Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 07-19-2010, 02:07 PM
 
Location: Los Angeles, CA
787 posts, read 1,954,432 times
Reputation: 379

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by roysoldboy View Post
Is there a chance that you are talking about two separate people and comparing them because you think one is much different than the other. I didn't see you say anything about what your cousin thinks about the Pledge of Allegiance. Is there a chance that not all Republicans are acceptant of those two words in the Pledge and that your cousin might be one of those?
I was responding to another poster (Navyapproved) who used this thread to post a vitriolic diatribe against liberals and I quote again:

"the liberals hate everything good, uplifting, positive etc., In other words, they hate anything and everything that contributes or tends to contribute to individual success and self-reliance. They like quite little helpless "subjects", not competent, capable citizens. Too easy to fool the former and hard to fool and/or control the latter."

How is it you attack me for going off topic but you say nothing about this post?

If you read what I wrote, I was CLEARLY stating my deep respect for my cousin, regardless of our political differences. I've never asked his thoughts on the Pledge. Bottom line is he is THOUGHTFUL person and would never make such ridculous, stereotypical remarks about LIBERALS (or CONSERVATIVES).

He might be for the pledge as it is or against it. I am sure he has a well reasoned viewpoint, be it for or against. Not foolish stereotpypes about this group or that group.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 07-19-2010, 03:01 PM
 
2,104 posts, read 1,453,329 times
Reputation: 636
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dane_in_LA View Post
Somebody please, please explain how rote memorization and recital of a loyalty pledge - in a group, and led by an authority figure, no less - is in any way, shape or form linked to "individual success", let alone "self-reliance"? The entire ritual rewards those who conform and obey authority and singles out those who stray from the government-approved groupthink.

As I may have posted previously, I first learned of teacher-led loyalty oaths in schools when watching a documentary on life in the Soviet Union.
Exactly.

+1 rep. Thanks for being a voice of reason in a place that has become a sea of irrational hate and fear in the past few months.

People who cling to man-made devices like the pledge are the ones wearing blinders. It's they who are insecure, and that is why they do it, to prove to themselves and the world that they are "good" Americans. It approaches classism and has always reminded me of old black & white film clips I've seen about how Nazis and Soviets handled their schoolchildren.

"Individualism" my foot. It's blindly surrendering individuality to the State. For Pete's sake, the text of the pledge says it all - "indivisible". It's a creepy, cultish thing and I wish it would go away.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-20-2010, 04:40 AM
 
507 posts, read 883,576 times
Reputation: 268
Quote:
Originally Posted by evilnewbie View Post
The Pledge of Allegiance is not a religious prayer and its a shame that people think that... I don't mind going back to the original Pledge but I don't like it when people infer that it is "religious" in some fashion... One word does NOT make it a religious doctrine...

Of course it is a religious prayer pure and simple, which is why people who take religion REALLY serious like Amish, JW's etc don't let their children recite it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-20-2010, 08:51 AM
 
47,140 posts, read 26,389,812 times
Reputation: 29655
Quote:
Originally Posted by roysoldboy View Post
During the 1999 - 2000 school year, my son, a senior, led the Pledge each day on classroom intercoms for the whole school. Afterward he always read the menu for the school lunch. That worked very well because he sometimes ad libbed on the meal part by throwing in some cute things like "smothered snake" instead of smothered steak.
That's nice for your son, good work.

Quote:
Also, his voice lent itself to all those things very well and for that he was selected by those authority figures you talk about.
I am really not seeing your point here. So one kid out if the student body got to lead the pledge, and that somehow makes it an expression of self-reliance and individuality? Was he free to change the words? No?

Then he stepped up for conformity and supported authority. Which may be an OK thing in a school, but don't try to tell me that the pledge is an expression of individuality or self-reliance, because it so obviously isn't.

Quote:
How many children would know about how bad those two words make the Pledge of Allegiance if it weren't for adults who tell them about it?
How many children would recite the pledge in the first place if it wasn't for "adults who tell them about it" - or, more preceisely, to do it.

Quote:
Surely there is some inbred thing that would make them realize how bad they are.
It was a stupid, McCarthyite idea to mess with the pledge - but frankly, the entire thing strikes me as a 1930s anachronism.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-20-2010, 08:53 AM
 
7,871 posts, read 10,187,555 times
Reputation: 3247
Quote:
Originally Posted by ♠atizar♠ View Post
Exactly.

+1 rep. Thanks for being a voice of reason in a place that has become a sea of irrational hate and fear in the past few months.

People who cling to man-made devices like the pledge are the ones wearing blinders. It's they who are insecure, and that is why they do it, to prove to themselves and the world that they are "good" Americans. It approaches classism and has always reminded me of old black & white film clips I've seen about how Nazis and Soviets handled their schoolchildren.

"Individualism" my foot. It's blindly surrendering individuality to the State. For Pete's sake, the text of the pledge says it all - "indivisible". It's a creepy, cultish thing and I wish it would go away.
They are Americans more in form than in substance.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-20-2010, 09:00 AM
 
47,140 posts, read 26,389,812 times
Reputation: 29655
Quote:
Originally Posted by roysoldboy View Post
Yes, most of you people weren't around back then but I have not been able to see the reason for not liking them other than purely political.
Inserting "under God" was purely political. There were Godless Communists everywhere, remember? Couldn't allow a pledge gap.

Has anyone here read Catch-22? Here's a pretty good excerpt (scroll down a bit) dealing with the folly of loyalty oaths.

The Books:

Heller was a genius.

Last edited by Dane_in_LA; 07-20-2010 at 09:01 AM.. Reason: Dealing "with". Need coffee.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-20-2010, 01:04 PM
 
Location: Up in the air
19,112 posts, read 30,780,484 times
Reputation: 16397
I'm not a huge fan of the 'under god' part of the pledge, so I didn't say it. I stood up and stood silently until the pledge was over and then sat down. Some say that the addition of 'under god' made us stronger as a nation, but I don't believe in gods of any type so that is intrinsically dividing me (and the rest of the non believers) from the rest of the country. I think we should be indivisible, but since non-believers aren't included, doesn't that make it an oath of divisibility?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-20-2010, 01:05 PM
 
7,871 posts, read 10,187,555 times
Reputation: 3247
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dane_in_LA View Post

Heller was a genius.
He's in the afterlife now, having his shoes shined by Ayn Rand.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-20-2010, 01:27 PM
 
6,993 posts, read 6,379,002 times
Reputation: 2825
Quote:
Originally Posted by roysoldboy View Post
I was never in a class room, as a student, or as a teacher, that didn't have a small American flag hanging in one corner, usually at the front of the room. I never said that pledge without that flag being there and would make sure it was if it, for any reason wasn't.

I was amazed when at a college basketball game the pledge was recited by the crowd before the game and I heard the words "under God" recited. That was in 1957 and I was recently our of the Army and didn't know that during the time I was in the Army they had been inserted. Back then I was one of the most liberal people I knew of but those words didn't bother me because I didn't think about them politically.

Yes, most of you people weren't around back then but I have not been able to see the reason for not liking them other than purely political. I see you who have tried to answer evilnewbie here as libs who just want to do just that to avoid anything that could be Christian.
My high school classroom was without a flag for a number of years. Every morning my students stood and pledged the empty bracket on the wall.

By the time I left the classroom, I was a strong proponent for doing away with the daily Pledge ritual. At least half of my students were foreign born and their "allegiance" could be to any one of a number of countries. I made all students stand, but most did not recite the Pledge. Those who did, did so like robots, which was almost worse than not saying it at all.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-20-2010, 01:33 PM
 
6,993 posts, read 6,379,002 times
Reputation: 2825
Quote:
Originally Posted by roysoldboy View Post
Great post. It is too bad that mostly liberals have entered the thread and had to attack evilnewbie and ignore the very thing the thread is about. I wonder how popular Skelton would be these days since he never used foul language, or involved pure sex in his comedy. I am sure he could never be seen on Comedy Central because of the way he talked and the possibility that his lack of foul language just wouldn't be funny to our present population.

I am sure that if any of these people had seen that one from Skelton they would have stopped watching him altogether.
Roy, give it up, please.

Red Skelton reflected the attitudes and standards of his times. Today's comedians do exactly the same. It's not the 1950s and it never will be again.

I, for one, am very happy about that.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top