That's what Thomas Jefferson said over 200 years ago, and it still rings true.
2006-11-30 03:37:33 · 31 answers · asked by tangerine 7 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
I agree but I doubt that many of out countries leaders would today. Indeed, there seems to be many who actively seek to disenfranchise those who disagree by stating that people who disagree with a politician aid the enemy by their dissent. It seems abhorrent to believe I have to follow the illogical statements of such leaders today or be considered anti-American and serves to drive a wedge in society if you are not the right religion, the right color, have the right beliefs, or have to support a cause you disagree with. I think Thomas Jefferson was right, and is perhaps still right, but you will be disenfranchised and risk being accused of being anti-American today if you do not choose blindly to follow.
2006-11-30 03:49:40 · answer #1 · answered by Jerry 2 · 2⤊ 2⤋
No. yet Thomas Jefferson did say "a splash insurrection now after this is a robust element" i do no longer think of he meant political dissent in that quote the two. i think he replace into merely saying that if a central authority turns into corrupt sufficient then insurrection could desire to be the terrific answer. we have not reached that factor yet. We nonetheless have somewhat administration yet maximum people are merely too lazy to place it to apply. it could require fairly study on the applicants or perhaps on our Representatives. yet there is not any doubt that the yank people have faith we have not been moving into the ideal path. That issues at the instant are not "hunky dory". the undeniable fact that some (lower back no longer all) Reps and Dems desire to bury their heads in the sand and fake this is not the case is element of the subject. i does no longer call for a revolution via any potential. i think of we've entered an age the place violent outbursts won't help our u . s . a .. yet i could call for an overhaul of our government. an entire reset, in case you will. in the SC debate, between the applicants had it ineffective on "merely sending the comparable people back to the White homestead and having them take a seat in distinctive seats won't accomplish something" i do no longer think of every person is inquiring for a violent upheaval of the government (different than terrorists and we don't pay attention to them can we?)
2016-12-29 17:16:03 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes, but dissent for the sake of dissent is not good either. Anybody can be a naysayer, it takes some integrity and thought to dissent on solid moral, ethical or other grounds.
And dissent is NOT treason-- but can turn into it.
Actually, that quote is misattributed to Jefferson, he didn't actually say it.
2006-11-30 03:43:31 · answer #3 · answered by dapixelator 6 · 3⤊ 2⤋
I agree, to a degree. To openly oppose things that you believe is harmful to the country as a whole is the highest form of patriotism..
To act on the belief, "I love my country, but distrust her leaders." is a good example of patriotism
To just ***** about the problem is not.
'I'm a (insert party or political movement) and support them without question" is pure laziness. Apathy is the opposite of patriotism.
2006-11-30 03:48:03 · answer #4 · answered by bob h 5 · 2⤊ 1⤋
just like PC, 1st amendment and many other things left take it too far. Liberal interpretation... funny how some think they understand what the founding fathers believed but dont take into acount that times have changed and what they thought about then doesnt take the change of the world into consideration. George Washington said we should never get involved with a foreign war. The problem is that foreign wars are now able to spread the world over with the invention of long range missles and nuclear war heads. He would have never thought that someone in the middle of the east could push a button and blow up someone in the west.
war was civilized then. it was an honor to fight and you did it gentlemanly. line up mano a mano and duke it out. the best man wins. this isnt the case anymore. read history for what its worth but dont live in it.
2006-11-30 04:16:29 · answer #5 · answered by CaptainObvious 7 · 3⤊ 3⤋
Not entirely, though some. It isn't so much dissent as it is thinking for yourself. If you think the government is right then go with it; if you think it wrong then protest it. But don't just dissent solely as a form of rebellion that you feel is heroic. And I do believe that is what ole' TJ was going after when he said this.
2006-11-30 03:40:23 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 2⤋
yes it is, the opposite, is what fascism is built on!
does anyone honestly think someone is going to dissent against something they agree with?
come on! get a clue!
to dissent for the purpose of disagreeing isn't dissention, that is just plain anarchy and idiocy!
that isn't even the definition of dissent!
2006-11-30 03:44:19 · answer #7 · answered by qncyguy21 6 · 3⤊ 1⤋
I agree, though there is a fine line between patriotism and nationalism. A more accurate statement might be, "Dissent is one step on the path to liberty."
2006-11-30 03:49:51 · answer #8 · answered by Zombie 7 · 3⤊ 2⤋
I agree to a point. It's a worthy statement in it's original context and time. But 200 years later, the geopolitical world has changed I think, to a degree where there are more issues than he could have imagined. I think if the original founders of America were to be able to pop forward into our modern world, their heads would explode.
2006-11-30 03:47:48 · answer #9 · answered by Rich B 5 · 1⤊ 3⤋
Dissent with a specific issue or policy, given appropriately, is not the issue with patriotism, or lack thereof.
The issue is with the target and the method.
2006-11-30 03:43:28 · answer #10 · answered by ? 7 · 5⤊ 2⤋