English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

Apparently in the liberal world, loyalty to one's country means to bash, criticize, undermine and discredit whenever possible. All the world's ills must be traced back to the USA and it's embrace of free markets. So how is that Loyalty? Counterintuitive, isn't it?

The liberal will claim that their criticism is a form of patriotsm, but do not be fooled. If such criticism was indeed intended to equal Loyalty, you would find Liberals criticising, for example, the poor for their own plight instead of blaming society, racism, capitalism, etc. If criticising meant loyalty, the Liberals might point out how poverty is largely a choice in the USA, and that perhaps the poor might do well to avoid crime and drugs and pre-marital childbirth. In pointing out their flaws, this would show true solidarity with the poor. But, don't hold you breath for that to happen...

But of course, as will many things, the Liberal is singing one tune while his feet are moving to another song.

2007-07-16 08:57:51 · 18 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government Politics

18 answers

Wow! I was kinda flabbergasted when I first read your Q. I've never seen the words Liberal and Loyalty in the same sentence before.

To answer you must consider the nature of loyalty, and its meaning. Loyalty has no conditions. The sign of loyalty is not that you think and feel as the other does, but that you stay with it regardless of disagreement. Loyalty is founded in a community of sentiment and purpose. Loyalty to country is likewise unconditional. I am not saying you need to 'adore' your leaders, but you must love your country!

The anti-patriotic sentiments exploited by the libs are fundamental components of the left-wing outlook. Ordinary people understand loyalty as a natural condition, which binds them first and foremost TO family and country. For the leftist, family and country seem oppressive structures. The rival source of loyalty is "their cause", and the cause usually changes from year to year.

Nothing illustrates this better than the Clinton-Lewinsky affair. At every point in this saga, disloyalty was the motivating factor in the plot: disloyalty to friend, spouse, and country. No oath was honored, no commitment upheld. And the idea of that higher thing-their country and its institutions-on which all our commitments depend looks just as ridiculous as the libs say it is.

The unconditional nature of patriotic sentiment is one reason that the Libs reject it. It seems like an act of oppression, to require me to fight and die for my country, when its cause is not mine. But that, when all is said and done, it is the essence of loyalty: that the cause espoused by the other is your cause, whether or not you understand it or approve of it.

This does not mean that your country's cause is always right, or that you should not protest against it. It means rather that, if you go against your country in a TRUE emergency, this should not be a casual choice, but the first step towards a lasting separation. And if the libs aren't ready to leave-they need to buck up and support their troops, country and president, whether or not the agree.

2007-07-16 12:52:34 · answer #1 · answered by Cherie 6 · 4 2

I think the technical definition is simply loyalty to one's country. However, I think that patriotism is unwarranted when the government of one's country behaves in a unethical or immoral way. Some of the people in Hitler's Germany would have considered themselves patriots for following his lead. With that said, I don't think patriotism is always a good thing. In fact, it usually isn't because it does not consider what is good for all of humanity just what is good for a particular country. Too often, patriotism encourages blind loyalty, even when that loyalty is not deserved.

2016-05-19 03:48:08 · answer #2 · answered by ? 3 · 0 0

i do remember through history when liberals were actually patriots..FDR.was very close to a socialist but he also was a patriot and the and led the world against The axis!! President Kennedy a liberal then and probably closer to a conservative,today!!! They were Americans first!! a long way from the likes of Durbin,T.Kennedy,Reid Pelosi,Murtha!! These liberals would be deported, 30-40 yrs ago!!! times have sure changed

2007-07-16 09:21:15 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 3 2

Same as conservatives, we just show it differently.

Let's use an example. Your friend is about to do something extremely stupid that will cause him great harm and ruin his reputation. Do you:
1-cheer him on?
2-point out the mistake he's about to make?

What good does it do us to take turns cheering all of our goodness?

MY loyalty lies with the ideals of the Declaration of Independence where it states that all men are endowed with the unalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, the Constitutional notions of checks and balances, and the freedoms laid out in the Bill of Rights.

Not the President.

In 1776, there was a name given to those loyal to their leadership and not their national ideals of freedom and individual rights. They were Tories.

2007-07-17 00:12:35 · answer #4 · answered by john_stolworthy 6 · 1 2

Critising your government, or the predudices held by majority opinion, in an effort to create a better country, is the best loyalty there is.

It is also the founding principle and intended practise of the USA.

2007-07-16 09:12:00 · answer #5 · answered by Andrew W 4 · 1 3

Poverty is a choice, eh? What a strange choice to make. Of course, I assume you also must feel that those who are ill without health insurance also chose to become ill. And those who are discriminated against because they are gay of course chose to be gay. And those who get paid less than white males chose to be female or non-white.

Liberals are loyal to the ideals of this great nation, ideals such as equality, liberty and opportunity. Unlike conservatives, who today seem only to be loyal to themselves and whatever property and money they've been able to accumulate.

2007-07-16 09:04:40 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 4 3

To libs, loyalty is a 1 way street. They think people should be loyal to them without them having any expectation of reciprocity.

2007-07-16 14:48:08 · answer #7 · answered by yupchagee 7 · 2 2

Hitler had unabashed loyalty. If you had lived in 1930s Germany would you be insulting the people who criticized him?

2007-07-16 09:02:15 · answer #8 · answered by crushinator01 5 · 5 1

i am loyal to my country. my country, not iraq. what a waste of lives and money.

and no, if bush and cheney and hannity and rush are your idea of patriots, then i am not a patriot. i did 8 yrs in the army, volunteered for viet nam. so beat your drum and wave your flagsome place else.

counterintuitive, huh? big word for a very small mind.

2007-07-16 09:11:26 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1 2

So you want the people of the United States to support the government no matter what?

Well I guess if you never want to question anything and just enjoy being ignorant.

And before you tell me that is not what you are saying, I am only stating my opinion on your thoughts of loyalty.

Well I guess if we are all Lemmings right?

2007-07-16 09:19:02 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 3 3

fedest.com, questions and answers