Obama’s sense of “Patriotism”
June 30th, 2008 at 01:36pm Leo Pusateri
“As Mark Twain, that greatest of American satirists and proud son of Missouri, once wrote, Patriotism is supporting your country all the time, and your government when it deserves it.” We may hope that our leaders and our government stand up for our ideals, and there are many times in our history when that’s occurred. But when our laws, our leaders or our government are out of alignment with our ideals, then the dissent of ordinary Americans may prove to be one of the truest expression of patriotism.”-Barack Hussein Obama, in a speech delivered on 30 June, 2008-
So that explains Barack Hussein Obama’s close relationship with one William Ayers, whose patriotic duty (by Obama’s definition) included setting bombs and killing innocent people. Heck, according to Obama’s definition, and by Ayers’ own admission, he just wasn’t patriotic enough.
That also explains Obama’s close relationship with one Rev. “God Damn America!” Wright.
For in Barack Hussein Obama’s world, these men, and others, have demonstrated, according to Obama’s own definition, the “…truest expression of patriotism,” in spades.
An axiom that I have long held is that liberals have no chance of winning a debate in the arena of ideas, unless they are given rein to re-define the terms of that debate.
The heinous practice of killing a baby in what should be the safety of a mother’s womb, heretofore known as abortion, is now known as, “reproductive health.”
The process whereby the government confiscates wealth from productive Americans for redistribution, formerly known as “taxes,” are now known as “contributions” or “investments.”
Today, “the messiah” stated,
“…surely we can agree that no party or political philosophy has a monopoly on patriotism. And surely we can arrive at a definition of patriotism that, however rough and imperfect, captures the best of America’s common spirit.”
If Obama’s sense of ‘patriotism’ embodies his established pattern of associations with “patriotic” individuals, such as Ayers, Wright, Pfleger, and others whom he must consider “…the best of America’s common spirit,” then color me unpatriotic.
Cause I ain’t buying it.
UPDATE, by Mark Noonan: Proving that Democrats are about as dumb as a box of rocks, another Obama surrogate opens mouth and inserts foot:
While Barack Obama was urging supporters not to devalue the military service of rival John McCain, an informal Obama adviser argued Monday that the former POW’s isolation during the Vietnam War has hobbled the Arizona senator’s capacity as a war-time leader.
“Sadly, Sen. McCain was not available during those times, and I say that with all due respect to him,” said informal Obama adviser Rand Beers…
…”So I think,” he continued, “to some extent his national security experience in that regard is sadly limited and I think it is reflected in some of the ways that he thinks about how U.S. forces might be committed to conflicts around the world.”
I wonder if Beers thinks that Obama’s experience is “sadly limited” by the fact that he was just a kid during Vietnam? Or that he didn’t serve at all, in any capacity, this great nation he aspires to govern?
Entry Filed under: Campaign 2008, Democrats, Kook Left
54 Comments
1. Cooldown | June 30th, 2008 at 2:14 pm
Cons are still working those quilts by association and un-patriotic angles. The electorate is a little more sophisticated, not by much, than they were in 2004. I doubt swift-boating of Obama will work. In the age of the internet such charges are quickly countered with statements from McCain’s own campaign staffer Charlie Black when he said in Fortune magazine “another terrorist attack on U.S. soil certainly it would be a big advantage to him (McCain).” Is Black really a person we want walking the halls of the White House and talking into the President’s ear? And then you have McCain himself talking to Hannity. “I really didn’t love America until I was deprived of her company.” If he didn’t love America during the Vietnam War why didn’t he move?
Let’s try sticking to the economy, Iraq Civil War, war on terrorism, health care, government debt, and energy independence. If the cons have any solutions they haven’t tried the last eight years put them on the table.
Hey Leo, do what you want, but isn’t it a bit blasphemous to label Obama the “messiah”, even if done tongue and cheek?
2. CanadianObserver | June 30th, 2008 at 2:20 pm
The American fixation on proving how patriotic you are is laughable. This patriotism nonsense has lead the U.S. and other countries who have held the same view into dangerous waters.
Why not just be proud of your homeland and leave it at that?
3. Leo Pusateri | June 30th, 2008 at 2:21 pm
Not just guilt by association. It’s an established pattern of associations.
If it were only Jeremiah Wright, it would be a curiosity.
If it were, say, just Jeremiah Wright and Pfleger, well…
But Wright, Pfleger, Ayers, Dohrn– you do the math.
You are known by the company you keep. Birds of a feather, and all that.
4. Leo Pusateri | June 30th, 2008 at 2:28 pm
There go the libs here, again, as per my axiom, trying to re-define the terms.
If patriotism isn’t that big of a deal, why does Obama feel the need to go out and give an entire speech about it.
——-
As far as the “messiah” comment, note that I spelled it with a lower-case “m”
It is the Obamatons who continue to turn a blind eye to and worship Obama despite his numerous failings and misqualifications.. change and hope, hope and change…. Substance = 0.
At a parade the other day, the local democrat party had a life-sized standing cardboard cutout of Obama on top of a car.
I thought, how ironic. Had Obama been actually there, there would be no difference in the substance present.
Why doesn’t Obama save a whole bunch of money, stay put, and put up a whole bunch of cardboard cutouts of himself, with a boombox behind it droning, “hope and change, change and hope”
He can probably do that at the upcoming debates with McCain, as well.
The difference in substance, again, will be negligible.
5. Fredrick Schwartz | June 30th, 2008 at 2:32 pm
Who am I quoting, the black man in the picture without his hand over his heart or the GOP presidential nominee:
“I am a black criminal.”
It’s an open book test.
6. My new WordPress MU Site &hellip | June 30th, 2008 at 2:51 pm
[...] USA_Admiral wrote an interesting post today onHere’s a quick excerptSo that explains Barack Hussein Obama’s close relationship with one William Ayers, whose patriotic duty (by Obama’s definition) included setting bombs and killing innocent people. Heck, according to Obama’s definition, and by Ayers’ own … [...]
7. FmrMarine | June 30th, 2008 at 2:52 pm
littlefsputz
“I am a black criminal.”
It’s an open book test.
putz - If you were HALF the journalist you pro port to be, you would have posted.
“I am a HALF black, HALF white criminal”
it’s an open book test.
8. Fredrick Schwartz | June 30th, 2008 at 2:54 pm
7. FmrMarine | June 30th, 2008 at 2:52 pm
Hey that’s not an Obama quote that’s a quote from your man spoken to a Communist journalist live from the Hanoi Hilton.
And you wonder why he’s against torture??
9. Kahn | June 30th, 2008 at 3:01 pm
Schwartz - so you’re using McCain quotes gleaned by torture? Doesn’t that make a douchebag?
A. Oh yes, definitely
B. Wow, I guess it does
C. I hate Republicans and don’t care what happened to them or who did it - they deserved it.
D. It’s only torture if I like the person it’s done to.
10. neocon | June 30th, 2008 at 3:22 pm
If Obama is elected, I wonder if bombing the WH in the patriotic spirit of William Ayres would be received with the same understanding?
have a nice day
peace, neocon
11. Casper | June 30th, 2008 at 3:25 pm
Leo,
What is your definition of Patriotism?
12. Lagrange | June 30th, 2008 at 4:12 pm
Deleted - off topic.
13. FmrMarine | June 30th, 2008 at 4:20 pm
neo
If a picture is worth 100 words, the one above of o.hussein is an encyclopedia .
14. FmrMarine | June 30th, 2008 at 4:21 pm
1000 words duh
15. smelly cat | June 30th, 2008 at 4:25 pm
It is amazing that Obama can so flagrantly get away with not saluting the flag, publicly stating he won’t wear the flag pin (which is not a big deal unless you publicly state why you are absent your lapel pin) having friends as crummy as Wright, terrorist friends such as Ayers.
I find the guy repugnant and had hoped for so much more. Its as if no one gave this smug arrrogant a$$ the handbook on how to run a campaign.
Worse yet, the fawning masses can’t wait to kiss his @ss despite how in your face he is on this stuff.
Its going to be rough the next four years but I will donate to Ralph, McCain and will vote McCain to ensure that my Veteran forefathers can continue to rest in peace.
Shame on you Obama and shame on the rest of you for swallowing garbage.
16. Leo Pusateri | June 30th, 2008 at 4:31 pm
I can tell you what it’s not:
1. Giving our enemy aid and comfort via one-sided propagandizing of the MSM during wartime.
2. Announcing that “The Iraq War is Lost” ahead of efforts so as to try their damndest to make it so. Creating perceptions contrary to reality for political gain.
3. Pronouncing guilt before hearing, or even having had an official briefing, of the Haditha Marines, by a sworn Constitutional Officer by the name of John Murtha. Again, for political gain.
4. Trying, in every way possible to pronounce defeat of our troops and our mission, despite mountains of evidence to the contrary, while our troops remain in harms way, and while our troops continue to make monumental progress in Iraq. That process continues even to this day.
5. Conferring non-citizen combatants the same status as citizens, when our own Haditha and Pendleton 8 Marines were accorded treatment commensurate with terrorists.
6. Holding protest rallies burning our soldiers in effigy, and holding up signs, saying, “F*ck the Troops!”
7. Conferring with enemies of the State and otherwise undermining what is the Constitutional Purview of the Executive Branch of the United States.
…I’m just getting warmed up.
17. Retired Spook | June 30th, 2008 at 4:40 pm
Casper,
There’s a reason they call “patriotism” the first refuge of scoundrals. I think too often people confuse patriotism with loyalty. It’s easy to say “I love my country — I’m patriotic.” That doesn’t really require any action. Loyalty requires you to stand behind your patriotism with some sort of positive action. I say “positive” because I’m sure William Ayres thought he was a patriot, but loyal? Not so much. The real question is does Obama think people like Ayres are loyal, patriotic Americans. The close ties that the two have had over the years would lead me to believe that the answer to that question is yes.
I’m not a big McCain fan, but I wouldn’t question either his patriotism or his loyalty. Obama, OTOH, comes up a little short in both catagories, both through his actions and the people with whom he has associated.
18. Retired Spook | June 30th, 2008 at 4:51 pm
If a picture is worth 1000 words, the one above of o.hussein is an encyclopedia
Fmr. Marine, did you ever stop think that maybe he just had to pee really bad?
19. clark smith | June 30th, 2008 at 4:55 pm
BO’s ‘Hand over crotch’ salute (as pictured) is just classic, and nicely sums up just how out of tune he is as regarding a real sense of patriotism.
20. neocon | June 30th, 2008 at 5:29 pm
Barack had once posited that average Americans cling to their guns and Bibles…….
From the picture, I wondered what he is clinging to?
peace, neocon
21. Casper | June 30th, 2008 at 5:32 pm
“There’s a reason they call “patriotism” the first refuge of scoundrals. I think too often people confuse patriotism with loyalty.”
I agree. Unfortunately, too many people confuse the two. As for Obama’s relationship with Ayres it’s tenuous at best.
Leo,
I can also define patriotism by something it is not:
It’s not a duck.
It’s not an airplane.
It’s not a car.
Hope that helped you as much as your definition helped me.
22. test » Blog Archive&hellip | June 30th, 2008 at 6:03 pm
[...] Terry Trippany wrote an interesting post today onHere’s a quick excerptSo that explains Barack Hussein Obama’s close relationship with one William Ayers, whose patriotic duty (by Obama’s definition) included setting bombs and killing innocent people. Heck, according to Obama’s definition, and by Ayers’ own … Read the rest of this great post here [...]
23. David B. Schmidt | June 30th, 2008 at 6:08 pm
I see Lagrange is already trying the Keating 5 talking point–must be worried about McCain. The only reason McCain was even included was to make sure it wasn’t just Democrats up and down the line.
This was said by Bennett (special investigator) — but I think his exact words to the Senate Ethics Committee about not pursuing charges against McCain because of “no evidence against him.”
24. Fredrick Schwartz | June 30th, 2008 at 6:16 pm
23. David B. Schmidt | June 30th, 2008 at 6:08 pm
forget Keating when they indict Phil Gramm all the rats will run off that sinking ship.
25. Kahn | June 30th, 2008 at 6:56 pm
Lagrange - The then council for the Senate admitted that McCain was included in the Keating 5 BECAUSE he was a Republican. There was no evidence against him. Yet, Democrat leadership demanded that he be included for political reasons. Otherwise the Keating 4 would have been all Democrats.
Yah, your side does crap like that.
But I have a new phrase to ponder:
“Dodd Tied to Countrywide Loans”
http://online.wsj.com/public/article_print/SB121332396326070639.html
26. Kahn | June 30th, 2008 at 7:12 pm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SqR0Ui0g3wI
Democrats are also against solar, wind, hydro, and nuclear. And you can’t run a car on “hope.”
27. bagni | June 30th, 2008 at 7:37 pm
leotism….. et all
at a minimum we’re cosmically consistent
hence the previous radarian rant
mccain…..the mcchurian candidate
over 5 yrs of communist programming
be afraid
very afraid
in the end worse than lame obama
28. Danish Artist | June 30th, 2008 at 7:51 pm
Cooldown:
“Let’s try sticking to the economy, Iraq Civil War, war on terrorism, health care, government debt, and energy independence. If the cons have any solutions they haven’t tried the last eight years put them on the table.”
Too bad Obama is not sticking to the issues. What are we on now? - the 4th or 5th revision of Obama’s answers?
Freddie, minion of Hell’s newspaper - LMFAO - oh yeah, spoken like a journalist - let’s see some of those so-called superior debating skills - still waiting. We are not the like minded robots that infest your website.
29. bull | June 30th, 2008 at 8:18 pm
Cooldown:
“Let’s try sticking to the economy, Iraq Civil War, war on terrorism, health care, government debt, and energy independence. If the cons have any solutions they haven’t tried the last eight years put them on the table.”
yeah, let’s put them on the table so the idiot lefties in congress can shoot them down and say no, no, no…yet offer NOTHING in return.
but what does obama offer:
economy: raise taxes
Iraq “civil” war: (only called by your side) cut and run
health care: bigger government will take care of you. because government does so well with everything else.
g’ment debt: raise taxes, but spend more (both side suck at this and if you think your side doesn’t just give it up now)
energy independence: can’t drill, can use solar, wind, nuclear, hey i know we’ll grow more of it while food prices skyrocket even more.
but change is on the way. too bad change for the worse is on the way you airheads will applaud him and still find a way to blame bush for it.
30. Khan Rulian-Sing | June 30th, 2008 at 9:15 pm
Deleted - off topic.
31. Casper | June 30th, 2008 at 9:26 pm
As for me, I believe both men are patriots. Since there isn’t an agreement on what patriotism is, there is no way to determine if one is or isn’t a patriot.
32. Some Assembly Required | June 30th, 2008 at 9:59 pm
So what of those fellas who threw that Tea Party? Or how about those who fought in the American Revolution? What of those protesters in the 60’s or those two reporters that exposed Watergate? At the time they didn’t agree with the current government, they knew there was something wrong and did something about it. By your logic they would be unpatriotic.
You do realize that a dictatorship or fascist state is only possible by eliminating all dissent. Before you jump to a comparison of Obama’s followers, re-read what he said in his speech. If anything he’s encouraging people to question their governments.
In Regards to the whole lapel pin argument, I’d like to know what would you call US Flag Boxer shorts? One could argue them patriotic, but then what of that accidental fart? That could be considered a desecration of the flag could it not?
33. js | June 30th, 2008 at 10:21 pm
actually, obama is for anything that he thiinks will get him more votes…he will sell the shirt off of his childrens back and tell you it was new if he thought you would help him….he is not much more than a fast talking charlatain supported by organized crime, black supremacists, and islamic radicals….
34. js | June 30th, 2008 at 10:24 pm
soo
if obama has all these answers, knows how to solve world hunger, end war, wean the nation off foreign goods and oil…
where the hell were all the solutions during the last 30 years?
they sure never made headlines before…and to tell the truth…they are not making headlines today….
empty promises are his calling card…look at his voting record…..present? thats about it…a chair with an empty suit….
35. Ken | June 30th, 2008 at 10:44 pm
So, the man running to sit in the highest office America has can not do something as simple as show respect to the Flag that is one of the symbols of America? If this man cannot do something as simple as show respect for the Nation’s Flag, how can he be trusted to show respect for the Nation’s People, Laws or Constitution?
Before running for President maybe he should serve a few more terms as a Senator first and hopefully pick up a few tips on how to be an American.
36. Khan Rulian-Sing | June 30th, 2008 at 11:01 pm
Deleted - off topic.
37. Ken | June 30th, 2008 at 11:18 pm
Deleted - response to off topic comment.
38. Leo Pusateri | June 30th, 2008 at 11:21 pm
Khan Rulian-Sing–
Any word regarding the mansion in Chicago with the extra lot secured by Tony Rezko for Obama, your “clean as the wind-driven snow” candidate?
39. ford | July 1st, 2008 at 12:19 am
Deleted - off topic. No kidding, the topic here is Obama. Please confine yourself to defending or attacking him for what he has done.
40. Mark Noonan | July 1st, 2008 at 12:27 am
Casper,
I believe that both men, if asked, would stoutly assert their patriotism - but the problem isn’t in how they describe themselves, but what they mean by “patriot”.
Obama, and the left in general, have become overly fixated on one half the coin…because they idealise some people of the past who were dissidents, they’ve written a whole worldview on patriotism which emphasizes dissent and, more to the point, they idealise leftwing dissent, and consider it to be inherently good. In the leftwing worldview, Abbie Hoffman is more worthy of praise than Joe Ronnie Hooper because while Hooper was incredibly brave under enemy fire in Vietnam, Hoffman dissented from the war. That the one risked his life for his nation and the other one risked absolutely nothing shows how out of kilter the leftwing view of patriotism is.
Dissidents, you see, get it wrong - and a patriot can at one time dissent and at another stoutly support…its all the same thing, because patriotism is an act of love. Just as I love my family when they are being nice and when they are being jerks, so I love my country when its doing wonderful things and when its doing something I can’t stand (Clinton Administration, eg). Because I love, I am loyal - I stick to it through thick and thin - I will remonstrate with it when I think it wrong (as in its legal abortion), but I will never, for instance, threaten to move to Canada if things don’t go my way - just as I won’t dump my family when they are disagreeable. Even if Obama wins, I’ll still love the country - Obama would be an unmitigated disaster and I’d heave many a sigh that my fellow Americans were bamboozled into voting for him, but I’ll still love my country…and if Obama’s disasters landed us in a war which I think ill-advised and poorly managed, I’ll still call him our Commander in Chief and as far as any foreigner will know I’m 100% behind the President until total victory is secured.
That, my friend, is patriotism.
41. What? | July 1st, 2008 at 1:59 am
Mark writes,
“I’ll still call him our Commander in Chief and as far as any foreigner will know I’m 100% behind the President until total victory is secured. That, my friend, is patriotism.”
No it isn’t. Patriotism is not about putting on a show for outsiders or standing by a president because he is your president. You are so confused.
Think about what you just said. So if Pol Pot was our president you would, at least to foreigners, say you supported his acts. You would not go into the streets and protest and fight til your last breath? You would not tell the world this man does not speak for you; that his acts are not yours or your country’s? This brand of patriotism is a coward’s brand. It belongs to those who don’t want to rock the boat.
Patriotism, simply put, is a love for the culture and values of one’s country. If I disagree with an act of our government, that disagreement doesn’t mean I somehow love my country less. This is true even if I openly share my disagreement with my fellow countrymen and foreigners.
America is not always right. We have done some F***ed stuff. Supporting or pretending to support that stuff is not a sign of patriotism, it is tacitly allowing it to happen.
We do not have a duty to any president or politician to support them. They are not America. They have a duty to us to act in this country’s best interest and reflect the values we cherish. When we believe they are not doing so, patriotism requires we vocalize our opposition.
For you to say American must speak in one voice to the world is not allow dissent at all. It is a sad day when the definition of dissent is reduced to a gentle scolding when no one is looking.
42. Retired Spook | July 1st, 2008 at 9:25 am
Mark,
I think one of the major components of this issue is the way people view those who disagree with them. After the election in 2004, many of us on the Right observed that, in spite of the fact that Bush won by over 3 million votes, we were still a fairly even divided nation. Our solution was to attempt to persuade those who disagreed with us to reconsider what they believe and why. The reaction on the Left was largely, “how could 62 million people be so stupid!”
With that stark a contrast, it’s no wonder the the Left and Right view patriotism differently. What?’s comment above illustrates perfectly the intellectual hoops the Left will jump through to denigrate the view of those with whom they disagree. The fact that What? would attempt to compare your supporting a President Obama with supporting a President Pol Pot, is so over the top, I can’t even find the words to describe how idiotic it sounds.
43. CanadianObserver | July 1st, 2008 at 9:31 am
Patriotism, simply put, is a love for the culture and values of one’s country. If I disagree with an act of our government, that disagreement doesn’t mean I somehow love my country less. This is true even if I openly share my disagreement with my fellow countrymen and foreigners.
America is not always right. We have done some F***ed stuff. Supporting or pretending to support that stuff is not a sign of patriotism, it is tacitly allowing it to happen.
41. What? | July 1st, 2008 at 1:59 am
———————————
Happy to see that there are at least some Americans who can see past all the BS and are not
cowed into submission but are willing to speak the truth, loud and clear.
Honest dissent is what has contributed to the greatnest of America. Long live the dissenters!!
44. neocon | July 1st, 2008 at 10:18 am
CO,
Why do you constantly, and dishonestly, portray conservatives as being against all dissent? Why is that? Do you have an agenda?
Dissent is a critical component to the health of our democracy, and to the survivial of this great country.
What we do object to is the liberals vile, baseless dissent. For example:
“As already mentioned, the fact that U.S. Imperialism exploits and dominates the entire world permeates every aspect of Amerikkka.”
And then their desire to close down dissent on issues such as Global Warming.
Does that resonate in that empty little head of yours?
have a nice day
peace, neocon
45. \'08ama | July 1st, 2008 at 1:10 pm
Sorry children, only Hannity’s dwindling audience has even HEARD of William Ayers and is still ’stuck on stupid’.
The rest of America is miles ahead of you.
46. Kahn | July 1st, 2008 at 4:01 pm
Obama speech (two years into his fictional first term) translated:
Its a new day for America! A day without cars or trains or planes! A day with no power and no way to move food into the cities! No mining. No drilling. No pollution. No production of anything!
Its a new day for America! A day where wealth and income redistribution have destroyed our economy. Where a tiny few pay the way of the vast majority!
Its a new day for America! A day where our enemies laugh out loud at us. A day where they have seen us withdraw in the face of victory! A day where after throwing away our cards, we negotiate like retards!
It is a new day for America! A day where the Constitution is written on an etch-a-sketch! A day where the 2nd Amendment rights are ignored! A day where the last few vestiges of conservative speech are crushed! A day where our message is the ONLY message in entertainment on TV and the movies, to news coverage, the radio, newspapers, EVERYWHERE! Death to our enemies!
47. Kahn | July 1st, 2008 at 4:02 pm
Harkey, he can’t lift his hands high enough to pin on a lapel pin due to severe physical torture done to him by communist thugs in North Viet Nam.
No charge for the history lesson you pimple.
48. What? | July 2nd, 2008 at 2:16 am
Retired Spook writes,
“The fact that What? would attempt to compare your supporting a President Obama with supporting a President Pol Pot, is so over the top, I can’t even find the words to describe how idiotic it sounds.”
Please explain why this is idiotic. Before you answer, think about everything that has been said about Obama on this website including his associations with William Ayers and Rev. Wright. Although I do not think Obama is anything like Pol Pot, the commenters on this site certainly seem talk as if he is not too far removed. If they actually believed the thing they said (which they don’t) they would be dissenting in greater numbers.
Also, you missed the underlying point of the analogy. Patriotism is not following an elected leader. Mark doesn’t get this and I don’t think you get it either.
To prove my point I offer your comment:
“What?’s comment above illustrates perfectly the intellectual hoops the Left will jump through to denigrate the view of those with whom they disagree. ”
I, in turn, would point to this quote from Mark Twain sited by Leo:
“But when our laws, our leaders or our government are out of alignment with our ideals, then the dissent of ordinary Americans may prove to be one of the truest expression of patriotism.”
So if you are calling me a crazy leftist, I suppose the quintessential American author is one as well since he is expressing the exact same sentiment I expressed in my last post.
In conclusion, read the post prior to commenting so you don’t make this mistake again.
49. What? | July 2nd, 2008 at 2:22 am
Neocon writes,
“Why do you constantly, and dishonestly, portray conservatives as being against all dissent? Why is that? Do you have an agenda?”
Look at what Mark wrote. He clearly is against any dissent that is more than a gentle reprimand and he won’t even admit to dissenting to someone who is not an American. This is not against all dissent but it makes any dissent next to meaningless.
What is with the conservatives on this site? You don’t even read or bother to understand the comments and then get upset with those on the left who do. Jeez, it just makes you look lazy.
50. Mark Noonan | July 2nd, 2008 at 2:54 am
Retired Spook,
Indeed - that was a bit of a mental backflip on the part of What?.
What?,
If Pol Pot were to take charge, I’d be out there organizing a rebellion against him - because that would be the patriotic thing to do. Absurdity is the normal level of discourse from the left these days, but please understand that we on the right find it merely tiresome.
51. InDaVa | July 2nd, 2008 at 8:55 am
“Harkey, he can’t lift his hands high enough to pin on a lapel pin due to severe physical torture done to him by communist thugs in North Viet Nam. No charge for the history lesson you pimple.”
That is the worst excuse I ever heard of in my life. Oh, so he gets another pass. He’d be walking around shirtless then wouldn’t he? Someone obviously helps him then. Lame excuse you old fartbag.
52. What? | July 3rd, 2008 at 12:03 am
So Mark,
You admit your first comment on patriotism was wrong. Thank you for the admission, but you should have done it in a more gracious manner.
Also, neither you nor Retired Spook wants to explain why my comment was absurdity. People on this site make some pretty astonishing statements about what Obama will do as president. Coming here, you would think we were electing Stalin or Mao as president.
You also failed to acknowledge that my definition of patriotism is in line with Mark Twain’s. Is he absurd as well?
53. Mark Noonan | July 3rd, 2008 at 12:30 am
what,
Twain was writing at a time when everyone understood that if you announced your nation’s defeat while the troops were engaged in battle, you weren’t being patriotic. Alive today, he’d modify his statement to ensure that everyone understood that he really mean patriotism, not the sad mental backflips the left uses to pretend they love America while they do everything they can to defeat it.
The absurdity in your comment is the presumption that because I will loyally back the man elected by my fellow Americans to be Commander in Chief I must therefor back Pol Pot if he managed to get himself in charge.
54. What? | July 3rd, 2008 at 2:32 am
Wow,
So you are now assuming you know what Mark Twain would say today if he were alive? How presumptive of you. You should read his War Prayer. I think you might rethink your assessment.
And then there is this,
“The absurdity in your comment is the presumption that because I will loyally back the man elected by my fellow Americans to be Commander in Chief I must therefor back Pol Pot if he managed to get himself in charge.”
Mark, this is what you basically said: as long as a person is elected you will not voice any meaningful dissent to that person. My hypo was that Pol Pot, or someone like him, was elected.
This may shock you but evil people can elected into office. A chubby South American Leader comes to mind.
You missed or are too afraid to address the larger point of the comment. You believe patriotism is demonstrated by the backing of a politcal leader. This is not and has never been the basis for patriotism. A person who supported WWII was not patriotic for agreeing and supporting FDR. They were patriotic b/c they fought or supported a war that embodied the values we hold dear as a nation. Even those who dissent in WWII were not unpatriotic if they believed they were acting in the best interest of the nation.
What is now apparent and most frightening is that you believe dissent during wartime is particularly unpatriotic. Yet dissent during wartime is the time when dissent is most needed because it is most unwelcomed by the sheep like yourself who get behind a leader regardless of the cause. If a President starts and unjust war, we as American’s must protest that war.
I am going to be generous here and refine your earlier statement for you since you can’t quite seem to get it right.
Accepting a politician you disagree with has won an election and allowing him to take power peacfully is a sign of patriotism since our nation values democracy. This demonstration of patriotism, however, does not mean you have to back an elected official when you believe he is doing a disservice to the country. If Obama took us into what you believed was an unjust war, you have an obligation to protest that war, even if foreign nations see that protest. Not doing so is doing our country a disservice.
I got to say, Mark, I can’t believe you are arguing with me on this. This is really something you should concede. You are starting to look like a lemming.
C’mon Mark, admitting you are wrong is a virtue.