Andrew did make a good point, but as far as I see all that really happened is more ignorance and more people sitting around whining about things their incompetent minds could never comprehend. Ignorance and blind faith is all that has been created. Consider the person who made the joke about airport security and was arrested. It?s just the most half-witted nazi thing I've heard of in a long time. The only thing more asinine that I can remember off the top of my head is when we were forced to apologize to the Chinese for them hitting into our airplane over international water. Although George Bush kind of worked his way around a true formal apology, we should have needed to apologize at all. That was just a god-awful slap in the face, and the bastards should have been apologizing to us. Jesse Jackson was being his normal nefarious self, saying that we should apologize to keep the peace, this was a matter of pride, and what will they think if we cave into their commands? If you are to keep our superiority we must not appear as though we will do anything an apposing force tells us. Well that?s my blab for now, but keep it up with all the writing and such.
One can't be 'wrong' per se based on a dictionary definition when one makes a point based on the falsity of the definition itself. You're comparing the validity of someone's argument with the validity of the text of a book, the core of which was written over a hundred years ago. I personally disagree as well, however a good point was made, and no ones post should be described as 'wrong', because opinions can't be wrong in the first place.
Good point, Andrew. I agree, sort of... The patriotism exhibited by our nation was the dictionary definition. Be that definition correct or incorrect, I do not know and have no authority to say. However, I believe that the patriotism exhibited by our country was either bad for the people of this nation and their power in government or at very least made no difference in it, because though our overwhelming patriotism in the days following the attack caused us to make the decisions which we then made (to entrust George Bush with the country's decisions for an as yet undetermined amount of time), our patriotism has proved itself superficial, and has all but died away by now (only eleven months later), leaving the decisions which we made at that time to govern us now. For instance, how many of you all know where George Bush has been for the past three weeks, and will be up until the start of school? If you guessed the White House, you're wrong. He's been spending the last three weeks relaxing at his home in Texas. Even though he is doing absolutely nothing toward the safety of this nation (aside from perhaps hitting the occasional terrorist with a golf ball, perhaps), when he speaks of the war we are at, none would speak up to point this out. We merely follow him and his words almost as blindly as we did on September Twelfth when we allowed him this control of the nation. Well, that's all for now I guess.
~Franson
Patriotic - Having the characteristics of a patriot
Patriot - One who loves his or her country and supports its authority and interests
This is taken right out of good old Merriam Webster, so you are wrong
I think you have a good question Franson about how did the country get more patriotic? But I don't at all believe that the country got more patriotic. Now to start off by analyzing the literal meaning of the word patriotic my arguement is already crushed so lets put that aside. But I believe that the best way to be patriotic in a democratic society is not as many people believe to agree and allow their government to go off on its own seperate from the people. But instead I believe a trully patriotic democratic society would be a society that consistently questions its government, protests it government, a society that votes. I look at the Vietnam era and I truly see the most patriotic society that America has had in the 20th century because the "New Left" was not allowing their government to do what it wanted even though it was against the opinion of the people. So back to your question Franson, I believe that our society's change has been a change towards less patriotism. Of course more people swing their flags and what not but they decided to let Bush go off on his own. A good example is back around the first weeks after 9/11 Bush said to the nation, you are going to have to trust your government and you are going to have to not question us during the crisis. This is very typical of a president during or before war time turning the government away from the fact that it is controlled by the people. And allowing the government to take a firmer grip on the nation without the knowledge and support of the country behind it, as the people of the United States allowed George W. Bush to do, greatly changed this country from better to worse, in that it was one more step in crushing the democracy that was set up to have the people govern the government and the not the other way around.
The only change I see is better air port security and more whiney people
First off Jesse, rotten things don't become rotten enough to collapse for years and years. However, we need a new topic. How 'bout... the implications of the fact that 9/11 caused a basic change in the way United States citizens view their own country. Why did it take such a disaster for the people of our nation to become patriotic, and is the change for better or for worse?
Quoting Andrew
"2 Decay; rot."
Now when sonthing rots it tends to colapse in upon it self, same goes for when somone goes corrupt, they eventualy can't keep everything strait and they get found out. This is how the voters find out
Rather than rehashing everything that you just said, I'll simply second it all. Brilliant.
a. The act or process of corrupting.
b. The state of being corrupt.
2 Decay; rot.
3. Archaic. Something that corrupts.
I just put that up there for some comic relief to our waging war agianst "god" as he so likes to be called, but instead I will call him by Jeff's given name "The Beast Master." So here goes : The Beast Master is saying that within a democracy corruption can be rooted out because voting is like a redeeming a cleansing process. This is what I believe to be a very naive thought, but i will continue the synapsis. So the rebels that are desperately battling thus said Beast Master are basically trying to claim that not even voting will root out the evils of corruption in a society. But the said Rebels have failed to give example of Democracies and have only been able give examples of Totalitarian states. Conclude Synapsis. Now what I believe is that in this modern age of large media and the "internet" we are still unable to see all of the corruption that is taking place in the government. And since we being the voters don't know where and when and how our government in corrupt and who are the corrupters, then we are therefore unable to vote the corrupters out of office and cleanse our system of corruption. I will leave this arguement at that but I will move to another, and that is that we should have no local governments?!? This boggles my mind because as a conservative this is the main thing that I want. I was at the San Fran baseball game and The Amerian flag was not as high up as the Californian State Flag and at this I was almost crying because it was so beautiful. A state that thought their local goverment was more important than the one in Washington! But later i found out the American flag was just positioned further away than the Californian flag. Here is the thing though when people, we, are all being ruled by a government in Washington then the system becomes more similiar to that of a monarchy because we are being ruled from far away and by people who don't what are problems are. To combat that problem we have Senators and House Reps. that go to Washington and make the Minnesotan's buisness known, and I don't think they do a good enough job of that. I agree with you Beast Master that many laws the state passes are unneccesary and meaningless, but I think that is because they are power hungry and state government officials want to say that they have some power and they then pass the only laws that they are allowed to pass these day, meaningless ones. So what I would like is there not to be less local government, but instead to remove their meaningless take alot of the power away from Washington and the central locations and transfer that power to the state level, where the people would be better heard and provided for. And very lastly I would like to apologize for making the last few articles turn into a boxing match where I directly attacked Jesse. I, as I look back on it, think that was in bad taste and this column Atimes, is about expressing beliefs and it isn't about attacking other peoples beliefs, merely arguining with them. So in the future I will try to not directly attack a person but instead attack his column.
As my title says we are not communist nor monarchy and the corruption can be removed through somthing as simple as getting off your ass and voting.
