TheRPGSite

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/04/20070430-3.html

Everybody bow down and worship your new master!


P.S. Bush has done this every year of his administration.

it just gets worse every time.  why can't he just go play in traffic or something?

if i had one, i would wear it every day.  upside down.  :mad:

Quote from: beeberit just gets worse every time.  why can't he just go play in traffic or something?

if i had one, i would wear it every day.  upside down.  :mad:

 ...and that would be VERY rude to the many servicemen and veterans who also disagree with the current President - and yet served the country you would be insulting.

 In many sub-cultures, wearing a symbol upside down is a major insult. I know in some parts of Biker Culture it is.
I don't recommend you wear that pin upside down near certain biker bars. Many of those Harley riders are also Vietnam vets.

- Ed C.

This isn't new.  

You can blame Eisenhower.

Mind, not all presidents have chosen to officially acknowledge it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loyalty_Day

Quote from: Koltar...and that would be VERY rude to the many servicemen and veterans who also disagree with the current President - and yet served the country you would be insulting.

 In many sub-cultures, wearing a symbol upside down is a major insult. I know in some parts of Biker Culture it is.
I don't recommend you wear that pin upside down near certain biker bars. Many of those Harley riders are also Vietnam vets.

- Ed C.

it's a good thing i don't frequent biker bars, then

Beeber,
 You miss my point - maybe.
 Its okay that you have an extreme dslike (hate?) of George W. Bush.

However your way of expressing that would be the gunnery equivalent of using a grenade (or even artillery) when what you really wanted was a decent sniper rifle shot.

A more appropriate lapel pin protest might be a simple button that says : "BUSH Sucks"  or maybe "2009 can't happen soon enough".
That way you're not possibly putting down people that might agree with you politically.  Or heck, just contact the Democratic local headquarters where you live and wear their party's symbol on your coat or jacket - thjats simple enough.

- Ed C.

Hey, don't feel pissed. I've got off work today, and who do I have to thank for? The Nazis.

Quote from: Koltar...and that would be VERY rude to the many servicemen and veterans who also disagree with the current President - and yet served the country you would be insulting.

An upside down flag isn't an insult, it's a maritime distress signal. Entirely appropriate if you think your country is in trouble.

no, i get your point.  one flies the flag upside-down if in distress, and that's my view of the country, not only under his helm.  

i am now bowing out of this discussion before i get too worked up over it.

An upside down flag is an internationally recognized distress signal. Most servicemen and women know this.

An upside down American flag = my country is in distress. It's a perfectly legitimate and non-insulting way to show your disagreement with the current policies of your country.

Of course that doesn't mean that someone won't have an ignorant knee-jerk reaction and beat you to death with a lead pipe or chastise you on an internet forum.

Besides, you apparenlty missed the line that says

Quote from: ProclamationThe Congress, by Public Law 85-529, as amended, has designated May 1 of each year as "Loyalty Day."

So this isn't about Bush - that's just your prism of hatred talking.

Now if you want to talk about how stupid it is for government as a whole, in general, to have a "Loyalty Day," particularly a government founded on the ideals of liberty and self-reliance, that I'll hop on.

Otherwise you're just playing the "I hate Bush" game that's really popular with the kids these days, but, I predict, will be out of style in a year or so...

Quote from: TechnomancerAn upside down flag isn't an insult, it's a maritime distress signal. Entirely appropriate if you think your country is in trouble.

 Its still an over-reaction.

 Its less than 2 years till the next election.

Depending on your point of view :

The country survived Harding

The country survived Johnson...

The country survived Nixon...

The country survived Gerald Ford...

The nation survived Jimmy Carter ...,

The country survived Ronald Reagan ...

The U.S.A. survived George H.W. Bush, Bill Cinton, and now George W. Bush.

 There is always going to be somebody who isn't happy with the current President  - no matter who he or she happens to be.

- Ed C.

Quote from: James J SkachSo this isn't about Bush - that's just your prism of hatred talking.

Color me ignorant; I didn't know it was a legally recognized holiday until J Arcane posted that link.

QuoteNow if you want to talk about how stupid it is for government as a whole, in general, to have a "Loyalty Day," particularly a government founded on the ideals of liberty and self-reliance, that I'll hop on.

The concept of Loyalty Day is stupid. :)

Quote from: ElectroKittyThe concept of Loyalty Day is stupid. :)

What concept? The official reason or the true background?

Quote from: SosthenesWhat concept? The official reason or the true background?

I dunno about electroKitty, but I find nationalism and patriotism to be dangerous philosophies that I want no part in.  I don't believe in loyalty to country uber alles.

And I should think that someone familiar with German history should be rather concerned about the concept of a federally mandated loyalty rally . . .

Quote from: J ArcaneAnd I should think that someone familiar with German history should be rather concerned about the concept of a federally mandated loyalty rally . . .

I'm not particularly fond of the subject, but almost every country already has that with their national holidays, e.g. the 4th of July.

I'd much rather have some poorly defined theme days than the state supporting religious holidays. Call the day whatever you want, for whatever reason. I will get concerned once the festivities take the wrong turn, whether from the state or not.

If I'm not mistaken, this "loyalty day" hooplah was mostly done to counter the socialist Labour Day celebrations. Dunno whether they succeeded in this.

..hhmm, after this discussion - I have decided that jacket in my avatar pic needs some lapel pins.

- Ed C.

I don't feel very loyal.  I think I'll sit this one out.

Um.. a little perspective::

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loyalty_Day

First observed: 1921
Made official Holiday by Congress: 1958
Bush the first, or only, to proclaim the Day: No

Now, find something substantial to shit your pants about. Lord knows there's plenty.

(edit: This goes back to the whole "We're better 'n them godless Commies" craze of the mid-'50's that also gave us "Under God" in the Pledge, so again, this is old news.)

(edit edit: If you were unaware of its origins, Kitty, where'd you hear about it if you don't mind my asking?)

Well, I think there's a difference between being loyal to your country, and being loyal to your country uber alles.

But Loyalty Day, to me, is like Black History Month...what, all of black history took place in February? You're only supposed to think about being an American, and what that means, one day a year?

I know - it's supposed to remiond people and help them focus.  But when you do that, you give people an excuse to forget about it the rest of the year.

Stupidity - but what do you expect of Congress?

Quote from: James J SkachStupidity - but what do you expect of Congress?

 Yeah , well like the old Gallagher joke: If con is the opposite of pro , then the opposite of progress is.....


- Ed C.

Quote from: SosthenesWhat concept? The official reason or the true background?

Well, thanks to Werekoala / J Arcane's link, I'm aware of the history of the day, so I'd have to say the concept.

Loyalty to a government is not something that should be celebrated or enforced in a democracy. Affirming loyalty to the government implies that the voters must be loyal to those who hold office, when in fact it's the other way around -- those in office must be loyal to the people they have been entrusted to represent. No free democracy can require loyalty and still be a democracy.

Quote from: ElectroKittyLoyalty to a government is not something that should be celebrated or enforced in a democracy. Affirming loyalty to the government implies that the voters must be loyal to those who hold office, when in fact it's the other way around -- those in office must be loyal to the people they have been entrusted to represent. No free democracy can require loyalty and still be a democracy.

And here I'm going to play both sides...

I could see being loyal to the system of Government as established in the Constitution - or to the Constitution itself.

Don't make me go read it..please don't make me go read it...I just can't...

Quote from: ElectroKittyWell, thanks to Werekoala / J Arcane's link, I'm aware of the history of the day, so I'd have to say the concept.

Loyalty to a government is not something that should be celebrated or enforced in a democracy. Affirming loyalty to the government implies that the voters must be loyal to those who hold office, when in fact it's the other way around -- those in office must be loyal to the people they have been entrusted to represent. No free democracy can require loyalty and still be a democracy.

Bingo.  

A government is a tool, intended to serve it's people.

when you forget that, you forget the basic foundations of liberty.

Doesn't celebrating loyalty to the government and motherland sound just a little Moscow circa 1950?  Democracy is about the citizen as leader, not follower or, worse, mere registrar of opinion.

Do they even teach civics in the US anymore?

Sure they do, which is why we know Democracy is not defined by citizen as leader...

Quote from: James J SkachSure they do, which is why we know Democracy is not defined by citizen as leader...

So Joseph Tussman is off the reading list and it's just memorising the pledge of allegiance now?

Quote from: HalfjackDoesn't celebrating loyalty to the government and motherland sound just a little Moscow circa 1950?

Didn't the russkies use to have those big loyalty parades on the 1st of may?

Quote from: WikipediaMay Day was an important official holiday in the former Soviet Union, celebrated with elaborate popular parade in the centre of the major cities. It was first openly celebrated on May 1, 1917. The biggest celebration was traditionally organized on the Red Square, where the General Secretary of the CPSU and other party and government leaders were greeting the crowds form the Lenin's Mausoleum.

ZOMFGWTFBBQYMMVIMO!!!  Dubya's a Commie!!!!!!

Quote from: HalfjackDo they even teach civics in the US anymore?

...

So Joseph Tussman is off the reading list and it's just memorising the pledge of allegiance now?

Tussman has never been *on* the required reading list, but yes, they still teach civics in high school. Unfortunately, how good/appropriate it is varies wildly from school to school and depends, ultimately, on how big the balls of the teacher are. I had two civics teachers when I was in high school (god, nearly twenty years ago) because I moved and had transfer problems, and I had two very different experiences. My first civics teacher was a bit of a pussy. We learned, basically, directly from the text for the class and rarely had discussion about the pros and cons of anything in the gubment. It was all slurp and burp. My second civics teacher, on the other hand... damn, she had some big balls! She actually posed difficult questions and got the class discussing everything about the government and civic duty, from the pros and cons of lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court to whether or not a citizen has a duty to vote. She even brought in local government candidates from no less than 5 political parties to talk to us about their political beliefs! That's right, Green, Libertarian, and even Socialists were there alongside the Republicrats.

Her course should be the required curriculum, IMO.

And to be clear, it's not the Citizen as Leader is not a valid and honorable perspective.  It's just not the definition of Democracy, per se.

People like to say that the US has a democratic government, when the US is really a representative federal republic - at least that's the way it supposed to work. Democracy refers to the way in which we determine those representatives.

So it's a little more...I think some like to flaunt the word "nuanced"...

I explained the pledge to my son last night (he's in kindergarten and it's his first exposure to the memorization of it). No where in that pledge does it talk about pledging allegiance to any person or party in government – it's "to the flag...and the Republic for which it stands."  Allegiance does not mean, as many on the Left are fond of pointing out, total and complete mindless agreement.

It's actually a nice pledge when you get down to it – "one nation [under God] indivisible, with Liberty and Justice for all," is not a bad thing to which one could pledge allegiance.

And don't get me started on the Star Spangled Banner...

But I digress...

Interesting point about the pledge, James, and I agree that what we're pledging allegience to -- our republican form of government -- is not all that bad. Well, other than that completely unnecessary "under God" crap they inserted back in the 50s.

Personally, I think it's inapproriate to teach the pledge to children at a young age. When you're learning it at 5 it's utterly meaningless; it's just rote memorization without context. By contrast, to an immigrant who learns it and says it during a naturalization cermony it's this beautiful, amazing thing, filled with many layers of meaning. The pledge itself is sacred. IMO, saying the pledge at 5 is one of the many factors that leads to voter apathy.

I think it would be better if there were a sort of civic induction ceremony that everyone had to go through in order to get their first voter registration card, something similar to graduation from high school or an immigration naturalization ceremony. Part of the ceremony would be the Pledge. I think it would add many layers of context and meaning to folks, and would inspire them toward civic duty.

Quote from: ElectroKittyWhen you're learning it at 5 it's utterly meaningless; it's just rote memorization without context. By contrast, to an immigrant who learns it and says it during a naturalization cermony it's this beautiful, amazing thing, filled with many layers of meaning. The pledge itself is sacred. IMO, saying the pledge at 5 is one of the many factors that leads to voter apathy.

Which is why I explained it to my son.  I tried to focus on the important parts (we're not religious, so, though he says the "under God" part, we skimmed it), like what Liberty and Justice mean, and why we should want them for everyone. And why it's important, though we may disagree, that we remain one nation, indivisible driven to uphold these ideas.

Does he get it? Probably not all of it. But this will not be the last time we discuss it and its implications.

Quote from: ElectroKittyI think it would be better if there were a sort of civic induction ceremony that everyone had to go through in order to get their first voter registration card, something similar to graduation from high school or an immigration naturalization ceremony. Part of the ceremony would be the Pledge. I think it would add many layers of context and meaning to folks, and would inspire them toward civic duty.

An interesting idea, but screw the voter registration card - make it mandatory for getting your driver's license.  That'll learn them thar whipersnappers.

Quote from: James J SkachAnd to be clear, it's not the Citizen as Leader is not a valid and honorable perspective.  It's just not the definition of Democracy, per se.

People like to say that the US has a democratic government, when the US is really a representative federal republic - at least that's the way it supposed to work. Democracy refers to the way in which we determine those representatives.

So it's a little more...I think some like to flaunt the word "nuanced"...

I explained the pledge to my son last night (he's in kindergarten and it's his first exposure to the memorization of it). No where in that pledge does it talk about pledging allegiance to any person or party in government – it’s “to the flag…and the Republic for which it stands.”  Allegiance does not mean, as many on the Left are fond of pointing out, total and complete mindless agreement.

It’s actually a nice pledge when you get down to it – “one nation [under God] indivisible, with Liberty and Justice for all,” is not a bad thing to which one could pledge allegiance.

And don’t get me started on the Star Spangled Banner…

But I digress…

I tihnk you don't understand my point.

This is not some technicality based on what specific form of government in place here.

It's a universal truth.  Governments exist to serve their people, period.  If a government starts to serve only itself, it is a failure of power and should be removed.

It's a tool, and nothing more, and when that tool is broken, it needs to be either repaired, or tossed out and replaced.

The same holds true if it's a Democracy, a Republic, or a goddamn Communist dictatorship, as far as I am concerned.

Quote from: James J SkachAllegiance does not mean, as many on the Left are fond of pointing out, total and complete mindless agreement.

Or, as some on the Right are fond of pointing out, total and complete mindless agreement.

QuoteAnd don’t get me started on the Star Spangled Banner…

What?  That it's a militant anthem instead of one in praise of freedom and prosperity befitting our great nation like, say, "America the Beautiful"? :D

!i!

Quote from: James J SkachWhich is why I explained it to my son.

Good.

QuoteDoes he get it? Probably not all of it. But this will not be the last time we discuss it and its implications.

Which is why I think we should hold off on the memorization until at least Freshman year of High School. Then they're at least mature enough to understand the basic concepts that are involved.

QuoteAn interesting idea, but screw the voter registration card - make it mandatory for getting your driver's license.  That'll learn them thar whipersnappers.

lol

Quote from: J ArcaneI tihnk you don't understand my point.

This is not some technicality based on what specific form of government in place here.

It's a universal truth.  Governments exist to serve their people, period.  If a government starts to serve only itself, it is a failure of power and should be removed.

It's a tool, and nothing more, and when that tool is broken, it needs to be either repaired, or tossed out and replaced.

The same holds true if it's a Democracy, a Republic, or a goddamn Communist dictatorship, as far as I am concerned.

Ummmm...I wasn't responding to you.  I apologize if that was no clear.  I was responding specifically to something someone said about not teaching civics anymore...

The universal truth is that most governments throughout history did not exist to serve their people. I'm not sure what hate you have on, but I'd appreciate it if you left me out of it. Unless, of course, you are of the opinion that the form of government in the United States, the Constitutionally established Representative Federal Republic, needs to be tossed out - then it's game on...

Quote from: James J SkachUmmmm...I wasn't responding to you.  I apologize if that was no clear.  I was responding specifically to something someone said about not teaching civics anymore...

The universal truth is that most governments throughout history did not exist to serve their people. I'm not sure what hate you have on, but I'd appreciate it if you left me out of it. Unless, of course, you are of the opinion that the form of government in the United States, the Constitutionally established Representative Federal Republic, needs to be tossed out - then it's game on...

I think that the present US government and power structure is not doing it's duty to the best of it's ability, but I do not think it has entirely failed yet, though as always, "the price of liberty is eternal vigiliance" and all that.

It can be fixed, though I despair of the likelihood of that, given how entrenched some of the polluting influences are in our present power structure.  

and as for this:

QuoteThe universal truth is that most governments throughout history did not exist to serve their people.

Most governments at one point practiced open slavery too.  That doesn't mean it has to always be that way.

Quote from: J ArcaneI think that the present US government and power structure is not doing it's duty to the best of it's ability, but I do not think it has entirely failed yet, though as always, "the price of liberty is eternal vigiliance" and all that.

There are sadly too few times in the history of mankind that even the best of strucutred organizations do their duty to the best of their ability. The neat part is, and stop me if you've heard this one, the form of government lets us change that every so many years - new and improved: Sans Bloodshed!

Quote from: J ArcaneIt can be fixed, though I despair of the likelihood of that, given how entrenched some of the polluting influences are in our present power structure.

I hear ya brother.  I mean - jesus ahve you seen what some of those nutball jerkoff liberal left wingers want to do?

Oh..umm..it just occurs to me that you might have meant something else...

See, it's all in the perspective. That's why the form is an amazing piece of human genius - the function, rife as it is with the fallabilities of humans, leaves much to be desired.

Quote from: J ArcaneMost governments at one point practiced open slavery too.  That doesn't mean it has to always be that way.

That's interesting.  I honestly wasn't aware that the government of the United States practiced slavery.  I mean, I know the laws allowed it, but I wasn't aware the government practiced it.

If you mean other governments, then I guess you're right, America shows the world how much better it can be! Yay!

In this thread I have to both totally agree with J Arcane AND totally disagree with him.

I happen to think a little patriotism is a good thing. It IS your country, right or wrong, its up to you what to do about the second part. So I disagree with his initial posts.

On the other hand, on the view of the role of government, and when it needs to be run through a woodchipper, I couldn't agree more.  

I think the disconnect is that I don't view 'My Country' as 'My Government', and I can't think of the last time I ever heard of anyone swearing oaths to 'My Government'. Lets leave aside the obvious references to 'nations' that are little more than modern fiefdoms and estates of olde.  Same with swearing to a flag. The flag, last I checked, is the symbol of a nation, not a particular governing body.  Mexico's flag includes symbology relating to the Aztec 'creation myths', yet Mexico is hardly Azteca, or whatever.  How long has France flow their tricolor, and how many governments have they had since then?


So there is a Loyalty Day? So what? So Bush wants his staffers to wear little US flag pins? So what?  Hell, as recently as a year ago I was expected to wear a pin of the US and Afghanistan flags crossed on my breast. I didn't, not out of some weird politcal point, but because I couldn't be assed to make sure the damn thing stayed upright, much less actually buy one of the stupid fuckers.  I'm such a rebel.

On this, my apathy know no bounds. :rolleyes:

QuoteI hear ya brother. I mean - jesus ahve you seen what some of those nutball jerkoff liberal left wingers want to do?

It may surprise you to realize that the particular problem I was addressing is equally poisonous on left or right, and doesn't even directly have to do with the present exectutive administration, though some of it's actions are a symptom of it.

Quote from: J ArcaneIt may surprise you to realize that the particular problem I was addressing is equally poisonous on left or right, and doesn't even directly have to do with the present exectutive administration, though it's actions are a symptom of it.

It may surprise you to realize that the whole point of those two sentences of my post are to point out the very fact you're telling me I might be surprised to realize....

Loyalty, Patriotism, Pledging Allegiance - it's not about who is or is not in power, in or out of government, and what fucked up thing they are doing to win whatever power/money/I'm-insecure-about-the-size-of-my-penis game they think we're all playing...

It's about and idea that shook the world to it's core 200 some odd years ago...

Some thoughts to ponder:

• Nationhood is at best a fiction, a figment of the collective imagination that has power because people give it power. It has no reality in and of itself. Obvious? Yeah, you'd think so, wouldn't you?
• Flag ≠ Land ≠ People ≠ Government. Confusion of these is the source of a great deal of human misery, as well as no small amount of misplaced pride.
• No flag, piece of land, government, or populace can be said to hold any recognizable set of values, beliefs, etc. To attribute such to the first two is simply absurd, to do so with the third is dangerously naïve, and to do so with the last is to reduce the people involved to an abstraction and deny their humanity.
• The chief function of flags and nations is to separate people living "under" one flag/nation from others who live "under" a different flag/nation. That way, when you tell them they must kill one another, they're more likely to obey. Bonus points if you can get them to believe that their flag/nation makes them better than others or that it actually says something meaningful about them.
• When you're told that you're at war with Nation X, what you're really being told is that your government is at war with the government of Nation X and that you and the citizen of Nation X are the weapons that they will use to fight one another. You will be told that this is in defense of your "freedom." Rest assured, the people of Nation X will be told the same.
  
• A good indicator of how free people are is whether they have to be constantly reminded that they're free.
• A common distractionary technique used by repressive governments is to remind the citizen how much more repressive they could be, and that the citizen should be grateful for what freedoms they are allowed. The idea that "freedom" is not innate, but rather must be allowed by a more powerful entity, is implicit in this argument. On the individual level, this is clearly absurd. It is well within a particular individual's power to point a gun at you and forbid you from doing certain things on pain of death, yet you would hardly feel grateful to the average person for refraining from such an act. On the contrary, you would likely be outraged that they had even considered it. Yet we are grateful and proud when our government spares the gun...
  
• Democracy, to trace it back to the Greek δημοκρατία, refers to a system in which the populace at large holds supreme executive power.
• Representative forms of government are not even an approximation of the above, but are actually anti-democratic in the fundamental reasoning behind them. They are based on the assumption that people can't be trusted to make their own decisions and so therefore a small number of other people must be appointed to make those decisions on their behalf.
• I shouldn't have to point out the inherent contradiction in that.

If you need me, I'll be in Guantanamo getting my electric shocks so that I'll agree to plead guilty to unknown charges before being allowed to see my lawyer who won't be privy to the "evidence" against me. But don't worry; things always come out OK, no matter who's in charge.

...Right?

Oh my, school yard politics! Hand me the spliff, mon!

This whole thread just makes me want to buy flag lapel pins now.

 My leather jacket used to have on its lapel : A n American Flag pin (at the top of course), two different Klingon symbol pins (a red & black one and a multi-color one) , a Republican party Elephant pin, and a peace symbol.  
 One of the Klingon symbol pins was the multi-color version from the original series. Someone once asked me if that was a "Gay Pride" pin.

Also used to wear a button that said:  "I survived the 20th Century".

- Ed C.

Quote from: Black FlagIf you need me, I'll be in Guantanamo getting my electric shocks so that I'll agree to plead guilty to unknown charges before being allowed to see my lawyer who won't be privy to the "evidence" against me. But don't worry; things always come out OK, no matter who's in charge.
... Right?

Yes, well, let me know how that works out for you. 'cause, you know, Chimpy McHaliBusHitlerCoInc will shortly be removing all your posts from teh intarweb as well, as soon as they get around to arresting and no doubt executing anyone who disagrees with them, like the horribly persecuted and censored Hollywood types and Jon Stewarts of the world. Because NOBODY ever hears what they have to say about the Chosen One and his evil flying monkey cronies because every word out of their mouth is digitally altered or erased. And remember those horribly persecuted web sites like DailyKos and such that have been shut down by the Thought Police? You do? Oh noes! The mental manipulation satellites must not have erased all the pertinent parts of you memory. Don't answer the door! It could be.... CHENEY!

... Right?

You know, I couldn't find anything specifically wrong with Black Flag's post. It's just when all put together into a 'Message' that it becomes laughable and silly.

Of course the 'I'm smarter than you' commentary that accompanied each point was rather amusing.

Then again, I am the ulitmate contradiction. I'm a patriotic anarchist who earns my daily bread supporting 'the man'.  Only, when I say I'm an Anarchist, I really mean that I think I should be able to shoot my neighbor if I get my gun first. Not that I want to tear it all down and instill my particular crowd at the top of the new heap like so many other anarchists seem to want to.

And I know it's unworkable...:p

Spike - gotta disagree wtih you on this one.  Some of his points don't make sense in and of themselves - and they only make the whole that much more silly.

Now this one makes sense, but I can't figure out if he's commenting on something I said.

Quote from: Black FlagNo flag, piece of land, government, or populace can be said to hold any recognizable set of values, beliefs, etc. To attribute such to the first two is simply absurd, to do so with the third is dangerously naïve, and to do so with the last is to reduce the people involved to an abstraction and deny their humanity.

A document can. And the last sentence is absurd.  You don't deny someones humanity by attributing a set of values or beliefs to them.

And if you can't attribute a set of values/beliefs to a government, how can you claim it's bad?

Quote from: Black FlagThe chief function of flags and nations is to separate people living "under" one flag/nation from others who live "under" a different flag/nation. That way, when you tell them they must kill one another, they're more likely to obey. Bonus points if you can get them to believe that their flag/nation makes them better than others or that it actually says something meaningful about them.

Really? That's the chief function of flags? Nations, I could see that.  Flags?

Quote from: Black FlagWhen you're told that you're at war with Nation X, what you're really being told is that your government is at war with the government of Nation X and that you and the citizen of Nation X are the weapons that they will use to fight one another. You will be told that this is in defense of your "freedom." Rest assured, the people of Nation X will be told the same.

So we should never have resisted the Nazi's! Damn! We fucked that one up, royally!

Quote from: Black FlagA good indicator of how free people are is whether they have to be constantly reminded that they're free.

That's quite possibly the most ignorant indicator of freedom I've ever heard. By the way - look how free you are to say it. There.  Did that make you any less free?

Quote from: Black FlagA common distractionary technique used by repressive governments is to remind the citizen how much more repressive they could be, and that the citizen should be grateful for what freedoms they are allowed.

The more repressive a government, the less likely this is to be used.  I mean, I doubt the House of Saud is running around saying "look how more oppressed you'd be if you lived in North Korea!"

Quote from: Black FlagDemocracy, to trace it back to the Greek δημοκρατία, refers to a system in which the populace at large holds supreme executive power.

I don't speak Greek - current or ancient (if there is a difference).  I'm curious, is it supreme power, or supreme exective power?

Quote from: Black FlagRepresentative forms of government are not even an approximation of the above, but are actually anti-democratic in the fundamental reasoning behind them. They are based on the assumption that people can't be trusted to make their own decisions and so therefore a small number of other people must be appointed to make those decisions on their behalf.

Or they could be based on the idea that it's virtually impossible to rule by a committee of 300,000,000. Nobody is "appointed" last I checked - except for those guys in the black robes who should have the least power in the US federal government.

See, Spike? They're just as silly separately as they are when combined.

I think Soth had it right - playground politics, and rhetoric. Or just an attempt at trollage.

I have half a mind to debate you point by point, James; if for no other reason than the amusement value of poking fun at Black Flag by proxy arguments.

I may just get back to you on that if I get a bit more time. Lunch went on longer than I expected, so I'm curretly behind at work... :(

Quote from: SpikeI have half a mind to debate you point by point, James; if for no other reason than the amusement value of poking fun at Black Flag by proxy arguments.

I may just get back to you on that if I get a bit more time. Lunch went on longer than I expected, so I'm curretly behind at work... :(

Don't sell yourself short, Spike - you've got at least three-quarters of a mind :D

I was actually thinking about removing my reponse - not because I think I was wrong,  but becasue I've been much happier here not getting deep into these debates...Nobody is going to change their mind - me, him, anybody, so what's the point?

So if you want to do so, feel free - it will be the sound of one hand clapping...

Quote from: James J SkachDon't sell yourself short, Spike - you've got at least three-quarters of a mind :D

I was actually thinking about removing my reponse - not because I think I was wrong,  but becasue I've been much happier here not getting deep into these debates...Nobody is going to change their mind - me, him, anybody, so what's the point?

So if you want to do so, feel free - it will be the sound of one hand clapping...

You're no fun. :p

With you, Spike, I'd debate.  I've built up an understanding of you and know that even if we disagree we will be relatively cordial.

Black Flag I don't know from a hole in the ground. But given his response and his "personna" here, he and I will just arguing ad infinitum and I'll just get aggravated.

I'd rather discuss binary skills and such with you...

Honestly, Black Flag's post makes more sense to me then a lot of things. But then, I tend to agree.
EDIT: But then, I'm a jerkoff nutball leftwinger.

Until this starts showing up on my Marvel Superheroes Calendar, I am sure I'll not be remembering to wear my pin.

Democracy < Grk. δημοκρατία (δῆμος "people" in the sense of "populace" + κρατέω "to rule" in the sense of a governing power). The designation "to hold executive power" reflects my understanding of the sense of the verb κρατέω as it appears in ancient Greek literature. I also believe it to be the sense intended when the Athenians referred to their governmental system as δημοκρατία. Although certainly their execution was flawed in many ways, nevertheless the assembly of citizens (ἐκκλεσία) voted directly on just about everything, and even magistrates, who acted as specialized proxies for the assembly, were immediately accountable to them and subject to impeachment at a moment's notice. Interestingly, while the Latin term for the Roman model of oligarchical representative government is res publica (i.e. "public business"), there is no Latin word for democracy.

Anarchy < Grk. ἀναρχἰα (ἀν [negative prefix] + αρχία "rulership" in the sense of holding power over others). Anarchy is contrasted with monarchy (the rule of one person), oligarchy (the rule of a few), and what some have termed "polyarchy" (in which power is held by many people but still a minority of the populace). Anarchy does not denote chaos, disorder, or violence; that connotation is based on the notion that without certain people actively controlling others through the threat of violence, society would necessarily devolve into one massive crime spree--a notion which is itself based on the assumption that people are fundamentally antisocial unless threatened into submission by a more powerful entity. One is free to make that argument, but it then begs the question, "If we're all naturally antisocial, how can we trust the people in power?" Or as a certain anarchist comics writer put it, "Who's watching the watchmen?"

To the anarchist, neither anarchy nor democracy can exist without the other. Ironically, the "Founding Fathers" of the USA seem to have agreed. As originally formulated, the protocols of the federal government are designed to minimize democracy for fear that anarchy might result if too much power were to be given to the populace at large. Democracy/anarchy was feared primarily due to its threat to private property, which was admittedly the chief concern of the framers. Even today, the federal government is set up to function as usual even at 0% voter turnout. Of course, you already knew that from your civics class.

Quote from: Thanatos02But then, I'm a jerkoff nutball leftwinger.

Wouldn't have you any other way.

...Wait, but what does that make me? :eek:

Hey, at least we can laugh at ourselves. When's the last time you heard someone describe themselves as a "jerkoff nutball right-winger"? And why not? Because right-wingers are numb to the liberating caress of irony. :pundit:

Just look at this thread.

Quote from: Black FlagDemocracy < Grk. δημοκρατία (δῆμος "people" in the sense of "populace" + κρατέω "to rule" in the sense of a governing power). The designation "to hold executive power" reflects my understanding of the sense of the verb κρατέω as it appears in ancient Greek literature. I also believe it to be the sense intended when the Athenians referred to their governmental system as δημοκρατία. Although certainly their execution was flawed in many ways, nevertheless the assembly of citizens (ἐκκλεσία) voted directly on just about everything, and even magistrates, who acted as specialized proxies for the assembly, were immediately accountable to them and subject to impeachment at a moment's notice. Interestingly, while the Latin term for the Roman model of oligarchical representative government is res publica (i.e. "public business"), there is no Latin word for democracy.

Thanks for your insight into the Greeks and their understanding/perspective.  I was asking because I don't know Greek - they didn't cover that in civics.

Quote from: Black FlagAnarchy does not denote chaos, disorder, or violence; that connotation is based on the notion that without certain people actively controlling others through the threat of violence, society would necessarily devolve into one massive crime spree--a notion which is itself based on the assumption that people are fundamentally antisocial unless threatened into submission by a more powerful entity. One is free to make that argument, but it then begs the question, "If we're all naturally antisocial, how can we trust the people in power?" Or as a certain anarchist comics writer put it, "Who's watching the watchmen?"

This is commonly referred to as a straw man. Anarchists have the same problem libertarians have - let's all get together collectively and push for individualism! It kinda displays this weird dichotomy/incoherence, to borrow a phrase from The Forge, and undercuts the idea that spontaneous order will form. Does that mean people who disagree with Anarchists are automatically of the opinion that everyone is antisocial unless threatened? Nah - hence the classification of straw man...

No, if most people have a problem with Anarchy, I'd guess it's the heavy anti-capitalism, anti-private property aspects of anarchist theory that come across in spontaneous vandalism that forms at trade summits...

Quote from: Black FlagTo the anarchist, neither anarchy nor democracy can exist without the other. Ironically, the "Founding Fathers" of the USA seem to have agreed. As originally formulated, the protocols of the federal government are designed to minimize democracy for fear that anarchy might result if too much power were to be given to the populace at large. Democracy/anarchy was feared primarily due to its threat to private property, which was admittedly the chief concern of the framers. Even today, the federal government is set up to function as usual even at 0% voter turnout. Of course, you already knew that from your civics class.

What I do know is that the "Founding Fathers" wanted to harness the powerful, moral aspects of democracy while diminishing the influences of Anarchy – not just because of the anti-private-property aspects, but because they feared the possibility that any rights (including property) could be threatened by the tyranny of the majority - rightfully so. The fact that today's federal government would make the "Founding Fathers" weep does not lessen their ideas.

As to 0% voter turnout, it is – depending on the specific electoral setups of each of the states. So if a state has 0% turnout, but has a method to send electors, then the government will continue. And if not, then I would assume the House would vote.

But your point is...what...that the "Founding Fathers" were hatching some insidious plot to run over democracy, hoping that some day apathy would lead to 0% turnout? Or could it be that they were just smart enough to build in redundant systems because they felt a functioning government was essential for a few vital tasks? Nah...that would be too...simple.

Quote from: Black FlagHey, at least we can laugh at ourselves. When's the last time you heard someone describe themselves as a "jerkoff nutball right-winger"? And why not? Because right-wingers are numb to the liberating caress of irony.

No, us "jerkoff nutball right wingers" aren't numb to irony.  It just has to be good irony. You don't get to claim a bunch of shit that makes little sense, and then claim you were just being ironic.

It didn't take civics class to learn that...

Quote from: James J SkachNo, us "jerkoff nutball right wingers" aren't numb to irony.  It just has to be good irony. You don't get to claim a bunch of shit that makes little sense, and then claim you were just being ironic.

It didn't take civics class to learn that...

Actually, irony is claiming that you're not going to debate with him because you're afraid he'll ignore your points in the interest of drawing the conversation in circles while saying that he's just making up shit, then either mis-reading or deliberetly misphrasing his (admittedly) jab.

Quote from: Thanatos02Actually, irony is claiming that you're not going to debate with him because you're afraid he'll ignore your points in the interest of drawing the conversation in circles while saying that he's just making up shit, then either mis-reading or deliberetly misphrasing his (admittedly) jab.

I know one thing irony isn't - and that is not reading my posts and so completely misrepresenting my comments.

Or did you just conveniently choose to ignore the fact that I included myself in my guess that it would not be a meaningful debate?  I mean, I did say

Quote from: James J. SkachNobody is going to change their mind - me, him, anybody, so what's the point?

And

Quote from: James J. Skachhe and I will just arguing ad infinitum and I'll just get aggravated

Was it because I didn't say he might get aggravated too?  I chose not to try to speak for him on that point.

And I didn't say he made up shit..I said he claimed it.  Those are two very different things. He seems like a bright guy and obviously konws quite a bit about Greek.  I assume he's smarter than to just make shit up.

Of course, none of that addresses any of the substance of the discussion, which is way off the rails from the original post anyway - thus proving my point that to debate this was fruitless anyway.

I have to admit it got to personal attacks much more quickly than I expected - even for TheRPGSite.

Annnnnnnd...Out!

Quote from: Black FlagHey, at least we can laugh at ourselves. When's the last time you heard someone describe themselves as a "jerkoff nutball right-winger"? And why not? Because right-wingers are numb to the liberating caress of irony. :pundit:

Just look at this thread.

You don't "right-wingers" say that - because they either feel guilty about jerking off or are married to someone and don't have to.

I still gotta buy some more flag pins for jackets that I wear.

- Ed C.

Quote from: Black FlagAnarchy < Grk. ἀναρχἰα (ἀν [negative prefix] + αρχία "rulership" in the sense of holding power over others). Anarchy is contrasted with monarchy (the rule of one person), oligarchy (the rule of a few), and what some have termed "polyarchy" (in which power is held by many people but still a minority of the populace). Anarchy does not denote chaos, disorder, or violence; that connotation is based on the notion that without certain people actively controlling others through the threat of violence, society would necessarily devolve into one massive crime spree--a notion which is itself based on the assumption that people are fundamentally antisocial unless threatened into submission by a more powerful entity. One is free to make that argument, but it then begs the question, "If we're all naturally antisocial, how can we trust the people in power?" Or as a certain anarchist comics writer put it, "Who's watching the watchmen?"

Oh for fuck's sake, the only thing worse than an armchair anarchist is an armchair geek anarchist.

You ignorant fucking cunt, "who's watching the watchmen" was Juvenal's.  Alan Moore just stole it.

RPGPundit

Besides which, the thing everyone has missed so far in this thread is the fact that the President, in his typical small-minded ignorance, is obsessing about a MAKE BELIEVE HOLIDAY that no one ever believed in, not even the people who framed the law.  It was created as a half-hearted measure to fight the communists, as a "holiday" that was cheap and unsavory even to the people who wrote it, and here's Dubya thinking its his sacred duty to act on it.

I mean shit, this makes me think of the Prince Regent in Blackadder, who can't understand that the theatre is make believe or that a bomb plot is real.

RPGPundit

Pundit,
 I think the whole thing is funny. The over-attempt to say Bush created it (when he didn't) because people didn't do minimal research, the fact that it was a reaction to communism originally  and is rather dated now,  then using it as a launcing point to discuss politics - its ALL funny.

 My lapel still needs pins tho

- Ed C.

Quote from: KoltarPundit,
 I think the whole thing is funny. The over-attempt to say Bush created it (when he didn't) because people didn't do minimal research, the fact that it was a reaction to communism originally  and is rather dated now,  then using it as a launcing point to discuss politics - its ALL funny.

 My lapel still needs pins tho

- Ed C.

I'll admit it -- I kneejerked. Apologies all round. Can we lock the thread now?

Quote from: RPGPunditBesides which, the thing everyone has missed so far in this thread is the fact that the President, in his typical small-minded ignorance, is obsessing about a MAKE BELIEVE HOLIDAY that no one ever believed in, not even the people who framed the law.  It was created as a half-hearted measure to fight the communists, as a "holiday" that was cheap and unsavory even to the people who wrote it, and here's Dubya thinking its his sacred duty to act on it.

I mean shit, this makes me think of the Prince Regent in Blackadder, who can't understand that the theatre is make believe or that a bomb plot is real.

RPGPundit

:jerkbag:

Quote from: KoltarMy lapel still needs pins tho

How many pieces of flair do you have, anyway?

!i!

Quote from: Ian AbsentiaHow many pieces of flair do you have, anyway?

!i!

Look, we want you to express yourself. Okay? Now, if you feel that the bare minumum is enough, then okay. But some people choose to wear more and we encourage that. Okay? You do wanna express yourself, don't you?

Quote from: ElectroKittyLook, we want you to express yourself. Okay? Now, if you feel that the bare minumum is enough, then okay. But some people choose to wear more and we encourage that. Okay? You do wanna express yourself, don't you?

 In response to that let me say THIS :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YMt53HYkfY8


...Just started dancing...'80s-style ...even with my cane... Yeah Baby!!- Ed C.

Quote from: James J SkachOr did you just conveniently choose to ignore the fact that I included myself in my guess that it would not be a meaningful debate?  I mean, I did say...

Yeah, I did actually. It was just a bit of trolling on my part, because I fundimentally disagree with you and like to poke you now and again. It's not really even out of malice, I do it like breathing. And I also like to read your arguments, because you arn't a total retard, so prodding you actually produces results that spur my interest.

I can't help it.

But, I'm probably a better troll then Black Flag (who I still pretty much agree with). The difference is that I know this is the internet. He's trying to legitimetly argue a point and I'm just throwing rocks.

Quote from: KoltarMy lapel still needs pins tho

- Ed C.

Nobody really cares about how many flag pins you're wearing, dude.

Quote from: Thanatos02Nobody really cares about how many flag pins you're wearing, dude.

I do, actually.

Quote from: Thanatos02Nobody really cares about how many flag pins you're wearing, dude.

 Ian Absentia and Electrokitty and lest joined in on the joke....

Quote from: KoltarIan Absentia and Electrokitty and lest joined in on the joke....

I don't have a sense of humor!
And I never learned to read...

Quote from: jeff37923I do, actually.

You don't have an avatar, and so are not a real person.

Quote from: Thanatos02You don't have an avatar, and so are not a real person.

 Yes - but on TWO other forums he has an avatar - so some of us know that he is real.

 Oh...and Probab;y wearing :
 US Flag pin, Klingon Symbol pin and  maybe a Norwegian flag pin.  "Sons of Norway" pin is also a maybe.

- Ed C.

Quote from: Thanatos02because you arn't a total retard, so prodding you actually produces results that spur my interest.

I'm trying to decide if I add it to my sig...

Jim Skach - now with less retard!

No pin, but I do wear one on my right shoulder from time to time.

Danger - pal to the Man since '96

Quote from: James J SkachI'm trying to decide if I add it to my sig...

Jim Skach - now with less retard!

It couldn't hurt!

Quote from: James J SkachBesides, you apparenlty missed the line that says

So this isn't about Bush - that's just your prism of hatred talking.

Now if you want to talk about how stupid it is for government as a whole, in general, to have a "Loyalty Day," particularly a government founded on the ideals of liberty and self-reliance, that I'll hop on.

Otherwise you're just playing the "I hate Bush" game that's really popular with the kids these days, but, I predict, will be out of style in a year or so...

At first I was going to just quote the OP and say some thing along the lines of...*gesticulates*  "So?" (No offense to you sir or madam, just disagreeing with your gripe.)

But, I like the cut of your jib, sir, and wish to throw my support behind your statement.

James and I would probably get along fine, IRL.

But we're on the internet, and so I must declare undying hatred and a desire to crap in every thread he's in. En garde, sir!

Who are you again?

:haw:

Quote from: KoltarYes - but on TWO other forums he has an avatar - so some of us know that he is real.

 Oh...and Probab;y wearing :
 US Flag pin, Klingon Symbol pin and  maybe a Norwegian flag pin.  "Sons of Norway" pin is also a maybe.

- Ed C.

Quiet you! I like the idea of not existing. For one, I'd probably have to pay less taxes if I didn't exist.

Although this does make an interesting statement - "I have an avatar, therefore I am."

I mean, really it ranks right up there with "I sit upon the counter in the kitchen next to the sink, therefore I am a dirty dish."

Quote from: James J SkachWho are you again?

:haw:

Really, no one important.

Yet.

Quote from: jeff37923"I have an avatar, therefore I am."

Tautology.

Quote from: jeff37923"I sit upon the counter in the kitchen next to the sink, therefore I am a dirty dish."

And another tautology.