what makes someone patriotic?

Trippy discussions of moral issues, conspiracy theories, the paranormal and other otherworldly phenomenon.

Moderator: Dracofrost

what makes someone patriotic?

Postby TerraFrost » Mon Jul 14, 2003 6:38 am

upon thinking about it, i think patriotism ought to be when you believe in democracy, and actively participate in it. thusly, if you don't support war in iraq, and actively protest it, through legal means, i think you're as much a patriot as the next guy. in fact, i think you're more of a patriot than someone who just sits on their back saying they support the war, but doing nothing more than that.

now, if you don't support the war, you may well be anti-bush, but... being anti-bush is not the same thing as being unpatriotic, imho. likewise, people who support the war are not, imho, being patriotic, although many may say they are - they're being pro-bush.
TerraFrost
Legendary Guard
 
Posts: 12357
Joined: Wed Dec 04, 2002 6:37 am

Postby Neerowolf » Mon Jul 14, 2003 3:06 pm

I dunno, I don't like bush becauses hes so stupid. http://www.loadsofjokes.com/jokes/75.html

He really doesn't know how to run the country! He just admitted to blaming saddam for WOMD when he didn't have any! Hes so dumb...

that doesn't make me unpatriotic, I still love this land and freedom, its just i'm opposed to the decisions of our president. And i'm a democrat...
User avatar
Neerowolf
Legendary Guard
 
Posts: 6139
Joined: Mon Jun 23, 2003 1:37 am
Location: none.

Postby Roadkill » Mon Jul 14, 2003 4:55 pm

i dont really see a problem with bush. He gets the job done, and does it well. THere's advantages to liberating iraq and disadvantages. one of those turned out to be that people no liked him, because they for some reason cannot handle a little deciet that was used to get that very job done.

Bush hasnt done anything wrong, people just like to make it appear that way. Only he's actually taking it like a man, which is more than we can say for Clinton.

i dont dedicate my loyalty anywhere, btw. I can live just as happily in anyplace, outside or inside its laws.
Image
<center>The secret's in the wings...
User avatar
Roadkill
Heroic Guard
 
Posts: 2847
Joined: Sun Dec 29, 2002 5:18 am
Location: somewhere

Postby TerraFrost » Mon Jul 14, 2003 4:57 pm

Bush hasnt done anything wrong, people just like to make it appear that way.


i don't really agree with that part, but... whether or not bush was in the right for invading iraq isn't what i think we should be discussing, here ;) well, maybe it should be, hehe, but if it were, then i guess i would be in the minority, then, hehe :)
TerraFrost
Legendary Guard
 
Posts: 12357
Joined: Wed Dec 04, 2002 6:37 am

Postby Neerowolf » Mon Jul 14, 2003 5:50 pm

He wasted millions, maybe even billions invading iraq! It did nothing but cost us cash, and what did it do? get rid of saddam? He hadn't done anything but be there.They can't handle deciet that caused a war? people died for no reason, sure now it's "liberated" but he can't help them when OUR economy is screwed. You can't take care of a country with no government while yours is in the gutter because of your personal issues. He had a grudge on saddam because he messed with his father. But it is good they got rid of him, because he did kill his people. But because of the messed economy, my dad is out of a job! We've got almost no money, so was that worth it? "oh, it was a mistake" Is that a good excuse? I think not.
User avatar
Neerowolf
Legendary Guard
 
Posts: 6139
Joined: Mon Jun 23, 2003 1:37 am
Location: none.

Postby shahmask » Mon Jul 14, 2003 6:10 pm

I admit i don't like bush. he has wasted and continues to waste billions of dollars.
-there was his first tax cut intended to stimulate the economy. didn't do it. in fact, it continued in a downward spiral.
-his newest budget puts 100's of billions more in the national debt. that makes 3/4 years of deficits when clinton had 4 years(if not more) of surplus.
-though i didn't support his reasons for going to war in iraq(womd being the main one) i did sort of support the liberating of iraq. no one should be forced to live under such rediculous laws(same with afghanistan). however, that threw away billions of dollars and seems to have been based on as yall have said, deciet.
-his latest tax cut only puts the country in more debt. the second largest part of the US budget goes to paying interest on the national deficit. he's only make the second largest speding of the US larger and larger.

On this note, id like to say that i believe people that don't support the president are just as patriotic(if not more so) than those who completely support him. Historically, the united states has changed laws because of ppl that didn't support what a large part of the gov't was doing. they include things such as slavery, civil rights, and illegal wars.

Someone said that atleast bush is taking the deciet like a man unlike clinton. I guarantee you that if there had been so many gov't agencies involved with clinton, there would have been no way for him to try to cover up. however, since there are so many agencies and so many ppl, including deaths to so many american soldiers, there is just no real way for bush to even try to cover up. Probably nothing will happen to bush even if they uncover that his reasons were completely false. His party won't allow anything to happen.

One final thing. In 2000, more than half the ppl that voted in the united states for either a democrat or republican did not vote for pres. bush. Many ppl believe the only reason a person should criticize the gov't is if the person voted. I did. but as all democrats that live in texas know. there's no way in hell it would have made a difference. the person running for pres. was our governor afterall. only lik 30 percent of voters in tx didn't vote for bush.
User avatar
shahmask
Castle Guard
 
Posts: 508
Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2003 4:07 am
Location: in the valley of silicon hills

Postby Roadkill » Mon Jul 14, 2003 6:23 pm

actually, war usually stimulates the economy a bit, you cant blame him for that. The oil market becoming less fixed would help it as well. All his methods are good. Heck, he didnt think the tax cuts were good enough but he had to go for them because thats all the parties would give.

Bush isnt at fault here, esp on the tax cts. If you wanna blame anyone, blame all those who tired to limit those.
Image
<center>The secret's in the wings...
User avatar
Roadkill
Heroic Guard
 
Posts: 2847
Joined: Sun Dec 29, 2002 5:18 am
Location: somewhere

Postby TerraFrost » Mon Jul 14, 2003 8:49 pm

i do think the war in iraq helped certain sectors of the economy... lockheed martin, for example.... they must have made a killing off the war in iraq, hehe (pun sorta intended). same goes for boeing, etc.

also, if the us now controls iraqi oil, then... does that mean that we don't have to worry about opec, as much? opec has the largest oil reserves in the world. they get about a trillion dollars a year, iirc. they've also been raising oil prices for years - mainly because they can. a lot of people need oil, but not a lot of people supply it. it wasn't a problem before, when the countries didn't collude as they do now, but... now they do, and it is becoming a problem...

as for the tax cuts... if bush isn't responsible for them, he is responsible, by virtue of being the president, of those who would be responsible for the tax cuts... or atleast i would think so.

anyways, bush's idea for tax cuts is called trickle down economics... if you give tax breaks to the rich, the effect will "trickle down" to the poor. or atleast that's the idea. i think reagan first started this practice, and back then it was called reagonomics, or something like that. anyways, practice has shown that this simply doesn't work. besides, what little bit actually does trickle down to the normal people goes right back to the government, so... i guess it would be more aptly called boomerang economics, heh. (because when you through a boomerang, it's supposed to come back)
TerraFrost
Legendary Guard
 
Posts: 12357
Joined: Wed Dec 04, 2002 6:37 am

Postby Neerowolf » Mon Jul 14, 2003 10:58 pm

Roadkill wrote:actually, war usually stimulates the economy a bit, you cant blame him for that. The oil market becoming less fixed would help it as well. All his methods are good. Heck, he didnt think the tax cuts were good enough but he had to go for them because thats all the parties would give.

Bush isnt at fault here, esp on the tax cts. If you wanna blame anyone, blame all those who tired to limit those.


WHAT?! war does stimulate the economy, AND we have to blame him for that, especially going to war *without* a purpose! He gave tax cuts to the rich. I am poor, does it help us? no. Trickle down? The rich get richer, the poor get poorer. A good example is the south in the 1800's. The plantation owners made their products easier, selling them at a better price, so no one bought anything from the poor farmers because they had to sell whatever little they had for more. I'll say it again. The rich get richer, the poor get poorer.
User avatar
Neerowolf
Legendary Guard
 
Posts: 6139
Joined: Mon Jun 23, 2003 1:37 am
Location: none.

Postby Nyufrost » Wed Jul 16, 2003 10:50 am

What makes people a patriot ...

Well, I don't think it has anything to do with your political affiliation, gender, race, age, music tastes, nationality or sexual preference. There is nothing that makes any one group more patriotic than others.

I think one way the people around the world show patriotism to their countries is by being a part of the Olympics ... either as an athlete or a spectator. You see people from all nations wipe tears of pride from their eyes when their country's flag is raised and their national anthem is played.

Webster's defines a patriot as "one who loves his country, and zealously supports its authority and interests" and American Heritage defines it as "One who loves, supports, and defends one's country."

Patriotism is defined by Webster's as "Love of country; devotion to the welfare of one's country; the virtues and actions of a patriot; the passion which inspires one to serve one's country" as while WordNet defines it as "love of country and willingness to sacrifice for it" and American Heritage says "Love of and devotion to one's country."

I don't think one's love of country changes from leader to leader and I can see these definitions apply to more situations than just political ones.
<BR><center> "Snowflakes are one of nature's most fragile things, but just look <br> what they can do when they stick together.." ... Vesta M. Kelly</center>
User avatar
Nyufrost
Frost Advisor
Frost Advisor
 
Posts: 5534
Joined: Wed Dec 04, 2002 7:03 am
Location: Out There

Postby shahmask » Thu Jul 17, 2003 6:31 am

That's some good stuff there. Im glad you put in definitions. And your olympic example was a really good one. I actually hadn't thought of that. Of course i wasn't really looking far beyond the political landscape. Im glad you put that in.
User avatar
shahmask
Castle Guard
 
Posts: 508
Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2003 4:07 am
Location: in the valley of silicon hills

Postby Roadkill » Thu Jul 17, 2003 8:22 pm

um... that wasnt the original plan. Thats the plan congress gave to him, and because waiting around and pressuring em to give in to his original plan wasnt helping hte economy as is.

If the President didnt rely on these slow bastards who cant seem to agree on much, im sure his original idea would've been p ut into effect long ago, and things would have improved.

Also, i would like to point out that the airlines had had a rather difficult time since 9-11. If airplane manufacturing plants get a boost, great!

War has helped the economy in the past. i remember once i said it didnt help the economy, and someone (noxious, i thing) said it in fact did, through people bying war bonds and such.

There was a reason, but people disagreed and tried to make it seem there wasnt a real reason. No one liked the man or waht he did to his people, the man offended many, including his father, he wasn't helping the oil business any, he was a threat to neighboring countries, and the economy was at a low. Many small reasons put together to make a good one. Do you always need a reason so big and bold it pokes you in the friggin eye?

My god, if our country is being polluted iwth so many friggin stupid people thrusting their ideas into smart ones, and doing stupid things just because they thought it was good, though it doesnt do good, why am i living here?
Image
<center>The secret's in the wings...
User avatar
Roadkill
Heroic Guard
 
Posts: 2847
Joined: Sun Dec 29, 2002 5:18 am
Location: somewhere

Postby TerraFrost » Fri Jul 18, 2003 12:13 am

um... that wasnt the original plan. Thats the plan congress gave to him, and because waiting around and pressuring em to give in to his original plan wasnt helping hte economy as is.

If the President didnt rely on these slow bastards who cant seem to agree on much, im sure his original idea would've been p ut into effect long ago, and things would have improved.


not that i know too much about the circumstances in which bush's alleged tax cut was passed, but... links would be nice,all the same :)

There was a reason, but people disagreed and tried to make it seem there wasnt a real reason. No one liked the man or waht he did to his people, the man offended many, including his father, he wasn't helping the oil business any, he was a threat to neighboring countries, and the economy was at a low. Many small reasons put together to make a good one.


there are two old addages which kick in at this point...

1. war is never good
2. two wrongs don't make a right
TerraFrost
Legendary Guard
 
Posts: 12357
Joined: Wed Dec 04, 2002 6:37 am

Postby Roadkill » Fri Jul 18, 2003 9:21 pm

but many rights make a right.

war is never good is a biased (i hope i used that word right) opinion. Youve been told it from birth, but logically assess it...?

i got all that information from the news, and im always too lazy to work those search engines. :p
Image
<center>The secret's in the wings...
User avatar
Roadkill
Heroic Guard
 
Posts: 2847
Joined: Sun Dec 29, 2002 5:18 am
Location: somewhere

Postby shahmask » Fri Jul 18, 2003 10:28 pm

just remember, the US gov't was set up so that it would be a slow process. they didn't want it to be like what they were leaving behind with england, where there were always constant power struggles and laws were passed so quickly that they might regret because they didn't give enough thought as to the reprecussions such a law would have.

honestly, i don't think they should have assissted the airline industry after 911. i think they should have let it fix itself. like some of them go out of business and let other companies/ppl get into the airline industry. i think that would have been much better than wasting tax payer's money on an industry that doesn't even care about the ppl they are flying around. instead, i think those billions of dollars that they spent should have gone to helping ppl that would lost their jobs instead of going towards the salary of rich airline execs.

and the last thing. the war did not help the economy. in fact, from the begining, many analysts were afraid it would hurt the economy.
http://www.timesunion.com/AspStories/st ... ryID=58154
And during the war to right after, many sectors of the economy were actually hurt.http://web.mid-day.com/news/world/ ... /48907.htm

the republicans are still trying to apply old world philosophy to a new electronic, service, and global economy. it just doesn't work. even alan greenspan admits he doesn't understand why the economy has been doing over the past while what it is doing.
User avatar
shahmask
Castle Guard
 
Posts: 508
Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2003 4:07 am
Location: in the valley of silicon hills

Next

Return to Twilight Zone

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest