RONNIE SAYS I HATE WHAT AMERICA STANDS FOR!
 

See, now, that stings.

So I got to thinking, what on earth does he mean?

What evidence is their anywhere in any post that I "Hate what America Stands For"?

I mean, who can say? Maybe I do? But I'd sure like to know. 'Cause here I was thinking I'm a pretty patriotic guy when it comes to what America Stands for, and as an active participant in our great democracy I'm dooing my duty as an American. But if I I've actually been Hating What America Stands for all this time and not knowing it, I'd at least like to do a better, more intentional job.

So if anyone can show me something America Stands for that I've shown I hate, help me out and put it in words.

Cue the rabid jingoism. This morning, on CNN, they were discussing that Dixie Chick singer's critical comments about Dubya. I'm no fan of their music, but kudos to her for exercising her right to voice her disagreement to the American government's actions. However, those Timer-Warner shills on CNN displayed in the graphic a headline calling her comments 'anti-American'. How is pointing out what a dingus your leader is 'anti-American'?

and now people are burning their CD's, asking that they not get any radio play and forcing her to apologize to Bush.

I thought one of the things America stood for was free speech?

Of course, burning her records is free speech as well. Cnn calling her anti-American though, is vfery poor journalism. She said she was ashamed he was from Texas, and that's not even necessarily anti-texan.

I would say that there have always been loyal Americans who strongly disliked the president during all administrations and spoke out on the subject.

Talking down the president on forign soil at a time of war is Un-American.

She should be and IS ashamed of her remarks or so she says.....

It's probably the end of her career. The country music business is pretty Conservative and so are the listeners.

In what way, Ronnie.

There is nothing in the constitution, nor in England's Laws, that says she can't do that.

Hey, Nalds, thanks for missing the point of the thread! Or is that evading it?

Just in case you didn't take this as a direct question to you, lets pose it that way.

In what way do I hate what America stands for?

When she made that comment, your country hadn't gone to war yet. Using the implications from your statement, she was well within her right to 'talk down' Dubya, and, thus, you are wrong to call her 'Un-American'.

Are you suggesting that American citizens ought to shut up whilst military action is occurring, even if they strongly believe that the political and economic reasons for this invasion are wrong? That everyone become silent speed-bumps to American aggression? I need only point to the silent complicity of the majority of the constituents of Nazi Germany and the disaster that resulted, to remind you of the wrongness of your position.

I totally disagree that them speaking out is anti-American. To be quite honest, I'm glad they did. Because the response they are receiving is what I believe Ronnie may be saying you hate burbank.

America was built on freedom. The ultimate display of freedom is capitalism. Their fan base is most likely, and I'm just guessing here, about 90% pro Bush and pro-action in Iraq. They were stupid for making the comment. The same way that Hollywood stars, while exersising their freedom, are STUPID for voicing their opinions so publically, regardless of whether they are pro or opposed. It would be like a supermodel shaving her head and getting a giant ass tattoo on her stomach - it's just bad business. When your career revolves around marketing yourself, you better be prepared to suffer the consequences of poor decision making. I hate the Dixie Chicks, always have. I hate all country music. This brilliant comment couldn't have made me more happy. Bad business = no $$$

Ahh, but here's the catch. The WAR ON TERROR is forever.

"In what way do I hate what America stands for?" - Maxi

Well, the first thing people will notice is the fact that you are always so quick to focus on the negative aspects of what this country has done without stating the positive things we have accomplished. And you are always taking the postive and trying bring it down using 3rd rate conspiracy theories that nobody believes. Also, "averting doom" defined by you is economic despair and lots of dead American soldiers.

How else would you like me to state the obvious?

Miss,

"In what way, Ronnie. "

Every way.

Tom,

"When she made that comment, your country hadn't gone to war yet. "

Iraq is just a phase in the war on terror, so yes we are at war.

"I need only point to the silent complicity of the majority of the constituents of Nazi Germany and the disaster that resulted, to remind you of the wrongness of your position."

....and I only need to point out the free thriving democracies of France, Germany and Japan to show you the wrongness in yours. Who accomplished that? The U.S. and Britian. Who is trying to free another nation of opressed people held hostage by a tyrannt? The U.S. and Britian. And now who is opposing us? The very people we freed from an evil tyrannt! France would deny Iraqis the same freedoms that they enjoy and Germany would rather support another dictator just like they did during WWII.

History repeats itself.

Thanks for reminding me.


"Ahh, but here's the catch. The WAR ON TERROR is forever." - Pro

Only if you leftists have your way. You don't exactly have a good track record when it comes to fighting wars.

What?
 

Why does the freedom to criticize our leaders end with the start of a war? Bush isn't God. He is a human being and he can make mistakes, mistakes that could be globally catastrophic. I'm sure he means well, but the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

And what is wrong with pointing out the negative aspects of our nation? Pointing out a problem is the first step to fixing it. Why must we sing the praises of America on this board? It accomplishes nothing.
And furthermore, if we limit free speech because of the war on terror (which is nothing more than a metaphor, like the war on drugs, the war on poverty, etc), then we are doing exactly what the terrorists want: giving into fear.

"Those who are willing to trade away their freedom for saftey deserve neither freedom nor saftey."-Benjamin Franklin

If a liberal president was currently in office, would you, a conservative, still agree that we must not criticize our leaders during time of war?

And furthermore, simply because I oppose the war doesn't mean that I think we should do nothing about Iraq. Bush makes it sound as though we have only the choices of 1. war or 2. nothing. He has not considered other options.

Max, don't you realize that your president is unquestionable, untouchable and infallible during war time!? Hold off your CRAZY comments until he's once again mortal. Which is right after he's cleansed the world of terrorism.

Then you'll be pleased to know the leftists aren't the ones fighting this war.

In the Navy, whenever we disembarked at a foreign port, we were always told that we are representatives of the United States, and to behave accordingly. We seldom did, but regardless, Naldo has a valid point.

It's one thing to stand in opposition to our Government here at home. We not only have the right to do so, we have an obligation. The People were meant to be the ultimate check and balance of the Government.

However, when one is abroad, things change. Regardless of your personal objections, you don't do what she did. I'm not saying she should advocate Bush, his administration, or his unconstitutional war, but I am saying you don't openly denounce it on a public forum. Not unless you are planning on changing your citizenship.

Jeesh! :( I agree with you on that.

Meanwhile, if we're here in the good ol' U.S. of A, does that mean we can only not like the president in anonymous polls? I just find it odd that in an open forum, people will shout you down with a nationalistic fervor but when the secret polls are revealed, his popularity points were and still are down on the issue of the upcoming war. Seems strange that the numbers don't match ... hmmm. Doesn't it show a little more moral fiber to openly express your opinions? Oh, well, my opinions are back in the closet once the war starts. I won't bad mouth the troops during the war or upon their return. It's not their fault and they deserve my support.

How often did you criticize Clinton during Desert Fox, or during the bombings of Yugoslavia??? You're a hypocrite and you know it.

On foreign soil, domestic soil, furtilized soil. When you go abroad you are an American, and it's your responsibility to act as one wherever you are. Remaining critical of ONE branch of our THREE branch government is not only acceptable, it's our duty.

Kelly, fundamentally, the whole reason the SECRET polls don't match the Open Polls is because, to put it simply: If you were a leftist in a staunchly conservative neighborhood, all of them advocated the war to the point that they will kill anyone opposed to it themselves, and then Mr. Leftist comes along and blurts it out?

Essentially, you're talking about something bigger than hidden polls, you're talking about human nature, i.e. putting on two faces to protect yourself from whatever you need shielding from.

Case in point: I'm an atheist, but I live in Louisiana, which is of course a HUGELY fanatical Christian state. Do you think it'd be a good idea to go around telling these people that I don't think their God exists? Same idea.

Hah! Nice one.

"Why does the freedom to criticize our leaders end with the start of a war?" Jeanette X

It doesn't.

"Why must we sing the praises of America on this board? It accomplishes nothing." - X

See. You are just anti-American. To you being balanced and showing the great accomplishments of this nation hurt your argument. You objective is to talk us down. Admit it.

"If a liberal president was currently in office, would you, a conservative, still agree that we must not criticize our leaders during time of war?"

Simply not.

"Then you'll be pleased to know the leftists aren't the ones fighting this war." - FS

Yes, Yes I am.

"How often did you criticize Clinton during Desert Fox, or during the bombings of Yugoslavia??? You're a hypocrite and you know it." - Kevin

No I'm not. You just made that up. Try another lie. You're about as accurate as a SCUD missile...........I'd like to see some proof if you dare....

"Hah! Nice one." - appointer

Hah! You just creamed in you pants over one of Kevin's lies. Let him try to prove it.

If he can, I will never post here again.

Hinky. Shame on you. While as I've stated I think getting rid of your Dixie Chicks records for any reason other than their music is stupid, I don't 'hate' people doing it. Free speech is free speech, and It's one of my favorite American Freedoms. I endorse their right to not buy the Dixie Chicks Music.

"The ultimate display of freedom is capitalism."
-panty

I find that a very depressing statement. The 'Ultimate'? I find an awful lot of things about America more inspirational. I'd place it in the top ten, though, so don't get all uppity and say I hate what America stnds for. But theirs a reason we say "The pursuit of Hapiness" when the original phrase in it's place was "Property" I like property, too though, so don't get a rash.


"Well, the first thing people will notice is the fact that you are always so quick to focus on the negative aspects of what this country has done without stating the positive things we have accomplished. And you are always taking the postive and trying bring it down using 3rd rate conspiracy theories that nobody believes. Also, "averting doom" defined by you is economic despair and lots of dead American soldiers. "
Nalds.

While much tht you just said, particularly wht others make of my posts, is highly arguable, I'll note that you can't even put into words a concept "America Stands For" that I hate. Let me try to help you.

Are you saying "America stands for accentuating positive aspects of it's culture proportionately with negative in discussion." I think I may have missed that in civics class.

Start threads on Freedom, and you'll see where I agree with and embrace what America Stands for. Start threads on Bush, and you'll see where I disagree. I am often concerned with how America fail to live up to the Things it Stands for. I'm a big believer in actually doingt the Things you Stand For.

Perhaps you are saying "America Stands for not taking the postive and trying bring it down using 3rd rate conspiracy theories that nobody believes."

Well, since I belive them, that's somebody. A lot of people believe them. I'm really a centrist as far as conspiracy theory goes. Wasn't it you who posted the article on some secret force being behind peace protests? I'm not accusing you, it might have been someone else. In any case, I think "America stands for a healthy skeptecism where government is concerned". I think that's why we have three branches of govrnments, checks and balances, the vote, a free press, freedom of speech etc. I imagine you find my tack depressing, but can't recall any great merican writing embracing the concept "America stands for not being a bummer". Perhaps, perhaps, America stands for more optomism than I generally express, but I think that would be way down on the list of what it stands for, near dressing more neatly than I tend to.

Your last charge might be worded "America stands for not defining "averting doom" as economic despair and lots of dead American soldiers. "

You might well have something there, if indeed that was what I did. I don't embrace a bad economy (which I suffer in along with you) or dead soldiers any more than I assume you embrace the concept of dead Iraqi children. I assume, though, that you see some number of dead iraqi children as a regretable, tragic inevitability on the road to a safer world. I see W not getting re-elected as a major step in averting World War III. That's not a conspiracy theory, as I don't think it's what he wants. It is my politucal judgement, to which I'm entitled. It is my sincere hope that the American people will be moved by multiple factors to unseat him, as they did his father. It is my sincere hope that this could and will happen without ANY deaths (too late for that already) as I too pray for Iraqis and Americans and British and all human beings. I imagine you think I pray incorrectly, or doubt my prayers even count as such, but I think "America stands for Freedom of Religion". I find the entire situation tragic. I feel this is a conflict between two individual men, and I think history and God will judge them both harshly for draggng so many innocents into the fray with them. It causes me great unhapiness that I believe Bush will not loose the next election if this stage of our new foreign policy comes with little cost to America. For you too construe this as an active desire for people to suffer, especially while endorsing war, shows to me a shocking lack of perspective.

While I disagree with you on almost everything, I am capable of seeing your political viewpoint. I do not beieve you are capable of acknowledging the existence of mine, let alone seeing it. This is the nature of our respective boxes.

I would suggest that your inability to express clearly what America Stand For that you think I hate stems not so much from your skill with words as the fact that your gut feelings about me and what I do or do not hate cannot be stated as a Hatred of American Ideals. At one time in our history, the government 'stood for' the holding of slaves as the 'ultimate' expression of Capitalism. Did abolitionists 'hate' what 'America' stood for?

If you cannot put it into words, it may be because it isn't true.

It could be because it's a lie.

I have my own interpretation of what it means to be an American. It's based on history and the great documents of our founding fathers. When I believe we do not aspire to our better nature, I feel shame BECAUSE I love what America Stands For. You claim your understanding of the bible is legitimate becuase it is the divine word of God and not open to different interpretations. Do you feel the same way about our constitution, our rights, our freedoms? Is Patriotism a mark from God which can only be epxressed in ways clear to you?

And is it really so surprising I find you prideful, you who know what it means to be a real American?

Where to begin...

I guess to start with the Dixie Chick's statement over in Europe about President Bush. Now, this comment is within her rights of free speech to say it. She can pretty much say whatever she wants, as long as it does not constitute a threat against someone (and for that reason Hyde of the Pretenders needs a nice open-handed pimp slamp). But the comment shows her intelligence, however. Not necessarly in political affairs, but in the realm of common sence when it comes to her job.

Country music is mostly conserative, "fly over" country based, and Christian. To come out and say something about a EXTREMELY popular in a FOREGIN country is career suicide. So no wonder she is getting a bunch of crap. That is the PRICE and RESPONSABILITY of free speech, which it seems a LOT of people can't comprehend. The Bill of Rights protects your rights, not your feelings.

Now, if this was a rock band doing this, the tide would be split. The younger, "sheeple" kids would believe anything a band like RATM or SOAD or any of the punk bands say because they label themselves as "outsiders" and "misunderstood". Now, these young kids don't know shit about politics, so they just go by what the celeberity says. The Cult of Celeberty at work. The older fans actually know most of these guys are full of shit, and would disagree with them. Once again free speech at work.

But to really tie it in, Free Speech is great. I am glad I am blessed to live in a country that never has been truly oppressed. I have friends and know of people that have lived under the foot of China, the U.S.S.R., N. Korea, Cuba, Saudi Arabia, Zimbawae, and the other opressive countries. Now, to anyone that truly believes we are in some kind of horrible police state, especially these protestors and these whiners that just hate Bush because he is "Hitler", know this: I have sat down and spoke to Holocaust survivors and my grandfather helped liberate a concentration camp. If they had the strength, they would probably like nothing more than to knock your teeth through your asshole with their fist.


And to answer the about the protestors being under a different group without going on for too long: The World Workers Party has been seen and documented as supporting and funding International ANSWER. The World Workers Party is a Communist front. That has been documented. And frankly, I wouldn't piss on a WWP member if he/she/it was on fire.

Wow, you sure are a great big short-sighted asshole.

Don't you think that maybe folks who are protesting our current administration's actions are trying to PREVENT the establishment of a police state? It doesn't happen overnight. But if you compare the state of affairs now to those of, say, fifteen years ago, it's kind of scary. And by the time we realize how completely under the thumb of our government we are, it'll probably be too late to do anything about it.

For example, Nazi Germany didn't become what it was in a couple of weeks. It was a gradual, insidious process. A few rules imposed here, a few things outlawed there, over the course of several years.

I don't possess the temperament or patience of someone like Burbank, so I'm going to sum it up as quickly as I can before I get really fucking angry.

I'm paraphrasing George Carlin here, and I think it's a frighteningly accurate statement: "When fascism comes to prominence in America, it's not going to be wearing jackboots and uniforms. It's going to have a smiley face and be wearing sneakers with lihts in them."
________
HOW TO TURN IOLITE OFF

Ronnie, I asked you a question. Stop avoiding it.

Fascism is the most overused word-weapon in the liberal arsenal. It’s a big word they learned to try to compare Bush to Hitler (Hitler came to power because of socialism, idiot. Read books. Learn things.) which always fails.

I do not like the Patriot Act, before you try to bring that up. It's stupid and unnecessary. It infringes on my right to privacy and is close to legalized violations of the Constitution as you can get. We need to do the tasks that are necessary to protect our country, which might make the ivory-tower PC whiners upset. We may have to.... *GASP*.....

Profile Arab and Muslim suspicious persons

EEEK! That would just be the pits, huh? My grandfather's parents, even thought my grandfather was off to war, had their voting rights taken away, guns taken away, and were watched because they were Italians during WWII. Came close to a camp just like the Japanese as well.

But the whole thing about Bush turning America to a police state? Hog. Wash. Although since the Republicans started to control everything after the '02 elections, I have had to use my umbrella more to keep the blood from the crucified non-Christians from splashing on my clothes, and I have had to take my Jesus-allegiance pledges about 6 times a day. My buddy also disagreed with the speed of our tax cuts and he we dragged away by the XX, the double-crossed special elite strike force that Bush has made for the dissenters.

I see you're part of the "American okey-dokey." You're absolutely right, dude. No need for vigilance. No need to worry. The government's got it all under control.

Sorry, I've got to get back to watching the fireworks show on the Fox News Channel. USA! USA! USA!
________
No2 Vaporizer

I'd prefer to agree with George Orwell and say it's actually being able to tell people what they don't want to hear.

I'd rather die than live in another country besides America. Plain and simple. But do I think America is always right? Not at all. Humans run America, and humans are flawed. But the simple fact is for all the bad things we do, our good we do for the existence of mankind dwarfs it a zillion to one. It's just that most people have it so well here, all they can do is focus on the bad because they never have had it any other way besides good.

It's like the adult that has always had money handed to him since he was a kid. If he could only buy 3 Bentleys instead of 6, he would consider it such a crushing blow to his psyche. We on the board here would tell him to shove it.

Those of us who focus on the bad points of our country do so because we don't want it to turn into a monster.
________
BLACK LIVE

Couldn't have said it better myself, Sspad.

I guess Naldo still thinks I hate what my country stands for.

i'm just sad because i love what my country stands for, but every time i turn around it seems to be going against what i thought it stood for in the first place.

That's becuase you aren't a real American.

The question is, are those of us who are not 'Real American's' and yet feel free to suck from liberties teat a danger to America?

After all, Naldo thinks I support Saddam Hussein. Doesn't that make me a terrorist?

And if I'm a terrorist, doesn't that make me an enemy combatant?

And if I'm an enemy combatant, haven't I forfeited all constitutional rights?

WWJAD?
(What would John Ashcroft Do?)

Damn Burbank, you are on a socialist roll today....

I am postively incensed that you would say that. My arguements are against Bush and his administration, not this nation. I challage you to find ONE thing that I have posted here that was anti-American as opposed to anti-Bush. I am not here to talk down to anyone, I am here to speak my mind.

Hey, I asked him to find one thing I said first!

Hinky- Okay, my post was meant to Mock Naldo, mostly, and provoke him to ANSWER A DIRECT QUESTION, something he has so much trouble with it's like he's passing a stone, but you piqued mu curiosity...

What did you find 'socialist' in my post? Seriously, unless I'm missing something, you might as well have said 'raellian' for all the meaning that had.

Mockery, my friend... mockery

woozle wuzzle?

How are his posts socialist? :confused

True, he merely used it as a vehicle to get the power he sought and not necessarily because he agreed with it's ideals. It's my opinion that the fascist doctrine he ultimately assumed publicly was more than likely what truly reflected his beliefs from the beginning. Even though the socialist is pretty much the diametric opposite of everything that facism stands for, you have to GET to the place of power to assert your true will. You have to use what's available to you, n'est-ce pas?

Well said, Kelly. I'm sure Mr. Friedman will call you a Communist, however.

EDIT: I also love it when people say stupid things such as "read a book." They presumably mean read a book by Hume, Burke, or Friedman, NOT however a book by Marx, Engels, Gramsche, Adorno, etc. Just an observation.

It's not un-American to denounce liberal Presidents because they aren't real Americans in the first place. :rolleyes

They're just 'keeping the chair warm.'

Facist the word holds a lot of meaning, its just in how its used. Every time some punk kid gets arrested for laying in front of a highway and blocking traffic to protest a tree cutting down, the cops come in and arrest him. He then screams "Facists!" like his opinions are being repressed, when in fact he is endangering lives and blocking traffic. The problem is the word is used every 2 minutes and loses its true meaning. As in saying that is what Bush is. If Bush was a true facist, Arab and Muslim peoples would be in camps and anti-war people would be imprisoned.

"I have my own interpretation of what it means to be an American. It's based on history and the great documents of our founding fathers." - Maxi

That's a laugh. You often site "seperation of church and state" as an American way of life. Where did the forefathers say that?

The first amendment directly opposes "seperation of church and state".

You are too easy.

Show us how, Raygun. You go out, cust and paste all of Amendment 1 of our constitution, and you point out how the government endorses any kind of intertwining of church and state.
________
Easy Homemade Vaporizer

Endorses? Did I say that?

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."


"Duh! I'm a giant moron!"

Tell you what: I'll do it for you, since you're too lazy to do it yourself and a poor debater.

"Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. "

That's from the University of Cornell School of Law website.

Now you show me exactly where in there it says that the gov't opposes separation of church & state.
________
LovelyWendie99

I didn't say the govt' opposes it.

Try again.....and learn how to read and comprehend.

So I read it quickly..... Big fuckin' deal. Show me exactly how the First Amendment "directly opposes" separation of church and state. Show me.

By the way, that's rather ironic coming from you, seeing how you can't comprehend the words of our constitution.
________
Amateur Tube

Forget it....I'll spare you the hardship.

Would you like to use school prayer for example. Why does the gov't get involved when students choose to pray at a football game or during school?

Does the first amendment say they can't. Obviously NOT.

It says......

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

Which means that the gov't cannot make a law sanctioning a prayer and that it CANNOT make a law banning it.

In other words.....it's non of the gov't business either way.

It funny how Carnivore calls me names and at the same time posts words that support my claim.

Brilliant!!

Let's examine this for a bit, since it brings up another point:

Congress can not respect an establishment of religion. That means that if the president decided that this country was Evangelical Christian, that is in violation of our Bill of Rights. NOW, if the president wants to speak to spiritual advisers, reads a religious text and prays to decide what he should do, and says that God will help guide him, that is not establishing a religion. That is a man going with what he believes in, which is a right that is God-given and granted by the Constution, if you go by our way of govt.

But another thing that really intrigues me is when these protestors say that we have a right to protests, that they are right, they do, as long as its PEACEFULLY. Once they start infringing on MY rights and the rights of others, like a few are doing now, that is the time for the police to break out the collapsable riot batons.

Coward. You know you are dead wrong, and you can't bring yourself to admit it.

The government doesn't get involved if a kid wants to pray. They would get involved if a teacher tried to lead a lead a class in prayer, or if someone tried to force a group into some sort of religious exercise. Individual freedoms are respected. If a guy wants to say grace before he eats his school luch, that's entirely his business.
________
New Mexico Dispensaries

"Coward. You know you are dead wrong, and you can't bring yourself to admit it."

Then why Can't you prove your point.

"The government doesn't get involved if a kid wants to pray."

Not true. There are many cases where kids are not allowed to pray in school.

"They would get involved if a teacher tried to lead a lead a class in prayer,"

What does that have to do with CONGRESS passing a law that respects religion?......Genius...

You are letting naldo drag you off the topic of this thread, which is exactly what he wants.

Ronnie, it's funny you'd accuse anyone of lacking comprehension.

"That's a laugh. You often site "seperation of church and state" as an American way of life. Where did the forefathers say that?

The first amendment directly opposes "seperation of church and state".

You are too easy."
-Naldo

I am too easy? Shame on you. Even if I give you your last point for the sake of argument, it doesn't adress the DIRECT QUESTION I put to you.

Name something America Stands for that I hate, and support your statement. You're all over the mao un this. I can tell you things America Stands For that I love. You've yet to sate a single principle America Stnds For that I hate. I'll get bck to you on the importance history and AMERICAN nature of the sepration of church and state, but I'll do it in a separate thread. This thread is for you

TO SUBSTANTIATE YOUR OUTREAGEOUS LIE

That I hate what America Stands For

and ANSWER A DIRECT QUESTION

How many ways can I put this?

Maybe eventually I'll say what you want to hear. You have failed to counter anything I've said.

How about the right to self defense? Can you defend your stance on that?

Ok, lets take it a step further. Say a Texas town has always said a prayer for the players before their football game. Now (and Im being an asshole because I can), some family of Satanists from Seattle *cue evil music* come to the town. The kid decides to come to the game. He whines about the prayer that EVERYONE else agrees with, calls up the soon to be true facist ACLU. Wam Bam, no more prayin'. Now, since everyone believes we live in a democracy (it's actually a democratic republic, but I digress...), the majority should rule. So by our constitution and the majority rule, the kid should just buck up or not pray, while everyone else can. Simple as that. And if it were the opposite situation, the kid could say a silent prayer while everyone else does whatever they are going to do.

Okay, so to formulate this is asomething America stands for, which is after alll what you accused me of hating, that would be:

"America stands for Her Right to Defend Herself"

A little awkward, and one of our more practical goals as opposed to our most lofty, but acceptable, and for the record the first tme you said anything that even with my help can be seen as SOMETHING AMERICA STANDS FOR.

The problem? I don't hate that principle at all. I think America has EVERY right to defend herself, I think that's a good thing, and I don't hate it in the least. I do think that our current war has very little to do with defending ourselves. If I don't choose to accept your personal defenition of all words, does this mean I hate this American Principle? Are you America now? Is there something in our constitution that says I am required to agree with the sitting president, but it sure as hell isn't treason to object strenously to a war that as a MEMBER OF THIS DEMOCRACY I think is very bad for the Principle I believe AMERICA STANDS FOR.

All you are able to show is that you and I disagree. Big news! Your translation of this into the claim that I HATE WHAT AMERICA STANDS FOR borders on megalomania.

I sir, am a patriot of the highest order. You confuse a single administration for a country and your actions border on idolatry.

So far you have demonstrated:

1.) I am not as upbeat in my posts regarding America's recent policies as you'd like.
2.) I am in general too negative for your tastes.
3.) I suggested that if American Deaths and a sour economy prevented World War Three, I would find the trade acceptable. I remind you, you accept torture!
4.) You challenge one of the things I say America Stands for.

It's simple. State a principle America Stands for. Show how I hate it.

Exactly.....

Maxi, should everyone be allowed to pray at the high school football game if they want......as long as Congress doesn't make it a law saying that they have to pray?

PLEASE ANSWER!

Gladly. I'll start another thread for it momentarily.

Meanwhile, how about you take the time to read my last post and answer it?

I do not believe max is anti-american, although I do disagree with him completely. There are people on these boards who are though, many of them very, very pro European Union, who would love nothing more than for America to either fall, or be consumed from within by misinformation and internal quarelling.

If you have to say you are a patriot of the highest order, then no one will believe you. Show it by being consistent with the laws and protection of the law, and they wont have anything to say.

I'd only say something so unnecesary for Naldo. He's the only one who could think anything so patently absurd here. Note, Hinky doesn't think so and he seems to be as far away from me politically as you can get.

"Show it by being consistent with the laws and protection of the law, and they wont have anything to say."
Red a dozen of my posts.. Then read a dozen of Ronnies. Then say that again without smiling.

Oh, and Hinks...

A lot of those folks on the board who re anti-american are from other countries. So it;s kind of their right to be anti-american f that's the way they feel.

And mostly, I bet even they don't hate "What America Stands For".

HNIC is correct. A lot of people (not necessarly on this board, although it is true, but just in general) are loving the whole EU concept. Sorry if it makes me have a bunch of patriotism and being jignostic, but I think countries should be soverign and not respect ANY "international law", because the ones that were put up by the UN were in fact communist in nature. Stated in essence that you have rights as long as they dont infringe with the UN, which is nothing but a debating group. I am afraid of a one world govt. All it would bring is trouble. BIG trouble.

"I think countries should be soverign and not respect ANY "international law"

Say, That's what Saddam thinks, too!

You know exactly what I mean, so dont try to put words in my mouth, jerkoff. There is a difference between international law and basic human rights. A Right is something that isnt granted by a govt, it is something that always is, a law is something that inhibits. International law is usually biased towards a more socalist/liberal slant. Saddam commits violation of human rights every friggin day. So thus, he must be stopped. He murders people, has sold weapons and helped terrorists that murdered citizens of the US. Enough reason for me to want to off him.

I hate to contribute to the backlog of questions that Raygun still hasn't answered, but I'm gonna do it anyway.

Raygun, how does the First Amendment "directly oppose" the separation of church and state?

A simple, straightforward question. Answer it.
________
VAPIR NO2

I just stared a whole new thread so he can answer that question without being rude and divisive.

Vince, do I need to start one for you two? Do none of you know how and why to start a topic?

And of course, I was being flippant. I take it then you are saying that the US should intervene in any country where a military dictatorship is systematically violating the rights of it's citizens, and that we should make this deciion on our own?

Its less work to respond to it here.

USA
 

I love the freedoms I have. I love what America stands for. I hate what American leaders have done to this country. And I feel this way about both the liberal and the conservative leaders. I refuse to say democrat and republican because it really isn't about that any more. Neither group really follows what their party is/was based on. Unfortunately, liberal/democrat and conservative/republican have become synonyms. Both sides are far too extreme. Life isn't black and white, but both sides want us to believe it is.

Well said.

I agree to some extent.

This country hasa moved way left of what was intended. And both sides are to blame for that.

Stop the I.R.S.

Wow. That was mealy mouthed. I'm glad you had time to offer that up. Now what say you answer a direct question.

Name something America stnds for and demonsrtate my hatred of it.

Free speech.

Seems like you are trying at every oppurunity to prove how american you are, Max? Internal conflicts, perhaps?

Actually, life is black or white. You live or die. You see or dont. You live in a certain country or you don't. You bleed or you dont. The end results of life and death, good and evil, are black and white. The ways to get there are shades of grey.

Left/Right
 

One of my biggest gripes is that it appears that both sides disagree simply to disagree. Both have come up with some wonderful plans that are shot down by the other side for no dicernable reason other than "we have to disagree with them" (Okay, that and the fact that both sides are extremists) We need to find a way back to the middle ground or we are going to tear ourselves apart. All we need to do is look at this war to see how bad it has already become. There is middle ground.

The party system was designed to create a balance, to make sure that we never went too far to either side. Now, it seems they are striving to be bipolar. Maybe we need governmental prozac....

Both sides always have extremists. Speaking as a conserative with libertarian leanings, I feel (and can prove a lot) that the conserative P.O.V. is shunned or just the extremist side is shown, but when it comes to a liberal side of things, it is always apologized for and tone down.

I just want it down the line, even for every group or viewpoint that is valid. Liberals dont get their views passed by votes or by congress, they do so by judges. They destroy the govt with socalism and hedonism. And it isnt just the conseratives that say this. Libertarians hate liberals more than a conserative could even begin to try to.

But I appreciate the fact that you seem to want to know more about what is going on within the world. I applaud that. Too bad most people are mindless in the country, and unfortuantly with the dropping voting rates in this country, it is going to be the informed vs the sheeple and the rest will just live life like they were in the matrix.

:(
 

And that is what scares me the most.........

Its very scary.

Party
 

Republican Party - Less big government more local government. I love this concept. If only it were held too. Unfortunatly, (just like the democrats) they want total say so and total power. And not just here, they want to spread to the world.

Some republicans try to do it, just so they can get votes. A core republican doesnt want big govt, and libertarians want even less. Democrats on the other hand have been turned into Soviet Union Jr in the fact that they think our rights come from a govt and not from a Higher Power, in which the only thing govt should do is protect rights and not infringe on them.

Extremists
 

It is sort of funny.....

The extremists on both sides are closer to the opposing party than they think.....

So far left you become right
So far right you become left

I love free speech. I support it whole heartedly. It's problematic and fraught with danger, but it's a principle american value.

Much as I hate neo nazis, I even supported their right to march in Skokie. I support Naldo's right to pray wherever and whenever he wants. He can even type a prayer in here. I don't llike many of the things which tumble out of Naldos mouth, but I support his right to say them and would be strongly against anyone who wanted to take that righht away from him.

I support naldos right to stand up at a football game and attempt to lead students in prayer. If he was arrested, I would help him get in touch with the ACLU.

"Nazi's..... I hate Illinois Nazis"

Max, you are against the right of a teacher to lead a class of students in prayer if they so choose to do so.

By doing that you are attempting to limit free speech which is against the 1st amendment.

Incorrect. As an agent of a government-sponsored institution, she is not allowed to lead a class in religious exercises. I imagine she would be welcome to invite students to an extracurricular religious function.
________
BODY SCIENCE

I really am with Max on this one. I think this country needs to be be very careful in who we accuse as "non-americans." I will argue with people I oppose until the day I die, but I will never say they shouldn't be allowed to oppose me. The day this country defines what is ok and what is not ok, is the day we are no longer American. Luckily, I don't see our government doing that, but rather the public in general.

I do believe there are limits to freedom of speech, however. Obviously, treason is unacceptable, but, beyond treason, I believe it is unacceptable to obstruct business, or day to day life for anyone. However, these people are almost always dealt with legally, and without repercussions from the public. I don't know anyone who would say a anti-war activist group should be able to riot against police, or commit some other ridiculous act, without being punished.

As for prayer, I haven't seen the government really take that away from anyone, although I do have a concern with objection to the word God in the Pledge of Allegiance, as I do not believe this refers to anyone's God in general.

I also believe that prior to the United States taking out Saddam Hussein with our very first shot (because of our ridiculously incredible intelligence), he was proven to be in breach of UN Resolution 1441.

Then why did they have all those Muslim prayers and make kids do the make believe "living as a muslim" classes back after 9/11?

Why can we have symbols of Chanuaka and Kwanzaa (sorry, but the biggest bunch of bullshit ever. Even the GUY WHO MADE IT said it was bogus), but if we have a manger in a public school, the ACLU flies down and crushes it?

Sorry, but the public school system doesnt want Judeo-(mostly) Christian thoughts and ideas in there, because it may offend someone who hasn't ever had to wipe their own ass, although anything else is just an "creative expression of free speech."

This is very much like the fact that white people can't say the word '******' without being racist. :/

If the kid is not impeeding education, those that are prohibiting him are wrong. Period.

The teachers are government funded and represent the government ... the children who choose to pray on their OWN time while they happen to be in school are not. Get it genius?

they might be government funded, but every school district i have seen is an INDEPENDENT school district, meaning they are subject to their own regulation.

church and state.
 

You said "directly opposes" the separation of church and state. I would take that to mean that you believe that church and state should be intertwined.

You oversimplify the issue. If students choose to pray on their own, or lead a prayer on their own, that is perfectly acceptable. But when teachers or coaches, who are government employees, lead the prayer, it amounts to an implicit endorsement of religion by the state, which is unacceptable.

And generally it is not the government which interferes, it often the ACLU.

[quote="Ronnie Raygun"]

"The government doesn't get involved if a kid wants to pray."

Not true. There are many cases where kids are not allowed to pray in school. quote]

Which cases?

[quote="VinceZeb"]Seems like you are trying at every oppurunity to prove how american you are, Max? Internal conflicts, perhaps?quote]

I think it was because he was accused of being un-American, not because he has any issues.

Why must the teacher lead the prayer? Teachers are not clergy. Why not a student?

But the consititution overrides all local law.

woah. that was WAY too many posts. just use your edit button from now on.