From: Platt Holden (pholden@sc.rr.com)
Date: Sun Sep 25 2005 - 22:18:14 BST
> [Arlo]
> Okay. You defined a "patriot" as such: "Patriot" as defined by Merriam
> Webster: "one who loves his or her country and supports its authority and
> interests." Those characters fail to meet the definition, especially in
> regards to elected "authority." To them, whatever is wrong in the world is
> America's fault.
>
> Perhaps you can claim that your definition of "traitor" is not simply the
> opposite of "patriot". Fine. So, by your definition, Rush Limbaugh is not a
> "patriot", as during the Clinton years he failed to "support its
> authority".
He did not blame Clinton and America for all the world's problems in the
same way as Chomsky, Moore, Mother Cynthia and that crowd blame Bush
and America. But when Clinton committed perjury, the patriotic thing to do
was impeach him.
> [Arlo previously]
> But here you tread into interesting territory. "Leading protests" against
> actions you government undertakes, that YOU find IMMORAL, is a being a
> traitor?
>
> [Platt]
> No. That to give aid and comfort to the nation's enemies is traitorous. Check
> Article 3, Section 3 of our Constitution.
>
> [Arlo]
> You said: I don't recall Limbaugh **leading protests** or giving aid and
> comfort to the enemy when Clinton sent American troops to Haiti and
> Kosovo, or when he bombed Iraq.
>
> So again, I ask, what is the difference between "leading protests" and
> "speaking out on a national radio program" with a stance of dissent from
> White House policies?
You want to compare Mother Cynthia with Rush Limbaugh? She could no
more fill three hours of talk radio than fly to the moon, much less hold an
audience of millions.
> As for "giving aid and comfort to the enemy", are you saying that every
> American citizen MUST accept the government's declaration of who is an
> enemy? What if you, as an individual, disagree? Is it your moral obligation
> to support the government in killing, or speak out against what you
> perceive to be an immorally labeled "enemy"?
Once Congress has committed the country to war, I think it's the duty of
the citizens to support the troops and not undermine their efforts with a
constant barrage of criticism.
> [Arlo perviously]
> Well... then prove me wrong. Show me, in your thinking, where dissent
> vocalized by your Republicrat compatriots is every seen as "traitorous", or
> show me where dissent vocalized by Democrats against Republican actions are
> ever seen as "patriotic dissent". Hmmm?
>
> [Platt]
> I do not consider aiding and abetting our enemies patriotic. Neither
> apparently did our Founding Fathers. Again, I suggest you look up
> "Quisling."
>
> [Arlo]
> Which completely avoids the challenge. Can you name me any instance where
> you felt republican dissent was un-patriotic, or where you feel democratic
> dissent was patriotic?
Sure. Democrats like Senator Lieberman of Connecticut who spoke out
against Clinton's White House sexcapades was being patriotic. Republicans
critical of the Bush Administration's refusal to stop illegal immigration
are being patriotic.
> So I looked up Quisling. So that's the European counterpart to "Benedict
> Arnold".
You got it. Except you don't have to be in the military to be a traitor.
> [Platt]
> The big dichotomy of friend/enemy is one needed for society to survive. As
> Pirsig wrote, "An evolutionary morality would at first seem to say yes, a
> society has a right to murder people to prevent its own destruction."
> (Lila, 13) He then when on to cite the case of the U.S. Civil War.
>
> [Arlo]
> Like all analytic knifings, just because you make it, doesn't mean it's the
> correct division. However, I don't see Pirsig supporting the idea that
> "everything America does is moral", or "every military action undertaken by
> American soldiers in history was morally justified". Or that "an individual
> must accept the government's proclaimation of who is an enemy, and respond
> by killing them."
>
> There are times, sadly, when the cliche "I've seen the enemy, and he is us"
> must be dealt with. To think otherwise is to blindly support social
> patterns over everything else.
You won't find me blindly supporting social patterns like liberal welfare
programs like you do. But when our soldiers are put at risk by duly
constituted democratic authority, I'll support them 100 percent. Finally, if you
know of a better country than America, why not go there? Take about
being a hypocrite!
Platt
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Sep 25 2005 - 23:09:28 BST