. Since cubans would have a future far better than what they currently have without Castro we've done all we can to eliminate him. There's nothing wrong with that. His people suffer because HE is a tyrant NOT because we impose sanctions on the tyrant. Tyrants make life miserable whether or not they have free economic reign. We simply try to limit their sphere of influence, hence the decades of sanctions and other measures against his dominion.



The Japanese in China were not our allies; they were our conscripts.
They were great atrocities. And these were just a small sample. Many others were far more heinous, (you might want to check into CIA and special ops involvement in El Salvadore, Chile and Nicaragua to name a few). Besides, I never said that this was all that should be considered. I have no need to present what is commonly known. It is others who would prefer that you only consider what is commonly known. I present the little known to serve as a balance.

Again I've never said that we're always the good guys. What I'm saying is that compared to the rest of the world we are almost always the preferable lesser of all evils. No other country in the history of the world has been as overall as mercifull on their enemies as we have been. And I chalenge you to show me otherwise.


To shoot down the pomposity that comes from always believing that we're the good guys. Do a little deeper study into Haiti and Jean Bertrand Aristide. See just what we've done in Haiti for the sake of business interests. Look into Guatemala and how we destroyed their economy beyond repair while leaving hundreds of thousands dead in the wake. We hear about our good side; the dark side is buried or spun to look good.
Alternative path. Honesty, fairness and respect. Those alternatives not only improve international relations, but make us safer.

To blame Cuba's and Haitis problems primarily on US involvement is a simpletons way of thinking. It's easy to find a scape goat. Those countries have been done far more harm by a great deal many other sources than any thing the US has done to them. You seem contented at primarily focusing the blame for problems in the world on us. We are not the ones who created the legacy that has kept Haiti in the dark ages since it's conception.


I'm glad we agree on something.
I agree about the similarity. It scares me too. But imagine if the tables were turned and we were the smaller nation and Iran were the superpower. How would you view them interfering in our government? How would you feel about the threats? Wouldn't you do whatever you could to protect yourself? We should not be using our power to lord it over everyone else. They have as much right to exist and make decisions for themselves as we do.

Such a tables turned episode is what confirms to me that despite our great trash heap of mistakes atrocities etc. the rest of the world has received far better than any other entity would have granted it if the roles were switched. We KNOW what Iran would have done if it had been in our role, we saw what the revolution did with the inheritance of the fifth largest army in the world. They tried to impose Islamic rule on it's neighbors. We have clear demonstrations of what our past enemies have done with the great reserves of power and influence they were able to marshal. Iran, at the time of the Islamic revolution, had more British tanks than the British did and look how they used it. Imagine if they were the first ones to use atomic power. I've already illucidated the Russian legacy of destruction and rule by sheer force. Again try to fathom what the communist revolution would have grown to entail if they had acheived blackmail capacity before anyone else. Or what if the Japanese had moved on from pearl harbor and begun occupying the mainland. Sure it might have avoided Hiroshima and Nagosaki but do you have any delusions that the world would be safer or more free today? Do you think such scenarios would make indoctrination by governments LESS? I'd rather our kids endure some misconceptions on the end of our society being great than have them rocking back and forth memorizing the Koran under the threat of a whip armed government backed Mullah in some recently constructed, Iranian controlled Mosque down the street because their fathers sometime back thought they were too powerfull so they decided to destroy all inequality between them and all the despots in the world and just surrendered nuclear and all other edges they had above the likes of Iran, Korea and crazies like Osama's Foundation.

So if you feel sympathetic to either communist or islamic extreemist, or whatever despotic ideology may take hold of the US when it's rendered incapable of self defense, and have no problem explaining to your kids why they have to learn Mandrine and why they have to go overseas to work on government projects like building another three gorges dam for the likes of Jiang and all those decended ideologicaly from ol' Mao then go ahead and prepetuate the dogma that most of the worlds probelms are caused by the US and it's pomp. I'm not saying we should not be wary of it. In fact if you've ever read the Book of Mormon, a book I hold to be of God, you will see that one of it's primary messages is that of societies destruction brought about by pride and it's insuing results. I believe that if we as Americans do not humble ourselves then it matters not what technology or alliances we have we will fall. But I'm also not a fool that thinks humility is the same as groveling or giving in to one's enemies. God, in my belief, wants us to defend our freedoms and our deserved rights, if we do not actively defend such then we are not worthy of such and God will hold us accountable for neglegence.

You are right that there's too much arrogance in our society but the source, reason, etc. of it I believe, you have completely off and exagerated so far to one side as to effectively over correct and end the poor vehichle in a far worse trajectory then it was headed before.

[Mr. Coffee]

Democrat activists need to get in touch with their patriotic core (and start speaking restrictive language on abortion) to pull in people from "Bush Country". If this feels like slummin', well, the heartland's got the people power. This is how you grab the center and hemorrhage votes away from Republicans.

The whiners, and the overgrown adolescent iconoclasts who thump their copies of Howard Zinn HAVE GOT TO GO.

If you have a "support our troops" ribbon and a democrat bumpersticker on your car, it sends a good message. You'd be helping the party every time you go out for a carton of milk. But if the thought of doing something patrioric turns your stomach, nevermind.

[aikido7]

It's easy to support the troops. Try criticizing the president.
I support the team and want to replace the coach.
Patriotism is love of country, not rape.

Generally speaking, today's conservatives love America like five year olds love their Mommies:

Mommy is good and anyone who criticizes her is BAD.

We're talking about a more mature love when liberals are patriotic. If your mother is a dysfunctional alcoholic, you still love her. Her bad behavior does not make you love her any less. You want to do what you can to see that she's healthy and on her feet again.

Who was it who said patriotism is often "the last refuge of a scoundrel"?

And everyone wants to see less abortion. The only way to get the numbers down to the abortion decline we once had during the Clinton years is to accept the human race for what it is and work toward improving things so that abortion becomes less and less of a necessity for some folks.

It makes more sense than demanding all abortion stop (something that will NEVER happen), so that we take our eye off the real problems that cause it....

[BillyBob]

:flamer:

[Mr. Coffee]

Originally posted by aikido7
Generally speaking, today's conservatives love America like five year olds love their Mommies:

Mommy is good and anyone who criticizes her is BAD.

We're talking about a more mature love when liberals are patriotic. If your mother is a dysfunctional alcoholic, you still love her. Her bad behavior does not make you love her any less. You want to do what you can to see that she's healthy and on her feet again.
Gee, sounds familiar.

Originally posted by docpotato (post 32 on Thank you, John Kerry)
Some people love the country the way a two year old loves his mommy. Mommy is great, mommy can do no wrong. Some people love this country in a mature way. If they see the country doing something they know is not in their best interest, they will speak up to stop them. They try to stop them from doing bad things BECAUSE they love the country. The U.S. IS the villain sometimes, despite its best intentions and it is our duty as citizens to be informed and to speak out against villainy from within. Doc, you're quite the ventriloquist--your lips were hardly moving while Aikido was talking.

[BillyBob]

Aikido has a penchant for plagiarism.

[BillyBob]

Good call, ilyatur! :up:

[BillyBob]

Actually, that is an astonishing bit of research and recolection, I'm impressed! :BRAVO:

[Mr. Coffee]

Thanks, Mr. Bob.

Aikido,
I made basically the same point you/doc did on the flagship post--no matter how much we want to change things, there should still be a basic love for this country. Republicans complain as much as anyone and they STILL get teary on Veterans Day. Democrats just complain. Not a grateful bunch of folks. That's the way I see it.

[Mustard Seed]

Originally posted by aikido7

It's easy to support the troops. Try criticizing the president.
I support the team and want to replace the coach.
Patriotism is love of country, not rape.

Rape? This is what I don't understand, you, and those who often sympathize with your views (the likes of morpheus on this thread), are so willing and able to make such horrendously outrageous claims such as comparing what the current administration is doing to the defiling of an innocent woman, yet when we ask for back up for such statements the best you can do is use drasticaly taken out of context rehashes of the same old left wing, socialist sympathizing propeganda/trying to play like it's bona fide history. With such removed from context and playing on ignorance of the masses examples--American attrocities are easy to come up with. You talk about conservatives and try to compare their relationship with their country to the bias a toddler has for their parents yet you cling to this idea that since your questioning authority and suspicious of everything America has ever done that you know everything. Well let's take a little game from your play book. If conservatives are the five year olds then Liberals are the fifteen yearolds that have just discovered that Mom and Dad AREN'T perfect, and based on that small little discovery they think they've 'seen the light' that they are now the 'enlightened ones' suddenly within a few short years they have eclipsed and far surpased the wisdom of both parents combined and are much further than most of this 'stupid' world to discovering all esential knowledge. Like the poster in my old friend from High School 's home placed there by his wise parents. It goes something like this--

Quick! Move out, buy a house, start a family and get a really great job while you still know everything!


So in the same spirit, and in light of the Left's talks of leaving 'Jesus Land' and joining Canada I fear we may shortly have some crazy enough to think that they'd do a better job just starting over with a new republic. As long as their not intent on using any of the land currently labeled the United States of America there will not be any major resistance by any Americans.


Generally speaking, today's conservatives love America like five year olds love their Mommies:

Mommy is good and anyone who criticizes her is BAD.

We're talking about a more mature love when liberals are patriotic. If your mother is a dysfunctional alcoholic, you still love her. Her bad behavior does not make you love her any less. You want to do what you can to see that she's healthy and on her feet again.

The better analogy is that the liberal THINKS, much like a 15 year old, that they are more mature now then when they were 5. Most 15 year olds think their parents are disfunctional even if they have the best parents that have ever existed as fallable mortal beings.


Who was it who said patriotism is often "the last refuge of a scoundrel"?

Liberalism is THE refuge of most of societies deviants.


And everyone wants to see less abortion. The only way to get the numbers down to the abortion decline we once had during the Clinton years is to accept the human race for what it is and work toward improving things so that abortion becomes less and less of a necessity for some folks.

It makes more sense than demanding all abortion stop (something that will NEVER happen), so that we take our eye off the real problems that cause it....

If you think 'safe sex' and contraception is the answer to abortion then you don't know what the real problem is that's causing it.

[Frank Ernest]

Originally posted by :mock::aikido:7

There's a BIG difference! Dracula was popularized by the actor Bela Lugosi and liberals are popularized by Barbra Striesand. Displaying a cross to Dracula is like kryptonite to Superman, water to the Wicked Witch in The Wizard of Oz and Rome to Jesus. Show a liberal a flag and we're all aware how they immediately shimmy up the flagpole with a can of flammable liquid and a fire source. That's why so many liberals want health care. Many of them fall down from the flagpoles and injure themselves.
:darwinsm:

The American flag is to Barbra Streisand as Imperial Rome was to the early Christian movement....
:kookoo: :doh:

Thank God Constantine came along and finally converted. The politically correct thing to do at the time, wouldn't you agree?
:confused: Why would an emperor need to be "politically-correct?" :freak:

Geeze, we had a true theocracy there for awhile....
Where'd you learn history? Classic Comics? :help:

[Morpheus]

...Originally posted by Mustard Seed
American attrocities are easy to come up with.... Your words.
1. If they're so easy to come up with, why don't you know about most of them?
2. Since there are so many of them and you know so few, what makes you so sure that we're so much better than everyone else?Again I've never said that we're always the good guys. What I'm saying is that compared to the rest of the world we are almost always the preferable lesser of all evils.

Originally posted by Mustard Seed The better analogy is that the liberal THINKS, much like a 15 year old, that they are more mature now then when they were 5. Most 15 year olds think their parents are disfunctional even if they have the best parents that have ever existed as fallable mortal beings.
The 15-year-old IS more mature than when he was 5. But what about a 52-year-old who spent his youth discussing history with elders who dated back to 1872, observed history in the making, and researched the rest for decades? You are the one who admits you are no expert, but continues to hold onto that U.S. holier-than-thou conviction in spite of reams of evidence to the contrary. You are kinda like the eskimo who bought the refrigerator and continues relentlessly to argue how it has improved his life. You keep saying, "show me", but ignores the piles of evidence, refuting it without any evidenciary basis. docpotato and Aikido actually nailed you and you resent it. Now you stop your whining

[BillyBob]

Aikido has done his standard disappearing act when someone catches him plagierizing. :darwinsm:

[Mustard Seed]

Originally posted by Morpheus

Your words.
1. If they're so easy to come up with, why don't you know about most of them?
2. Since there are so many of them and you know so few, what makes you so sure that we're so much better than everyone else?

What ones don't I know and what is their severity? List all the atrocities you can come up with that were commited by the US and then I'll SHOW you, even just from recent history, say the last 100 years, the atrocities I'm aware of, from different regimes that do or have existed, with that we can take death tolls and compare them. Then we can determine what attrocities were more terrible and why and on who's hands they are found. I dare say that the U.S. has far less blood on it's hands (not saying there isn't blood there) than any other substantial government that has had dominon in the last century.


You see it's easy to label things like abu grhaib as an attrocity but to put it on the same level or give it the same measurement of things commited by Iranians in the Islamic Revolution or by Russians in the Gulag is quite another and quite unreasonable. A grander litany is not proof of ones point.

The 15-year-old IS more mature than when he was 5.

That is far from a given. Maturity is not inherently tied to age. Also the relative maturity from person to person can, very plausibly, give you a 5 year old that's more mature in many ways, then a 15 year old.


But what about a 52-year-old who spent his youth discussing history with elders who dated back to 1872, observed history in the making, and researched the rest for decades?

Are you saying this is you? While the above discription does detail a person that would have the great potential to know a good deal I do not take it as free ticket that means that they are correct in many or most or even all of their assumptions as being correct or viable. If you want to have age and contact with older people as the grounds for establishing merit then there are a great many people NOT agreeing with your view and estimation of history that have a great deal more experience than even you (if the above is detailing your experience). You seem to think the rest of society is hoodwinked by the 'establishment' yet judging from the discription you've given here of what you consider qualifications for reliable source information you seem to lean heavily on age and interaction with the aged, something a great many rely on yet we all come to such contrasting and different estimations of history.

So we have you saying that everyone else is hoodwinked by those who've gone before. OUR elders and OUR interaction with them is one of desception and spin and YOURS, somehow, manages to get above it more than ours? And what praytell is the basis for such an estimation? I may not be 50+ but I've seen that age or degree often does not make a person more cognegent of reality. I've seen those that have lived through the great depresion buy into scams and spin jobs, I'm certain that all of america dating back to 1776 and further back have bought into a great many spin jobs etc. I find your estimation of your powers of discernment, based on what you've thus far delineated as your basis for belief and it's integrity in contrast with that of other's, to be foolishly naive at best and utterly absured at worst.

Again I've seen enough elderly, of all walks of life, know absolutely nothing of which they spoke. I've seen those with Ph. D's who, though they thought they were rather educated, knew no more than many of my friends in High School (even in many technical fields). The simple experiencing of history or running through the rings at a university or making the rounds through the old folks home as a youth does not, on it's own, give you a perception and discernment above all others as pertaining to things of history. The elderly often know a great deal about life, about surviving, we need to listen to them more, but to think our grasp on the whole of history is better than someone else's simply because we've talked with a number of elderly and we're at present approaching such an age does not mean that we automaticaly trump all others, or even that we match in caliber, the knowledge of those, even those younger than us, of history


You are the one who admits you are no expert, but continues to hold onto that U.S. holier-than-thou conviction in spite of reams of evidence to the contrary.

Quality and quantity of evidence need to be differentiated. It's rather easy to find a grand expansive list of greviences of things a nation of our size has done in killing a few and inconveniencing thousands upon thousands of people. It's quite another thing, however, to find the gulags in our history. The mass extermination of millions of people is rather difficult to find. Certainly one can delineate Hiroshima and Nagasaki as approaching such, but funny thing is, if we ever actualy try and fathom alternatives we have a hard time seeing anything LESS substantial in it's loss of life and spread of carnage. If you happen to be one of those who decrys the dropping of the bombs then give us the alternatives. What should we have done with Japan? Assault, with US forces, the mainland? Let the despotic militaristic Japanese regime fester in a limbo while they still held a good portion of asia in their grasp? So let's see it. Lets see the grand total of atrocities and then see if I can't place them in perspective for you since you seem to not have done such thus far despite your implied long and spanning experience.


You are kinda like the eskimo who bought the refrigerator and continues relentlessly to argue how it has improved his life. You keep saying, "show me", but ignores the piles of evidence, refuting it without any evidenciary basis. docpotato and Aikido actually nailed you and you resent it. Now you stop your whining

How and where did they 'nail' me? Where are the 'piles of evidence'? Are you referencing the list you made and I placed in perspective? Again you are missing the whole need to differentiate the weight of evidence in light of it's relative scope and impact. All the circumstatntial evidence in the world can simply seem to be pointing in one direction to the previously self-convinced. You and aikido like to use these inadequate analogies that, laughably, often represent, in final analysis, YOUR mistaken position and assumptions RATHER than proving your initial points. You say I'm ignoring the evidence, when all I'm finding is out of contect references I've already picked apart with regards to their viability for your specific claims, refutations, which I might add, you've largely ignored yourself. The assumption that the eskimo must inherently be living in the artic in an ice house is an example of your seeming incapacity to grasp the relevancy of context and the value of discerning things in light of relationships. You are kinda like the liberal who claims that, despite the fact that some eskimos no longer live in the artic, that they are all still entitled to a government program that gives them all a ration of winter clothing every year.

If it does turn out that you, Morpheus, are a 50+ year old man with said connections, your linking up to a pop-'philosophy' mantra, like that created to some small fadish degree with the MATRIX movies, may be a very telling indicator of your capacitites of discernment, and/or the lack thereof.

[Granite]

I hafta agree with the Mormon on this one.

Our government has committed atrocities and yes, they're in the past, and yes, we should move on, but it happened.

Our entire treatment of Indians on this continent was shameful and reprehensible; this episode alone qualifies as nothing short of an atrocity.

[Mustard Seed]

Originally posted by granite1010

I hafta agree with the Mormon on this one.

Our government has committed atrocities and yes, they're in the past, and yes, we should move on, but it happened.

Our entire treatment of Indians on this continent was shameful and reprehensible; this episode alone qualifies as nothing short of an atrocity.

granite, it's nice to see that despite our diatribes back and forth on occasion (the last one, here, (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=688250#post688250) , was kinda fever pitched) and our deep disagrements on many issues we can still agree on somethings. Gives one hope.