Patriot Games

[SueScribe]

Anyone else sick and tired of hearing/reading the word "Patriot" as though it's a test, a Higher Authority, an ordination from The Almighty?

Who and what, precisely is a "patriot" ?

Let me begin:

It's what or who each of us want it to be, kinda like the human a$$ -

Everyone has one, but all of them are different.

A perception that becomes a reality.

A state of mind or mindlessness.

Words to some, action to others, or neither or both.

It's a seven-letter word.

[SueScribe]

On that note:

Good night - and good luck.

[endofthetrail]

Its a football team in New England and a missile that the gov. owns:clap::clap:

[onlyme]

Somebody who never criticises the administration :evil:

[Bee Line]

Somebody who never criticises the administration :evil: That would leave me out. I've found very little to praise this administration for.:smt009

[shultz dooley]

I kind of like the word patriot, I just wish there were more I could properly assign this tag to. I guess I have a very romantic picture of what a patriot is. I somehow always seem to think about Mel Gibson and Braveheart, John Wayne and the Sands of Iwo Jima, the Revolutionary War, Audie Murphy, Sgt. York, Word War I and World War 2. I guess to me, it is a young person, who through destiny or chance is thrust into battle and with complete disregard for his or her life, rises above the fear and performs his or her duty to God, Country, Comrades in arms, and their fellow man. Which would leave out most of those running for one office or another.

[onlyme]

That would leave me out. I've found very little to praise this administration for.:smt009

Wanna start a club? ;)
IMO a patriot is a believer in ethical behavior who tries to do what's best for his/her country and its citizens regardless of political, religious or ethnic affiliation. An immigrant can be more of a patriot than an indigene.

[Remington]

I guess for some, the definition of a patriot is not unclear. It seems to be one of those terms with a definition that has become a "living" definition. That's because so many do not love and believe in the traditional reasons on why this country was founded and what made her strong. But those who want to criticize the things that made this country strong don't want to be thought of as unpatriotic, so they change the meaning of patriotism. That way, they can despise this country and all the principles that made her strong and still claim to be patriotic.

This country was founded on very conservative principles and this country was hard core conservative until the last few decades. So how else do you resolve the problem of hating all of that and not be considered "un-american"? Simplest way is to re-write the history books and change the meaning of words like "patriotism".

[EricStratton]

You're my boy, Remington, but I disagree with a large portion of your post....I don't think this country was founded on conservative priniciples at all....quite the opposite, in my humble and amatuer opinion.....I belive our founding fathers were radicals....I don't know if they were conservative or liberal or none of the above because I think our perception of "conservative" is based upon the conservative principles of today, and I don't believe Thomas Jefferson or George Washington or John Adams or any of the other white dudes who founded this great nation were totally in line with the conservative principles of the present...

[EricStratton]

I also believe....firmly and wholeheartedly....that one of the great things that made our country strong and will continue to strenghten our country is our freedom to criticize our goverment...the Bush administration tried to restrict this core freedom established by our founders and failed miserably....

[SueScribe]

I guess for some, the definition of a patriot is not unclear. It seems to be one of those terms with a definition that has become a "living" definition. That's because so many do not love and believe in the traditional reasons on why this country was founded and what made her strong.

Her? :confused:

. . . But those who want to criticize the things that made this country strong don't want to be thought of as unpatriotic, so they change the meaning of patriotism. That way, they can despise this country and all the principles that made her strong and still claim to be patriotic.

HER ?? :smt037

. . .This country was founded on very conservative principles and this country was hard core conservative until the last few decades. So how else do you resolve the problem of hating all of that and not be considered "un-american"? Simplest way is to re-write the history books and change the meaning of words like "patriotism".

"Hate" and "despise" ??

To categorize the Founding Fathers and the militia and Continental Army that carved out the colonies would, I submit, be considered Flaming Liberals by today's standards. "Hard Core Conservatism" began with the likes of Joe McCarthy and the Founding Fathers of Corporate Greed, the "My Way Or The Highway" crowd, the Salem Witch Hunters, to name but a few. The present-day "hard core" conservatives appear to believe that Patriotism is reserved for ideologies they deem appropriate. The rest of us?

Well. We "hate" and "despise" our country, I reckon. Not to mention: We're God-less, morally bankrupt terrorist sympathizers, out to tax and spend ourselves just to upset the no-tax-and-spend-anyway crowd who obviously believe sacrifice for one's country is a calling meant only for the volunteer military and the the less-privileged among us.

Think of this, if you will:

The present War In Iraq / War On Global Terrorism is the one and ONLY war this nation has fought wherein NO ONE, other than the all-volunteer military, were asked to sacrifice squat.

*Sue waves hand over thread* Sacrifice is for the few, privileged Patriots. You can go about your business now. There's nothing to see here.

Sue

Just my take on things, of course.

[hendrixfreak70]

Her? :confused:



HER ?? :smt037



"Hate" and "despise" ??

To categorize the Founding Fathers and the militia and Continental Army that carved out the colonies would, I submit, be considered Flaming Liberals by today's standards. "Hard Core Conservatism" began with the likes of Joe McCarthy and the Founding Fathers of Corporate Greed, the "My Way Or The Highway" crowd, the Salem Witch Hunters, to name but a few. The present-day "hard core" conservatives appear to believe that Patriotism is reserved for ideologies they deem appropriate. The rest of us?

Well. We "hate" and "despise" our country, I reckon. Not to mention: We're God-less, morally bankrupt terrorist sympathizers, out to tax and spend ourselves just to upset the no-tax-and-spend-anyway crowd who obviously believe sacrifice for one's country is a calling meant only for the volunteer military and the the less-privileged among us.

Think of this, if you will:

The present War In Iraq / War On Global Terrorism is the one and ONLY war this nation has fought wherein NO ONE, other than the all-volunteer military, were asked to sacrifice squat.

*Sue waves hand over thread* Sacrifice is for the few, privileged Patriots. You can go about your business now. There's nothing to see here.

Sue

Just my take on things, of course.

I would say libertarian, not liberals. They were skeptical of government as an entity. Thomas Jefferson and James Madison more so than most but still very skeptical. They viewed government as becoming potentially all-powerful, that is why they sought to limit its role. Liberals, by todays standards do not care how big government gets, and if they do then they are libertarians. Libertarians generally are (liberal on social issues) and (ultra and extremely conservative on fiscal issues) and hate them some big government. Call me a Christian Libertarian Minarchist. Or CLM fo shawt.

[threekidspa]

I think the winner gets to define who the patriots and traitors are. I also think 'patriot' and 'hero' are often used as synonyms when I'm not sure they really are.

[onlyme]

I think the winner gets to define who the patriots and traitors are. I also think 'patriot' and 'hero' are often used as synonyms when I'm not sure they really are.

Agreed. Just look at the current situation in Iraq: I am sure that many Iraqis see the insurgents as true patriots whereas we seem them quite differently. Was the American revolution fought by patriots or rebels/terrorists?

[hendrixfreak70]

Agreed. Just look at the current situation in Iraq: I am sure that many Iraqis see the insurgents as true patriots whereas we seem them quite differently. Was the American revolution fought by patriots or rebels/terrorists?

I have said a million times that I understand why the Iraqis hit us with IEDs. Doesn't mean I didn't shoot back to try and save my ass. Terrorism/terrorist depends on the perceiver. The second half of my undergrad in history and political science revolved around the 'definition' of terrorism. For me, terrorism is a word overused and less-defined than just about any other word.

[threekidspa]

I have said a million times that I understand why the Iraqis hit us with IEDs. Doesn't mean I didn't shoot back to try and save my ass. Terrorism/terrorist depends on the perceiver. The second half of my undergrad in history and political science revolved around the 'definition' of terrorism. For me, terrorism is a word overused and less-defined than just about any other word.
I think that's my point. People behave heroically, and usually all who look at them can agree that the deeds were heroic, regardless of which side you were on. Being a patriot aligns you more with a political ideology, or government, or whatever, but it doesn't necessarily make you a hero.

[SueScribe]

I think the winner gets to define who the patriots and traitors are. I also think 'patriot' and 'hero' are often used as synonyms when I'm not sure they really are.

"Hero" is another subjective categorization that depends upon factors too numerous to mention here, and, as history reveals, is often more a conconction of the times than a subjective reality. "Villian" is another.

One hundred years ago, with no mass communication, there were heroes who were not heroes in contemporary understanding, and "villians" who were not villians. Such are the remarkable effects of historical perspective, viewed in retrospective analysis:

The historical lens examines perceptions that were once reality to the masses, and the truth evolves, changes, and is redefned over time. Such is the basis of my belief that the United States Constitution IS a "living, breathing document" that is not stagnant, nor meant to be construed by its plain text rendering penned by those learned, but time-warped men who signed their names to its text with the best of intentions, the accumulated wisdom at their disposal - given the time in which they lived, in which they were born, in which they experienced the constuct of their being.

The Preamble, however, lives on, grounded in the most basic tenets of humanity, but the rest of our guiding, Constitutional principles either broaden with the horizon of the American culture, or they risk becoming dusty edicts locked in a legal time machine that constrains the growth of our nation.

Ummmm. *where the H did that come from Sue?*

[hendrixfreak70]

"Hero" is another subjective categorization that depends upon factors too numerous to mention here, and, as history reveals, is often more a conconction of the times than a subjective reality. "Villian" is another.

One hundred years ago, with no mass communication, there were heroes who were not heroes in contemporary understanding, and "villians" who were not villians. Such are the remarkable effects of historical perspective, viewed in retrospective analysis:

The historical lens examines perceptions that were once realit to the masses, and the truth evolves, changes, and is redefned over time. Such is he basis of my belief that the United States Constitution IS a "living, breathing document" that is not stagnant, nor meant to be construed by its plain text rendering by those learned, but time-warped men who signed their names to its text.

The Preamble lives on, grounded in the most basic tenets of humanity, but the rest of our guiding, Constitutional principles either broaden with the horizon of the American culture, or they risk becoming dusty edicts locked in a legal time machine.

Ummmm. *where the H did that come from Sue?*

The only thing living about the Constitution is the fact that you can amend it. It is not to be taken up and words moved around and subjected to political wrangling. Both sides of the aisle are guilty of it. I think I realize now that there are two things that are absolute: the Constitution and morality. Just my O.

[Conveyor Belt]

Think of this, if you will:

The present War In Iraq / War On Global Terrorism is the one and ONLY war this nation has fought wherein NO ONE, other than the all-volunteer military, were asked to sacrifice squat.


My memory may be failing, Sue, but if I'm remembering correctly, the last military action this country undertook with non-volunteers was Vietnam. We've been in many more undeclared wars than the current one. Regan years, Bush years, Clinton years, etc. Lots of 'Nation Building' went on during those 3 decades, all with the blood of our soldiers.

[SueScribe]

The only thing living about the Constitution is the fact that you can amend it.

You jumped the gun on my edit. Howevah: I stand by my opinion.

. . . It is not to be taken up and words moved around and subjected to political wrangling. Both sides of the aisle are guilty of it.

Did I also mention that I'm an advocate of stare decisis ?

. . . I think I realize now that there are two things that are absolute: the Constitution and morality. Just my O.

I agree that we have a Constitution, absolutely. Morality, however?

That is no such thing as absolulte morality. Haven't you seen No Country For Old Men ? The Coen Brothers are masters at destroyingi the idea of "absolute morality." (Not to mention Solomon)

Sue