I won’t honor Mexican flag, Texas teen says

Why is it wrong to not be Patriotic? How is that liberal? The lack of patriotism or the expression of patriotism is not a measure of liberalism. It merely is a matter of personal preference. Being patriotic is not a litmus to any conservative or liberal organization.

BTW, I have several friends who have a dual citizenship. They have allegiances to two countries. Is that treason? The United States Government allows this and has for almost all their existence. In fact, you can be a citizen of another country but if you agree to defend and protect the United States, then we will allow you to serve in our military. I served with several who were serving but citizens of another country. This practice dates back to the Revolutionary War.

For the record, the Constitution defines treason: "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court. The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted."

Mexico is not an enemy of the United States, rather we are friends with Mexico and have many pacts of friendship with this country.

This is not treason. The Constitution never says you have to be patriotic; it never says you have to be in love with the U.S. Rather, it says that treason is only levying war, adhering to their enemies, and giving aid and comfort. In the United States, you have right not NOT love your country or to love another country. That is neither liberal or conservative, it is merely reality.

This is not treason: this is not liberalism. Rather, this was a study in Mexican civics. The teacher performed the lesson poorly, but it is not liberalism no more than a Mexican English class having their students say our pledge.

 

I heard what you said, cited it, and responded to it. I simply said that I have never had issues with using it. It is a legitimate word and we use in my house all the time. This may be a cultural issue, but there are many times I use this word. The other week I was working on a project where we addressed an issue that was beyond my expertise and said, "Sorry all, I am totally ignorant on this part of the work." It was not negative or caustic, it was a fact, I was ignorant. When my computer crashed, I told my wife I was ignorant in fixing the thing, so we took it to a friend. I hear what you said, but it is a word I use regularly.

 

It is a common attitude on the left. It is almost never seen on the right.

 

Yes, go cite my alleged personal attacks. I've never called you a name, nor attacked your person.

You've pulled this accusation too many times in too many threads, but please, go cite them for me.

 

First, would you agree with the notations I made today that you cited? Would you agree that the Hitler comment was an attack?

 

There are a number of people who are non-patriotic and liberal, but being non-patriotic is not exclusive to liberalism.

As well, neither is pledging allegiance to another flag liberal or treasonous.

 

And so we understand that is your opinion.

 

No, first go show where I attacked your person and/or called you names, as you accuse.

 

We are at a standstill on this point. I wanted to show what was a real attack, and I asked this question first. As well, I am not concerned with whether you attacked me, but whether I am correct on this issue. You called me out, but you will not state whether I was wrong or not. Thus, it is a moot point. If you think I am wrong, that is one issue. If you agree with me but want to make this an issue because you have some grievance against me, that is another.

BTW, where did I originally state to you that you were name calling?

 

So, you have accused me of a personal attack in another thread, confirm it was valid and justifiable for you to do so in this thread, yet you cannot recall what or where it was?

Um?

Ruiz, in all honesty you've got to slow down on this as you've stated this towards several others when it simply is just not there.

 

Ding, ding, ding. There's the condescension meter.

 

I re-read the article.

It does not say that the students "took a pledge" to Mexico.

The assignment was to learn the pledge - not take the pledge.

Saying something out load as part of a school assignment is not the same as claiming it as a belief.

Also students were allowed a different assignment if they so desired.

You really do need to get a grip, freeatlast.

 

The only time I remember saying that was the Ron Paul discussion, and you misrepresented his view.

 

Not at all. I rightly represented compromise.

So I see what it is here Ruiz, disagree with you, -or- you think somebody misrepresented someone then you call that a personal attack on you.

I understand.

 

Freeatlast,

For generations, immigration has been a problem in America; this generation faces illegal immigration from Mexico. This should not cloud our view on this issue. We should distinguish between illegals and the country of origin. While Mexico has not helped in our situation, our relationship with them is strong; Mexico is not our enemy. Therefore, this was not treason nor liberal.

Again, if kids in a Mexican English class were required to memorize the pledge of allegiance, I would not consider this an act of treason or liberal. It is merely an academic exercise.

Rejoice that our kids are learning about other countries, learning cultural lessons about other nations.

 

It was a misrepresentation, and to be honest, most other people on that thread recognized it was a misrepresentation.

Yet, let's say you were right. You offered no evidence to combat my view. I explained his view and the item of contention. My approach was rather logical. I noted the problem, explained his view, and expounded the distinctions. You never gave a rebbuttal on any of my points. Then, in this thread, you lambast me over other legitimate notations. You would rather defend someone who compares Romney to Hitler to take issue with me.

In logic and respectful dialog, it is okay to call out people for innaccuracies or name calling. Yet, just saying it is wrong is not enough, you should point out how this is wrong. I did that. You then dig into your position but offer no rational rebuttal.

Thus, I will keep on explaining my point of view, show rationally why I believe these point, and you can attack people personally implying some major character defect, as you did in this most recent post.

I don't know why you hate me, but if you want, I will be glad to call you and work it out. However, you did misrepresent Paul's view, you are now misrepresenting me in how I approach the situation, and you offer no rational support for your reasons.

 

Two separate issues. You can consider it treason; however, your definition is only yours as it is never supported anywhere in American history. Your invention of your own definition of treason is ultimately politically driven, not based upon established principles of treason. IN essence, I believe changing the definition to fit your political ideology is post-modern/modern where one's own views trump established precedent and history.

 

Yes, freeatlast, is being most liberal with the definition of treason isn't he? :laugh: