@TheChief Or, I don't have a silly sentimental attachment to it and am willing to be critical of its foundations and government, rather than buy into rabid nationalism and that cult of personality around the founding fathers.
Well people don't just allow it to happen, many people rallied behind a anti-corruption candidate this election cycle, who the media and democratic establishment did what they could to keep from getting the nom. If a candidate actually has intention of doing something about corruption, few actually do, they tend not to get far in party politics because the establishment of both parties is corrupt. Again, you are blaming the influence of money in politics on voters who can't do a great deal about it.
When you defended the desires of people like Madison and Hamilton to keep political power from the poor.
Thinking blacks were inferior and would start a race war if left in the U.S. was a reasonable view? K then. Also seriously? You're really going to defend the desire to deport a whole race of people because a fringe of the black community would be in a separate nation.
Then what were you talking about?
And? It doesn't matter, they're all things that you did.
"my country right or wrong" is an extremely dangerous way of thinking, which leads to defense of political repression, genocide, imperialism, etc, two of which you've already done in this exchange.
"He tried to force the whole populace to support his idiotic marxist economic schemes that would have failed just as they always have. He set up his own downfall by expecting everyone to just go along with it."
Okay first of he was democratically elected and was going to allow the next election to happen after his term ended, so this idea that he was forcing "idiotic Marxist economic schemes" on his country is fallacious. You know who actually did force idiotic economic policies on Chile? Pinochet.
2. His economic policies saw a decrease in poverty, initially inflation went down, real wages increased, literacy rates improved etc. Seems to be going fine till Nixon decided he wanted to make the Chilean "economy scream". Meanwhile Pinochet saw poverty rates go back up, by a lot, under his reign.
3. And this is the most important one,me conomic policies you don't like aren't necessarily tyrannical, they weren't in the case of Chile, and they aren't comparable to rape (sometimes with things like rats or dogs), torture, mass murder, sever political repression, etc. The fact that you would even make such a comparison, remember you said Allende was just as tyrannical as Pinochet, is actually rather disturbing and makes me seriously question your morality. The fact that you are indigent at my lack of silly patrotism but compare economic policies you don't like to rape, murder, and torture is seriously fucked up and makes me suggest that you reevaluate your values. Seriously.
Because its foreign policies have had a role in the causes, both directly and indirectly, in much of the world's suffered. I'm critical of my government, why are you so offended by this? If I told you I was rich would you be less offended about me talking about the government ;)
Because I don't take defense of fascism seriously. Fascism's rabid nationalism and suppression of basic human liberties and political freedoms makes it reactionary.
"Demagogues will inevitably take power when you give people complete control of their own destiny" Essentially, you argue that the people cannot make choices for themselves. "Democracy and political freedom are too dangerous for the plebs" is essentially your argument it seems, which would make sense given its also the same rationalization the founding fathers gave for trying to create a government ran by and for rich white men.
Because I have moral standards that the U.S. violates a lot of the time, I have my own idea of what a good nation is. I don't need a good third party candidate to say Hillary and Trump both suck, and I don't need great nation to say America does a lot of fucked up stuff and has some serious flaws.
19
@TheChief Or, I don't have a silly sentimental attachment to it and am willing to be critical of its foundations and government, rather than buy into rabid nationalism and that cult of personality around the founding fathers.
Well people don't just allow it to happen, many people rallied behind a anti-corruption candidate this election cycle, who the media and democratic establishment did what they could to keep from getting the nom. If a candidate actually has intention of doing something about corruption, few actually do, they tend not to get far in party politics because the establishment of both parties is corrupt. Again, you are blaming the influence of money in politics on voters who can't do a great deal about it.
When you defended the desires of people like Madison and Hamilton to keep political power from the poor.
Thinking blacks were inferior and would start a race war if left in the U.S. was a reasonable view? K then. Also seriously? You're really going to defend the desire to deport a whole race of people because a fringe of the black community would be in a separate nation.
Then what were you talking about?
And? It doesn't matter, they're all things that you did.
"my country right or wrong" is an extremely dangerous way of thinking, which leads to defense of political repression, genocide, imperialism, etc, two of which you've already done in this exchange.
"He tried to force the whole populace to support his idiotic marxist economic schemes that would have failed just as they always have. He set up his own downfall by expecting everyone to just go along with it."
Okay first of he was democratically elected and was going to allow the next election to happen after his term ended, so this idea that he was forcing "idiotic Marxist economic schemes" on his country is fallacious. You know who actually did force idiotic economic policies on Chile? Pinochet.
2. His economic policies saw a decrease in poverty, initially inflation went down, real wages increased, literacy rates improved etc. Seems to be going fine till Nixon decided he wanted to make the Chilean "economy scream". Meanwhile Pinochet saw poverty rates go back up, by a lot, under his reign.
3. And this is the most important one,me conomic policies you don't like aren't necessarily tyrannical, they weren't in the case of Chile, and they aren't comparable to rape (sometimes with things like rats or dogs), torture, mass murder, sever political repression, etc. The fact that you would even make such a comparison, remember you said Allende was just as tyrannical as Pinochet, is actually rather disturbing and makes me seriously question your morality. The fact that you are indigent at my lack of silly patrotism but compare economic policies you don't like to rape, murder, and torture is seriously fucked up and makes me suggest that you reevaluate your values. Seriously.
Because its foreign policies have had a role in the causes, both directly and indirectly, in much of the world's suffered. I'm critical of my government, why are you so offended by this? If I told you I was rich would you be less offended about me talking about the government ;)
Because I don't take defense of fascism seriously. Fascism's rabid nationalism and suppression of basic human liberties and political freedoms makes it reactionary.
"Demagogues will inevitably take power when you give people complete control of their own destiny" Essentially, you argue that the people cannot make choices for themselves. "Democracy and political freedom are too dangerous for the plebs" is essentially your argument it seems, which would make sense given its also the same rationalization the founding fathers gave for trying to create a government ran by and for rich white men.
Because I have moral standards that the U.S. violates a lot of the time, I have my own idea of what a good nation is. I don't need a good third party candidate to say Hillary and Trump both suck, and I don't need great nation to say America does a lot of fucked up stuff and has some serious flaws.