Patriots don't secede

I think, to a degree, there is a lot of truth in the OP.
But I also think that is important to be a good man first, and then a patriot. I think that patriotism is what allowed Communist Russia and Nazi Germany to have such lethal fighting machines. Same with Iran (they had to let a bunch of their fighter pilots, who were trained by the US, out of jail to fight against Iraq. Why did they stay? Probably because their sense of cultural identity--in short, their patriotism--overcame their dislike of their government--the government that had imprisoned them.) I believe that many of the men in the war machines of the above-mentioned countries were honorable men, men willing to die for their country, not their leaders.

You can argue that the American Founding Fathers were not patriots. After all, they were the ones who said "If this be treason, gentlemen, let us make the most of it." And they did. You can argue that the men who attempted to assassinate Hitler were not patriots. Or you could argue that they perceived what was better for their countrymen, and acted on it, and that this makes them true patriots.

But personally, I would rather have my gravestone say that I did the right thing and was considered a traitor for it than have it say that I was a patriot on the wrong side of the fight. Methinks when the state requires sacrificing your soul on the altar of loyalty, being a patriot may simply not be worth it any longer.

Originally posted by Jameliel
reply to post by HopSkipJump

 

You are confusing "patriot" with the following terms: lackey, drone, fool, idiot, blind obedience.

No, the extremist right wingers who fit the terms lacey, drone, fool, idiot, blind obedience are trying to call themselves patriots while talking about wanting to secede. It's their confusion, not mine. If you are a patriot, you don't leave, you fix the problems that exist with your country. They are not patriots, that's not what a patriot is.

For the bunch that's been plastering the thread lately, their idea of the Constitution begins "Once upon a time" because they live in a fairy tale world. They have no concept of what they are proposing and supporting. They are being fed by their puppetmasters and don't realize what their threats would entail.

Luckily, they are only a small fringe of extremists that happen to be really loud and really stupid. No state is going to secede, they are not a majority, they don't have the following that they think they have. They are nothing but a little fringe group that is making the rest of their state look like idiots.

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus

Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck
So...this happened on your watch?

Yes and the Bolsheviks happened on the Russian people's watch. What's your point?

I do not think the two circumstances are equitable. You were not a feudal serf being oppressed by a Tzarist state, and communications are a little better these days. Poor excuse and lousy analogy if things are indeed as bad as you say.

reply to post by StalkerSolent


You seem to have a better grasp than several here have. When the founding fathers were working to make us an independent country, they didn't call themselves "Patriots to England" while doing so. They were well aware that their actions were traitorous to England and stated such.

The fringe groups that are screaming to secede don't realize they are not patriots like they say in their very next breath. If they secede, then they are traitors to the United States, not patriots of the United States. It seems near impossible to get that through their heads though.

reply to post by HopSkipJump
You keep calling it a government. It's not. It's a corporation. United States Inc is a foreign-owned, bankrupt(1933) corporation. NOT a country in the way most people talk about it. The Supreme Court ruled that there are 3 United States. Which one do you think you're in?

Originally posted by Bildo
reply to post by HopSkipJump

 

You keep calling it a government. It's not. It's a corporation. United States Inc is a foreign-owned, bankrupt(1933) corporation. NOT a country in the way most people talk about it. The Supreme Court ruled that there are 3 United States. Which one do you think you're in?

No dear, you are twisting the twistings of the twistings of the talking heads

Originally posted by frazzle
reply to post by Kashai

 

You don't get it Mr. Iaccoca sat down one day with his friends. It was made clear to him that, by doing this the cause of death was really not the accident. Essentially a part that is very important to every vehicle was removed. He made a decision to do something he was told, with certainty would in fact kill people.

He belongs in Prison

Had it been a family member of your's how would you respond

CEOs in any given industry have always done what Iaccoca did and it causes untold deaths on a daily basis. Think pharmaceutical companies and how regulators give carte blanche approval to dangerous products. Think BP and the destruction of an entire ecosystem as well as seriously sickening thousands of people without any penalty (at least to the injured). But you're right, no one in my family died in a Pinto although I have lost loved ones due to collusion between government and boardrooms. There is probably no one in this country today who has not lost someone due to government approved corporate shortcuts and profits, even if they don't know it.

The only reason this Iacocca thing even fits the thread topic is that the US government climbed into bed with corporate moguls well over a century ago. Well actually it goes all the way back to the beginning. So we're at least a century too late and about 222 trillion dollars short on dealing with what they've done to us and solutions aren't exactly thick on the ground. That's why secession seems reasonable as a sort of last ditch effort at taking back what we thought the founders gave to us.

But you can bet they won't let it happen peacefully because they need us more than we need them.

If it goes all the way back to the beginning then clearly this problem is something to deal with, not something to run away from.

A point being how would separating the US make this issue better?

As far as dealing with it peacefully there is something really psychotic about allowing purposefully allowing people to die, because of a profit margin.

Under such circumstances we are no better than slaves. By that I mean, tomorrow you could purchase something that will kill you. The company who made it reconciled to the idea that they will settle in court knowing they will make a profit.

Any thoughts?

Originally posted by HopSkipJump

Originally posted by Bildo
reply to post by HopSkipJump

 

You keep calling it a government. It's not. It's a corporation. United States Inc is a foreign-owned, bankrupt(1933) corporation. NOT a country in the way most people talk about it. The Supreme Court ruled that there are 3 United States. Which one do you think you're in?

No dear, you are twisting the twistings of the twistings of the talking heads

He is not twisting anything. You are simply uninformed.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, INC.
Non-profit Delaware Corporation
Incorporation Date 4/19/89 File No. 2193946

Happy now? I provided you the proof before you even had the chance to ask me for it. Enjoy!

reply to post by Kashai

If it goes all the way back to the beginning then clearly this problem is something to deal with, not something to run away from.

A point being how would separating the US make this issue better?

As far as dealing with it peacefully there is something really psychotic about allowing purposefully allowing people to die, because of a profit margin.

Under such circumstances we are no better than slaves.

If you're talking about secession, way back in the beginning, when the founders were still hashing out the details on how the country should be governed, there were many among the delegates who worried about the vast amount of territory they were planning to oversee. One such was Governor George Clinton of New York, who said: "The extent of many of the states of the Union, is at this time almost too great for the superintendence of a republican form of government, and must one day or other revolve into more vigorous ones, or by separation be reduced into smaller and more useful, as well as moderate ones.'

If you'd like to read his whole article or see what others were saying, it can be found at: www.wepin.com...

If you're talking about government and corporations colluding, check out the pacific fur company and pay special attention to the part about "the politics of doing business". There truly is nothing new in the world.
www.historylink.org...

Originally posted by HopSkipJump
reply to post by StalkerSolent

 

You seem to have a better grasp than several here have. When the founding fathers were working to make us an independent country, they didn't call themselves "Patriots to England" while doing so. They were well aware that their actions were traitorous to England and stated such.

The fringe groups that are screaming to secede don't realize they are not patriots like they say in their very next breath. If they secede, then they are traitors to the United States, not patriots of the United States. It seems near impossible to get that through their heads though.

Thanks HSJ!

I'm trying to take a balanced approach here, both in life, and in response to your post, so bear with me

I think that you can make some kind of a case for patriotism based on love of country if you define the country as the people of the country, not as the state. My dictionary would frown on this definition To be fair, I believe secessionists would argue they are patriots by fighting for the founding ideals of the United States. If I recall correctly, treason in the Constitution is defined only as attempting to overthrow the government, or aiding those who do, and seceding doesn't necessarily involve doing that.

Now, for full disclosure, I honestly would be rather glad if my state seceded. My dictionary defines patriot as a person who "vigorously supports their country and is prepared to defend is against enemies and detractors." I support my country...when I like what they're doing. I'm prepared to defend it from enemies (as long as I'm actually defending it) and detractors, unless I agree with their points. So, what do you think? I like to think I'm at least somewhat patriotic, but not to the point of blind nationalism.

reply to post by HopSkipJump


and what were the patriots before they were patriots...and before they had a country or a government?

Originally posted by Bildo
reply to post by HopSkipJump

 

You keep calling it a government. It's not. It's a corporation. United States Inc is a foreign-owned, bankrupt(1933) corporation. NOT a country in the way most people talk about it. The Supreme Court ruled that there are 3 United States. Which one do you think you're in?

Guess what? The IRS officially became incorporated in that year...

INTERNAL REVENUE TAX AND AUDIT SERVICE (IRS)
For Profit General Delaware Corporation
Incorporation Date 7/12/33
File No. 0325720

The "for profit" sticks out to me more than anything. I wonder who the shareholders are that get the dividents??

And our beloved PRIVATE central bank.......

FEDERAL RESERVE ASSOCIATION (Federal Reserve)
Non-profit Delaware Corporation
Incorporation Date 9/13/14
File No. 0042817

It is "non-profit" because it is a religious entity.

reply to post by JohnnyCanuck

So...this happened on your watch?

Yes, it has. We still have faith in the ballot box. This Nation went left as a matter of education, it can be recovered the same way. There is a lot of work to do,

reply to post by frazzle


Of course the problem has existed like forever in relation to human behavior. The problem is today that such behavior is allowed. Read the responses Mr. Iaccoca (as an example0 may have contributed to the developments of cars upon a world wide scale.

But he still made a conscious effort to allow people to die, for the sake of financial bottom line.

That is murder, no if,and, but or why.

Any thoughts?

reply to post by EarthCitizen07


When did I ever ask anyone to applaud me? I don't post for stars, I post for getting the truth out to people. If you don't like it, too bad.

Socialism is just not compatible with the freedoms and the Constitutional rights enumerated by our Founding Fathers. Socialism is fundamentally opposed to private property and to the free exercise on that property therein, and the right to be secure in our papers on that property.

Also you are right about the fact that the govt allowed the Federal Reserve to become a private central banking system and to abuse the taxpayers with that system of just printing as much money as our corrupt leaders want, including Obama and friends and all their Socialist programs. OH wait, you said the socialist stuff is ok.....so I guess they can print as much money as they want for these programs as long as the corporations don't get any....

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07

Originally posted by JuniorBeauchamp

Originally posted by WaterBottle
reply to post by Observor

 

The whole "real capitalism" argument is a whole bunch of fail.

edit on 21-1-2013 by WaterBottle because: (no reason given)

edit on 21-1-2013 by WaterBottle because: (no reason given)

"Real capitalism" works just fine.

But we do not have "real capitalism", and haven't since Teddy Roosevelt, who was a progressive(socialist lite).

What we have is a facist economy, with Big Brother government favoring corporatism, working hand in hand to regulate and protect big banks and big corporate interests.

The small entrepreneur is squeezed out by protectionist regulations and licensing costs they cannot afford, but big corporations and big banks can.

The only real progressive was JFK and the guy got killed. Teddy Roosevelt like Woodrow Wilson were liberal sellouts to the rockefellers and rothschilds. If you are going to criticise things at least get the labels correct so you don't blame the wrong people and systems.

"Progressives" from the early 20th century became later known as so called "liberals", which means they were socialist lite, kin to the Fabian Socialists in Britain in the early 20th century. They could not call themselves socialists here, so they called themselves "progressives".

So, if you are going to "criticize", learn some actual history and what the terms mean historically.

By the way, JFK was more on line with conservatives and libertarians.

Second what we have is not facism. Fascism(national socialism) makes much more sense then the international capitalism we have now, with big banks and big business completly dominating all the nations including america.

Evidently you did not read what I actually said. I did NOT say what we have is "facism".

What I ACTUALLY said is we have a "facist economy", which we do, as explained.

business owners INVEST their CAPITAL to MAKE PROFIT!

So, I assume you suggest that entrepreneurial businesses operate at a loss rather than a profit.

Yeah, that makes a lot of sense. NOT!

In real capitalism, with real and open markets in which a small entrepreneur can start a business on a level playing field, invest his/her money/capital in their business, with hard work and smart marketing can succeed, is fair and beneficial for all.

reply to post by Kashai

The problem is today that such behavior is allowed.

You obviously didn't read the link about the pacific fur company. That was just one example. It has always been allowed.

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by EarthCitizen07

 

When did I ever ask anyone to applaud me? I don't post for stars, I post for getting the truth out to people. If you don't like it, too bad.

You are not getting much truth out though. More like misinformation/disinformation. I can respect people who have honest opinions to share, regardless if I agree or disagree with them, but how many times have we argued in past when I call you out for mislabeling stuff? I cannot help but think you are doing it intentionally!

Socialism is just not compatible with the freedoms and the Constitutional rights enumerated by our Founding Fathers. Socialism is fundamentally opposed to private property and to the free exercise on that property therein, and the right to be secure in our papers on that property.

Unbelievable! A mixed economy allows for private property. Do you think western europeans lease their homes and cars from the government? That could be true with statist communism but has no bearance in socialism.

And when did I say america must become socialist? I don't mind capitalism that has checks and balances, keeps jobs in america, people pay reasonable taxes and get to keep most of their pay, etc. What I don't like is for the government to be a corporation and to help other corporations rip me off.

Also you are right about the fact that the govt allowed the Federal Reserve to become a private central banking system and to abuse the taxpayers with that system of just printing as much money as our corrupt leaders want, including Obama and friends and all their Socialist programs. OH wait, you said the socialist stuff is ok.....so I guess they can print as much money as they want for these programs as long as the corporations don't get any....

edit on 21-1-2013 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)

Very incoherent!! It seems like you really have no idea what you are talking about.

reply to post by EarthCitizen07


I would have bet my left nut that this thread wouldn't have made it past 5 pages. Considering that the OP, believes that the government is not run by actual people, ( apparrently ghosts) which totally makes elections nothing more than a mere formality........

That Patriots were those who OBEYED everything that their government told them to do..........

Those who oppose even Constitutionally, to obey their government were terrorists...........

And yet, this thread is still going on like a freaking nightmare that makes no sense whatsoever......

Continue........I have two to spare.....

reply to post by JuniorBeauchamp




A picture is worth a thousand words. There is no point arguing with someone who calls night as day, up as down, and black as white. Enjoy your hypocrisy!

(The "best part" is you are calling liberals as progressives)