Originally Posted by drk
Nice!
Nice!
Do you read what you type?
Post #18
No you're not, I am!;)
We'll never ALL agree. Compromise is one solution, but too few citizens are willing to compromise.
Would this be an intellectual discussion masquerading as a negative attack or a negative attack masquerading as intellectual discussion or the rarified and elusive positive discussion?;)
From CNN.com this morning:
Army expects to miss recruiting goals again
http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/03/23/arm....ap/index.html
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Army expects to miss its recruiting goals again this month and next, Army Secretary Francis J. Harvey said Wednesday, and it is developing a new sales pitch that appeals to the patriotism of parents who have been reluctant to steer their children toward the Army.[see link for full article]
Shanebaum:
The British have a saying: "My country right or wrong, my country." No I couldn't support a holocast, and I would have had a hell of a time supporting Lyndon's war. But I would have followed most of the stupid no win orders given had I been in service at that time.
Should my country ever become anything resembling those places where I need government approval to move, marry, worship, and many other freedoms we enjoy, I will be the first on the hill for the revolution, yes armed revolution.
Chip
That's good, Chip. It seems that you see "supporting your country" as something more than merely supporting the policies of whatever s.o.b. manages to git hisself elected.
I do believe there's hope for you yet, ol' son.
Ditto Chip!
I'd be willing to bet that when push came to shove, all those opposing blind allegiance would be in line with us to protect their way of life they have become accustomed to. Especially the part where they can speak their opinion without fear of retaliation. Otherwise, if this was such a bad country to live in, they would have concentrated their efforts to move somewhere else.
Draft or No draft, Stoploss or whatever you want to call it, if you are not willing to step up to the plate, then you are part of the problem.
To me its a gut instinct,no different than protecting my children, my home, my life.
This has been a fun thread to follow. :)
Even someone of the same gender? - never mind
That's illegal these days, Chip.
"Blind allegiance" and "protecting one's way of life" are two utterly different things.
Are you actually advocating "blind allegiance"?
2 different things? Maybe in your eyes. Why do you insist on getting me to say I advocate blind allegience? To whom? My country? My family? Myself? I am sure that in every instance my answer will not vary. So maybe I will pose a question to you that will end this. Under what circimstances are you willing to give your life for your country? Are there any? I assume you consider your country the United States of America. Don't ask if I am questioning your patriotism. I get the impression that youthink that "blind allegiance" to any cause is futile. Does blind allegiance to a religion count?
So to answer your 2nd question, I am advocating "blind allegiance". But you didn't ask specifically to what. So here:
My country=Yes
My Family, Myself=No doubt, YES, YES, YES, YES!
My job=Yes, (but don't ask me on bad days:) )
Facts in evidence have NEVER been your strong suite.
Is that better.
Exactly when did you joint the military sign a contract and then file a lawsuit while you were serving in a war. Yes, I believe they are scum as do most in the military.
Rep
I'll help you with your comprehension - again:
post #21
Notice: I didn't say you called ME a name.
Many problems are starting to happen. My brother in law who left the Air Force after 15 years converted to the Air Guards in 1995. He went to active status with the military December 2002. He went to Iraq (2 times) and then was deployed to Ubekistan. As of February 28th they were finally decommisioned. He came State side for several months between tours but remained at a base out of state. His company did not hold his job because of the exorbinant amount of time that he was deployed. This is awful for these men and women returning. I thought this was an exception but heard today that this is a real problem because the person is in the Guards and not the regular forces have active duty limitations to hold their positions.
We live near many military Guard Units that have been called to serve many places all over the world in the past several years. The only way you are truly covered or have a prayer seems to be if you have remained in the active military. Congress apparently voted down bills this week that effects the Guard Members who are returning. Their jobs are not being held because they have been active over the alloted time established years ago.
It is disappointing to think that we place more energy in interfering with the case of Tery Schiavo.
I would like to preface my comments with the disclaimer that it is not I who have introduced a discussion of religion into this thread. With that said…
Isn’t that like saying, “Gasoline is more important than an engine”?
In other words: "The United States progressed during its first two hundred years because it had a certain Judeo-Christian homogeneity that lent itself to a common cause. That progression has stagnated in modern times because of a radically diverging value system. The United States would continue to progress if the citizens again could agree on a certain set of values, not necessarily traditional Judeo-Christian values."
I think there is no doubt that an objective review of US history would show that our past was NOT all Yankee Doodle Dandy. More debatable is the view that the United States has made at least as many steps forward in modern times as it has backwards. With that said, if one is to imply that the values of a Judeo-Christian homogeneity should receive the credit for the successes the US enjoyed during its first two hundred years, then it is only fair that those values should also take the blame for the failures. Similarly, if the “radically diverging value systems in our modern culture” are to take the blame for any failures in modern times, then it is only fair that they take credit for whatever successes there are, too.
Still, the point is not lost on me that if we can all agree on a certain set of values, much will get done. I would add that that does not necessitate that the right things will get done, though. Therein lies the rub.
I think it’s less a matter of being willing to compromise and more that of being able to compromise. I think drk is absolutely correct in stating that the root cause of the divisiveness in the US and the world stems from differences in values. Unfortunately, values are generally not something that we are able to compromise… otherwise they wouldn’t be values. As someone who does not believe in moral relativism (contrary to what may have been implied by others in a previous thread!), I think the best we can do is attempt to persuade others why they should value what we value.
I think we have more values in common than we think. Unfortunately we live in a time when both the media and the political class work to divide rather than unite. The underlying assumption of course being that we are stupid, easily led/amused, and react to demagoguery. The problem is that assumption at times seems pretty much on target: prime example, Bush pushing private accounts to "save" Social Security from impending financial woes (it won't); democrats out of hand rejecting private accounts as the end of SS (they're not). The actual discussion of this issue would require an attention span of more than the time between commercials I guess, so the two parties fall back on what they are good at--one bending the truth, the other scaring folks.
Maybe they don't know how. Look at firearms as an example. Conservatives believe there should be absolutely no restrictions concerning firearms, and cite sporting activities as a major reason to ensure that guns are easily available. Liberals see many people shot to death and want to reduce deaths by firearms. Middle ground would be to restrict hand guns, as they are used in killing more than rifles and would have a greater impact on murder rates, and continue the less restricted availability of rifles and shotguns. But that is not acceptable to conservatives. Why is that?
Probably for the same reasons that many liberals don’t want to “compromise” on abortion… “give an inch, take a mile”. The logic generally works like this: If abortion is not OK in the third trimester, then maybe it’s not OK in the second trimester either. And if it’s not OK in the second trimester, then maybe it’s not OK in the first trimester. Similarly: If it’s OK to restrict the possession of handguns, then maybe it’s OK to prohibit the possession of handguns. If it’s OK to prohibit the possession of handguns, then maybe it’s OK to prohibit the possession of rifles and shotguns, too.
How do you expect anyone to “know how” to compromise on the issue of capital punishment? Now that juveniles cannot be executed, are you “OK” with capital punishment? And what sort of compromise should be reached with Terri Schiavo? Is the country so divided on the issue because we just don't know how to compromise?
Those are the ones I use, mostly. However, in this case, I think I will place the burden on you to provide some argument - as opposed to making a simple declaration - that "blind allegiance" can somehow facilitate "protecting one's way of life"; and that it is furthermore the only way that one can do so (because if it's not, then "blind allegiance" and "protecting one's way of life" are two different things).
Even now, I do things I believe will help to protect my way of life, but there is almost nothing in this world to which I am blindly allied. If my wife and/or children were to join the Bader-Meinhof gang and start killing innocents, they would probably lose my "allegiance".
Why do you ask, if it's so easy for you to say it?Why do you insist on getting me to say I advocate blind allegience?
I don't think that blind allegiance is "futile". In fact, I think it can be quite useful to advocates of ideologies that cannot justify themselves through reason, compassion or some other virtue. Consider the bin Ladens, the Saddams, the Hitlers, the Stalins (one could obviously go on ad infinitum) - blind allegiance certainly facilitated their accessions to, and holds on, power.
In any case, the reason I'm interested in your actually saying it is simply that I had hoped that here at the beginning of the 21st century, mankind would have moved beyond this kind of thinking. I continue to hold on to the hope that perhaps you are simply not using the term carefully - that, like Chip, your allegiance is really to values (like "family", and "freedom") as opposed to "America" (as in, "if the president thinks we ought to invade Mexico, hot damn, let's go git 'em").
And blind allegiance to one's job strikes me, frankly, as slightly psychotic. I would hope that if your employer asked you to do something illegal, you'd blow the whistle on him in a hearbeat. Just as it does for the bad guys on the international stage - blind allegiance to one's employer would be useful primarily to employers interested in doing something wicked.
Not to mention be your big chance for a guest shot on Dr Phil!!!;) ("So Mr Shanbaum, do you think your family was sending you any signals prior to taking up a life of shocking crime?" Shut the hell up Phil, ya big buffoon!!!)
"No, Phil, and that's working for me."
The compromise on capital punishment would be to have guidelines for when a criminal will be executed. Let's say that there is a set of guidelines that says capital punishment will happen more often than never (as some would like), but not for every violent crime (as some would like). Both sides will be less than satisfied, but will get some of what they want. That's what compromise is about, IMHO: giving AND getting. Abortion laws, currently, are, in fact, a compromise. And the compromise is being eaten away, as you pointed out.
Conservatives don't want restrictions on handguns because they are a near ultimate defence. As Sam Colt used to engrave on all handgun barrels: "Be there a man, no matter what his size, I will equalize."
When the chips are down and you don't have time to wait for "proper law enforcement authoroties, there is a lot to be said for a 38. The smallest frailest woman becomes the equal of the largest toughest man.
Chip
Now if you could find a way to keep handguns out of the hands of fools only, I'll vote for it.
Chip
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks