I'll agree to disagree.userque wrote: Ok, we're shifting to a Trump v. Obama discussion.
You're talking abstractly. You've presented nothing to support your allegations. So, I'll simply say, you're wrong.
I didn't say that, it was the Founders who held the view that politics is generally dangerous to the proper views of a patriot, and so politics is best avoided to as much extent as possible. I agree with them.Why do you say that true patriots don't strive for higher office or political power. You are essentially saying that no politician is a true patriot.
On politics:
"When once a man has cast a longing on offices, a rottenness begins in his conduct." Thomas Jefferson, in a letter to Tench Coxe, 1799
"Party-Spirit is an inseparable appendage of human nature. It grows naturally out of the rival passions of Men, and is therefore to be found in all Governments. But there is no political truth better established by experience nor more to be deprecated in itself, than that this most dangerous spirit is apt to rage with greatest violence, in governments of the popular kind, and is at once their most common and their most fatal disease." Hamilton, The Defence No I, 1792
"If I could not go to heaven but with a party, I would not go there at all." Jefferson, in a letter to Francis Hopkinson, 1789
"No sooner has one Party discovered or invented an Amelioration of the Condition of Man or the order of Society, than the opposite Party belies it, misconstrues it, misrepresents it, ridicules it, insults it, and persecutes it." John Adams, in a letter to Horatio Gates, 1813
"There is nothing which I dread so much as a division of the republic into two great parties, each arranged under its leader, and concerting measures in opposition to each other. This, in my humble apprehension, is to be dreaded as the greatest political evil under our Constitution." - Adams, in a letter to Johnathan Jackson, 1780
"Men by their constitutions are naturally divided into two parties: 1. Those who fear and distrust the people, and wish to draw all powers from them into the hands of the higher classes. 2. Those who identify themselves with the people, have confidence in them, cherish and consider them as the most honest and safe, although not the most wise depository of the public interests." Jefferson, in a letter to Henry Lee, 1824
As for how this relates to patriotism, they said:
"To render us again one people, acting as one nation, should be the object of every man really a patriot. I am satisfied it can be done, and I own that the day which should convince me of the contrary would be the bitterest of my life." Jefferson, letter to Thomas McKean, 1801
"It is in the man of piety and inward principle, that we may expect to find the uncorrected patriot, the useful citizen, and the invincible soldier. God grant that in America true religion and civil liberty may be inseparable and that the unjust attempts to destroy the one, may in the issue tend to the support and establishment of both." John Witherspoon, 1776
"Guard against the impostures of pretended patriotism." George Washington, Farewell Address, 1796
In sum, I feel that there is sufficient evidence that the Founders believed that career politicians were not men to be trusted, who tended toward personal gain and evil intent, and that true patriots entered into politics only out of necessity rather than ambition. This is in evidence in the early days of the country, when Congress was in session for only six months at a time in order to allow the elected members to return home to their businesses and farms. Doing politics was seen as a duty to be met, not a job to pursue.
Um...then I must have misread you wrong when you said:I never said, nor implied that.Why is knowledge of monetary policy, budgeting, and the other things I listed "unreasonable and subjective" in terms of what skills are valuable to serve as President? What skills do you instead assert are necessary to serve in the office?
Can you clarify?Quote Aitrus:
Similarly, I could agree that Trump lacked certain kinds of experience - on both the State and Federal level. However, he had a lot of experience in other areas that are important to the office as I mentioned previously. I think that - taken as a whole - Trump's experience better prepared him for the office than Obama's did. [endquote]
I agree to disagree. And won't debate such an unreasonable and subjective assertion.
No, just that they are listing themselves as having dual allegiances, when in fact they may not have such conflicting allegiance. For the purpose of clarity, I would consider an Italian-American to be somebody of dual citizenship. If they are instead an American citizen with Italian heritage and genes, then that's what they are: an American who happens to have an Italian heritage, but who is still just an American. My heritage is Welsh / Irish / Scandanavian, yet I don't call myself a Welsh-Irish-Viking-American. That's just silly.So, do you believe a US citizen that is an Italian-American--if that person refers to themselves as such--is not an American at all?
There's nothing wrong with somebody holding on to their ancestral roots - something I wholeheartedly support I believe it's important to respect and honor our ancestors. But that's different than using your heritage as a means of either outwardly or passive-aggressively suggest that special treatment or consideration be given due to that heritage. Or - in a bizarre twist - to claim that one's heritage is the sole reason somebody disagrees with you (such as media pundits or college professors who claim that any white person who disagrees or opposes a person of color is racist). Similarly, I see the "choose your race" sections of documents and forms as unnecessary.
First, nice twist on Roosevelt's words to misconstrue his meaning. He was saying that people in America should have allegiance to America first and foremost, and that flying the flag of another nation is akin to stating allegiance to that country. Flying the Confederate flag is a mark of Southern (aka - regional) pride and homage to a history that those in the South understand differently than those who don't live there. It's not explicitly a racist symbol, it's a "If you're not from there, then you wouldn't understand" kind of thing. Flying the flag in no way states that the person flying it does not have allegiance to America.What do you think of all the folks that still proudly fly the confederate flag. A flag of a conquered enemy of the United States Government?
Next, the modern Confederate flag (and the one I'm assuming you're referring to) was only a battlefield flag, not the official flag of the Confederacy. There were actually three official flags of the Confederate States of America, depending on the year in question: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flags_of_ ... of_America
Thus, the modern Confederate flag represents (to those from the South) not racism, but a pride in honoring a spirit of independence, determination, and fierce battle against what they perceived to be an injustice done to them by the federal government of the time.
Lastly, how do I feel about people flying the flag? The same as those who fly a Mexican flag, Gasden flag, a POW flag, NFL team flag, or a State flag in display alongside the American flag. They're allowed to fly it as long as it isn't flown higher than the US flag in the same display. It's not appropriate or acceptable to fly a national flag (Mexican, true Confederacy flag, the UK's Union Jack, etc) alone because doing so claims the ground as belonging to that foreign entity.
Yes, of course they did. During the slave years they contributed significantly to the agricultural production of the nation, as well as afterward as well. Some Freemen also went westward during the expansion era, and some returned to Africa (specifically, Liberia and Sierra Leone) as part of the Back-to-Africa movement of the 1800s - mostly through the efforts of the American Colonization Society. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Back-to-Africa_movement
Do you think African slaves had anything to do with growing the nation? To what degree?
However, the overwhelming majority of nation-building activities during the Expansion era of the country were done so by white settlers, entrepreneurs, businessmen, trappers / traders, and explorers. Non-whites were a minority at that time, although at that time whites viewed clear distinctions among even the various white races. Newly arrived Irish, German, Polish, Scotch, English, French, Italian, Dutch, Swedish, and Russian immigrants - all of these were considered separate races just as much as non-whites were considered separate races. Today all the white races are more or less blended together under the term "white" as if they had a shared history, when they clearly haven't.
Culture: the customary beliefs, social forms, and material traits of a racial, religious, or social group...the set of shared attitudes, values, goals, and practices that characterizes an institution or organization (from Merriam-Webster).
Have you really thought this through? Do you really know what culture is? What is your evidence that having more than one culture present in a nation is bad for the nation? Are you saying that everyone should think the same way, and do the same things, in order that a nation survive for very long. Sounds like China's paradigm.
Of course I know what culture is. No I don't think everybody should think exactly the same way, but in order for a culture to survive it's inhabitants need to be more or less in alignment with one another regarding morals, method of governance, etc. When I talk about culture differences, I'm saying that it's not ok for two cultures with opposing goals and governance to coexist. We see this today in the Middle East, with Israel trying to survive when surrounded by nations that want to see them destroyed. Israel's existence is not compatible with that of Iran, whose leaders continually state the need to destroy Israel. (Source: https://www.theatlantic.com/internation ... el/387085/) Those two cultures cannot coexist on the same land.
Are you saying that we should allow in America the existence and exercise of cultural norms of average Middle East Muslim society - such as throwing homosexuals off buildings and preventing the education of women? It seems like this is what you are implying - that we should welcome all cultures to our shores.
What I'm saying is that the American version of Western Civilization is unique among all of the civilizations of human history, and it's inhabitants have every right to preserve it rather than see it slowly usurped by small degrees over time into something wholly unrecognizable as "America".
I think you're possibly confusing "growing" or "maturing" with "destruction". If you take away that list of things that I mentioned in my last post, then America ceases to exist in all but name because something else will have replaced it. If it adopts socialism or communism as it's means of governence it will have been "destroyed". However, this is different from "growing" or "changing", such as how we abolished slavery through great trial and turmoil. We matured as a country, and rightly recognized the rights of all men (and later women), not just a certain group. This didn't fundamentally change the nation in the same way as abolishing free enterprise, civil liberties, and self determination would under the tenets of socialism or communism.Any country is whatever the people that are alive in that country want it to be. If America now wants to be a country run by a King and his yes-men, then that's what'll be.
Such a change is not necessarily a 'destruction,' just as your personality changing as you became a grown man is also not. No one destroyed your younger personality, you simply changed your likes, motivations, priorities, etc. etc.
I like your analogy of a child growing into an adult. Changing the muscles, preferences, priorities, etc of a child is different than removing the bones - the underlying structure - of the person. The things I listed I view as the "bones" of the country which, if taken away, would surely destroy the nation. Much like our agreement on the office of President, I don't think that the Founders would recognize much of what America is today as being that which they fought and died to bring into being. Yes, we grew and changed - but I'm not altogether sure it was for the better in many cases (we can discuss those if you like).
Good point.For example, a feral child that has only been taught Christianity may still wonder, "where did God come from?" The lack of a response that that mind finds reasonable may cause that mind to reject the only religion s/he's known.
Agreed. Also: for the record, I'm not a Christian. Not that you said I was, but you appeared to perhaps be operating from the perspective that I am, and I wanted to hopefully avoid that confusion.Ah ... we've somewhat stumbled upon the works vs faith thing.
As only God knows the heart, we can only know another by their fruits. You have to ask and answer for yourself, if someone truly believed that murder would condemn them to hell, would they commit a senseless murder?
Regardless, we can never know what's in another's mind or heart. We are relegated to using our best evidence ... actions.
"Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit."
True, however, it still doesn't stop some people from believing in things that are easily disprovable (Flat Earth theory) or things that are clearly debatable - and in some ways disprovable - but seem to become more widely socially accepted in recent years (socialism is good, climate change is bad and caused by man's actions, etc). Just because one is an adult - even an "educated" one - doesn't mean that one is sufficiently knowledgeable or possess enough understanding to be right in most cases - Congress, for example.Probably. But the child will grow up. As an adult, s/he knows not to rely upon childhood beliefs. Unicorns and pots of gold, talking mermaids and sponges, superman, wonder twins, the boogie man, everything, etc. etc.
We are taught a lot as a child, but as an adult, we confirm or deny those beliefs.
"When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things."
I do understand the difference between ignorance of a topic and intentionally / knowingly omitting relevant information in order to drive a narrative.Yes, those in charge, get to write the history books etc.
Btw, we've both used the term, but I wanted to clarify:
An omission or false statement is not necessary a lie. Lying requires intent. The teacher in our example may be ignorant to the omission, and therefore isn't lying, even though she is omitting information. You'll have to go further up the chain to find the liar(s). Is it the author of the book? His sources? The publisher? The school board that chose the book? All of them?
I don't know if you've noticed, but many of our criminal statutes include the word "knowingly."
Are you saying that if a teacher were to somehow not know that socialism, communism, and other forms of authoritarian government killed hundreds of millions of people last century, and that it's therefore ok for that teacher to not talk about those consequences in civics and history classes? If so, then that teacher shouldn't be teaching.
(source: https://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/POWER.ART.HTM)