#1 Someone Asked me Why I Hate my Country
11-15-2010, 12:41 PMSomeone Asked me Why I Hate my Country
- Join Date
- Jul 2009
The question was meant to be facetious, not insulting. But still, it caused me think about the issue – what it means “to hate” or “to love one’s country”.
It is an issue on which the elites who control our country – our elected politicians, as well as those who pay them to do their bidding – place a great deal of emphasis. More specifically, they use it to marginalize those who disagree with how our country is run.
These are the elites who refer to those who express opinions against the wars that they generate or support as “unpatriotic” or “treasonous”. They are the people who use the term “class warfare” to attack those who believe that the wealthy should pay their fair share of taxes, commensurate with what their country does for them. They are those who use the epithet “socialist” to describe anyone who believes that government should play an active role in providing opportunities for the most vulnerable of our citizens. They coined the term “loony conspiracy theorist” to describe anyone who expresses serious disagreement with their own version of history. They wield the term “big government” to express their ideology that only private individuals and corporations are capable of making contributions to society, thereby advancing the argument that the government that governs least is the government that governs best. They use the term “bleeding heart liberal” to describe anyone who expresses empathy for the unfortunate.
The United States exhibits the greatest level of income inequality of any of the rich nations of the world. Consequently, as of 2007 a study showed that more than a third of the wealth in the United States was held by the top 1% of households, while about 15% was held by the lower 80%.
Income inequality in the United States plunged during the 1930s with the onset of FDR’s New Deal. It then remained quite low for several decades, until the beginning of Ronald Reagan’s Presidency. It then began a precipitous climb, with a sharp decline beginning during the last year of Clinton’s Presidency, but then another sharp increase beginning at about the time that the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy first went into effect, so that by the end of 2006 we exceeded even the peak ratio of 1929 that preceded the Great Depression.
Epidemiologists Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett demonstrate in their book, “The Spirit Level – Why Greater Equality Makes Societies Stronger”, numerous non-economic consequences of obscene income inequality that are independent of absolute income or wealth. These consequences include more mental illness, greater use of illegal drugs, higher imprisonment rate, higher infant mortality rate, more homicides, lower educational performance of our children, lower index of child well-being, lower trust in our fellow citizens, and lower status of women, among other adverse societal effects.
A nation’s level of income and wealth inequality is largely a product of its laws and policies. A high level of national income and wealth inequality generally means that its elites have been successful in arranging its laws and policies to enhance their own wealth and power at the expense of everyone else.
Read the whole, long, irrational screed.
"I don't know why anyone would say that I hate my country. I just hate everything about my country, that's all."
What a pathetic life these people lead. Sheesh.Olde-style, states' rights conservative. Ask if this concept confuses you.
11-15-2010, 01:08 PMI’ve said before that the question of “loving your country” is so abstract as to be almost meaningless. What does it mean? Does it mean loving the laws and policies on which your country is based? Does it mean loving your country’s leaders? Does it mean loving most or all of your country’s citizens? Does it mean loving the physical geography of your country?
It can mean any or all of those things, and more. In my own personal view, loving or hating your country means above all loving or hating what your country does. What your country does is determined largely by its leaders. But all of us deserve at least some part of the credit or blame because to varying degrees we all support or enable what our country does, or we take various measures to cause it to follow a different path.
He goes on to list specific things done by our country('s leaders) which he hates.
Of those things, are any of them non-factual?
If not, do you disagree? Do you love those things your country does?
Just curiousOriginally Posted by Adam Smith - Wealth of Nations
11-15-2010, 01:13 PM
I say DEATH TO GEORGE SOROS because he has more money than I do, and he doesn't produce any products, or mow his own lawn, or cook his own food.........jeeze
Four boxes keep us free: the soap box, the ballot box, the jury box, and the cartridge box.
THIS POST WILL BE MONITORED BY THE NSA
11-15-2010, 02:21 PM
- Join Date
- Jun 2005
- Woodland Park, Colorado, United States
Is the country better off now than two years ago?
What other country gives you the opportunity afforded in this country that liberals cannot seem to love and desire so badly to change?
Reagan had the greatest impact and the longest period of economic growth. Was that better than his predecessor?
GW Bush presided over a country that had growth, prosperity, and the lowest unemployment rate in the history of the country. How's O Blah Blah match up?
Why don't you liberals love your country? And spare us your false misunderstanding of what that means. You well know as the idiot poster knows what it means. You just aren't comfortable with your answers.Education without values, as useful as it is, seems rather to make man a more clever devil.
C. S. Lewis
Do not ever say that the desire to "do good" by force is a good motive. Neither power-lust nor stupidity are good motives. (Are you listening Barry)?:mad:
11-15-2010, 03:26 PM
- Join Date
- Jul 2009
The rest of these "facts" are meaningless. "Income inequality" is nothing but an envy-based rationalization for Leftist feel-goodism and attempts to create cosmic sameness by using the force of government to re-distribute wealth to themselves when they didn't earn that wealth. The "money in politics" screed is meaningless. There's money in politics everywhere in the world; that's hardly unique to the United States. "Rampant militarism" is a ludicrous whine. When moonbat there decides that it's OK if we don't protect the whole of Canada and Europe, then the "rampant militarism" will dry up, along with all those jobs.
Olde-style, states' rights conservative. Ask if this concept confuses you.
|« Previous Thread | Next Thread »|