0
   

Is it time to retire the Pledge of Allegiance?

 
 
rabel22
 
  1  
Reply Thu 10 Jul, 2008 06:23 pm
The high military are paid to fight wars. In wars the high military get faster advancement. The lower echelon get killed so the officers can make more money and gain more power. Sometimes its a leg up to the presidency so why would anyone be surprised that a military man would be in favor of unending war. Another rant. Finn can so state. And politicians should be baned from speaking pubically. So should Blitzer at least until he has a brain transplant.
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Thu 10 Jul, 2008 06:38 pm
Finn dAbuzz wrote:
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.

Translation: "all of you others can be free to recite or not recite whatever the hell you want, but I'll be damned if you want me to be free to choose!"
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Jul, 2008 04:29 pm
rabel22 wrote:
The high military are paid to fight wars. In wars the high military get faster advancement. The lower echelon get killed so the officers can make more money and gain more power. Sometimes its a leg up to the presidency so why would anyone be surprised that a military man would be in favor of unending war. Another rant. Finn can so state. And politicians should be baned from speaking pubically. So should Blitzer at least until he has a brain transplant.


Another rant indeed.

You still have failed to make any sort of rational connection between your displeasure with politicians and higher echelon military officers and a reason to do away with the Pledge.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Jul, 2008 04:39 pm
joefromchicago wrote:
Finn dAbuzz wrote:
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.

Translation: "all of you others can be free to recite or not recite whatever the hell you want, but I'll be damned if you want me to be free to choose!"


Don't apply for a job as translator at the UN.

Since you felt my comments were in need of translation, let me try and dumb them down for you:

If you wish to refuse to say the Pledge, then do so, and suffer the non-existent consequences that you and your confreres feel so proud of be willing to shoulder.

But because a minority of you dilitantes object to the Pledge is no reason to eliminate the tradition from our schools and other institutions.

If a legislative ban was the only threat to the Pledge, there would be no threat, but you guys have similarly minded judges to rely upon.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Jul, 2008 04:39 pm
rabel22 wrote:
The high military are paid to fight wars. In wars the high military get faster advancement. The lower echelon get killed so the officers can make more money and gain more power. Sometimes its a leg up to the presidency so why would anyone be surprised that a military man would be in favor of unending war. Another rant. Finn can so state. And politicians should be baned from speaking pubically. So should Blitzer at least until he has a brain transplant.


rabel, You understand the situation very well; military men, especially those in higher ranks must have war to get their promotions, recognition and higher pay. That's what is commonly called "conflict of interest," but many ignore that very important point - even Obama (he's going to talk to the military in Iraq before making his decision). Even when the majority of the American public wants our troops to come home.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Jul, 2008 09:12 pm
cicerone imposter wrote:
rabel22 wrote:
The high military are paid to fight wars. In wars the high military get faster advancement. The lower echelon get killed so the officers can make more money and gain more power. Sometimes its a leg up to the presidency so why would anyone be surprised that a military man would be in favor of unending war. Another rant. Finn can so state. And politicians should be baned from speaking pubically. So should Blitzer at least until he has a brain transplant.


rabel, You understand the situation very well; military men, especially those in higher ranks must have war to get their promotions, recognition and higher pay. That's what is commonly called "conflict of interest," but many ignore that very important point - even Obama (he's going to talk to the military in Iraq before making his decision). Even when the majority of the American public wants our troops to come home.


I'm reluctant to intrude upon this CI/rabel lovest, but what the hell has this shite have to do withe Pledge?

Yeah, I know, I just don't get it how you urban warriors are struggling to take back the country!

Ha ha
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Jul, 2008 09:48 pm
ha ha, right! It's too spacial for you.
0 Replies
 
Rockhead
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Jul, 2008 09:54 pm
Why is all of us repeating a mantra as a unit SO important to the function of us all?

Shocked
0 Replies
 
rabel22
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Jul, 2008 11:27 pm
Rockhead
You don't understand that the people who really run this country need a unthinking do as your told people. The group thing, people singing the star spangled banner, saying the pledge makes it easier to brainwash people into doing things that they would know is wrong if they were thinking instead of doing as a bunch of politicians or military people told them was the thing to do. Fighting wars should be when your country and family is attacked by some foreign power. This fighting terriosts is stupid. Why didn't we fight a war with Mc Vey. Terriosts are almost as insane as Bush and his bunch.
0 Replies
 
Diest TKO
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Jul, 2008 11:47 pm
If our pledge was so easily amended to cater to the weak knee fears of the godless-communist, then it wasn't that strong to begin with. It fell under siege ages ago.

I used to mean something I think. What if anything it stands for today is something much cheaper.

T
K
O
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Sun 13 Jul, 2008 11:38 pm
cicerone imposter wrote:
ha ha, right! It's too spacial for you.


Oh, there you go again with this "too spacial"charge.

Taken a real fondness to this particular insult have you?

Care to explain it so us lesser mortals may understand how we have failed to meet your expectations?
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Sun 13 Jul, 2008 11:57 pm
Rockhead wrote:
Why is all of us repeating a mantra as a unit SO important to the function of us all?

Shocked


Because, like it or not, ritual is essential to human society. Now you and your fellow "Progressives" will likely argue that ritual has no place in your mind set or world.

Baloney!

Every time the "Black National Anthem" is sung : Ritual.

Every time a Democratic nominee's convention committee worries about the nature and color of food to be served: Ritual

Every time a Democrat invokes the memory of John or Bobby Kennedy: Ritual.

What is wrong with requiring our children to engage in a ritual that strengthens their personal affinity with their national community?

Oh, I know...there's that nasty word "require." We should never require anyone, let alone children to do anything!

Well, we require children (and adults) not to urinate wherever they please.

We require children (and adults) not to take whatever item appeals to them, irrespective of who may own it.

We require children (and adults) not to prance around public places naked.

We attempt to require children not bully other children or call them insulting names.

We require children to respect adults --- oops, not so much.

But you're right, it is a silly mantra and no one should be required to do anything.

Because, as anyone who has children will tell you, there is no need for adult intervention in the personal and social development of kids. Leave them to their own devices, requiring nothing, and they will perforce turn out to be find upstanding members of society.
0 Replies
 
Diest TKO
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 Jul, 2008 12:39 am
You're view is far out of focus Finn. You blur the line between ritual and social contract. You blur the line between ritual and rhetoric. In general it would seem you blur the line that borders the concept of ritual on all sides to fit your argument here.

You didn't really tell us why reciting the pledge is meaningful or necessary anymore.

It would be necessary, if it in any way it (or any other words for that matter) truly dictated a person's actions.

It would be meaningful, if we were a nation not willing to sell our honor. Saying "with liberty and justice for all" is meaningless as long as we can bend every rule.

If we are to recite that pledge, we had better live in the country it describes.

T
K
O
0 Replies
 
rabel22
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 Jul, 2008 12:56 am
The pledge is just a bunch of words. for some people it has meaning, for others it has no meaning. Actions are where its at like Bush Jr. did during the Vietnam police action. I don't blame him for not wanting to go to war in Vietnam but see him as a hypocrite for bad mouthing people who don't want to go to Iraq.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Jul, 2008 07:48 pm
Diest TKO wrote:
You're view is far out of focus Finn. You blur the line between ritual and social contract. You blur the line between ritual and rhetoric. In general it would seem you blur the line that borders the concept of ritual on all sides to fit your argument here.

You didn't really tell us why reciting the pledge is meaningful or necessary anymore.

It would be necessary, if it in any way it (or any other words for that matter) truly dictated a person's actions.

It would be meaningful, if we were a nation not willing to sell our honor. Saying "with liberty and justice for all" is meaningless as long as we can bend every rule.

If we are to recite that pledge, we had better live in the country it describes.

T
K
O


We are a nation that is willing to sell our honor?

Really?

How long has that been going on?

I'll hazard a guess that you don't believe this has always been the case, nor that you believe it always will, and so are suggesting that the pledge only be recited when there is an administration in power with which you agree.

By pledging allegiance to a nation's ideal, they keep that ideal as their image of their nation. This is a good thing for our country, because it will continue a tradition where our youth expect their nation to live up to this ideal.

If instead we take your cynical approach and tell our children:

"This nation sucks - and doesn't deserve your allegiance," what is the anticipated result?
0 Replies
 
Rockhead
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Jul, 2008 08:05 pm
Finn, my friend, our Nation has very little honor left.

Reciting a group pledge ain't gonna save it...
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Jul, 2008 08:25 pm
Rockhead wrote:
Finn, my friend, our Nation has very little honor left.

Reciting a group pledge ain't gonna save it...


Rockhead got that right! And it's gonna take a miracle to earn our honor back from those many allies we lost during Bush's tenure.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Jul, 2008 08:47 pm
Rockhead wrote:
Finn, my friend, our Nation has very little honor left.



What utter nonsense.

This is the sort of idiotic shite that results in generalizations about Liberals.

No doubt you considered your reply "oh so clever" (as, apparently, did CI) but it is just a foolish, politically juvenile attempt at being "serious."

Do you clowns really consider it cool and deep to view your country in the worst possible light?
0 Replies
 
Rockhead
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Jul, 2008 09:07 pm
I lost my rose colored glasses a ways back, buffoon.
0 Replies
 
Rockhead
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Jul, 2008 09:08 pm
And I am NOT a liberal, I am anti-stupid...

Shocked
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 0.09 seconds on 06/18/2024 at 10:14:21