# Just what is unamerican?



## Touch Of Death (May 27, 2004)

Cobra brought up and interesting point. He was quite vague however; so, I thought I might ask what, exactly, is unamerican? Be specific.
Sean :asian:


----------



## loki09789 (May 27, 2004)

Where can we find the foundation for what is "American" before we move into 'unAmerican' first off?  If it is going to be a compare/contrast discussion then it needs to be clear what it is to be "American" as well.

I know the Constitution/Bill of Rights stuff outlines what American's are suppose to be allowed to do without fear of the black suits kicking down the door or being executed on the spot, but I just got done saying the "Pledge" again this morning and I think it bears examination for this discussion as well.  This is not a challenge by any means, but how many folks out there still remember it since they have left school.  Honestly, it took a little bit to get it back to memorized when I got into teaching because it had been so long .


----------



## Tgace (May 27, 2004)

People who take from this nation, be it from public assistance or just plain living one of the best lifestyles on the globe, yet having no sense of duty, obligation or pride towards it.


----------



## michaeledward (May 27, 2004)

loki09789 said:
			
		

> Where can we find the foundation for what is "American" before we move into 'unAmerican' first off? If it is going to be a compare/contrast discussion then it needs to be clear what it is to be "American" as well.


Well, I think this is a good starting point to consider what it means to be an 'American'.



> *The Declaration of Independence of the Thirteen Colonies*
> *In CONGRESS, July 4, 1776*
> 
> *The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America, *
> ...


The language suffers a little for 200 plus years of use, but I think that sums it up. Americans can see and understand howthis little introduction to the Declaration of Independence calls us to responsibility and duty.

Mike


----------



## Touch Of Death (May 27, 2004)

loki09789 said:
			
		

> Where can we find the foundation for what is "American" before we move into 'unAmerican' first off?  If it is going to be a compare/contrast discussion then it needs to be clear what it is to be "American" as well.
> 
> I know the Constitution/Bill of Rights stuff outlines what American's are suppose to be allowed to do without fear of the black suits kicking down the door or being executed on the spot, but I just got done saying the "Pledge" again this morning and I think it bears examination for this discussion as well.  This is not a challenge by any means, but how many folks out there still remember it since they have left school.  Honestly, it took a little bit to get it back to memorized when I got into teaching because it had been so long .


Hows that last part go? ... With liberty and justice for all who can afford it.
Sean


----------



## OULobo (May 27, 2004)

Umm. . . not watching baseball, detesting apple pie, and hating your own mother.  :idunno:


----------



## Touch Of Death (May 27, 2004)

OULobo said:
			
		

> Umm. . . not watching baseball, detesting apple pie, and hating your own mother.  :idunno:


Can I help it if Baseball is boring?


----------



## MA-Caver (May 27, 2004)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> Well, I think this is a good starting point to consider what it means to be an 'American'.
> 
> 
> The language suffers a little for 200 plus years of use, but I think that sums it up. Americans can see and understand howthis little introduction to the Declaration of Independence *calls us to responsibility and duty*.
> ...



Yes, yes it does... so... how come we're not doing it?? 

(I got quite a few more pennies on this topic but run out of time for proper dispensation... more later)


----------



## heretic888 (May 27, 2004)

As far as I'm concerned, "un-American" just means "not an American citizen". End of story. I doubt you'd hear a lot of people in England seeing somebody playing American football in their backyard, and complain he's being "un-British". Its inane and dim-witted to a zenith.

Really, now, one of the POINTS for the existence of the United States is "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" --- that means I am free to live my life and express myself however the hell I damn choose to, provided I am not endangering or violating the rights of others to do likewise.

Thus, wouldn't logic dictate that by aritificially imposing on America's sovereign citizens a "true American" lifestyle they are supposed to follow, that one is the very definition of a hypocrite??

Of course, as an American --- it is also your right to be just that. That's the beauty of it.

Buddha bless America.  :asian:


----------



## loki09789 (May 27, 2004)

Well, with the number of Stanley Cups taken by US teams, I think watching any of the Big 3 sports would be "American" as long as you ignore the subliminal advertising about which car to by or diet soda to drink....

Seriously, I agree with the call to duty aspect of "American", but there is a reasonable balance between making personal sacrifices and sacrificing the personal rights.  Generally I think that the current/popular view of being "American" is one of 'personal individual expression and civil rights' and tends to neglect the service and duty portion.  Consider how the Americorp movement could/is a reactionary movement to try and spur a sense of "It takes a village" view on our local and national issues again.  I am not a Billary fan, but I do agree with the idea that we have to each pitch in and get our hands dirty every once in a while.  

I think the modern cynicism makes joining in or patrioticism as popular an idea as cultism or religiousness.  We tend to live in an age of 'me-ism' from what I see.


----------



## MisterMike (May 27, 2004)

It's not so much un-Americans you have to look out for, it's anti-Americans.

People can still hang on to their heritage, be it Italian, French, German, etc. You don't have to throw all that away and start eating McDonalds just because you live here.

It's doing the opposite, like giving more power to government, less responsibilities left for the people. Stuff like high taxes and socialist programs like Universal Health Care.


----------



## heretic888 (May 27, 2004)

> I think the modern cynicism makes joining in or patrioticism as popular an idea as cultism or religiousness. We tend to live in an age of 'me-ism' from what I see.



Hee. I call it flatland.

No depth, no layers, no substance. Just surfaces, surfaces, surfaces, as far as the eye can see.

But, hey, its okay, right?? I mean, after all, if everything is "reduced" and "flattened", then everything is equal, right?? We can't have one viewpoint actually being "better" or "more valid" than another --- that'd just be fascist, right??

And, as no other viewpoint is more valid than another in this anemic wasteland we call a "culture", that means nobody can tell me what to do (as they're no more right than I am) --- the individual ego is thus sovereign of all it witnesses.

Boomeritis beckons.


----------



## someguy (May 27, 2004)

OULobo said:
			
		

> Umm. . . not watching baseball, detesting apple pie, and hating your own mother.  :idunno:


You forgot hamburgers.


----------



## heretic888 (May 27, 2004)

> It's doing the opposite, like giving more power to government, less responsibilities left for the people.



Funny. I was under the impression that our Constitutional institutions posited a BALANCE of power in all domains, even between the people and the State. Silly me.

Also, following the thread of logic you are relying on above, then a national anarchy is the idealized state form for the United States --- not a democracy.



> Stuff like high taxes and socialist programs like Universal Health Care.



Ah yes, providing health care for all our underpriveleged citizens. That would truly be an "unamerican" agenda.   

'Watch out fer dem damn commies!!'


----------



## Touch Of Death (May 27, 2004)

MisterMike said:
			
		

> It's not so much un-Americans you have to look out for, it's anti-Americans.
> 
> People can still hang on to their heritage, be it Italian, French, German, etc. You don't have to throw all that away and start eating McDonalds just because you live here.
> 
> It's doing the opposite, like giving more power to government, less responsibilities left for the people. Stuff like high taxes and socialist programs like Universal Health Care.


Why is universal health care unamerican?


----------



## loki09789 (May 27, 2004)

heretic888 said:
			
		

> Hee. I call it flatland.
> 
> No depth, no layers, no substance. Just surfaces, surfaces, surfaces, as far as the eye can see.
> 
> ...


How dare you imply that your devotion to an education, a deeper and more sophisticated understanding of yourself and world views current and historic would make your points/opinions more valid than MINE! That is elitist.... oh, wait a second, I have a degree too (albeit only a B.S. - NO JOKES) that was required to make my statements and actions more valid than someone w/o that level of training within my trade.... I think the term is 'cultural collateral'?  The more you have the more you can do.

I love the confusion of people between 'fair' and 'equal' 

My brain hurts now....


----------



## MisterMike (May 27, 2004)

Touch'O'Death said:
			
		

> Why is universal health care unamerican?



In my estimation, if the governement forces other people to pay for your health care, it is anti-American as well.

Everyone is certainly entitled to think differntly of course. 

Where this will become a bigger problem is when the rest of the country has to pay for healthcare for all the illegals flooding into the country thru Mexico.

The America I like to think of is one where you could go out and stake some land, build on it, and live off of it yourself. It was up to you if you helped your neighbor. Not all this communist crap.


----------



## Tgace (May 27, 2004)

Kind of a tangent but...the "underpriveleged" American is an interesting point. While there are many "poor" in our nation, the definition is a matter of comparison. I deal with many who by our standards are "poor" but still have cable TV, Cars (beaters granted), and coke in the fridge. While touring the globe in uniform, I got to see what Poor really is. Many Americans dont appreciate how well we really have it here.


----------



## loki09789 (May 27, 2004)

Tgace said:
			
		

> Kind of a tangent but...the "underpriveleged" American is an interesting point. While there are many "poor" in our nation, the definition is a matter of comparison. I deal with many who by our standards are "poor" but still have cable TV, Cars (beaters granted), and coke in the fridge. While touring the globe in uniform, I got to see what Poor really is. Many Americans dont appreciate how well we really have it here.


What he said....only from lower to the ground.


----------



## Tgace (May 27, 2004)

Not only do they not appreciate it, some openly say that they detest it.....


----------



## Touch Of Death (May 27, 2004)

MisterMike said:
			
		

> In my estimation, if the governement forces other people to pay for your health care, it is anti-American as well.
> 
> Everyone is certainly entitled to think differntly of course.
> 
> ...


It would seem to me the problem is our adversariel stance with mexico and the out of control legal proffession that is raising medicle costs. Either way people can't afford it and American kids are going to die. That, to me, seems un-American. :asian: 
Sean


----------



## michaeledward (May 27, 2004)

MisterMike said:
			
		

> like giving more power to government, less responsibilities left for the people. Stuff like high taxes and socialist programs like Universal Health Care.





			
				MisterMike said:
			
		

> where you could go out and stake some land, build on it, and live off of it yourself. It was up to you if you helped your neighbor


I can see it now ... 

I the person, of the land staked out on my own, in order to form a more perfect individualism, estabilish isolationism, insure domestic solitude (if I so desire), provide for my own defense, promote my own welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty for myself and my posterior, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the Individualist Persons of the Western Hemisphere.


----------



## heretic888 (May 27, 2004)

> In my estimation, if the governement forces other people to pay for your health care, it is anti-American as well.



By that logic, then the following are "anti-American" insitutions:

1) Public schools.
2) The military.
3) The government.
4) Humanitarian sub-organizations.
5) All taxes.
6) All police departments.
7) All fire departments.
8) All post offices.
9) All libraries.
10) All other public service agencies.
11) Etcetera...


----------



## rmcrobertson (May 27, 2004)

Thank you, Thomas Hobbes. By all means, screw the very young and the very old, screw the poor, screw the helpless. I can't say if that's un-American, but unless something radical changed since Bible School, it sure as hell is un-Christian.

One hopes that no one posting here ever needs their society's assistance.


----------



## MisterMike (May 27, 2004)

heretic888 said:
			
		

> By that logic, then the following are "anti-American" insitutions:
> 
> 1) Public schools.
> 2) The military.
> ...



Then you don't have enough to go on to base your conclusions. Obviously our form of government is outlined in the Constitution, so it IS American.


----------



## michaeledward (May 27, 2004)

MisterMike said:
			
		

> Then you don't have enough to go on to base your conclusions. Obviously our form of government is outlined in the Constitution, so it IS American.


I don't follow ... the Constitution says "promote the general welfare"

Why do "Public Schools", "military", "humanitarian sub-organizations" count, but "health care" does not?

Or am I somehow not understanding your words again?


----------



## MisterMike (May 27, 2004)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> I can see it now ...
> 
> I the person, of the land staked out on my own, in order to form a more perfect individualism, estabilish isolationism, insure domestic solitude (if I so desire), provide for my own defense, promote my own welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty for myself and my posterior, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the Individualist Persons of the Western Hemisphere.



So since you feel Individualism, solitude, self defense (wow from a "martial artist") and self sufficiency are bad, no-one else has a right to them?

Heaven help us.


----------



## OUMoose (May 27, 2004)

I would say my definition of "american" is:  Someone who has the courage to stand up and defy authority to break away from tyranny and opression, no matter what the cost.

Of course, if that's the case, 99.99% of americans today aren't very "american".  They're too busy with their SUV's, savings accounts, 2.5 children, and white picket fences.  That was not "the american dream".  The real "american dream" was to simply live with the freedom to think what you will.  

I'm probably going to pick up a couple little red marks on my rep for this, but so what.  THAT'S what american is. Speaking my mind.

*blinks*

OK.  Getting on a rant now, so I'm gonna shut up (plus it's time to go home from work)


----------



## MisterMike (May 27, 2004)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> I don't follow ... the Constitution says "promote the general welfare"
> 
> Why do "Public Schools", "military", "humanitarian sub-organizations" count, but "health care" does not?
> 
> Or am I somehow not understanding your words again?



That's right. It doesn't say "tax them 50% and INSURE the general welfare"

Also, Promote the General Welfare is in the Preamble and confer's no power.


----------



## Touch Of Death (May 27, 2004)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Thank you, Thomas Hobbes. By all means, screw the very young and the very old, screw the poor, screw the helpless. I can't say if that's un-American, but unless something radical changed since Bible School, it sure as hell is un-Christian.
> 
> One hopes that no one posting here ever needs their society's assistance.


Robert,
This is where conservatives impliment the seperation of church and state. :asian: 
Sean


----------



## rmcrobertson (May 27, 2004)

"The complete interdependence of modern society escaped them entirely."

Robert A. Heinlein, "The Roads Must Roll."




To Those Born After


  I

To the cities I came in a time of disorder 
That was ruled by hunger. 
I sheltered with the people in a time of uproar 
And then I joined in their rebellion. 
That's how I passed my time that was given to me on this Earth. 

I ate my dinners between the battles, 
I lay down to sleep among the murderers, 
I didn't care for much for love 
And for nature's beauties I had little patience. 
That's how I passed my time that was given to me on this Earth. 

The city streets all led to foul swamps in my time, 
My speech betrayed me to the butchers. 
I could do only little 
But without me those that ruled could not sleep so easily:
That's what I hoped. 
That's how I passed my time that was given to me on this Earth. 

Our forces were slight and small, 
Our goal lay in the far distance 
Clearly in our sights, 
If for me myself beyond my reaching. 
That's how I passed my time that was given to me on this Earth. 

II

You who will come to the surface 
From the flood that's overwhelmed us and drowned us all 
Must think, when you speak of our weakness in times of darkness 
That you've not had to face:

Days when we were used to changing countries 
More often than shoes, 
Through the war of the classes despairing 
That there was only injustice and no outrage.

Even so we realised 
Hatred of oppression still distorts the features, 
Anger at injustice still makes voices raised and ugly. 
Oh we, who wished to lay for the foundations for peace and friendliness, 
Could never be friendly ourselves.

And in the future when no longer 
Do human beings still treat themselves as animals, 
Look back on us with indulgence. 

Bertolt Brecht


----------



## Tgace (May 27, 2004)

Even so we realised 
Hatred of oppression still distorts the features, 
Anger at injustice still makes voices raised and ugly. 
Oh we, who wished to lay for the foundations for peace and friendliness, 
Could never be friendly ourselves.



Hmmmmm.............dosent that apply on many levels? And to many people?


----------



## Rich Parsons (May 27, 2004)

OUMoose said:
			
		

> I would say my definition of "american" is:  Someone who has the courage to stand up and defy authority to break away from tyranny and opression, no matter what the cost.
> 
> Of course, if that's the case, 99.99% of americans today aren't very "american".  They're too busy with their SUV's, savings accounts, 2.5 children, and white picket fences.  That was not "the american dream".  The real "american dream" was to simply live with the freedom to think what you will.
> 
> ...




OU Mouse,

Ok, if I am allowed to think and do want I want without stepping on your toes and in your pursuit of your thoughts, then what is wrong if I have a motorcycle, Convertible, and Truck? A house for my cat and myself? And a savings account for the future incase somethign breaks?

Personally, I think you should live your own life. This is good. Yet, if I disagree with you, does this then make me wrong and un-American?

I would say no. Yet, that is my opinion.  :asian: 

Good post in my mind, just curious is all


----------



## heretic888 (May 27, 2004)

> Then you don't have enough to go on to base your conclusions. Obviously our form of government is outlined in the Constitution, so it IS American.



Poppycock and balderdash.

I was simply going by _your_ own line of reasoning. You very promptly stated:

"In my estimation, if the governement forces other people to pay for your health care, it is anti-American as well."

In other words, if you are forced to pay for something that does not directly benefit you (i.e., a collective welfare as opposed to individual welfare), then that is "anti-American".

Police departments are part of the "collective good" (i.e., you pay for them even if they may not directly benefit you), as are fire departments, public schools, libraries, humanitarian organizations (i.e., charities), the military, and the government itself.

I am not saying any of these institutions are "anti-American" or "un-American", Mike. I am saying that, by the standards of the convoluted "logic" you have used to deign Universal Healthcare as such, then your arguments could equally apply to all these institutions, as well.

I am "forced" to pay for public schools, even though neither I nor any of my family members currently attend them. I am "forced" to pay for my local fire department, even though I have never been the victim of any incendiary-related incident. I am "forced" to pay for the military, even though I oppose our current administration's use of this institution. I am "forced" to pay for local and federal law enforcement, even though I have never been the victim of a violent crime.

By the logic you have used in labeling universal health care as "anti-American", than all of the above institutions are "anti-American", as well.

Unless, of course --- ding! ding! Your argument is completely false and contrived?! 

WE HAVE A WINNER!! *cues music*


----------



## Jay Bell (May 27, 2004)

> I thought I might ask what, exactly, is unamerican?



John Kerry.

 :shrug:


----------



## Touch Of Death (May 27, 2004)

Jay Bell said:
			
		

> John Kerry.
> 
> :shrug:


Interesting how you left out the "Be specific" part. How exactly is John Kerry unamerican???


----------



## Jay Bell (May 27, 2004)

How John Kerry is Unamerican 

When religion and politics don't have a sense of humor, everything gets screwed.


----------



## Touch Of Death (May 27, 2004)

Jay Bell said:
			
		

> How John Kerry is Unamerican
> 
> When religion and politics don't have a sense of humor, everything gets screwed.


So your saying it was unamerican to be against a war we could not win and had no end in sight. Gee that sounds like...
Sean


----------



## MisterMike (May 27, 2004)

heretic888 said:
			
		

> Poppycock and balderdash.
> 
> I was simply going by _your_ own line of reasoning. You very promptly stated:
> 
> ...



No, not just something. See where you go wrong is when you start off with "In other words." Well, other words aint my words. Let me help. It was an example of a socialist program at the federal level.

Ding! Ding! Wrong answer Charlie, but show 'em what they've won!

Well Bob, Heretic has won a free lesson that the police, libraries, fire stations are ALLL at the local level. Yes, some towns do not even have them if they cannot afford them.

**Cues picture of a volunteer fire dept.**

But yes, even towns vote in some services that they feel would benefit the people. But at least if you don't like it, you can go to the town next over. On a national level, I really DON'T like the idea of moving to Canada or Mexico.



			
				heretic888 said:
			
		

> Police departments are part of the "collective good" (i.e., you pay for them even if they may not directly benefit you), as are fire departments, public schools, libraries, humanitarian organizations (i.e., charities), the military, and the government itself.
> 
> I am not saying any of these institutions are "anti-American" or "un-American", Mike. I am saying that, by the standards of the convoluted "logic" you have used to deign Universal Healthcare as such, then your arguments could equally apply to all these institutions, as well.



Now THAT comment is looking pretty convoluted. It really wasn't based on all that much ya see. It came from a little equation:

National*Socialist*Programs != American

It kind of applies to things like:
"Universal" Health Care
"Social" Security
...

The thing about Police and Fire work, well they go to where they are needed. As for the military, well, we don't really use the militias anymore unles we have an anti-gun ad to run, so I guess it'll have ta do.



			
				heretic888 said:
			
		

> I am "forced" to pay for public schools, even though neither I nor any of my family members currently attend them. I am "forced" to pay for my local fire department, even though I have never been the victim of any incendiary-related incident. I am "forced" to pay for the military, even though I oppose our current administration's use of this institution. I am "forced" to pay for local and federal law enforcement, even though I have never been the victim of a violent crime.
> 
> By the logic you have used in labeling universal health care as "anti-American", than all of the above institutions are "anti-American", as well.
> 
> ...



I hope I cleared up my "logic" for you.


----------



## michaeledward (May 27, 2004)

MisterMike said:
			
		

> So since you feel Individualism, solitude, self defense (wow from a "martial artist") and self sufficiency are bad, no-one else has a right to them?
> 
> Heaven help us.


I made no statement to the effect that Individualism is bad; nor solitude, nor self defense. Take a little trip with me now, down the road of IRONY. 

Premise 1 - MisterMike stated that "our form of government is outlined in the Constitution"

Premise 2 - MisterMike also said "if the governement forces other people to pay for your health care, it is anti-American "

By combining the statements in these two premises ... government can not force other people to pay for something from which you benefit ... and our form of government is outlined in the Constitution ... I came up with a new Preamble to the Constitution, using MisterMike's beliefs.

You see, the Preamble of the Constitution explains why the founding fathers (or Thomas Jefferson) went through the effort of writing the damn thing.

For those not familiar with the preamble to the United States Constitution, you can view it, in its original form here:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.preamble.html

What's more, I believe in another great American document, the Declaration of Independence; which posits that each of us has the right to 'the pursuit of happiness' ... and I in no way would want to inpinge on that right. Persue your solitude, as you will, and may you find happiness in it.

Mike


----------



## rmcrobertson (May 27, 2004)

American democracy, freedom of speech, the complexity of modern society, our codes of law, our attempts to take care of each other, are all extraordinary achievements. I wish some folks had a little more faith in them.


----------



## OUMoose (May 28, 2004)

Rich Parsons said:
			
		

> OU Mouse,
> 
> Ok, if I am allowed to think and do want I want without stepping on your toes and in your pursuit of your thoughts, then what is wrong if I have a motorcycle, Convertible, and Truck? A house for my cat and myself? And a savings account for the future incase somethign breaks?
> 
> ...



It's good that you live your own life, with the trappings you desire.  That's really all anyone can ask.  When someone comes to your door in a black suit telling you that you can't have your things though, or one of your ideas is anti-social or "subversive" (I love that term for some reason, always makes me chuckle), and tries to take it away, THEN is when you need to make a stand.  Perhaps I was unclear in my last post, and I apologize.


----------



## Rich Parsons (May 28, 2004)

OUMoose said:
			
		

> It's good that you live your own life, with the trappings you desire.  That's really all anyone can ask.  When someone comes to your door in a black suit telling you that you can't have your things though, or one of your ideas is anti-social or "subversive" (I love that term for some reason, always makes me chuckle), and tries to take it away, THEN is when you need to make a stand.  Perhaps I was unclear in my last post, and I apologize.



Sir,

No Apology need or requried.

Thank You for the follow up.

I also agree that you should stand up for your rights, and be ready to assume your responsibilities 


 :asian:


----------



## rmcrobertson (May 28, 2004)

I could perhaps point out that rights are always balanced by obligation to others, and the need for social stability. One hasn't the right to scream at everybody; one hasn't the right to fire guns in the air at randowm; and one may not have the right to pointlessly chew up as much of nature asone pleases, given that other people live on the planet too.

Part of the problem is the diminished idea of freedom and rights, if they simply boil down to the right to have, "a motorcycle, a car, and a truck."


----------



## Makalakumu (May 28, 2004)

Touch'O'Death said:
			
		

> Why is universal health care unamerican?



According to the Tome of Republican Jingoism "All Americans MUST be able to take care of themselves regardless of the circumstances."


----------



## Makalakumu (May 28, 2004)

Tgace said:
			
		

> Kind of a tangent but...the "underpriveleged" American is an interesting point. While there are many "poor" in our nation, the definition is a matter of comparison. I deal with many who by our standards are "poor" but still have cable TV, Cars (beaters granted), and coke in the fridge. While touring the globe in uniform, I got to see what Poor really is. Many Americans dont appreciate how well we really have it here.



Too true.  Get outside the borders of the country and see the standards the multinationals force on the third world.  Its horrendous and immoral.


----------



## heretic888 (May 28, 2004)

*No, not just something. See where you go wrong is when you start off with "In other words." Well, other words aint my words. Let me help. It was an example of a socialist program at the federal level.*

By your logic, both the military and all forms of federal administration (including the FBI and 'Homeland Security') are "socialist" organizations.

Good to know the courageous men and women dying in Iraq are just a bunch'a no-good commies in your eyes.   

*Well Bob, Heretic has won a free lesson that the police, libraries, fire stations are ALLL at the local level.*

So what?? If you live in that town or state, you are still taxed for services that may or may not directly benefit you --- which is essentially the same argument you used above for universal healthcare. 

*But yes, even towns vote in some services that they feel would benefit the people. But at least if you don't like it, you can go to the town next over. On a national level, I really DON'T like the idea of moving to Canada or Mexico.*

I fail to see the difference. The same logic is still used: "If yah don't like it, then get the hell out!!" Whether its on the local or the national level, its still variatons on jingoism.

What if I personally like living in my town or state?? By your "logic", if I oppose the existence of police, then I am forced to just "deal with it". I fail to see how this argument is any different with universal healthcare.

*The thing about Police and Fire work, well they go to where they are needed. As for the military, well, we don't really use the militias anymore unles we have an anti-gun ad to run, so I guess it'll have ta do.*

Ah, I see. Local socialism = good. Federal socialism = bad.

But, a cogent argument as to why this disctinction should be made (of local forms being "good" and federal forms being "bad")?? Nope. Still not there.

*I hope I cleared up my "logic" for you.*

Pretty much, but "logic" isn't the word I would use...

*chuckles* Laterz.


----------



## MisterMike (May 28, 2004)

*Good to know the courageous men and women dying in Iraq are just a bunch'a no-good commies in your eyes. * 

Nope, at this point, only you.


----------



## heretic888 (May 28, 2004)

*Nope, at this point, only you.*

Ah, delightful. So, now I'm a communist.   

Right-wing jingoism at its finest. Next I'm sure I'll be told how I "hate" America...

*laughs* :boing2:


----------



## MisterMike (May 28, 2004)

*Next I'm sure I'll be told how I "hate" America*

Possibly. I was called convoluted because I of how I feel about socialism.

That's even better than everyday left-wing fruitiness. Although it's all I've come to expect from them.

Your seemingly intolerant stance has rendered you helpless in keeping yourself from a personal attack on me in your very first reply. It's kind of sad really...

But I'm always open to peaceful debate.

LAterZ


----------



## heretic888 (May 28, 2004)

*I was called convoluted because I of how I feel about socialism.*

Actually, no you weren't. Not unless "you" and "your logic" are somehow identical beings. Personally, I feel quite distinct from the thoughts that float by in my mind. But maybe thats just me.

*Your seemingly intolerant stance has rendered you helpless in keeping yourself from a personal attack on me in your very first reply.*

Intolerant?? Yeah, okay, Mr. Universal Healthcare-is-AntiAmerican.

The only thing I am intolerant of is irrational polemic and contrived hypocrisy, which is what your arguments against universal healthcare basically consisted of.

Tah, tah.


----------



## Nightingale (May 28, 2004)

I would say that criticizing someone for speaking their mind, even if they disagree withyou is unamerican.  Freedom of speech was one of the founding principles of this country, so naturally, there are going to be different points of view and not everyone is going to agree.  There's nothing wrong with arguing your point, but don't belittle someone else for having a different idea than you do.


----------



## rmcrobertson (May 28, 2004)

http://www.zmag.org/zmag/articles/barzinn.htm.

Hey's here's a link for ya, MM. It's from one of those "unAmericans," you're so frightened of. 

Yes, you'll have to type the address. I'm also a Luddite.


----------



## MisterMike (May 28, 2004)

Hey hey hey now...I didn't call any person un- or anti-American. Just pointing out policies I don't like...but I'll check out the interview just the same


----------



## RCastillo (May 28, 2004)

That turd from California, that converted to Islam so he could hit his own people. Shoot him, and let him rot where he lays. :deadhorse


----------



## Touch Of Death (May 28, 2004)

RCastillo said:
			
		

> That turd from California, that converted to Islam so he could hit his own people. Shoot him, and let him rot where he lays. :deadhorse


I understand he was already unstable. Perhaps it was unamerican to have left him to his own devices all these years HMMMMM?
Sean


----------



## michaeledward (May 28, 2004)

It is UnAmerican to participate on this message board heavily and not have the words '*Supporting Member*' on the right side of your posts! Come On ... send the guy a couple of bucks a month. That would TRULY be American of you.

*


*


*


*


*


Everybody smile .... just had to put in a plug for the nice folks at MartialTalk. 
Mike


----------



## Rich Parsons (May 28, 2004)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> I could perhaps point out that rights are always balanced by obligation to others, and the need for social stability. One hasn't the right to scream at everybody; one hasn't the right to fire guns in the air at randowm; and one may not have the right to pointlessly chew up as much of nature asone pleases, given that other people live on the planet too.
> 
> Part of the problem is the diminished idea of freedom and rights, if they simply boil down to the right to have, "a motorcycle, a car, and a truck."



Robert,

Nice Post. I agree with most of what you said. The part I do not agree with is because I do not understand. Are you implying that I am wasting resources with my vehicles? Are you saying that I have been yelling at you? Or were you just using my line as a comment?

Personally, I agree that people have responsibilities to themselves and others, as well as society.

As to my vehicles, I like to ride my motorcycle, it does get 37-45 MPG. I use this to get to work on nice days, and did get rained on, on last Thursday. The Car, gets 30 MPG on the highway and is what I use when I do not use the Bike. I do use the Truck, when the weather is bad.

Thank You


 :asian:


----------



## Rich Parsons (May 28, 2004)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> It is UnAmerican to participate on this message board heavily and not have the words '*Supporting Member*' on the right side of your posts! Come On ... send the guy a couple of bucks a month. That would TRULY be American of you.
> 
> *
> 
> ...




Actually, you could be a Martial Talk Fan for no Cost at all. Or you could become a supporting member. 

 :asian:


----------



## psi_radar (May 29, 2004)

Thank you for an interesting topic.

There is no un-american who is a citizen and does not sacrifice the safety of others. All of our voices count. If we disagree with our president, it is our right and our duty to voice that opinion. If the government's actions lead to tyranny, we have the right to bear arms against it.

Beyond that, we have had 200+ years to build upon the absolutely amazing document, the constitution, and its sister, the declaration of independence. Rereading these documents, I am amazed at the wisdom and foresight of their creators.

However, 200 years have passed, and those documents were created to secure the needs and freedoms of the people in this land. Today's world is a much smaller place, and the executive branch of government has more power than ever before. 

I won't deign to put words in the mouth of founding fathers, but when they were here, they put forth an effort to start a grand experiment, in which all peoples of the land had equal status and opportunity. Given the power we wield today, what would they do? Spreading ideology by force, a practice they detested and constructed two fanastic documents to defend against, or by setting an example so irresistable that all people naturally would want to pursue as humans?


----------



## heretic888 (May 31, 2004)

Nicely put, Psi. I agree 100%.  :asian:


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Jun 14, 2004)

What is "un-American"?

It is the right of every American to argue or condemn another's speech or writings, religious perspective, or political viewpoint.  It is un-American to actively seek the suppression of those views expressed.  Though we view this suppression as "un-American" our history shows that we have actively denied people this right in the past.  (Reference the Alien and Sedition act of 1798, which nullified the 1st Amendment.)

George Herbert Walker Bush (41st President) stated he didn't believe atheists were legitimate citizens of the United States.  That would amount to about fifteen percent of the population.  I find this somewhat disturbingly un-American and hypocritical given that he said during his first inaugural speech, "A President is neither prince nor pope, and I don't seek a window on men's souls. In fact, I yearn for a greater tolerance, an easy- goingness about each other's attitudes and way of life."   

It is un-American to deny people their right to vote and to participate in the electoral process.  Even today, however, felons are routinely disenfranchised.  A huge number of blacks, hispanics, and poor whites who have had felony convictions are thereby denied their right to vote.  Given that blacks are sentenced to prison twice as often as whites (who are given probation in greater numbers) this really makes very little sense to me.  

See: http://www.gothamgazette.com/article/feature-commentary/20030217/202/285

It is un-American to deny a person a job or an education based upon their race, creed, gender, or gender preference.  An Islamic militant, however, sworn to the destruction of Christianity and the West, might rightfully be denied a security clearance and a job at CIA headquarters.  This does in fact make perfect sense to me.  On the other hand, if he is a Muslim or an Afghani who has no ties to terrorism then we need to actively recruit him/her as a translator for the State Department.

It is un-American to suspend the Constitutional rights of legal citizens, as we did to Japanese Americans in WWII.

It is un-American to violate the privacy of a citizen.  Sadly, we determine the right to privacy via "penumbras and emanations" from the Constitution, and no Constitutional amendment exists that clearly protects us from the prying eyes of the government.  

I find it hypocritically un-American to say that we are the "good guys" and hold ourselves up as a beacon of hope for the world...and then turn about and ruthlessly abuse that reputation through scandalous dealings with scalawags and thugs.  

I'm thinking here of Mohammed Reza Shah Pahlavi (whose secret police force SAVAK had unlimited powers of arrest and detention, something we're supposed to frown upon), Saddam Hussein (we sold him WMD's), the House of Saud (who fund militant Wahhabi Islamic schools), and the Nicaraguan Contras (who were notorious for murder and drug traffickers).

For the Contra drug situation, see:  

http://www.webcom.com/pinknoiz/covert/contracoke.html

I don't think it un-American to aknowledge an imperfect past history of our nation, and to recognize that for all its achievements, liberty and justice for all has not always been the standard.  I find it naive and jingoistic to believe otherwise.

And, lastly, I find it un-American to call someone "un-American" simply because he doesn't agree with the sitting President.  And that lends a nice circularity to this post by tying it in with the beginning.


Regards,


Steve


----------



## psi_radar (Jun 15, 2004)

hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> What is "un-American"?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Great post Steve. I'm curious when GWB said the above and what sources can be quoted. Some staunch republican atheist friends of mine might be interested. Thanks,

Pete


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Jun 15, 2004)

Pete,

There are athiest Republicans?  Well, there are Gay Republicans...I guess its possible.  It sounds so...oxymoronic.

Here are sources for the GHWB quote.  Remember this was Bush 41, not Bush 43.  Bush the elder said that atheists weren't patriots and shouldn't be considered citizens.  Type a Google search "George Bush Atheism" and you'll get the following links plus some others.

http://www.cyberdespot.com/home.html?jesustricks/bush.html&frames/left.html&frames/top.html

http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/arguments.html


Well...if atheists aren't citizens and patriots, I wonder if he'd consider Hindus and Moslems to be???


Regards,


Steve


----------



## psi_radar (Jun 15, 2004)

hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> Pete,
> 
> There are athiest Republicans?  Well, there are Gay Republicans...I guess its possible.  It sounds so...oxymoronic.



ha ha, few and far between, the ones I know are extremely wealthy scientists. Thanks for pointing out it was Bush 41, not 43, but the acorn doesn't fall far from the tree, does it?



> Well...if atheists aren't citizens and patriots, I wonder if he'd consider Hindus and Moslems to be???
> 
> 
> Regards,
> ...



Another good question.

Pete


----------

