What is the greatest country in the world today?

I'm galad you said "my president." You can take him to Oklahoma with you.

You can't disinvite me from my own country for the simple fact we don't agree. What are ya nuts?
What are ya, nuts?
Many of my people were here when Columbus set sail on the ocean blue, bringing your kind of nation, but also bringing Ray Charles and my Uncle Henry.

If they didn't die to defend the United States, then what do you think it was? Just curious, what do you value?

Bush was elected. If Kerry would have been elected, do you think he would ask Bush or conservatives as to what he should do? I will answer the question for you. No, he would ramrod his agenda through, inasmuch as he could if he had the votes in Congress to do it, which is no different than what Bush does. Bush can do little or nothing without Congress backing him. Republicans sometimes win elections, get over it. You and your side are not the only ones living here.

okie wrote:

If they didn't die to defend the United States, then what do you think it was? Just curious, what do you value?

The Confederate war dead died to end the United States. You'd have no rant here if they had not failed. Just how dense are you?

. . . and it wasn't for the millions that have died defending the country and the values it stands for.

I think its time to stand up and be counted, and thats what I'm doing here.

There is some dispute about Bush's being elected. Regardless, he was placed in office to serve the entire nation, which he has not done. Clinton was bipartison and in fact selected Republican agenda issues over Democrats at times. Bush sees the Democrats as obstacles to be run over.

My point was precisely that you had made a statistical overstatement, Okie, of at least an order of magnitude. My point was that even the most extravagent estimates of Americans dead in war don't reach one million unless you include the Confederate war dead, who did not die defending the United Staets, or anything which i value. My point is that this is the typical sort of bullshit, wrap myself in the flag grandstanding which the rightwing loves to indulge in, especially when they're peddling "love it or leave it" hatefulness. I did not state you said that all Americans who died had died in defense of the United States. However, you did write:

okie wrote:

. . . and it wasn't for the millions that have died defending the country and the values it stands for.

--suggesting that millions of Americans have died to defend the country. That was a disgusting attempt to wrap yourself in the flag, and you ramped up the hysteria with this:

Quote:

I think its time to stand up and be counted, and thats what I'm doing here.

--as though the very life of the country were at stake in this thread, which is nothing more than a casual discussion. At least it was until you came along to sing The Star-spangled Banner and lay about you with a cudgel to beat down the unpatriotic commie leftists. And that last, of course, because you think you are entitled to make vague references to "the values it stands for," and define what those values ought to be.

I do love my native land, but not for any of the horseshit conservatives like to rant about. And no, you're not going to sucker me into telling you what i value so that you can sneer, or try to claim that we have anything in common. Your sneers are beneath my contempt, and your comradeship nothing i would want.

edgarblythe wrote:

There is some dispute about Bush's being elected. Regardless, he was placed in office to serve the entire nation, which he has not done. Clinton was bipartison and in fact selected Republican agenda issues over Democrats at times. Bush sees the Democrats as obstacles to be run over.

More liberal arrogance, edgar. Bush was elected, no ifs, ands, or buts, unless you listen to kooks. Clinton was not bipartisan. He compromised and voted for welfare reform because it was politically expedient for him to compromise after he had opposed it, and then when it was successful, he claimed it was his issue, which was nonsense. And to be honest, the purpose of politics is to be partisan, to represent your views, and then if you are elected, you are elected to further the views you ran on, not someone elses. I do not want bipartisanship, which is nothing more than liberal bilge anyway. The cry for bipartisanship is loudest when liberals are voted out of being in majority, otherwise they want nothing of it. When Clinton was in office, he pushed his agenda, and when Democrats controlled Congress, they were not bipartisan, they pushed their agenda.

Compromise is sometimes necessary, but that is different than being bipartisan. Politics is partisan by definition and any attempt to claim it should not be is nonsense.

Setanta, I don't really know where you are coming from.

I do not consider myself as a flag waver extreme, but I do love this country, and if you consider that being wrapped in a flag . . .

. . . I think you are a nut

I do not wear shirts with flags on them, and I do not go for gloating, but I see nothing wrong with at least confessing an affection for the country.

I am tired of attitudes that seem to have little appreciation for the country and the opportunities afforded them here.

I am not ashamed of the country, which some appear to be

I have no hesitation to sing the Star Spangled Banner in appropriate venues.

I don't appreciate it butchered to death by people at football or baseball games.

I say, keep it simple. Flying a flag is fine, but should be kept to a certain level and appropriate for the circumstances.

I am frankly tired of commie leftists that use the freedoms of this country to further their agenda, when it seems transparently obvious that if they prefer a system that is radically different from here, why not leave and go somewhere else?

If you call that a "love it or leave it" mantra, so be it, but I think such is justified. Communists that do not believe in freedom can live here and use the freedoms afforded them here to try to promote their system that allows no freedom, and I object to that.

I think that is the true hypocrisy being displayed here, Setanta, so the "love it or leave it" challenge is in fact justified in some cases, although not all.

If the political debate is simply about tweaking the current system we have, I have no problem with it, but I do have a problem with those that want to change the entire system. I repeat, I think too many people have died to not stand up and be counted.