A few hundred years ago, we stood as a nation against a common enemy. We laid aside our differences, and focused on changing this nation into something greater than it was. We paid the price by standing together against England. Then, later we fought for a difference of opinions. By the process of war, we decided to concede and be united. But, that is a false sense of unity. Today, we stand half-heartedly together. Democrats and Rebuplicans, what the founding fathers hated of the English government, stand at opposing ends wrecking havoc on the peace of America, with the media leading the charge. How can we go back? How can we be that great nation which stood together toward a common goal to make the world a better place? Why can't we put aside our differences and be civlized enough to respect the opposing view and understand that we both want the same thing: a better tomorrow for our children. It seems honor and character are concepts that are out-dated. We sue for diversity instead of celebrating it and assimilating it into our culture. Now, it is not okay to be offended. We are like children, suseptible to every idle word. We are hasty, and sue for our own way, without working together. We are driving a nasty stake into the heart of this nation, but what for? Why can't we all just get along?
We don't have a common enemy now. The 9-11 terrorists and the corporate welfare state could be our common enemies. We don't agree how to fight the 9-11 terrorists. We don't agree whether to fight the corporate welfare state and the corpoarate welfare state fights back buy buying our politicians and our media. These tools of the corporate welfare state cofuse us by directing our focus against each other so that we don't see them using our goverment to make money flow to them. We pay taxes and build a debt in our name to make the world safe for corporate looting. The corporate welfare states US government welfare benefits range from agricultural subsidies, to use of subsidized use of public lands, to defense contracts, other contracts, special interest tax credits, the use of our military and other institutions like the IMF to protect or harm the interests of other nations in exchage for the other nations granting favors to multinational corporations. Most corporations are not significantly on the dole. I am not anti-corporation, just anti-corporate welfare and I think all Americans are agreed as a general principle that corporate welfare is not good. If people did not confuse attacks on corporate welfare with the completely unrelated advocacy of taking money from hard working people with money to give to lazy people without money then maybe we could unite to overthrow the corporate welfare state. I don't see that happening any time soon though. Oh well, being the disUnited states of America is better than being the stupidly United States of America. Let the debates role on.
Well, I can tell you why we're the way we are .....individualism! The idea of our society being important is totally lost to the idealims of individuality. You can see conflict on almost any subject or any issue ...and no one is willing to compromise, even for the good of the society. Thus, in effect, we have lost our society! We're no longer a group of people who have willingly formed a society, we're a bunch of idealistic individuals who have no thought to anything other than their own ego. Baron Max
If we "set aside our differences" that means that one side of the schism will have to surrender to the other side. How about the side that suggests we do this be the side to surrender?
It's called "diplomacy", and I'm willing to bet that ye're all for it when it comes to something like the United-fuckin'-Nations or the Declaration of Human-fuckin'-Rights, etc. Baron Max
That's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about agreeing to disagree and live in harmony towards a common interest of a greater tomorrow. For instance, there is controversy of having our troops in Iraq. And the left is saying how we shouldn't be in there, and that we shouldn't have gone there in the first place, and that the President lied to the American public. Okay, we're there. We're obviously doing good because the soldiers are reporting that we are. Regardless if Bush is right or wrong, we're there so we need to stand together and get the job done. If you were my brother and I spilled milk all over the floor and asked you to help me clean it up, are you going to sit there and tell me how I should have been more careful and go to your room? You may lecture me after helping me finish the job, but it does no good to stand divided on whether the milk should have been spilled, when it needs to be cleaned up. Should I also leave the milk sit because it shouldn't have been spilled in the first place? Pullling our troops out now would be like leaving the milk to sit and spoil. We are committed, we need to stand together and finish what WE'VE started, or our soldier's deaths would have been in vain. Here's what every American's attitudes should be they disagree with Bush: "We disagree with Bush an company. We shouldn't have gone in there, and Bush lied to the American public. We will half-heartedly support his decisions only because he was elected by the electoral system (broken or not). And every day, while we support his decisions because he is our President, we will ask for his resignation. And in addition to stating our stance and what we think of the President's plans, every day we will offer better solutions to the current dilemas." That is a true American. Democrat or Republican.
jayleew, we heard all the same arguments about Vietnam and they tured out to be all wrong. We heard for nine years that we were winning Vietnam and the Vietnamese were about to take over the effort for us. Then for five more years we heard we are leaving but we need to leave the right way. Iraq may not be Vietnam. But some young man serving in Iraq,who does not speak arabic, who knows almost nothing about US or Iraqi politics and history, and continues to get a daily dose of Limbaugh from Armed Forces Radio while serving in Iraq, is not a an authority on whether or not we are winning our situation in Iraq. I am not saying that some lefty siting at home in podunk, writing for a left wing blog is more of an authority than our soldiers. When watching sources other than Fox TV, our soldiers are not so united about whether or not we are heading towards a victory in Iraq. Educated experienced people who can speak Arabic and mix with all sorts of Iraqis (not just those working for our Iraqi allies) are the best analysts of what is really going on there. You might want to read some Robert Fisk on Iraq. When paying poker you have to know when to fold. But we haven't seen our cards yet.
Jayleew, these States are far more politically connected than they were during, or for the generation that followed, the American Revolution. For higher periods of "Unitedness" (by the standards I take you to imply) we can only look to World War 2, or if our memory is fuzzy, the Red Scare. I would like for you to explain any difference between "Unitedness" and nationalism, because to me they are the same, but nationalism seems like a less affected word. There has been hardly another time when Americans exhibited similar levels of nationalism as now. I happen to think our present nationalist behaviors are as dominant in our conversations and policies as they have ever been in our history. As nationalists, Americans have not made any unique historical impression. Others have. If you don't agree with that, perhaps it's worth discussing. If "unitedness" means something different to you, I suppose it could be regarding states of mind. But from that angle, I don't think we're that any more disparate today- That is not if you include in your look back an honest discovery of the cutlures and ethnicities that did not come out on top in those days. Straining to return to the topic of relative unitedness, we have never had as many nationalist sentiments voiced in the USA. I do not believe that "Remember the Maine" resounded any louder than yellow ribbons, Freedom Fries, Rush Limbough and Dubya's McSpeechwriters (for dummies). We're as United as we'll ever need to be, and then some.
If we are so united, why is the left acting so childish and not accepting the current system of checks and balances? Why are they using rhetoric, including logical fallacies, in poor attempts to gain more political power? It reminds me of the way children deal with controversy. The parties are so opposed, that the middle ground, the stuff that we both agree on is lost in the mudslinging. Both sides are too hasty and quick to judge arguments they hear from the opposition as irrelevant (to say the least), merely because it is diametrically opposed to their own view! Where is the middle ground on this Iraq operation? If there is none, then we are not at all united behind a common cause. I believe there is a common goal, and that is to make the world a better place, but that the librerals can't see past the little imperfections in this or that, and disqualify hastily. Most conservatives see the big picture, but they don't have the balls to bark as loud as a liberal. But, the point is that there are issues, like this war, that we can't move together behind an administration, for better or worse. These are tough decisions, and no one knows the real outcome, so we elect an administration to make the tough calls. We need to unite as brothers to support the president, even if we disagree with him. Not as lemmings, but as patriots. If you disagree with the president, why not say, "I support the president today because whether I like it or not, he was chosen to lead this nation, but this is why he is wrong, and this is what we should be doing." No one can see the future, and all we know, this could be the best president in history. All I am saying is that we be united in the common goal. Presidents come and go, but the political rhetoric needs to take a back seat.
"How can we be that great nation which stood together toward a common goal to make the world a better place?" Where in the hell did you get that crap??? LOL Our common goal was to be left alone. We just wanted England and the rest of the world to leave us the fuck alone. It used to be all about STATE rights (Individuality once again- thank you Baron). You didnt see a big turnabout until WWI when we realized painfully that we had to be involved in the worlds problems. Even after that we stuck around the Western Hemisphere (and invaded a couple of places). After WWII we decided that we would be the worlds policemen. But in no time were we concerned about making the world a better place Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
i want justifications for all the premises in the topic post crap strawmen just does not cut it now get on it
I'm not sure jayleew understands my meaning. Or yours, Gustav, or yours, C-151. Raithere- cracking me up as usual. They say some folks just don't get it. I say you just misunderestimate us, and the Patriotic Example being exhibited by our esteemed Dubya. Perhaps a more nuanced approach would be in order. What is the French word for nuanced, anyway? (heh. heh.) Or cretin(?) So dear brother Patriot J-Li please discriminate nationalism and patriotism, and then please be so kind as to justify the following premises: 1. During the American Revolution, Americans stood as a nation against a common enemy. We all supported our first President, which was crucial to his (shall we say) Mission Accomplishment. 2. Defeatist and leftist surrender-monkeys are gadflying all around our proud Eagle, who would soar over a New American Century, democracy falling from his... if only... well, you know the rest. Here's the point: If we will unquestionably support our Commander in Chief, he and his team won't lie or screw up; or screw up and lie. We will not be defeated. But doubting-Thomases lose wars. Presidential, Martial, and Athletic supporters don't let our boys down. Joint the Proud Supporters of Our Beloved Leader and his Bright Vision. Eh bien, there's more to point to, but I'll stop now for your response, jayleew.
They burnt draft ofices in WW1. You could get thrown in jail for cricizing the war, see Espionage and Sedition Acts of 1917-1918. WW1 was very devisive for Americans, more devisive that this current war in Iraq is.
Uh oh, watch out for La Raza! In regards to Espionage and Sedition Acts of 1917-1918: Watch out for the Mexican/Al Qaeda alliance for the same terms. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! - N
Huh??? What checks and balances? The President violates the Constitution by sending troops into a sovereign nation to overthrow its government and incidentally kill a fair number of its military personnel and civilians. Congress violates the Constitution by "approving" his unconstitutional action without declaring war on Afghanistan or Iraq, which is the only legal condition under which we can behave as though we are at war. The Supreme Court sits on their asses instead of declaring the whole thing unconstitututional. The last vestige of checks and balances is the people themselves. No one has jumped up with a copy of the Constitution in his hand on national television and challenged these tyrants to explain why anything they've done since 9/11 is legal. There are no checks and balances. The entire government is owned and operated by the energy industry. And the people don't give a damn. People pretty much get the kind of government they deserve.
