Things that irritate me

[RedScare]

We used to take the flag very seriously.

Yeah, I noticed there was no vote in Congress to limit abuse of the US flag by "patriotic" Americans. Apparently, using the flag to make money is OK.

Frankly, that is more offensive to me than the occasional flag protester.

Yes, that includes you, Jim McInvale!

Don't forget Texas is the only state flag that can be flown at the same level, if not HIGHER, then the US flag.

We WERE a nation too, y'know.

Just thought I'd bring it up in case someone forgot.

That is also incorrect. See TJones' post. ALL state flags can fly at the same height as the US flag.

Further, Texas has no right to secede. Texas already seceded, and then lost the war. The rules that govern Texas is the readmission in 1865, not the agreement in 1845.

[nmainguy]

Yes, that includes you, Jim McInvale!

Things that irritate me:

Endless diversions like flag burning and gay marriage while kids go hungry at night with no health insurance because mom or dad is in Iraq getting shot up for a war they were lied into while receiving below poverty scale wages.

[Parrothead]

Oh god, put a sock in it already.

[Jeebus]

Yeah, I noticed there was no vote in Congress to limit abuse of the US flag by "patriotic" Americans. Apparently, using the flag to make money is OK.

Frankly, that is more offensive to me than the occasional flag protester.

For me, my only objection is when an actual flag is made into anything like a t-shirt, or I don't know.. a poncho maybe? If you're making a US flag pattern onto something, then that is an entirely different issue. I don't have a problem with Mattress Mac wearing a shirt with artwork that resembles a U.S. flag in design. I do disagree with Kid Rock cutting a hole in a US Flag and wearing as a poncho.

If the U.S. flag manufacturing process was given the same amount of respect as congress wants to give the flag itself, then that would help justify the situation. How can you ban making flags into t-shirts when the flags themselves are made in China? Maybe if flags were American made, and only sold at post-offices (just as an example), then it could demand a little more respect. At least pass a law requiring that U.S. flags first be made in the United States.

[nmainguy]

Oh god, put a sock in it already.

Good ol' parrot-always elevating the discussion to her usual 3rd grade level with a side of whine.

God forbid she attempt to actually refute anything from my post with facts.

[Houston1stWordOnTheMoon]

Oh god, put a sock in it already.

Thanks for the smile today

[MidtownCoog]

Maybe if flags were American made, and only sold at post-offices (just as an example), then it could demand a little more respect. At least pass a law requiring that U.S. flags first be made in the United States.

Excellent idea. May lead to a flag shortage for a while, but could help out if you ask me.

[westender]

The last thing I am is a xenophobe. The first thing I am is a PATRIOTIC American who would rather see the flag of OUR COUNTRY flying in OUR COUNTRY. Period. Anyone who reads into that any more than that is grasping at straws.

Actually that's called nationalism and not patriotism. Examples of other nationalists are: Hitler, Mussolini, Franco, Robert Mugabe, Hugo Chavez, Joseph Stalin, Augosto Pinochet, Pol Pot, Mao Zedong, etc... Welcome to their club!!

[nmainguy]

Thanks for the smile today

That make you feel all warm and fuzzy?

____________________________________________________________________________

U.S. Deaths Confirmed By The DoD: 2537

Reported U.S. Deaths Pending DoD Confirmation: 3

Total 2540

DoD Confirmation List

Latest Coalition Fatality: Jul 04, 2006

[TJones]

Things that irritate me:

Endless diversions like flag burning and gay marriage while kids go hungry at night with no health insurance because mom or dad is in Iraq getting shot up for a war they were lied into while receiving below poverty scale wages.

That right there is an untrue statement sir. If mom or dad is in Iraq fighting, they have full medical and dental coverage by the U.S. Govt. and the kids are covered also. Now, if they are a single parent, they most likely won't get deployed at all, so you won't have to worry about them getting "shot up" in Iraq. You really think our U.S. forces get paid below poverty level ? What do you think poverty level is ? Finally, If they don't live on base in a house( because if you got kids, you can't live in a barracks) they will actually get a housing allowance to live off base, and YES, it will cover the rent ! Your statement is truly Whack my friend.

btw....a soldier's family recieves $400,000 in annuities or lump sum if they wish, if that soldier is killed in action, so the kids aren't gonna go hungry by any means. I don't think the trade off is worth it though.

[Parrothead]

Actually that's called nationalism and not patriotism. Examples of other nationalists are: Hitler, Mussolini, Franco, Robert Mugabe, Hugo Chavez, Joseph Stalin, Augosto Pinochet, Pol Pot, Mao Zedong, etc... Welcome to their club!!

Oh, okay, then by your definition, Mahatma Gandhi is in there as well. There are many different types of nationalism. Like everything else in the world, there are extremes, and you just decided to name every extreme you could possibly pull out of your rear end. Geez, dude. It's like calling George Bush a democrat. He's not conservative, but dang, he sure as hell isn't a liberal. Not that there is anything wrong with being a liberal.

Read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationalism

This segment in particular may help you to understand my perspective:

In the Western world the most comprehensive current ideological alternative to nationalism is cosmopolitanism. Ethical cosmopolitanism rejects one of the basic ethical principles of nationalism: that humans owe more duties to a fellow member of the nation, than to a non-member. It rejects such important nationalist values as national identity and national loyalty. However there is also a political cosmopolitanism, which has a geopolitical programme to match that of nationalism: it seeks some form of world state, with a world government. Very few people openly and explicitly support the establishment of a global state, but political cosmopolitanism has influenced the development of international criminal law, and the erosion of the status of national sovereignty. In turn, nationalists are deeply suspicious of cosmopolitan attitudes, which they equate with treason and betrayal.

[Houston1stWordOnTheMoon]

btw....a soldier's family recieves $400,000 in annuities or lump sum if they wish, if that soldier is killed in action, so the kids aren't gonna go hungry by any means. I don't think the trade off is worth it though.

Wow, it has REALLY increased since i was last in uniform

[Original Timmy Chan's]

btw....a soldier's family recieves $400,000 in annuities or lump sum if they wish, if that soldier is killed in action, so the kids aren't gonna go hungry by any means. I don't think the trade off is worth it though.

Wow...$400,000 x 2,500 = $1,000,000,000 (that's a $BILLION)...just in death benefits.

That's a pretty astounding number.

[Jeebus]

For a war that costs nearly 6 billion a month to operate, suddenly 1 billion is a small figure.

[TJones]

Wow, it has REALLY increased since i was last in uniform

It was probably around $250000 or so right Moonman ?

[westender]

Oh, okay, then by your definition, Mahatma Gandhi is in there as well. There are many different types of nationalism. Like everything else in the world, there are extremes, and you just decided to name every extreme you could possibly pull out of your rear end. Geez, dude. It's like calling George Bush a democrat. He's not conservative, but dang, he sure as hell isn't a liberal. Not that there is anything wrong with being a liberal.

Read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationalism

This segment in particular may help you to understand my perspective:

In the Western world the most comprehensive current ideological alternative to nationalism is cosmopolitanism. Ethical cosmopolitanism rejects one of the basic ethical principles of nationalism: that humans owe more duties to a fellow member of the nation, than to a non-member. It rejects such important nationalist values as national identity and national loyalty. However there is also a political cosmopolitanism, which has a geopolitical programme to match that of nationalism: it seeks some form of world state, with a world government. Very few people openly and explicitly support the establishment of a global state, but political cosmopolitanism has influenced the development of international criminal law, and the erosion of the status of national sovereignty. In turn, nationalists are deeply suspicious of cosmopolitan attitudes, which they equate with treason and betrayal.

I wouldn't use a racist such as Mahatma Gandhi as an example to express how all natinoalists are not bad.

We believe as much in the purity of race as we think they do, only we believe that they would best serve these interests, which are as dear to us as to them, by advocating the purity of all races, and not one alone. We believe also that the white race of South Africa should be the predominating race -Mahatma Gandhi 24 DEC 1903

Maybe the only reason he didn't resort to violence was because the opposition was armed to the teeth and India is predominately Indan. But the again who knows.

Given that you used Wikipedia which isn't the most accurate of informaiton sources in the world, I'll present the definition which most closely describes your statement from the previous post.

Nationalism within a nation

With the establishment of a nation-state, the primary goal of any nationalist movement has been achieved. However, nationalism does not disappear but remains a political force within the nation, and inspires political parties and movements. The terms nationalist and 'nationalist politician

[Parrothead]

Wow, you're sure putting words in my mouth. First of all, I NEVER said our country's ideals were superior to anyone else's, did I? I mean, I am proud of them, proud of our country, proud of my citizenship--does that make me a radical nationalist? NO. It makes me patriotic.

Wikipedia-Nationalists obviously have a positive attitude toward their own nation, although this is not a definition of nationalism. The emotional appeal of nationalism is visible even in established and stable nation-states. The social psychology of nations includes national identity (the individual’s sense of belonging to a group), and national pride (self-association with the success of the group). National pride is related to the cultural influence of the nation, and its economic and political strength - although they may be exaggerated. However the most important factor is that the emotions are shared: nationalism in sport includes the shared disappointment if the national team loses.

Get it straight, please...as I said before, anyone who tries to read any more into my post is grasping at straws. Nice try, though.

[RedScare]

I don't think westender is putting words in your mouth. He just posted a Wikipedia definition, as you did, and allowed the rest of us to compare your Post #1....and your signatures....with the definition, in order to arrive at our own conclusions.

[nmainguy]

Wikipedia is never a good source to hinge your ideology on. If you need facts on the latitude and longitude of Niagra Falls, I'd say go for it. Wikipedia is the lazy person's souce of choice. When you use Wikipedia as the gospel, be prepared to have it come back and bite you on the ass, ala parrot-a classic example.

[westender]

Thank you Red Scare.

By making the statement," The first thing I am is a PATRIOTIC American who would rather see the flag of OUR COUNTRY flying in OUR COUNTRY. Period, " as you did implies a nationalist frame of mind. Of particular note is your You can't escape a debate with cliches such as "grasping at straws," which is nothing more than a weak attempt to de-rail any opponents re-buttal. Are you afraid that your beliefs don't have much of a foundation to stand on? Or that you'll be forced to re-evaluate your position?

[Guest danax]

So being against illegal immigration now makes you, perhaps not only racist, but a nationalist? Things have really progressed towards 1984 style mixed-up thinking.

What about those who believe that the United States unfairly took from Mexico what is now the Southwest of our country, and that it is legitimate for them to ignore U.S. immigration law when illegally crossing the border. I've read that most Mexican nationals believe this. How should they be compared by Americans to the "nationalists" that oppose them?

And what about when the President of Mexico does not try to restrict illegal migration by its nationals to the United States, and in some ways is working to encourage and legitimize it. Mexico is also pursuing policies to exert influence through its nationals and Americans of Mexican ancestry in U.S. domestic politics. Is that not a tad outrageous?

Someone flying their home country's flag is not a big deal, but when the above mentioned is taking place, should we not wake up a bit and take notice? Since when is that racist or nationalist?

There can be true racism disguised sometimes hiding behind a flag, but there can also be compassion for all human beings and support for strong "nationalist" policies like controlling the borders at the same time.

So is it nationalist to even have a fence at the border?

[TheNiche]

Thank you Red Scare.

By making the statement," The first thing I am is a PATRIOTIC American who would rather see the flag of OUR COUNTRY flying in OUR COUNTRY. Period, " as you did implies a nationalist frame of mind. Of particular note is your You can't escape a debate with cliches such as "grasping at straws," which is nothing more than a weak attempt to de-rail any opponents re-buttal. Are you afraid that your beliefs don't have much of a foundation to stand on? Or that you'll be forced to re-evaluate your position?

This continues to be an absurd debate.

Parrot can't argue her point. She shouldn't have even attempted to and has completely warped the meaning of what she was trying to say by even responding to the superior counterarguments made by her opposition. I say this because I get the sense (and could admittedly be wrong) that the condensed aggregate sum of everything Parrot has said can be written in a very simple sentence: "I like the American flag and what it stands for."

As far as I'm concerned, this is a statement no more or less inflammatory than "I'm proud of my home" or "I like old homes." She is neither right or wrong because she simply expressed preference, just as I personally like Cheetoes...albeit in a completely ineffective and circuituitous manner that was subsequently corrupted by her own poor responses.

We're now on Post 141 of this thread...can we be done with it?

[MexAmerican_Moose]

So being against illegal immigration now makes you, perhaps not only racist, but a nationalist? Things have really progressed towards 1984 style mixed-up thinking.

What about those who believe that the United States unfairly took from Mexico what is now the Southwest of our country, and that it is legitimate for them to ignore U.S. immigration law when illegally crossing the border. I've read that most Mexican nationals believe this. How should they be compared by Americans to the "nationalists" that oppose them?

And what about when the President of Mexico does not try to restrict illegal migration by its nationals to the United States, and in some ways is working to encourage and legitimize it. Mexico is also pursuing policies to exert influence through its nationals and Americans of Mexican ancestry in U.S. domestic politics. Is that not a tad outrageous?

Someone flying their home country's flag is not a big deal, but when the above mentioned is taking place, should we not wake up a bit and take notice? Since when is that racist or nationalist?

There can be true racism disguised sometimes hiding behind a flag, but there can also be compassion for all human beings and support for strong "nationalist" policies like controlling the borders at the same time.

So is it nationalist to even have a fence at the border?

nowadays everything that someone says about someone else can be considered "racist"...oh and by the way..for those that think building a fence is a good idea...trust me, it is not. why not build a "virtual fence" we have the technology to do so.

[new major on the block]

I got an idea that will get rid of illegal border crossings and hazardous nuclear waste at the same time. Please for those of you that have a weak stomach, or are sensitive on this issue, do not read.

First you take all the land on our side of the border and move everyone out. You give everybody a few bucks for their inconvenience. You take all of the hazardous waste in the world, and soil the entire side of our border from the surface down to, say 300ft. under ground, deep enough to stop tunneling from occuring. And I'm not talking about using the soft "take a few days to die"nuclear waste, I'm talking about the stuff that when exposed to it will turn you in to instant fossil fuel. I'm sure that after a few days or so there will be a sharp decline in illegal immigration.

Now its not all negative because the waste will actually help the mexican farmers bring in their crops. They will start turning out humongous fruits and vegetables that will jumpstart their economy. The farmers will need laborers, they seem to have plenty, to help move the rediculously large produce from the farms.

Because we will no longer be relying on outside help, the lazy americans and unfortunate homeless will be given these jobs that we used to be unwilling to do. Wellfare will be limited to perhaps the disabled. And add a permanent program that will help single mothers get jobs by providing them with sitters to watch their kids.

[jmancuso]

or we can put sharks with frickin' laser beams attached their heads in the rio grande.

[skwatra]

you forgot to put the quotes around "laser"

but that's a good idea. maybe you should pass that on to the minutemen.

[Montrose1100]

Oh god, put a sock in it already.

Yeah, she's got a lil' captain in her.

[Parrothead]

Yes, apparently now I'm too stupid to even argue my point...thanks Niche. So I'm going back to drinking my rum now Y'all have a great time arguing...I'm done. Trying to defend myself with some of you is like wrestling in the mud with a pig; the pig likes it and you just get dirty. You may like debating like that, but I don't--and I don't appreciate what accounts to nothing more than my simple ideal of patriotism turned into some sort of racist hate machine over and over by the idiotically smug liberals on this board who have nothing better to do. Toodles!

[TJones]

As far as I'm concerned, this is a statement no more or less inflammatory than "I'm proud of my home" or "I like old homes." She is neither right or wrong because she simply expressed preference, just as I personally like Cheetoes...albeit in a completely ineffective and circuituitous manner that was subsequently corrupted by her own poor responses.

DOWN WITH CHEETOS ! VIVA LA KETTLE BRAND CHIPS !

[westender]

Yes, apparently now I'm too stupid to even argue my point...thanks Niche. So I'm going back to drinking my rum now Y'all have a great time arguing...I'm done. Trying to defend myself with some of you is like wrestling in the mud with a pig; the pig likes it and you just get dirty. You may like debating like that, but I don't--and I don't appreciate what accounts to nothing more than my simple ideal of patriotism turned into some sort of racist hate machine over and over by the idiotically smug liberals on this board who have nothing better to do. Toodles!

Oh you mean kind of like the idiotically smug social conservatives such as yourself, with nothing better to do. "Pot calling the kettle black!?" First of all my problem with your statement is that you hear a word like most other Amerikans in some form of media and begin using it without knowing its definition. In turn making a complete literary arse of yourself.

Second of all, if you're going ot make an argumentive statement on a public message board expect to be debated. Some of your opposition did get a bit nast but that's to be expected with passionate topics. However, when faced with those who had solid arguments, you ran for cover. That gives the impression that you are not completely sold by your own beliefs or that you aren't intelligent enough to argue a point. In either case it's best that you refrain from posting a controversial post next time.