Poll: Would you die for your country?

[DRTJR]

Fuck ya I'd Defend and die for my nation like a true patriot...in America.

<spoiler= WOLVERINES>http://www.adamcarolla.com/ACPBlog/wp-content/gallery/2009-12-14-dameshek/07-red-dawn.jpg

 

[2012 Wont Happen]

No, I hate my government right now because of all the Communist Liberals that are in charge of it.

You realize that it is absolutely impossible for someone to be simultaneously both a Communist and a Liberal right?

Liberalism is a Capitalist ideology (alongside Conservatism and Libertarianism), whereas Communism is about as anti-Capitalist as you can get.

I know that you cannot be Liberal and Communist at the same time. What I am trying to say is that many of the people in the government are saying that they are Liberal, but they are actually Communists who are ruining the U.S. Government. Liberals are left winged and so are Communists, but are further to the left, also both Liberals and Communists have socialist views, which I am against.

Liberals are Capitalist, and do not hold Socialistic views. Liberalism itself, really is not that left. There are people that associate themselves with Liberalism that aren't fully aligned with the ideology, ranging from centre-left to slightly right leaning, but in its purest form Liberalism is pretty much centrist.

There is one open Socialist in the United States government, Senator Bernie Sanders from Vermont, but I can't think of a single other person in our government with any real Socialistic tenancies. There are people in the government who believe in similar ideals to Socialism and Communism- equality, Democracy, anti-nationalism- but the most far left anyone but Sanders is in our government is maybe Social Democrat, which favors a welfare state within Capitalism.

There are many socialist people in the U.S. Government. Explain the Health Care bill that Obama(Bin Laden, as I like to call him and so do many other people) is getting in to the Government, which is socialist bill. The government is taking away our rights that were given to us when the nation was founded like the right to bear arms. The government is also taking away our privacy because they are listening what we are saying on the phones. These are to just name a couple things hour government is doing. The U.S. was founded on Individual Rights, which the government is trying to get rid of.

I won't defend the actions of the U.S. government, as I dislike them immensely. But I will state that a basic knowledge of Socialist ideology certainly would show that none of these policies are Socialist. The original health care bill had some welfare state aspects, but even those were removed. It never had any sort of ring of Socialism. You probably aren't aware of this, but Socialist Party USA staged a massive campaign against the health care bill because of the long term implications of it against the Socialist cause. In the state in which it was passed, the health care bill is more closely related to corporatism and Fascism than to Socialism. Not to say that it is either corporatist or Fascist, just that it is closer to those than it is to Socialism.

edit-

To make my point in a more condensed form, Socialist ideology promotes equality, anti-authoritarianism, anti-nationalism and Democracy. All the things that you listed contradict these ideals.

The Health Care bill promotes equality, it is all about everyone having equally health care which should not be happening, you should work for better health care.

The health care bill may, in a sense, promote equality. However, in another sense, it gives insurance companies 35 million new customers, and forces the other couple hundred million it already has to stay- all while giving them no incentive to change their business practices. The health care bill is going to end up devastating the common man of America, and benefiting the super wealthy, as has almost every piece of legislation in our history. FDR was certainly no Socialist, but he was the last president I can think of who really did anything to help this country deal with the problem of poverty and inequality with any effectiveness.

In equality is not a problem in this county. You should have to work to get the things you want. The County was formed on individual rights.

And before that, we were formed as a colony for the wealth of kings overseas. There is a problem of inequality when there are people starving down the street from a mansion. You say that you have to work for what you want, but there are many people who work that can't even get what they need.

That's not to say that its all bad. There are wealthy people who do give back to their societies and try to help, and I applaud their effort. If everyone had a similar mentality of giving back, I would have no problem with Capitalism, but then again, if everyone had that mentality Capitalism as we recognize it would most likely not exist.

To quote Abraham Lincoln:

"Whenever there is a conflict between human rights and property rights, human rights must prevail."

Now, Lincoln was not a Socialist (I am intentionally only quoting figures you will not immediately fear and reject), but this quote does sum up my feelings on the idea of "individual rights". While I don't believe that anybody has an inherent "right" to have a billion dollars, I do believe that there is an inherent "right" to food, water, shelter, clothing and education. I am pro gun rights, pro gay rights, pro legalization of drugs, despise all forms of racial or gender inequality and rail against police brutality. This is not an unusual set of values for a Socialist, but simply follows the core of Socialist ideology.

You are for Gay Rights I am against gay right gays should never get married or do any thing that is not moral. For food and water, you should work for it, like I said earlier. The people who are working and not making enough should just go to college if you go to college you will most likely get a decent enough job. I read your profile and it said that you are a straight edge, but yet on the post it says you are Pro Legalization of Drugs. You are contradicting yourself.

Do gays being married effect you? Unless you can provide some evidence that it would, I must assume that it does not. For you to wish to deny them marriage is then to take somebody's rights for no reason, which is what you are accusing me of wishing to do. Rather hypocritical really.

Some people can come from poverty and fulfill a "rags to riches" story, but there are also others who bust ass their whole lives and die poor. You say to go to college, and as a middle class American I am lucky and will be able to do so. However, the poor usually cannot afford to finance a college education.

As for me being straight edge and wishing for the legalization of drugs, that is not a contradiction. I am not gay but think gay marriage should be allowed. I do not smoke marijuana, but I think it is ridiculous for the state to tell you what you can or cannot smoke. It is the same basic principle.

Gay Marriage was never a right in the U.S. in the first place the socialists are trying to make it a right . Also my aunt is poor and she is going to college, have you ever heard of a loan where you pay it off later, I guess you have not.

I've heard of loans. I've also heard of debt. I've also heard of when my mom, when she was young and poor, had such student loans, but had them taken by the policies of the hero of modern conservatism Ronald Regan. Luckily for us, the fire service pays relatively well once you've dedicated 30 years of your life to it (as my dad has now).

I don't care if gay marriage has been a right, or what rights have been. That argument falls under the category of Appeal to Tradition, which is a logical fallacy. I care only that it should be a right. Love is love. To deny love and union to other human beings is perhaps the worst act of authoritarianism I can think of.

 

[londelen]

I don't really care about my country. I was born there but it's just a place.

 

[Dorby5826and360]

No, I hate my government right now because of all the Communist Liberals that are in charge of it.

You realize that it is absolutely impossible for someone to be simultaneously both a Communist and a Liberal right?

Liberalism is a Capitalist ideology (alongside Conservatism and Libertarianism), whereas Communism is about as anti-Capitalist as you can get.

I know that you cannot be Liberal and Communist at the same time. What I am trying to say is that many of the people in the government are saying that they are Liberal, but they are actually Communists who are ruining the U.S. Government. Liberals are left winged and so are Communists, but are further to the left, also both Liberals and Communists have socialist views, which I am against.

Liberals are Capitalist, and do not hold Socialistic views. Liberalism itself, really is not that left. There are people that associate themselves with Liberalism that aren't fully aligned with the ideology, ranging from centre-left to slightly right leaning, but in its purest form Liberalism is pretty much centrist.

There is one open Socialist in the United States government, Senator Bernie Sanders from Vermont, but I can't think of a single other person in our government with any real Socialistic tenancies. There are people in the government who believe in similar ideals to Socialism and Communism- equality, Democracy, anti-nationalism- but the most far left anyone but Sanders is in our government is maybe Social Democrat, which favors a welfare state within Capitalism.

There are many socialist people in the U.S. Government. Explain the Health Care bill that Obama(Bin Laden, as I like to call him and so do many other people) is getting in to the Government, which is socialist bill. The government is taking away our rights that were given to us when the nation was founded like the right to bear arms. The government is also taking away our privacy because they are listening what we are saying on the phones. These are to just name a couple things hour government is doing. The U.S. was founded on Individual Rights, which the government is trying to get rid of.

I won't defend the actions of the U.S. government, as I dislike them immensely. But I will state that a basic knowledge of Socialist ideology certainly would show that none of these policies are Socialist. The original health care bill had some welfare state aspects, but even those were removed. It never had any sort of ring of Socialism. You probably aren't aware of this, but Socialist Party USA staged a massive campaign against the health care bill because of the long term implications of it against the Socialist cause. In the state in which it was passed, the health care bill is more closely related to corporatism and Fascism than to Socialism. Not to say that it is either corporatist or Fascist, just that it is closer to those than it is to Socialism.

edit-

To make my point in a more condensed form, Socialist ideology promotes equality, anti-authoritarianism, anti-nationalism and Democracy. All the things that you listed contradict these ideals.

The Health Care bill promotes equality, it is all about everyone having equally health care which should not be happening, you should work for better health care.

The health care bill may, in a sense, promote equality. However, in another sense, it gives insurance companies 35 million new customers, and forces the other couple hundred million it already has to stay- all while giving them no incentive to change their business practices. The health care bill is going to end up devastating the common man of America, and benefiting the super wealthy, as has almost every piece of legislation in our history. FDR was certainly no Socialist, but he was the last president I can think of who really did anything to help this country deal with the problem of poverty and inequality with any effectiveness.

In equality is not a problem in this county. You should have to work to get the things you want. The County was formed on individual rights.

And before that, we were formed as a colony for the wealth of kings overseas. There is a problem of inequality when there are people starving down the street from a mansion. You say that you have to work for what you want, but there are many people who work that can't even get what they need.

That's not to say that its all bad. There are wealthy people who do give back to their societies and try to help, and I applaud their effort. If everyone had a similar mentality of giving back, I would have no problem with Capitalism, but then again, if everyone had that mentality Capitalism as we recognize it would most likely not exist.

To quote Abraham Lincoln:

"Whenever there is a conflict between human rights and property rights, human rights must prevail."

Now, Lincoln was not a Socialist (I am intentionally only quoting figures you will not immediately fear and reject), but this quote does sum up my feelings on the idea of "individual rights". While I don't believe that anybody has an inherent "right" to have a billion dollars, I do believe that there is an inherent "right" to food, water, shelter, clothing and education. I am pro gun rights, pro gay rights, pro legalization of drugs, despise all forms of racial or gender inequality and rail against police brutality. This is not an unusual set of values for a Socialist, but simply follows the core of Socialist ideology.

You are for Gay Rights I am against gay right gays should never get married or do any thing that is not moral. For food and water, you should work for it, like I said earlier. The people who are working and not making enough should just go to college if you go to college you will most likely get a decent enough job. I read your profile and it said that you are a straight edge, but yet on the post it says you are Pro Legalization of Drugs. You are contradicting yourself.

Do gays being married effect you? Unless you can provide some evidence that it would, I must assume that it does not. For you to wish to deny them marriage is then to take somebody's rights for no reason, which is what you are accusing me of wishing to do. Rather hypocritical really.

Some people can come from poverty and fulfill a "rags to riches" story, but there are also others who bust ass their whole lives and die poor. You say to go to college, and as a middle class American I am lucky and will be able to do so. However, the poor usually cannot afford to finance a college education.

As for me being straight edge and wishing for the legalization of drugs, that is not a contradiction. I am not gay but think gay marriage should be allowed. I do not smoke marijuana, but I think it is ridiculous for the state to tell you what you can or cannot smoke. It is the same basic principle.

Gay Marriage was never a right in the U.S. in the first place the socialists are trying to make it a right . Also my aunt is poor and she is going to college, have you ever heard of a loan where you pay it off later, I guess you have not.

I've heard of loans. I've also heard of debt. I've also heard of when my mom, when she was young and poor, had such student loans, but had them taken by the policies of the hero of modern conservatism Ronald Regan. Luckily for us, the fire service pays relatively well once you've dedicated 30 years of your life to it (as my dad has now).

I don't care if gay marriage has been a right, or what rights have been. That argument falls under the category of Appeal to Tradition, which is a logical fallacy. I care only that it should be a right. Love is love. To deny love and union to other human beings is perhaps the worst act of authoritarianism I can think of.

When has Ronald Regan ever taken away student loans, most of my relatives went to college when he was president, they never had any problems with their loans. They have even finished college and work for great companies making good money. Ronald Regan was also one of the greatest presidents that have ever existed in the U.S.

 

[2012 Wont Happen]

No, I hate my government right now because of all the Communist Liberals that are in charge of it.

You realize that it is absolutely impossible for someone to be simultaneously both a Communist and a Liberal right?

Liberalism is a Capitalist ideology (alongside Conservatism and Libertarianism), whereas Communism is about as anti-Capitalist as you can get.

I know that you cannot be Liberal and Communist at the same time. What I am trying to say is that many of the people in the government are saying that they are Liberal, but they are actually Communists who are ruining the U.S. Government. Liberals are left winged and so are Communists, but are further to the left, also both Liberals and Communists have socialist views, which I am against.

Liberals are Capitalist, and do not hold Socialistic views. Liberalism itself, really is not that left. There are people that associate themselves with Liberalism that aren't fully aligned with the ideology, ranging from centre-left to slightly right leaning, but in its purest form Liberalism is pretty much centrist.

There is one open Socialist in the United States government, Senator Bernie Sanders from Vermont, but I can't think of a single other person in our government with any real Socialistic tenancies. There are people in the government who believe in similar ideals to Socialism and Communism- equality, Democracy, anti-nationalism- but the most far left anyone but Sanders is in our government is maybe Social Democrat, which favors a welfare state within Capitalism.

There are many socialist people in the U.S. Government. Explain the Health Care bill that Obama(Bin Laden, as I like to call him and so do many other people) is getting in to the Government, which is socialist bill. The government is taking away our rights that were given to us when the nation was founded like the right to bear arms. The government is also taking away our privacy because they are listening what we are saying on the phones. These are to just name a couple things hour government is doing. The U.S. was founded on Individual Rights, which the government is trying to get rid of.

I won't defend the actions of the U.S. government, as I dislike them immensely. But I will state that a basic knowledge of Socialist ideology certainly would show that none of these policies are Socialist. The original health care bill had some welfare state aspects, but even those were removed. It never had any sort of ring of Socialism. You probably aren't aware of this, but Socialist Party USA staged a massive campaign against the health care bill because of the long term implications of it against the Socialist cause. In the state in which it was passed, the health care bill is more closely related to corporatism and Fascism than to Socialism. Not to say that it is either corporatist or Fascist, just that it is closer to those than it is to Socialism.

edit-

To make my point in a more condensed form, Socialist ideology promotes equality, anti-authoritarianism, anti-nationalism and Democracy. All the things that you listed contradict these ideals.

The Health Care bill promotes equality, it is all about everyone having equally health care which should not be happening, you should work for better health care.

The health care bill may, in a sense, promote equality. However, in another sense, it gives insurance companies 35 million new customers, and forces the other couple hundred million it already has to stay- all while giving them no incentive to change their business practices. The health care bill is going to end up devastating the common man of America, and benefiting the super wealthy, as has almost every piece of legislation in our history. FDR was certainly no Socialist, but he was the last president I can think of who really did anything to help this country deal with the problem of poverty and inequality with any effectiveness.

In equality is not a problem in this county. You should have to work to get the things you want. The County was formed on individual rights.

And before that, we were formed as a colony for the wealth of kings overseas. There is a problem of inequality when there are people starving down the street from a mansion. You say that you have to work for what you want, but there are many people who work that can't even get what they need.

That's not to say that its all bad. There are wealthy people who do give back to their societies and try to help, and I applaud their effort. If everyone had a similar mentality of giving back, I would have no problem with Capitalism, but then again, if everyone had that mentality Capitalism as we recognize it would most likely not exist.

To quote Abraham Lincoln:

"Whenever there is a conflict between human rights and property rights, human rights must prevail."

Now, Lincoln was not a Socialist (I am intentionally only quoting figures you will not immediately fear and reject), but this quote does sum up my feelings on the idea of "individual rights". While I don't believe that anybody has an inherent "right" to have a billion dollars, I do believe that there is an inherent "right" to food, water, shelter, clothing and education. I am pro gun rights, pro gay rights, pro legalization of drugs, despise all forms of racial or gender inequality and rail against police brutality. This is not an unusual set of values for a Socialist, but simply follows the core of Socialist ideology.

You are for Gay Rights I am against gay right gays should never get married or do any thing that is not moral. For food and water, you should work for it, like I said earlier. The people who are working and not making enough should just go to college if you go to college you will most likely get a decent enough job. I read your profile and it said that you are a straight edge, but yet on the post it says you are Pro Legalization of Drugs. You are contradicting yourself.

Do gays being married effect you? Unless you can provide some evidence that it would, I must assume that it does not. For you to wish to deny them marriage is then to take somebody's rights for no reason, which is what you are accusing me of wishing to do. Rather hypocritical really.

Some people can come from poverty and fulfill a "rags to riches" story, but there are also others who bust ass their whole lives and die poor. You say to go to college, and as a middle class American I am lucky and will be able to do so. However, the poor usually cannot afford to finance a college education.

As for me being straight edge and wishing for the legalization of drugs, that is not a contradiction. I am not gay but think gay marriage should be allowed. I do not smoke marijuana, but I think it is ridiculous for the state to tell you what you can or cannot smoke. It is the same basic principle.

Gay Marriage was never a right in the U.S. in the first place the socialists are trying to make it a right . Also my aunt is poor and she is going to college, have you ever heard of a loan where you pay it off later, I guess you have not.

I've heard of loans. I've also heard of debt. I've also heard of when my mom, when she was young and poor, had such student loans, but had them taken by the policies of the hero of modern conservatism Ronald Regan. Luckily for us, the fire service pays relatively well once you've dedicated 30 years of your life to it (as my dad has now).

I don't care if gay marriage has been a right, or what rights have been. That argument falls under the category of Appeal to Tradition, which is a logical fallacy. I care only that it should be a right. Love is love. To deny love and union to other human beings is perhaps the worst act of authoritarianism I can think of.

When has Ronald Regan ever taken away student loans, most of my relatives went to college when he was president, they never had any problems with their loans. They have even finished college and work for great companies making good money. Ronald Regan was also one of the greatest presidents that have ever existed in the U.S.

His trickle down system worked at the time, but then later was responsible for greater economic trouble in the long run, which I view as more important than the short term. I'm sincerely happy for your family, but my family went through a lot of problems for a long time due to his policies.

 

[Irradiated Tiger]

Ha! Ha! Ha! No.
I value my own hide over my country. Some people call it cowardice. I call it survival.

 

[Ryokai]

Consider the fact that my draft is in November, and I'm working my ass off to get into as elite and dangerous a combat unit as I can, yes. Especially since in Israel, you're not fighting overseas against abstract danger (serious threat though it may be), we're literally protecting our citizens lives from immediate terrorism, bastards shooting up kids and blowing up in buses, all in the name of jihad.

Also, even moreso especially, our enemy countries have repeatedly stated that they will do the utmost to wipe us out, men, women, and children. If they win even one war, we're all dead.

 

[DustyDrB]

I feel the need to cite "Dulce et Decorum Est"

 

[FROGGEman2]

No, never.

Life is a precious thing, and I would NEVER throw it away.

No, I hate my government right now because of all the Communist Liberals that are in charge of it.

You realize that it is absolutely impossible for someone to be simultaneously both a Communist and a Liberal right?

Liberalism is a Capitalist ideology (alongside Conservatism and Libertarianism), whereas Communism is about as anti-Capitalist as you can get.

I know that you cannot be Liberal and Communist at the same time. What I am trying to say is that many of the people in the government are saying that they are Liberal, but they are actually Communists who are ruining the U.S. Government. Liberals are left winged and so are Communists, but are further to the left, also both Liberals and Communists have socialist views, which I am against.

Liberals are Capitalist, and do not hold Socialistic views. Liberalism itself, really is not that left. There are people that associate themselves with Liberalism that aren't fully aligned with the ideology, ranging from centre-left to slightly right leaning, but in its purest form Liberalism is pretty much centrist.

There is one open Socialist in the United States government, Senator Bernie Sanders from Vermont, but I can't think of a single other person in our government with any real Socialistic tenancies. There are people in the government who believe in similar ideals to Socialism and Communism- equality, Democracy, anti-nationalism- but the most far left anyone but Sanders is in our government is maybe Social Democrat, which favors a welfare state within Capitalism.

There are many socialist people in the U.S. Government. Explain the Health Care bill that Obama(Bin Laden, as I like to call him and so do many other people) is getting in to the Government, which is socialist bill. The government is taking away our rights that were given to us when the nation was founded like the right to bear arms. The government is also taking away our privacy because they are listening what we are saying on the phones. These are to just name a couple things hour government is doing. The U.S. was founded on Individual Rights, which the government is trying to get rid of.

I won't defend the actions of the U.S. government, as I dislike them immensely. But I will state that a basic knowledge of Socialist ideology certainly would show that none of these policies are Socialist. The original health care bill had some welfare state aspects, but even those were removed. It never had any sort of ring of Socialism. You probably aren't aware of this, but Socialist Party USA staged a massive campaign against the health care bill because of the long term implications of it against the Socialist cause. In the state in which it was passed, the health care bill is more closely related to corporatism and Fascism than to Socialism. Not to say that it is either corporatist or Fascist, just that it is closer to those than it is to Socialism.

edit-

To make my point in a more condensed form, Socialist ideology promotes equality, anti-authoritarianism, anti-nationalism and Democracy. All the things that you listed contradict these ideals.

The Health Care bill promotes equality, it is all about everyone having equally health care which should not be happening, you should work for better health care.

The health care bill may, in a sense, promote equality. However, in another sense, it gives insurance companies 35 million new customers, and forces the other couple hundred million it already has to stay- all while giving them no incentive to change their business practices. The health care bill is going to end up devastating the common man of America, and benefiting the super wealthy, as has almost every piece of legislation in our history. FDR was certainly no Socialist, but he was the last president I can think of who really did anything to help this country deal with the problem of poverty and inequality with any effectiveness.

In equality is not a problem in this county. You should have to work to get the things you want. The County was formed on individual rights.

And before that, we were formed as a colony for the wealth of kings overseas. There is a problem of inequality when there are people starving down the street from a mansion. You say that you have to work for what you want, but there are many people who work that can't even get what they need.

That's not to say that its all bad. There are wealthy people who do give back to their societies and try to help, and I applaud their effort. If everyone had a similar mentality of giving back, I would have no problem with Capitalism, but then again, if everyone had that mentality Capitalism as we recognize it would most likely not exist.

To quote Abraham Lincoln:

"Whenever there is a conflict between human rights and property rights, human rights must prevail."

Now, Lincoln was not a Socialist (I am intentionally only quoting figures you will not immediately fear and reject), but this quote does sum up my feelings on the idea of "individual rights". While I don't believe that anybody has an inherent "right" to have a billion dollars, I do believe that there is an inherent "right" to food, water, shelter, clothing and education. I am pro gun rights, pro gay rights, pro legalization of drugs, despise all forms of racial or gender inequality and rail against police brutality. This is not an unusual set of values for a Socialist, but simply follows the core of Socialist ideology.

You are for Gay Rights I am against gay right gays should never get married or do any thing that is not moral. For food and water, you should work for it, like I said earlier. The people who are working and not making enough should just go to college if you go to college you will most likely get a decent enough job. I read your profile and it said that you are a straight edge, but yet on the post it says you are Pro Legalization of Drugs. You are contradicting yourself.

Do gays being married effect you? Unless you can provide some evidence that it would, I must assume that it does not. For you to wish to deny them marriage is then to take somebody's rights for no reason, which is what you are accusing me of wishing to do. Rather hypocritical really.

Some people can come from poverty and fulfill a "rags to riches" story, but there are also others who bust ass their whole lives and die poor. You say to go to college, and as a middle class American I am lucky and will be able to do so. However, the poor usually cannot afford to finance a college education.

As for me being straight edge and wishing for the legalization of drugs, that is not a contradiction. I am not gay but think gay marriage should be allowed. I do not smoke marijuana, but I think it is ridiculous for the state to tell you what you can or cannot smoke. It is the same basic principle.

Gay Marriage was never a right in the U.S. in the first place the socialists are trying to make it a right . Also my aunt is poor and she is going to college, have you ever heard of a loan where you pay it off later, I guess you have not.

I've heard of loans. I've also heard of debt. I've also heard of when my mom, when she was young and poor, had such student loans, but had them taken by the policies of the hero of modern conservatism Ronald Regan. Luckily for us, the fire service pays relatively well once you've dedicated 30 years of your life to it (as my dad has now).

I don't care if gay marriage has been a right, or what rights have been. That argument falls under the category of Appeal to Tradition, which is a logical fallacy. I care only that it should be a right. Love is love. To deny love and union to other human beings is perhaps the worst act of authoritarianism I can think of.

When has Ronald Regan ever taken away student loans, most of my relatives went to college when he was president, they never had any problems with their loans. They have even finished college and work for great companies making good money. Ronald Regan was also one of the greatest presidents that have ever existed in the U.S.

His trickle down system worked at the time, but then later was responsible for greater economic trouble in the long run, which I view as more important than the short term. I'm sincerely happy for your family, but my family went through a lot of problems for a long time due to his policies.

I agree with 2012 here. Your arguments all seem to appeal to a very specific demographic; ie. People who can afford/want to go to college. I also disagree with the idea "Because it never was a right"- People have to stop glorifying the "forfathers of Ameri-cuh!". Using the idea that a bunch of Brits came here and set a bunch of rules and we shouldn't question those rules is disgusting and ridiculous. Do you love them- do you believe in them as Gods? But people fucking pick and choose. So often is it forgotten that those forfathers had slaves. Lots and lots of slaves. Do you not believe in black rights, either?

I'm not sure if this is an amendment or not (herp durp I'm Australian) but the forfathers(?) themselves had some very socialistic principles- the right to bear, and take up arms, anyone? Whilst not socialist itself, it carries the idea: power to the people, screw the individual. Food for thought.

Sorry this sounds so rushed and is poorly structured, I'm doing this from my phone.

 

[thenumberthirteen]

No I personally wouldn't die for my country. I'd kill for the perfect Sandwich, but that's a different matter.

What interests me when people say they'd give their life for their nation (and truly would) ask them to give up all their money and possessions in taxes. How many people would do that?

 

[Jaxek13]

My country: no. The world: yes.

 

[firedfns13]

I make the other bastard die for his.

>:| No seriously, I'm indestructible.

 

[MBanister]

For this country: no
For the people of this country: no
For people i know: no
For people i either love or care about: yes

 

[007dog900]

I would not give my life to defend a geographical position, nor would i give my life to defend a set of morals, for i am a
self-centered tool

 

[hardlymotivated]

I'd be willing to kill and be killed to defend my family, but not for my country or its people. The only thing which separates my countrymen from those of neighbouring countries is that they happened to be born on a different side of a line on a map. Lines are constructs over which I would not be willing to kill.

 

[firedfns13]

Consider the fact that my draft is in November, and I'm working my ass off to get into as elite and dangerous a combat unit as I can, yes. Especially since in Israel, you're not fighting overseas against abstract danger (serious threat though it may be), we're literally protecting our citizens lives from immediate terrorism, bastards shooting up kids and blowing up in buses, all in the name of jihad.

I greatly respect people like you. I have 4 friends going into the US Army or already in it, 2 13 bravos (artillery) and one's due for WOCS and Apache Pilot soon, 1 ranger, and 1 infantry, but I can't go more specific for him.

 

[Ithera]

Only if press ganged, commissar style.

I find the people to be more important, I don't care much for chest beating and flag waving.
If I find myself fighting it will be for friends and loved ones.

 

[The Night Shade]

No i wouldn't die for anybody my life is the most important

 

[Ryokai]

Consider the fact that my draft is in November, and I'm working my ass off to get into as elite and dangerous a combat unit as I can, yes. Especially since in Israel, you're not fighting overseas against abstract danger (serious threat though it may be), we're literally protecting our citizens lives from immediate terrorism, bastards shooting up kids and blowing up in buses, all in the name of jihad.

I greatly respect people like you. I have 4 friends going into the US Army or already in it, 2 13 bravos (artillery) and one's due for WOCS and Apache Pilot soon, 1 ranger, and 1 infantry, but I can't go more specific for him.

Thanks. Your post means a lot to me.

 

[sdmblack]

I won't die for my country for the same reason i wont die for mcdonalds. i might die to save the employees of mcdonalds, but the executives can go fuck themselves, for being the greddy bastards who may or may not have cause the danger.