<p>I am not even going to dignify 1of42 with an answer. NO. people of America with a clear mind, will not “move on past this”. For the likes of 1of42, everything is tolerable, there is no principle need to uphold, no country worth fighting for. Everything is like… nah its only a 30 sec snippet “taken out of context”. You’d find a way to explain Hitler too, would you ?</p>
<p>…as for afruff23, have another beer with your hate-America crowd buddies.</p>
<p>Wait I thought the “hate-America crowd” drinks lattes and red wine. I guess I need to watch Rush Limbaugh on Monday so he can tell me the right stereotypes :)</p>
<p>@edvest1</p>
<p>You cannot be patriotic and ethical at the same time. The 2 just happen to coincide at times (e.g. courts), but that doesn’t mean you support the government at all times.</p>
<p>For example, let’s make a new “ism” and call it thievism. Under thievism, you praise and laud thieves when they do good acts (e.g. help someone cross the street). Then when the thief steals something, you look the other way since it would be inconsistent with thievism to rebuke the very thing you define to be the object of your praises. That is why patriotism is wrong. You must defend or object to something based on its merits, rather than its labels.</p>
<p>@saransay</p>
<p>They do heroin and absinthe using a single spoon. Then they use that spoon to feed their crack-babies.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Then he found out why - they’re BITTER!</p>
<ol>
<li>Obama “conveniently” distanced himself when there was a media backlash. If somebody is not saying anything wrong, you don’t “repudiate” them.</li>
<li>Obama joins a Church at the age of 20. Again, that’s not to say he calculated this, but I find it hard to believe somebody would convert to Christianity from atheism. Then again, I don’t know much about Obama’s past which is why I never talked in absolute terms regarding this matter."</li>
</ol>
<p>He didn’t do ANYTHING “convenient”. Convenient would have been to repudiate Wright. Instead, as has been true with his entire campaign, Obama was far more subtle, far more honest, than to succumb to a black-and-white characterization.</p>
<p>I became a Quaker at 23, having been Jewish (with pre-rabbinical training) prior. Wasn’t anything calculated about it. I found my home.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>mini - did you intend to add on ‘for convience’ at the end of this?</p>
<p>The liberals are telling us on post #44 that patriotism is unethical !</p>
<p>And 1of42 is saying so and so is an ancharchist, as if that’s a good thing !</p>
<p>Ancharchy, plainly translated is believing one’s government is evil and needs
to be abolish.</p>
<p>America was not built by people like that, but may be destroyed by them if we don’t right our thinking.</p>
<p>These are the ones who cheer at their own demise.
It never amazes me how deep this self-gouging,self-deprecating psychosis canbe.</p>
<p>
hmmmmm. I must have had a different text. </p>
<p>
There are things that amaze me, too. Not all of them deep. ;)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>From Dictionary.com:
Anarchy
- a state of society without government or law.
- political and social disorder due to the absence of governmental control: The death of the king was followed by a year of anarchy.
- a theory that regards the absence of all direct or coercive government as a political ideal and that proposes the cooperative and voluntary association of individuals and groups as the principal mode of organized society.
- confusion; chaos; disorder: Intellectual and moral anarchy followed his loss of faith.</p>
<p>No, America wasn’t built upon Anarchy, but it was achieved by the violent overthrow of the prevailing government. I doubt many people here would say that that wasn’t a good and necessary thing. Fortunately for us, many of the basic tenets of our new government were designed to preclude the return of despotic rulership, chief among these being, the right of **free speech, ** freedom of assembly, the right to petition the Government, etc. The right of the people to attempt to change that which they find oppressive or onerous is inherent to our form of government, and you had better thank your lucky stars (or whichever God you worship) that that’s still true. Patriotism is not! blind acquiescence to the status quo. It is the heartfelt belief and adherence to the principles and tenets of our form of Government!</p>
<p>I would like any of you who so stupidly compare Jeremiah Wright to Hitler to show me **just one quote or sound bite ** whereby he calls for the overthrow of the United States Government, much less “Anarchy”! Yes, he has been critical of some policies and acts of the government (darn that constitutional right!), but just because you vehemently disagree with him does not! prove “he hates America”. The fact is, this man postponed the completion of his own education to answer the call to serve his country in a time of war. A man who “hates his country” does not do such a thing.</p>
<p>My suggestion: Get off your Right Wing High Horse (for just one minute) and think!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’m trying to figure out the most charitable way to say this… the best would probably be “you’re a lunatic”. I never once said that I think anarchism is a good idea; in fact, I think it’s a horrible one. Please do show me where I make a statement that is other than factually descriptive of afruff.</p>
<p>You won’t be able to, so I wouldn’t mind an apology for trying to put words in my mouth.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>…should’ve known that edvest1 would return to reclaim his “stupidest post” crown. Not only did he manage to contradict his first sentence (apparently he wasn’t going to dignify me with an answer… but the rest of the post looks strangely like an answer, no?), he also misrepresented my views, then generalized them as if he knows what kind of views I hold on other subject matters, and then made an appeal to Hitler. All within one post. Congratulations edvest1, you have regained your worst post crown.</p>
<p>Make some real arguments (hint, “1of42 is an evil Liberal who has no principles” doesn’t count) and perhaps we can have a legitimate debate. I doubt you’ll actually be able to put together a coherent factual argument that doesn’t rely on ad hominem attacks against me, but hey, there’s always surprises.</p>
<p>@mini</p>
<p>From Obama’s mouth:
</p>
<p><a href=“HuffPost - Breaking News, U.S. and World News | HuffPost”>HuffPost - Breaking News, U.S. and World News | HuffPost;
<p>He did repudiate Reverend Wright’s comments, so my point #2 stands.</p>
<p>As for you converting to Judaism, that is honestly a bit different. Converting from having no faith to faith is much less common than converting from faith to faith. And once again, I should say that it is quite possible that Obama did not use calculation to convert.</p>
<p>@yourworld</p>
<p>“The liberals are telling us on post #44 that patriotism is unethical !”</p>
<p>Then please go ahead and disprove my arguments in #44. Once again, I am not a liberal.</p>
<p>“Ancharchy (sic), plainly translated is believing one’s government is evil and needs
to be abolish.”
From dictionary.com:
Anarchy
3. a theory that regards the absence of all direct or coercive government as a political ideal and that proposes the cooperative and voluntary association of individuals and groups as the principal mode of organized society.</p>
<p>^^That definition most closely defines my beliefs. It is all based on the non-aggression principle which basically states that violence is wrong except in self-defense.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>What a vague statement; what is “America” and at what point is it destroyed? As I said before, I base my beliefs on non-violence. The very people you “Patriots” adore (e.g. founding fathers and government today) are the violent ones.</p>
<p>“These are the ones who cheer at their own demise.
It never amazes me how deep this self-gouging,self-deprecating psychosis canbe.”</p>
<p>Are you just spewing the propaganda you have heard (most likely from public schools) or do you sincerely believe that? How am I self-deprecating or self-gouging? I hold the voluntary cooperation of people to be of the highest ideal, while you advocate the use of force upon people.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>How is using violence tor replace one form of violence (British governance) with another form of violence (US government) a good thing?</p>
<p>As for the self-correcting design of government, that thesis was disproved as soon as Adams (or arguably Washington) entered office. The Alien and Sedition acts was passed and stopped criticism of the government.</p>
<p>“Patriotism is not! blind acquiescence to the status quo. It is the heartfelt belief and adherence to the principles and tenets of our form of Government!”</p>
<p>Let us say that is true. Even then, it is still demonstrably unethical. You to impose rules upon people without their consent; that is a basic tenet of government and is unethical.</p>
<p>1of42, you may disagree with me and others, but to put a so-called “stupidest post crown” on somebody shows arrogance and contempt. I wish you would show some restraint.</p>
<p>
Blacks maybe up like ~18% of the government, but are 13% of the general population. This isn’t hard to figure out.</p>
<p>this has got to be the most unorganized, angry thread i’ve ever seen on this forum. </p>
<p>afruff23, government is not analogous to violence. it is more than just an army. the imposition of rules is not unethical–it is necessary to maintain order, which is a central tenet of civilization. if you can not create a set of rules based on some sort of vote–monarchical, popular, representative, etc., then there is no hope of coherency. civilization multiplies output. rules maximize order. order forms predictability, which is what people want when dealing with things like crops or military training. </p>
<p>tyler09: mr. payne is not talking about Congress–he’s referring to the people who work for the government (postal workers, Department of X employees, etc). I do not know the figures behind mr. payne’s argument, so i will neither validate nor repudiate his comments.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The irony of that coming from a person who in every single response to me has tried to impute some kind of sinister intent to my ideas, when not outright misinterpreting them or attributing certain opinions to me that I do not hold, is ironic to say the least.</p>
<p>enderkin, I am going to ask you to not use vague words like “civilization”. Thanks. It makes the appearance of violence that much more clearer.</p>
<p>“government is not analogous to violence”</p>
<p>You are correct. It is violence. Try not paying your taxes.</p>
<p>“it is more than just an army. the imposition of rules is not unethical–it is necessary to maintain order, which is a central tenet of civilization.”</p>
<p>So is it unethical or is it necessary to maintain order?</p>
<p>“if you can not create a set of rules based on some sort of vote–monarchical, popular, representative, etc., then there is no hope of coherency. civilization multiplies output. rules maximize order. order forms predictability, which is what people want when dealing with things like crops or military training.”</p>
<p>That is a non-sequitir to go from “order is desirable” to “using violence upon people is order”. Why can’t people form order out of their free will? Why does it have to be “imposed”? People can form their own governments and live peacefully together so long as nobody is forced to do anything. Through these voluntary associations, order can be made. Why would these associations be made? Because any sane person desires predictability in their lives.</p>