Quote From: PennyLane78"Wearing a flag pin or reciting a poem may be a genuine expression of patriotism and loyalty of one's country. " Yes, it CAN be, but it is not inherently so...the fact that this was made into a big deal shows that the sincerity of wearing a pin is of little value.
And I said that wearing a pin for the sake of wearing a pin is pandering and insulting...I don't believe that any candidate wears a flag pin for any other reason than to pander to morons and insult intelligent folks.
"Not putting your hand over your heart is disrespectful, IMO of those
who died and will die for the freedoms we have now and in the future. "Nope, me not doing what I want to do in a FREE COUNTRY is disrespectful to those who died for those FREEDOMS.
"As Americans, it's important not to forget where we came from and how we've prospered and will continue to do so."I agree, and empty gestures do not accomplish this. Knowledge of, learning and understanding the constitution will. Learning American history will. Wearing a painted piece of metal will not.
"Why is a gesture automatically MEANINGLESS and EMPTY- and how does one determine that?"I didn't say any gesture was. What I said was IMO
this gesture is meaningless and empty.
"It's a symbol to leaders of other countries by the ultimate ambassador
to the values that the entire country espouses, he's not just speaking
for himself, he's a representative for the nation. "The president doesn't need a flag pin to accomplish this, the mere fact that he/she was elected is proof of this!
"It's NOT just about the pin"I believe in this case it IS just about the pin...
"It can be interpreted as a Freudian slip"By those who wish to see it that way. This whole issue is nothing but a Conservative/Media concocted red-herring.
Um, who is anyone to decide what is a meaningless gesture? How do you know that reciting the pledge is empty and meaningless? Like I said before, it's not all about the pin, it's a combo of not reciting the pledge, the inexperience, the abhorrent foreign policy and the lack of experience. Why SHOULDN'T O pander to those IN HIS OWN COUNTRY? And why does he instead pander to sociopathic terrorists? To me, that's common sense.
Here are some more reasons I'm NOT voting for 'O'
During an October 2004 debate, Obama stated that he opposed education vouchers for use at private schools because he believes they would undermine public schools. ==With the wide-spread failure of public schools having had billions of dollars poured into them, to date, why would anyone resist a chance to improve education?
In a July 2007 address to the National Education Association, Obama also called for higher pay for teachers with a plan estimated to cost $18 billion annually and would be partially funded by cutting funding to NASA. The bulk of the cuts would be derived from delaying the Constellation program for five years. So we will defund the leading scientific and technical operations of our country in order to give pay raises to teachers - most of whom work 9 months out of 12 - without any mention of requiring merit from them. This is called a smart plan?
On April 20, 2007, Obama introduced in the Senate a bill (Shareholder Vote on Executive Compensation Act - S. 1181) requiring public companies to give shareholders an annual nonbinding vote on executive compensation, popularly called "Say on Pay." Several corporations voluntarily have begun to give shareholders such a vote because of concerns about excessive CEO salaries. Some critics have said that the federal law would interfere with the traditional state oversight over corporate governance. Federal meddling in a state issue? Has the senator ever read the 10th Amendment?
In an address on national security on August 1, 2007, Obama stated that as President he would consider military action in Pakistan in order to attack al-Qaeda, even if the Pakistani government did not give approval. Obama said, "I will not hesitate to use military force to take out terrorists who pose a direct threat to America." So it's OK for a junior senator to speak of a unilateral invasion of a nation considered our ally, but it was not OK for a sitting president to attack a nation that had repeatedly violated the terms of a cease fire agreement (which is an act of war), repeatedly fired upon our aircraft (act of war), repeatedly violated over a dozen UN Resolutions, including Resolution #1441, and for that president to obtain overwhelming agreement of both houses of Congress (296-133 in the House; 77-23 in the Senate) and a coalition of allies to join in the battle. I wonder if the Senator has thought this position all the way through.
On immigration, Obama has said that he "will not support any bill that does not provide [an] earned path to citizenship for the undocumented population." In January 2008 Obama campaigned on a policy to grant drivers licenses to illegal immigrants. Why would you grant a legal document (license) to people who have already disregarded the law? And if an illegal alien is caught speeding, wouldn't he/she lie about having a driver's license just so the ticket wouldn't go on their record? And if you say "we'll add biometric data to them", why don't we just make them go through the process of legal immigration in the first place? Can you say amnesty?
While many people have varying views on gun control, Sen. Obama has supported a ban on the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns. == I suppose it is easy to guess he has some strict issues with the 2nd Amendment.
You mentioned that a President has to know the Constitution? It seems like O is already treading on it. He doesn't know what he's doing. You personally can do what you want in a free country, the patriotism thing not about that.
It's about someone running for a government office that will not say the pledge or put his hand over his heart, IMO, it's disrespectful and irresponsible for someone who is a possible Commander in Chief to send a message that "I don't value what you're risking your life for". That's my opinion, but that's not the only reason I refuse to catch "Obamania".
