My country, right or wrong

[Antiganon]

My country, right or wrong; if right, to be kept right; and if wrong, to be set right.

How do you feel about this sentiment? What does it mean to you, personally?

As a proud American, I believe in this quote to the fullest. What makes America great is the freedom we have to speak out and "right the ship" when it steers off course. If not for freedom to speak out against government failings, to freely associate ourselves into political parties in an effort to affect change, to print articles exposing corruption amongst the elected officials we hold to a higher standard, we would be no different than any other country on this earth.

[Endus]

It's about ownership and personal responsibility. If your country's doing right, it's your duty to support that. If they aren't, it's similarly your duty to fight that. Which doesn't mean violence, it means voting, campaigning, providing alternatives, etc.

For instance, every single person who pulls the "both parties are awful" nonsense to explain why they don't vote or treat politics as a joke? They're the problem, not the parties. If the two main parties are that awful, provide an alternative. It's not complicated. That's not the same as saying it's easy, since there's funding issues and such, but the process isn't complicated. People just won't be arsed to make the effort to fix anything; they're too happy complaining and doing nothing.

It's like someone who complains that their steak is overdone and the fries aren't crisp, but they're going to eat it anyway and don't want the kitchen to fix any of it. They're whining, because they like to hear the sound of their own voice, and have no interest in changing a damned thing.

[Deletedaccount1]

If by "country" you mean the state, then I don't think a citizen has any moral obligation to support it no matter what it is doing. If it is does something wrong, I think they have a moral obligation to stand against it.

[Antiganon]

It's about ownership and personal responsibility. If your country's doing right, it's your duty to support that. If they aren't, it's similarly your duty to fight that. Which doesn't mean violence, it means voting, campaigning, providing alternatives, etc.

If by "country" you mean the state, then I don't think a citizen has any moral obligation to support it no matter what it is doing. If it is does something wrong, I think they have a moral obligation to stand against it.

So you would both be in agreement with option 1 then?

[Deleted]

How do you feel about this sentiment? What does it mean to you, personally?

As a proud American, I believe in this quote to the fullest. What makes America great is the freedom we have to speak out and "right the ship" when it steers off course. If not for freedom to speak out against government failings, to freely associate ourselves into political parties in an effort to affect change, to print articles exposing corruption amongst the elected officials we hold to a higher standard, we would be no different than any other country on this earth.

Same as any other western country...

[Deleted]

I dont care much about nations, but I do care about cultures (they differper region, no just per country). Even in my own little country there are huge differenes between cultures and mentalities that can have a big impact on your life.

Also, all my life I tried to be as independent as possible and I think I pretty much succeeded at that. No matter what political party or ideoligy reigns here, I can still do well and because of that I also feel little connection to my country or the people.

Rights are nonsense to me. They can change daily if the people in power decide it. THey are a false believe that you are entitled to something which you really only are ebcause the ones in power let you. Again, being as independent as possible was something my parents thought me from a young age and it makes me loyal to only the ones close to me and proud on the things that I myself accomplish, not what a country accomplishes.

[Antiganon]

Same as any other western country...

Fair enough, but I'm not from any of those countries, nor do I have a vested interest in making sure that those countries do what is in the best interest of their citizens.

[Deleted]

It's up the the world to decide if your country is right or wrong. And no worries, they will also correct your country by all means if it's wrong.

[Deletedaccount1]

So you would both be in agreement with option 1 then?

I put option 3. I don't like framing things in nationalistic terms. There's a great Milton Friedman quote about this.

“In a much quoted passage in his inaugural address, President Kennedy said, "Ask not what your country can do for you -- ask what you can do for your country." It is a striking sign of the temper of our times that the controversy about this passage centered on its origin and not on its content. Neither half of the statement expresses a relation between the citizen and his government that is worthy of the ideals of free men in a free society. The paternalistic "what your country can do for you" implies that government is the patron, the citizen the ward, a view that is at odds with the free man's belief in his own responsibility for his own destiny. The organismic, "what you can do for your country" implies that government is the master or the deity, the citizen, the servant or the votary. To the free man, the country is the collection of individuals who compose it, not something over and above them. He is proud of a common heritage and loyal to common traditions. But he regards government as a means, an instrumentality, neither a grantor of favors and gifts, nor a master or god to be blindly worshiped and served. He recognizes no national goal except as it is the consensus of the goals that the citizens severally serve. He recognizes no national purpose except as it is the consensus of the purposes for which the citizens severally strive.”

― Milton Friedman, Capitalism and Freedom

[Doctor Amadeus]

I will go with number 1, this country has done some very fucking horrible things, none of which is excusable or great, but more over the great thing about this country is that for however bad it might get, there has always been this process of self correction. Something that was much deeper than cheap sentiments and idolic symbols.

However that resolve is not a promise. So while I would remain a defender of any outside threat, the ones inside however are another, and just as serious. I would rather die defending it from outside attack, or internal subversion.

I will not co sign and agree with anybody because of their race, sex, orientation, ideology or political affiliations, unless I specifically pledge to do so. That's unamerican :P

[Thoughtful Trolli]

i picked other

[Independent voter]

No world war in the last 60-70 years so they must be doing something right.

[Antiganon]

i picked other

The first portion of your name appears inaccurate.

[PC2]

It's about ownership and personal responsibility. If your country's doing right, it's your duty to support that. If they aren't, it's similarly your duty to fight that. Which doesn't mean violence, it means voting, campaigning, providing alternatives, etc.

For instance, every single person who pulls the "both parties are awful" nonsense to explain why they don't vote or treat politics as a joke? They're the problem, not the parties. If the two main parties are that awful, provide an alternative. It's not complicated. That's not the same as saying it's easy, since there's funding issues and such, but the process isn't complicated. People just won't be arsed to make the effort to fix anything; they're too happy complaining and doing nothing.

It's like someone who complains that their steak is overdone and the fries aren't crisp, but they're going to eat it anyway and don't want the kitchen to fix any of it. They're whining, because they like to hear the sound of their own voice, and have no interest in changing a damned thing.

Yeah it's all about ownership and responsibility. "both parties are awful" is too nihilistic. It's all about measuring success of the country which is not going to be the exact same under different parties.

A better way of wording non-partisanry is "Both sides of an ideological spectrum can be just as awful". Meaning in principle there's no one place on a traditional political spectrum that is guaranteed to be less awful. As any one particular spectrum such as left-right is narrow enough that it could be exploited by other ideologies.

[Deleted]

Fair enough, but I'm not from any of those countries, nor do I have a vested interest in making sure that those countries do what is in the best interest of their citizens.

Obviously not, though we all should. I'm just commenting on the freedom, which isn't anything particularly special compared to the other civilized countries around the world. In fact, apart from owning automatic weapons, Americans get considerably less freedom than quite a few countries, but we're always going on about how free we are. But then I suppose that comes down to a definition of what a freedom really is. The ability to disagree loudly and make fun of the authority? Sure.

[Tijuana]

It's about ownership and personal responsibility. If your country's doing right, it's your duty to support that. If they aren't, it's similarly your duty to fight that. Which doesn't mean violence, it means voting, campaigning, providing alternatives, etc.

I agree strongly with this statement. Unfortunately, zero Americans on the left agree. Hence all the recent violence from Democrats.

[Antiganon]

I agree strongly with this statement. Unfortunately, zero Americans on the left agree. Hence all the recent violence from Democrats.

You should amend your statement, as I am an American on the left that believes in non-violent protest.

[Tijuana]

You should amend your statement, as I am an American on the left that believes in non-violent protest.

If that is true, you must be pretty upset with your leaders.

Only one prominent Democrat has denounced Antifa. Where is the outrage over that among your party? There isn't one, because you agree with the violence.

Meanwhile, not a single GOP politician did NOT denounce Nazis, because the voters would not have accepted anything else.

It's very clear which side commits violence, and which side supports violence. In both cases, it's the Democrats.

[Antiganon]

If that is true, you must be pretty upset with your leaders.

Only one prominent Democrat has denounced Antifa. Where is the outrage over that among your party? There isn't one, because you agree with the violence.

Meanwhile, not a single GOP politician did NOT denounce Nazis, because the voters would not have accepted anything else.

It's very clear which side commits violence, and which side supports violence. In both cases, it's the Democrats.

You are right, I'm not happy with our congressional leaders. I'm not happy with Antifa committing violence against anyone they deem to be Nazis. I'm also not happy with the inherently violent platform that Nazis espouse, and I can understand people who feel they need to resort to violence to protect themselves from those who would see them removed from their homes, banished to camps, or killed wholesale.

That said, private citizens using violence against other private citizens (who also use violence) is not really the issue here - we are talking about nonviolent protest against the government.

You wouldn't punch the chair of your local school board because he cut funding for after school programs, you protest, hold fundraisers to pay for the cut programs, and run against him.

[Tijuana]

You are right, I'm not happy with our congressional leaders. I'm not happy with Antifa committing violence against anyone they deem to be Nazis. I'm also not happy with the inherently violent platform that Nazis espouse, and I can understand people who feel they need to resort to violence to protect themselves from those who would see them removed from their homes, banished to camps, or killed wholesale.

That said, private citizens using violence against other private citizens (who also use violence) is not really the issue here - we are talking about nonviolent protest against the government.

You wouldn't punch the chair of your local school board because he cut funding for after school programs, you protest, hold fundraisers to pay for the cut programs, and run against him.

The only problem is, Antifa was active for almost two years before Charlottesville. They were doing these same things against main stream conservatives, like Ben Shapiro, an orthodox Jew. Hardly a Nazi, to say the least. If fact, the Anti Defamation League says he is the most targeted person in America for antisemitism from the alt-right. So it seems Antifa agrees with Fascists on more than one thing, aside from violence.

Where is the outrage? Why are ZERO Democrats making a stink about the conspicuous non-denouncement of Antifa? That doesn't seem strange to you, at all?

I would not punch anyone, for saying anything. Aside from free speech, I learned words don't hurt me at a very young age. Sticks and stones, etc.

Lastly, the notion that a couple thousand douche bags (2500 per FBI) have the capability to spread their ridiculous and hateful message is so pants on head retarded, it's barely worthy of correcting. Yet, here we are. We will just pretend like 2500 Neo-Nazis is the exact same thing as the German war machine in the 1930's. Yep, totally the same thing. I mean, Nazism is about to break out any minute here in the US. Any minute.... /end sarcasm