0
   

Is it time to retire the Pledge of Allegiance?

 
 
rabel22
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Jul, 2008 12:11 am
Finn
thanks for confirming my post about foreign wars. They are not mentioned in the pledge which was my point. If my home and country was attacked I would be more than willing to fight for family and country but show me why I should fight for Iraq, Israel, Saudi Arabia or any other government because some U.S. politician tells me too.
0 Replies
 
real life
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Jul, 2008 12:25 am
edgarblythe wrote:


This is one thing that makes it insidious - The unthinking part. The kind of patriotism it helps instil is the unthinking kind.



Yeah, it's as bad as teaching a baby to say 'Momma' when he doesn't understand what it means to have been carried in the womb for 9 months.

We shouldn't make children say anything until they understand the words. Rolling Eyes
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Jul, 2008 06:00 am
joefromchicago wrote:
old europe wrote:
[The countries that have a higher percentage of immigrants than the United States include: Andorra, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, Monaco, Kuwait, Macau, Singapore, Bahrain, Jordan, Nauru, Israel, Luxembourg, Liechtenstein, Brunei, San Marino, Saudi Arabia, Oman, Switzerland, Antigua and Barbuda, Australia, Latvia, Canada, Gabon, Lebanon, Kazakhstan, New Zealand, the Gambia, Estonia, Belize, Palau, Austria, Ukraine, Croatia, Cyprus, Ireland, Côte d'Ivoire and Moldova.

A higher percentage of immigrant citizens? Saudi Arabia, for instance, has lots of guest workers, but very few of them have even the remotest chance of becoming citizens of Saudi Arabia. The same is true of the other Persian Gulf states (and Singapore and Switzerland and a few others in your list). I think there's a big difference between admitting people who are essentially migrants (people who are transitory workers, without any reasonable hope of becoming citizens) and immigrants (people who intend to stay and become citizens in their adopted countries). From that perspective, the US has a much better record than Saudi Arabia and its neighbors.


Oh, sure. On that count, Switzerland, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Austria or the United States are possibly doing a better job...
0 Replies
 
Foofie
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Jul, 2008 09:22 am
Is it reasonable to assume that if all states had a referendum on the Pledge of Allegiance, more votes would be for keeping the pledge? Assuming that is correct, in context of the majority of citizens tend towards a degree of political conservatism, I believe; therefore, the initial question is just academic, since this is a democracy.

Personally, I would like the pledge to be used in more places than just classrooms. In the way of analogy, air raid sirens used to be "tested" at noon, during the 1950's, all people today could hear the pledge before the evening news on tv. Naturally, people might not say it, but the message would be effective: You are living in the United States of America.

It could then be referred to as "the evening call to pledge."
0 Replies
 
BumbleBeeBoogie
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Jul, 2008 09:25 am
Foofie wrote:
Is it reasonable to assume that if all states had a referendum on the Pledge of Allegiance, more votes would be for keeping the pledge? Assuming that is correct, in context of the majority of citizens tend towards a degree of political conservatism, I believe; therefore, the initial question is just academic, since this is a democracy.

Personally, I would like the pledge to be used in more places than just classrooms. In the way of analogy, air raid sirens used to be "tested" at noon, during the 1950's, all people today could hear the pledge before the evening news on tv. Naturally, people might not say it, but the message would be effective: You are living in the United States of America.

It could then be referred to as "the evening call to pledge."


Are you saying that the Pledge is a twin of the Muslim call to worship?

BBB
0 Replies
 
rabel22
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Jul, 2008 09:28 am
So foofie you are saying the U.S. public is so stupid that they have to be reminded where they live?
0 Replies
 
Foofie
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Jul, 2008 09:51 am
BumbleBeeBoogie wrote:
Are you saying that the Pledge is a twin of the Muslim call to worship?

BBB


I am saying that if one is eclectic, one can choose things that best serve one's purpose.

Assuming that the future will have larger Muslim communities in many part of the U.S., it might just be nice to have an "evening call to pledge," so Muslims and non-Muslims can feel like part of the same community. Perhaps, like making Hannukah a more festive holiday than what it had originally been (in the 1950's it was a minor holiday of sorts, and then became bigger to allow Jewish children to get nice gifts like Christian children, and not feel left out of the holiday season, I believe). So, in the way of thinking ahead, mixed communities of Muslims and non-Muslims might find an "evening call to pledge" a uniting ritual of sorts.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Jul, 2008 04:49 pm
rabel22 wrote:
Finn
thanks for confirming my post about foreign wars. They are not mentioned in the pledge which was my point. If my home and country was attacked I would be more than willing to fight for family and country but show me why I should fight for Iraq, Israel, Saudi Arabia or any other government because some U.S. politician tells me too.


I'm afraid I don't follow your point.

If you don't want to fight in wars on foreign soil, then don't. It's an all volunteer military and no one is telling you to fight in Iraq or anywhere else.

Since the Pledge does not include an oath to do what you feel strongly you should not (fight in foreign wars), what problem do you have with it?

Pledging your allegiance the flag "and to the republic for which it stands," is in no way pleding to fight in foreign wars, or comply with what some politician tells you you should do.

It seems to me that you folks who resent, are offended by, or reject the Pledge are bringing a meaning to it that is not there.

The pledge is not owned by nor is it the written representation of American jingoists. Refusing to say the Pledge because you do not agree with a certain political point of view is silly.

I simply cannot fathom why anyone would object to pledging their allegiance to the ideal of their nation, unless it involves some petulant sense of safe rebellion.

BTW: The "under God" part is gratuitous, but if it bothers you, skip it.
0 Replies
 
rabel22
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Jul, 2008 09:19 pm
Finn
Bush activated and is still activating solders who had put in their active time and thought they were through with fighting. But the military makes them stay for at least 8 years of duty. I bet that if they had realized that the squinty eyed pri-k would do that to them, they wouldn't have joined in the first place. I have to give the individual solders credit they have more guts than Bush, they didn't sneak out of the military the way Bush did during the Vietnaum police action.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Jul, 2008 09:23 pm
I'd have great difficulty having as my commander in chief who went AWOL during their service - even during a "police action." It's probably a good thing most youngsters of today doesn't know that history.
0 Replies
 
rabel22
 
  1  
Reply Thu 10 Jul, 2008 12:32 am
CI
It should be brought up often so that the youth of today realize that many of the rich and powerful think its OK to feed our youth to the war machine but they, the rich and powerful, are too important to risk their much more important lives.
0 Replies
 
Diest TKO
 
  1  
Reply Thu 10 Jul, 2008 02:00 am
Lee Greenwood wrote:
...And I gladly stand up next to you
and defend her still today...


Well, not him.

T
K
O
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Thu 10 Jul, 2008 04:13 am
cicerone imposter wrote:
I'd have great difficulty having as my commander in chief who went AWOL during their service - even during a "police action." It's probably a good thing most youngsters of today doesn't know that history.

Personally, I consider it to be immoral to make very serious accusations against someone when I don't know whether they're true. President Bush was honorably discharged from the National Guard and there was no AWOL charge against him. Had he actually been guilty of this, I doubt that he'd have survived his two presidential campaigns, since many people were trying very hard to find something provable regarding his National Guard service. Perhaps you believe that any accusation, no matter how little evidence you have of its truth, is justified against a political opponent.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 10 Jul, 2008 11:06 am
Brandon, Most of us who have served in the military knows what AWOL means. Show us where Bush had the authority to be absent without leave from duty for one year?

Ask any active of military veteran what they know about 'AWOL.' Nobody has ever been gone from duty for one year and not be charged with being AWOL - except GW Bush.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Thu 10 Jul, 2008 12:06 pm
cicerone imposter wrote:
Nobody has ever been gone from duty for one year and not be charged with being AWOL - except GW Bush.


Then he must not have been AWOL.
0 Replies
 
username
 
  1  
Reply Thu 10 Jul, 2008 01:04 pm
Or had a daddy with a whole lot of pull.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Thu 10 Jul, 2008 01:34 pm
or maybe the CIA had him working undercover to discover a plot to assassinate the ambassador to Angola.

Rolling Eyes
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Thu 10 Jul, 2008 05:04 pm
rabel22 wrote:
Finn
Bush activated and is still activating solders who had put in their active time and thought they were through with fighting. But the military makes them stay for at least 8 years of duty. I bet that if they had realized that the squinty eyed pri-k would do that to them, they wouldn't have joined in the first place. I have to give the individual solders credit they have more guts than Bush, they didn't sneak out of the military the way Bush did during the Vietnaum police action.


You're ranting.

It is a pledge of allegiance to the flag of the USofA, not a pledge to any particular administration or president.

Whatever you think of Bush should have nothing to do with your willngness to say the pledge. In fact, if you are waiting for a president you can respect before saying the pledge you are actually turning it into an oath of allegiance to a person.

Let's assume that you are right and current volunteers are getting a raw deal. What in the world does that have to do with your refusal to fight in a foreign war?

Are you saying that you would fight in a foreign war if you could be assured that the contract you signed wasn't enforced in full, and in a way you weren't expecting?
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Thu 10 Jul, 2008 05:26 pm
cicerone imposter wrote:
I'd have great difficulty having as my commander in chief who went AWOL during their service - even during a "police action." It's probably a good thing most youngsters of today doesn't know that history.


What that has to do with the Pledge is beyond me as are heartfelt accounts of standing up to playground bullies.

As I see it, the only possibly legitmate gripe about the Pledge is the "under God" bit, and this is easily resolved by not mouthing these two words.

Instead I am seeing either a misdirected statement of opposition to a given administration's policies, or a childish resistance to authority: "No one is going to make me say anything!"

You know what? Don't say the Pledge. Who the hell cares whether you do or you don't? You are hardly sticking it to The Man when you don't and if you feel that by refusing to do so you are fighting the spread of Amerika, then enjoy your silly fantasy.

Burn a flag while you're at it.See if I care.

I will resist you when you insist, based on your childish notions, that we eliminate the ritual of reciting the pledge.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 10 Jul, 2008 05:47 pm
rabel, Did you see this?


BLITZER: How much longer will U.S. taxpayers have to shell out $2 billion a week or $3 billion a week as some now are suggesting the cost is going to endure? The loss in blood, the Americans who are killed every month, how much longer do you think this commitment, this military commitment is going to require?

BOEHNER: I think General Petraeus outlined it pretty clearly. We're making success. We need to firm up those successes. We need to continue our effort here because, Wolf, long term, the investment that we're making today will be a small price if we're able to stop al Qaeda here, if we're able to stabilize the Middle East, it's not only going to be a small price for the near future, but think about the future for our kids and their kids.

******************
You see, it's a small sacrifice no matter how long it takes, because people like Boener doesn't value other people's lives, and they personally sacrifice nothing.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 06/18/2024 at 09:13:18