Haezed

Why should that create a loyalty unique to my own country compared to other countries founded on similar principles?

Strange, I thought I was responding to you on this point until I threw in the silly Shakespeare. I'll stop talking about Maher. Which is why I was interested in discussing what it actually is and whether it is still valued in our country. It appears to be because it is, of course, "dicey" to question the lack of it in another person. On the other hand, the only real context in which I hear patriotism brought up these days seems to be by those who feel theirs has been impuned. Such a stance would be inane, unless you have a liberal talk show on HBO... couldn't help myself.

I'm generally against allowing people to burn most substances in places where I have to breathe the fumes.

I think it is commonly thought to be more. I'm expected to have more loyalty to America than to other countries with similar democratic principles.

I wish the question had been posed to the democrats. It's not an enviable position, to be running for president, and to have to disagree with much of the country's belief system.

I was very impressed by what she had to say. If only she would keep saying it...

How does Hillary get around this speech and still bash Bush on Iraq? Forgive the typos. I type fast but couldn't quite keep up: Regarding the possibility of the international community stepping up to the plate:

Watching this I finally felt a sense of closure.

I shouldn't have diverted the opening post with my slam on Maher, but, since you want to argue this... Maher is an ugly snide male version of Coulter whose breath stinks with the eating of toasted cheese!

One would think so.

I couldn't believe this story: Could we really become so emeshed in virtual worlds that such severe criminal penalties would be imposed for obviously inappropriate online conduct?

I missed the debate. Who else said yes? I do think it matters although I think they are pandering.

Pompous because it assumes GWB cares a whit about Maher. Nonsensical because a traitor sells out his country to an enemy. Whatever you say about GWB, he did not sell out to an enemy. I don't see it meant as ironic or sarcastic. It's just a stupid Coulteresq attack slogan. The quote you cite is not directed to a specific person but is a rather trite general truism.

I think Patriotism is love of country which in its best form is not unreasoning or blind. I love my wife but I am not blind to her (very slight) imperfections. I would also say something if I thought she was acting immorally which has not yet happened. I wonder if Patriotism is defensible even in its best form. Out of self-preservation we would all fight to protect our own lives, families and homeland. I can't see "loving" a country unless it was lovable. I believe most Western democracies are lovable although I am mystified by those across the Atlantic. I don't feel I would love the United States merely because I was born here any more than I felt obliged to accept the religion I was born into. I genuinely believe I am privileged to live in this time and place and love what the country stands for, misteps from time to time notwithstanding. My point here is that if I thought the United States was the scoundrel of the globe, the greatest risk to world peace, etc. etc., I don't think I would be a patriot nor would I think there is anything wrong in not being a patriot for one who has such beliefs. Why love a country that has not earned your love? Merely because of the geography of your birth? (Not talking to you here Sisyphus; just making a general point).

Bill Maher's nonsensical and pompous line, "don't question my patriotism you traitor" did make me think. What is patriotism today and does it have a meaningful role in politics or civic life? Is patriotism destructive or merely meaningless? What does it mean to question a person's patriotism?

As in the high cost thereof?

Some of the richest people in small towns were the small merchants. Hence, Walmart came to be. FWIW, one of the biggest impediments to small business formation is the health insurance crisis. People are far more willing to risk their money than their families' health.

No argument here. A group of people with the common objective of greed, if you want to be pejorative, or earning a living, are going to be more prone to moral failings than one individual. Groups dynamics come into play which can be very dangerous. I remember a test my professor in group dynamics did with us. He gave out a math problem which was easy but had a trick. It was calculated to divide the class in half with one side being on the clearly right side and the other half clearly on the wrong. We were allowed to change groups if we realized we were wrong. He then gave us 20 minutes to try to figure out a spokesperson who would advocate the correctness of our solution. After sitting down with the wrong group, I sat by myself and listened for five minutes before realizing we were flat wrong. I told the group why we were wrong which was 100% the correct answer and went to the other side of the room where I was cheered while I was jokingly booed and called a traitor by my former group. No one else left that group even though it was crystal clear by this time that they had the wrong answer. I'm sure everyone can think of real world examples where groups coalesce around the wrong answer, sometimes even on ethical issues. It just... happens. I don't see them as "utterly ammoral, insatiable monsters." I have known companies that are "good corporate citizens." All groups have their own cultures and not all of them are flat out evil or amoral. I take your point, however, that the bottom line is what matters and this is certainly true with some limits. I'm not sure if companies owned by ESOPs are more "moral" than other companies and we have seen some movement from the public who want to buy into ethical/green mutual funds. To answer your question, however, I see the danger of cooperations and they should certainly be regulated. These entities shouldn't get the benefit of being recognized as distinct artificial "persons" without corresponding burdens. I don't see them as evils.

I certainly agree that we should keep caps on individual contributions. There is a balance to be made to allow reasonable speech vrs allowing complete cooption of the democratic process. Where that line should be drawn is hard to say. I respectfully disagree. The right to speak doesn't mean much these days without the ability to use the megaphone of TV, Radio, Print and, now, the internet. This takes money. For this reason, the ACLU weighed in against a law which would have limited the total expenditures a candidate can make in a campaign. The ACLU argued: I certainly don't see this as an "excuse." It's a legitimate POV.

Here's a thread to discuss the debates. I didn't see anything too interesting in the first debate except I kept wondering if John Edwards purposefully made his hair a bit messy. So here's a question while we wait: Which debate would you most like to see regardless of who you support for president? My vote would be Hillary vrs. Newt.

We really have three questions bouncing around. 1. Are corporations bad for America? Of course not. If we didn't allow corporations the US couldn't possibly compete. This country would become an economic backwater. 2. Do corporations sometimes do bad things? Of course they do. They are made up of human beings. 3. Can the laws pertaining to corporations be improved? I've no idea. We'd have to discuss a particular branch of the law - antitrust, Sarbanes-Oxley, SEC regulation, etc - for that discussion to be meaingful. Note that these three questions can be asked about any large entity: 1. Is government bad (no, we really need some kind of government); 2. Do governments do bad things (yeppers); 3. Can the laws controlling government be improved (sure, but let's talk specifics).

Would you limit the ability of people to contribute to the candidates of their choice? Such a plan would have a few first amendment problems...

A violent thread? Can you link to it??

Lol. D*mn you Para, you steal all my best lines before I have a chance to think them! What I had said, Skeptic, is that in my last house, it was configured so I might be able to gather my family into one room if I heard an intrusion from the most likely points. We had just three bedrooms going down a hall. From that point, I had said, I would train a shotgun at the door while the rest of the family hid in the bathroom (all of which after we called 911 hopefully). Even if I couldn't gather the kids, I could have moved into the hall and defended it from there. I wouldn't go marching to find trouble but I would be ready if it came to me. As Para so aptly put it, all it would take is the sound of a shotgun being pumped to make this point to anyone considering opening door #3. None of this works in my current house where my kids are now upstairs and we are down. As I said, there is no one size fits all solution.

You missed the part where I said I would then get a gun if available and, depending on the situation, defend my family from a safe a place as possible. you have no right to tell me the best way to defend MY home. Nor do the police. I understood you were arguing policy, not trying to say what I personally should do. However, as a matter of policy, I would defer to the individual in how to defend his own home. It is for similar reasons that I defer to a woman's right to choose to get an abortion in early stages. Where a question is difficult and is also a matter of life and death, I tend to let individuals decide what to do instead of the US government mandating a one size fits all decision from on high.