<p>^^^</p>
<p>Wow. That was truly epic.</p>
<p>EDIT: Also, looking over some of your other posts, I think I love you. You are truly an insightful individual.</p>
<p>I don't think patriotism is the possession of either side of the political isle.</p>
<p>Over the past 40 years, liberals have been quick to criticize the government, but that does not make them unpatriotic. Conservatives have traditionally been slower to publicly criticise (that is rather normal, for the conservative mindset).</p>
<p>Liberalism is no more intellectual than conservatism. They simply differ on philosophies. Liberalism tends to focus on the good of the group, whereas Conservatism has traditionally focused on the individual...at least when discussing 20th century "liberals" and "conservatives." This generalization, of course, discounts certain groups and is not perfect by any means.</p>
<p>
[quote]
liberals have been quick to criticize the government, but that does not make them unpatriotic.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I think there's a lot of truth to that statement. The problem is the the "criticizism" has gone far past that point and into straight out "bashing" other parts of the government. Now, this is not a "liberal" issue. It's a politician issue. It occurs on both sides of the party line. And it needs to stop if this country is to go further.</p>
<p>"Wow. That was truly epic.</p>
<p>EDIT: Also, looking over some of your other posts, I think I love you. You are truly an insightful individual."</p>
<hr>
<p>Yeah, sorry. I should edit my thoughts down more. Who reads all that? There's just so much complexity to such a seemingly simple question. </p>
<p>Right back at ya though - reading through your posts, you must be a lawyer or at least political science guru.</p>
<p>Well played, indeed.</p>
<p>Yes, I love America. </p>
<p>Not sure why liberals can't say the same thing. Why include qualifiers (like, "Well, I disagree with the policies, but yes" or Applejack, who suggests patriotism is a product of being "very young" and ignorantly suggests liberals as being more "intellectual." No one asked you to "edit your thoughts down more." Suggesting you must dumb yourself down to talk to us is mind-numbingly pretentious)</p>
<p>There's nothing wrong with loving America without rationally weighing all the pros and cons of the details of our policy. America is all about people who think like oakmom, though provides everything for everyone regardless</p>
<p>
[quote]
Not sure why liberals can't say the same thing. Why include qualifiers (like, "Well, I disagree with the policies, but yes"
[/quote]
The difference is that conservatives and Republicans (in general, not saying all) love America as it is, no matter what, and view it as the best country in the world. Liberals and Democrats (in general) love it so that they want it to be the best country in the world, both in their opinion and in fact - that is why they point out where we're doing bad things, to make America great - to remedy those problems.</p>
<p>I am an American citizen, politically libertarian, who has lived in a number of other nations in the world. I respect and appreciate America very much, and there is no other nation I will ever claim as my own. However, I only love people, not places or things, so I do not love America.</p>
<p>Applejack, who suggests patriotism is a product of being "very young" and ignorantly suggests liberals as being more "intellectual." No one asked you to "edit your thoughts down more." Suggesting you must dumb yourself down to talk to us is mind-numbingly pretentious)"</p>
<hr>
<ol>
<li><p>I didn't say being patriotic is a product of being "very young". I said I was very patriotic when I was young. Obviously, most young people begin liberal and become conservative as they amass financial and social stability and do not want to disturb the status quo that sustains them. </p></li>
<li><p>I only meant I should have edited my thoughts for space, not dumb them down. Read before you assume. It might make your argument about intellectualism a little more believable.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>America's values disregard people who are unfairly disadvantaged. "Rugged individualism" and "laissez-faire" my foot. It's just an excuse for letting the income gap become as cavernous as conveniently as possible for the richest 5%.</p>
<p>People in this thread are using quotation marks way too often.</p>
<p>
[quote]
And it needs to stop if this country is to go further.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>So it's our job to shut up and look convinced?</p>
<p>Disgusting.</p>
<p>Constructive criticism is what is needed...unfortunately most people don't add anything constructive to what amounts to "bashing." This occurs on both sides of the aisle.</p>
<p>FNS, do you even read what I post before you destroy it?</p>
<p>If you'll read what I put, you'll see I think criticism is a GOOD thing. The problem is our politicians BASH each other instead. This is evidenced by all the people who sat there and blamed President Bush after HURRICANE KATRINA as if he could do something to prevent a NATURAL Disaster.</p>
<p>i love everyone</p>
<p>hops_scout - </p>
<p>People blamed Bush for Katrina not because they expected him to prevent a natural disaster, but because of what is expected of a federal government in the aftermath of such a disaster.</p>
<p>Bush sat vacationing on his ranch in Crawford for days while the city of New Orleans drowned. </p>
<p>He did a brief fly-over to scan the damage from above.</p>
<p>Bush appointed one of his cronies to lead FEMA whose most relevant professional experience had to do with horses.</p>
<p>At the height of the crisis, Brown, that FEMA chief, was writing emails cracking jokes and getting advice to role his sleeves up when he's on TV so it would look like he's working hard.</p>
<p>It took almost a week for the wealthiest country in the world to save its citizens from a natural disaster who were too poor to just up and leave.</p>
<p>hop_scout. The morally reprehensible behavior demonstrated by the government (on all levels) cannot be justified or written off as "Bush bashing". The government deserved to be charged with treason against its responsibility to the people.</p>
<p>Does that include the crazy mayor of New Orleans and the governor of Louisiana too? Because they played a major part of the "flop" that took place in the aftermath as well. But they don't get blamed..</p>
<p>The city has to request the help from the state. The state has to request help from the Feds. The Feds are not going to just move in.</p>
<p>"demonstrated by the government (on all levels) "</p>
<p>Yes, if you read, it does. It does not free the federal government of responsibility.</p>
<p>
[quote]
This is evidenced by all the people who sat there and blamed President Bush after HURRICANE KATRINA as if he could do something to prevent a NATURAL Disaster.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>This is the most ridiculous statement I've heard all week. Bush appointed a political hack with no professional experience to head FEMA. This is who "Brownie" was. It's not that people expected Bush to be able to thwart a natural disaster, but that there was no competence to address what happened. It's that the so-called "MBA President" hired a bunch of flunkies. They royally screwed up. It was a natural disaster that didn't hit New Orleans without some notice. FEMA under Clinton was a highly professional organization. There was a huge contrast.</p>
<p>A constructive criticism related to this is to suggest that never again should FEMA be managed by political hacks.</p>
<p>Wasn't Brownie something like the ED of the Arabian Horses Association before heading up FEMA?</p>
<p>
[quote]
It was a natural disaster that didn't hit New Orleans without some notice.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>So why didn't the mayor and the governor get people out?? Instead they chose to blame the Feds because it's all their fault.</p>
<p>Look, I'm not saying the Federal Government didn't screw up, but people have no problem blaming the Feds but those same people won't blame the state or local levels for having not done more.</p>