It seems like I have never heard this until the Bush administration. If you believe this, does it negate for you the statement "patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundral" and verify for you "my country right or wrong?"
2007-07-25 18:09:24 · 13 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Civic Participation
In no way does disagreeing with those in power make you unpatriotic. I would argue the reverse is true (with the caveat that those who agree are not necessarily unpatriotic). Not all Republicans agree with George Bush; not all Democrats agreed with Bill Clinton.
Our system was built on it, as a matter of fact. It was considered treasonous for our founding fathers to do what they did leading up to the formation of the United States. If they had bowed to the political pressure of the day, they would have swallowed the Stamp Act and others like it and we would still be British subjects.
Our systems needs those who disagree with those in power as a check and balance. Locally here, we have several "activists" who question everything our County Commission does. The Commissioners, obviously, feel threatened by such individuals; when they are really doing the voters of this community a great service.
What we are seeing now in this country is really a rehash of what transpired during the Cold War. Then, the Republicans used the Communist threat to galvanize public opinion in their favor. Democrats were painted as being "soft on Communism." Modern-day Republicans are simply doing the same thing with the terrorist threat (talk about history repeating itself!).
The difference, however, is that the terrorist threat is more real than the Communist threat ever was. This is what makes it easy for people to say that disagreement with Bush's policies make you somehow unpatriotic.
Dissent away, America! Regardless of who is in power, our system needs those who do. Only please, be respectful of the office of the person you are disparaging--whether you voted for him or not, he is still "YOUR" President.
2007-07-26 10:03:34 · answer #1 · answered by Phil N. D'Oval 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I know what you mean. Will the crisis ever end? Justice prevails in favor of scoundrels, because people (money earners) choose to sensationalize the favor of "haha see mee, see mee!" [Or, favortism to clique organizers]
I want to determine which political ideology to favor. Of course, selecting the proper party is more the work of many people. I've never really considered the prior administrations. Technically, I've never really considered the current administration. Except: during elections. Many conclusions can be drawn from that thought. In the U.S., it's OK to critique authority. However, slander and libel are frowned upon (but a Jakarta Jack always receives favortism). Truth to be told: a lot of those folks lead an unglamorous life.
2007-07-26 20:17:16 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
It it treason against the crown... the supreme unquestioning authority from which all legal decisions derive. To challenge that authority is to challenge the divine right of our leader to make all decisions without question or interference from others.
Wait... in the US? Legally, nothing. It's NOT unpatriotic.
But see the first answer for how it is interpreted by those who fanatically support the current administration.
2007-07-26 01:31:57 · answer #3 · answered by coragryph 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
There is nothing unpatriotic in critisizing those in power. In a healthy democracy it happens both at individual level as well as at institution level to question the government on its policies. In India, we have a healthy system where in the presss and various NGOs do take on the governmenets for their wrong doings.
2007-07-26 01:25:11 · answer #4 · answered by response 1 · 4⤊ 0⤋
I guess you're to young to remember "love it or leave it"? As much as you Bush bashers like to blame him for everything including hemorrhoids in poor people, he wasn't even born yet when it became unpopular to protest the government. Why do you think the founders inserted the 1st amendment into the constitution. And the government passes laws like McCain-Feinegold to try and remove it?
2007-07-26 10:52:51 · answer #5 · answered by John himself 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
In certain cultures and political climates critiquing is unacceptable. Those that spoke out against Hitler, Stalin, Saddam, etc.....found out the hard way. When we lose that power we are in serious trouble.
2007-07-26 01:14:53 · answer #6 · answered by MeanKitty 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I guess it is bush's way of saying, agree with me or you will regret it. What I don't understand is why we, as a country, has sat back and let this happen to us. We will be the losers.
2007-07-26 09:53:35 · answer #7 · answered by firewomen 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No it doesn't. Americans have the right to hold ALL members of their government accountable. It's more patriotic to do so than not to.
2007-07-26 10:16:59 · answer #8 · answered by Big Bear 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It is our civil duty to dissent if we feel its right. Dissent is healthy for democracy but it needs to be done with civility.
2007-07-26 09:18:22 · answer #9 · answered by neonman 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
this is so ridiculous... one thing is being critical of the Bush administration... and another is calling him a warmongering nazi, facist dictator, blah bah blah... If he was such a dictator and a fascist... all that would slander and defame him would be killed or thrown in jail... so wheres the fascist? you people here are drunk off your freedoms... u have no idea what it is to live in a country where dissent is punishable by death...
2007-07-26 01:17:01 · answer #10 · answered by Aldo G 2 · 1⤊ 4⤋