And listen to His Word! For by the Powers invested into Him by God, he will bring Peace and Freedom to all People of this world, regardless of oilprices. May God continue to bless the Greatest Nation of all and may He protect us from the Infidel. AMEN!
Ahem. Welcome to the 21st century.
Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
THAT'LL teach those godless Commies & those heretics pagans with their May Day & Beltane celebrations..!
Posted by Cartmaniac (Member # 256) on :
Wasn't it the Founding Fathers' intent to ban organized religion, having knowledge of the horrors of religious warfare throughout European history? Wasn't it Washington who said "The government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion"?
Yeah.
Posted by Ultra Magnus (Member # 239) on :
"Loyalty Day?"
A Mr. Joseph Goebbels is giving an Arthur Fonzarelli-like "Hey," complete with thumbs up, from beyond the grave.
Posted by Styrofoaman (Member # 706) on :
I am loyal.
100% loyal.
Death to Bin Laden! Death To Sadam!
Hell, I sell styrofoam cups to the Navy.
I am not taking no flipping loyalty oath... Unless I get a bar-code tattoo and implanted tracking chip (with self-destruct option) along with it.
Posted by Valles (Member # 925) on :
Figures.
Blessed be. -n
Posted by Dr. Jonas Bashir (Member # 481) on :
Please, US Americans, tell us with a month of advance when you'll be trying to annex Argentina. I may like to change my nationality then. Please?
If I don't, please pass me the words of the Oath, so I can learn them in advance. Thank you.
Posted by Styrofoaman (Member # 706) on :
Do you have oil?
quote:Originally posted by Dr. Jonas Bashir: Please, US Americans, tell us with a month of advance when you'll be trying to annex Argentina.
Posted by The_Tom (Member # 38) on :
First "Homeland Security" and now "Loyalty Day." If anybody ever needed to convene one of those corporate branding focus groups, it's the Bush White House.
Posted by Tora Regina (Member # 53) on :
quote: By learning about America's history, achievements, ideas, and heroes, our young citizens will come to understand even more why freedom is worth protecting.
Somebody should've told him about slavery and persecution of Native Americans and Japanese concentration camps.
Posted by Phoenix (Member # 966) on :
quote:Originally posted by The_Tom: First "Homeland Security" and now "Loyalty Day." If anybody ever needed to convene one of those corporate branding focus groups, it's the Bush White House.
You forgot the Patriot Act. Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
I don't know if it is the pizza or the article that has made my stomach upset....
Here I was beginning the think he was doing alright, considering, and he does some silly assed thing like this.
Posted by Phoenix (Member # 966) on :
quote:Originally proclaimed by George W Bush: Our children need to know that our Nation is a force for good in the world, extending hope and freedom to others.
Surely if the US is a force of for good in the world, its citizens can see that for themselves, rather than being told it by Propaganda Day (sorry, I mean Loyalty Day )?
Posted by Da_bang80 (Member # 528) on :
"loyalty Day"?
Sounds like something Stalin would cook up, or Hitler...
Posted by Ultra Magnus (Member # 239) on :
HENCE MY GOEBBELS JOKE YOUNG MAN
Posted by The_Tom (Member # 38) on :
And on that note I shall deftly segue...
Remember those enemy combatants caged up in Guantanamo? Looks like the Pentagon thinks it unpatriotic for anything they say to ever be released. They are, as always, absolutely correct.
Posted by Harry (Member # 265) on :
And remember, they are watching you. Could someone explain the difference between the Stasi and Homeland Security? Even their names are the same Posted by Cartmaniac (Member # 256) on :
Hey, sowing the seeds of nationalism sways voters like shit attracts flies.
Posted by Cartmaniac (Member # 256) on :
And what a perfect day to eat Freedom Fries!
Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
Loyalty day? Ok; I thought 7 BNP councillors in Burnly was bad but I suppose at least there's virtually no chance of them ever getting into actual power here. I cannot understand how any country could begin to repeat the mistakes of the last century. Nationalism on this scale is extremely worrying.
quote: "The government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion"?
I keep expecting Bush to say "The war against Terror is not a religious war, but God is on our side"
Posted by Styrofoaman (Member # 706) on :
You're worried?!
Hell, I LIVE here and I'm scared out of my mind over this.
I was only partly kidding about the tracking chips... Seems you can get them implaned in your kids so you can track them with GPS technology...
Burrrrr....
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
quote:Wasn't it Washington who said "The government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion"?
I think it was Adams, in the Treaty of Tripoli.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
It was Joel Barlow, who wrote said treaty.
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
And Adams who signed it.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
He also signed the US Declaration of Independence, but I wouldn't recommend attributing quotes from it to him, either.
Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :
So how long has this Loyalty Day schtick been up? A cursory web search revealed declarations thereof from the past three years, but I got bored on my way through the .gov sites and didn't track the entire history of the Day.
I also hit a random link about the Governor of Georgia declaring the State version of this day in '58. Was that where it got started? Or is it as old as Roosevelt's fireside chats or Washington's slippers, and simply gets extra attention every time patriotism becomes fashionable, or loathsome, or both?
Timo Saloniemi
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
It's older than that.
It's origins stretch back to the original Labor Day, which was May 1st.
On May 1st, 1886, the American Federation of Labor declared a national strike to demand an eight-hour work day and 350,000 workers across the country responded.
When police attempted to disperse a peaceful rally in Haymarket Square, Chicago, a bomb was tossed into their midst, wounding nearly 70 officers, some mortally. Firing randomly into the crowd, police wounded 200 citizens, killing many.
Police arrested eight revolutionary labor leaders, seven of whom had not even been present in Haymarket at the time. In the absence of any evidence linking them to the bomb, the "Chicago Eight" were tried solely on the basis of their political beliefs. All eight were sentenced to death; most were eventually executed.
News of the trial electrified labor groups everywhere; protests were held around the world. In 1889, the Socialist International declared May 1st a day of demonstrations, and since 1890 these have been held annually worldwide by a variety of labor movements, in many cases eventually forcing official recognition of the holiday. Soon, labor advocates in the United States, too, pressed for a national holiday recognizing workers.
Some states chose to hold their holiday on May 1, others opted for September. Eventually, the September date won out.
The idea of a "Loyalty Day" began to take root in the 1930's, along with other related festivals.
In 1932 some patriotic organizations were encouraged by the Loyalty Day concept and wanted to do something more to inspire loyalty to the nation. So, the concept of Americanism Day came into being to be celebrated on the same day of the Loyalty Day. The first Americanism parade was held in Uniontown, Pennsylvania, in 1932. (As I've said before, I used to work in Uniontown.)
In 1947, the U.S. Veterans of Foreign Wars renamed May 1st "Loyalty Day" and a joint session of Congress later made the pronouncement official. (At least part of the idea was to take crowds away from Socialist and Communist events, some of which were still taking place on May 1.)
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
So, what does all that about the labor strikes have to do w/ anything, except that the original Labor Day was on 1. May?
Posted by Vogon Poet (Member # 393) on :
So, in a nutshell, May 1st started out as a worker's day; individual states then decided to have their own ones in September, for whatever reason; the official Labor Day was eventually created in September precisely because May Day was by then associated with commies and pinkos and subversives. And I've never seen a lot to indicate Labor Day was especially concerned with workers in any way other than the name. . . So isn't it just the government and corporate America paying lip-service to the idea?
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
quote:Originally posted by TSN: So, what does all that about the labor strikes have to do w/ anything, except that the original Labor Day was on 1. May?
The original strike that led to all this was on May 1, which is why the original Labor Day was May 1.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
Yes. But Labor Day != Loyalty Day.
Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
mmm, Rob, we are discussing Loyalty Day.....
They probably moved it so it wasn't so close to Memorial Day....
Posted by Harry (Member # 265) on :
mmm, Rob ba du ba dop Ba do bop ba du ba dop Ba do bop ba du ba dop Ba do yah mmm, Rob ba du ba dop Ba do bop ba du ba dop Ba do bop ba du ba dop Ba do yah
ehhh.. nevermind.
Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
You know, I may need to change the way I read and post, something seems a bit backwards here. Maybe open and read one thread at a time might help....
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
Labor Day was moved because the most states were celebrating it in September.
However, the Socialists and the Communists kept on celebrating on May 1. Because of the strike.
Therefore, "Loyalty Day" was created, at least in part, in order to usurp their holiday, in much the same fashion that Christianity usurped certain pagan holidays by 'fudging' their dates. (Easter, Christmas, Halloween) by people who believed that, since Communism advocates the overthrow of all governmental systems, Communism and loyalty to country were mutually exclusive terms.
Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
quote: Communism advocates the overthrow of all governmental systems
No it doesn't. According to Marxist theory, a communist state will evolve from a socialist one as the state itself withers away (NOT overthrown). The revolutionary aspect of Marxism was in the overthrow of feudal power structures to form a bourgouis capitalist state and then the overthrow of that by a socialist revolution.
Posted by The_Tom (Member # 38) on :
More accurately, Lenin added the whole professionalized revolution thing to Marx's original idea about an inevitable (and unlikely to be particularly rapid) swing from capitalism to socialism just as feudal mercantilism had given way over a 200-year period or so to capitalism.
Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
Yeah, I was was gonna add about Lenin but couldn't be arsed . Basically he was the only Marxist leader who believed a socialist revolution could occur from top down, instituted by professional revolutionaries and also that it could occur without the period of capitalist development Marx specified. The Provisional Government's failure to deal with the land and war questions didn't help matters for the democracy movement...
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
Not to rub your nose in an inaccurate statement, but...
quote:The Communists disdain to conceal their views and aims. They openly declare that their ends can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions. Let the ruling classes tremble at a communist revolution. The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win.
(emphasis mine)
Quote lifted DIRECTLY from the text of Marx's "Communist Manifesto," Chapter Four
You are therefore wrong.
Posted by The_Tom (Member # 38) on :
You, my friend, are the victim of insufficient research. Engels dropped in some of the more "proactive" components to the Manifesto all right, but as I'm sure you know, oh all-knowing one, the Manifesto was released in a rather interesting year, and much of its content, including the latter chapters, were tacked on on the fly. Marx and Engels didn't want to miss out on the Year of Revolutions party, after all. You also inevitably knew that, because, after all, you're typically right.
Years later, when Marx went and definitively nailed down his "ism" in Capital, the whole forcible revolution element was clarified so that we have the oft-echoed Marxist (and Marxian, incidentally, but that's a distinction only Social Scientists need worry about) theory of defining history in terms of the predominant means of production and, most importantly, its wholly automated march from one phase to another.
You appear to be unwittingly emulating Lenin in your rather selective reading of Marx. And you'd never want to emulate him, would you?
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
That's probably the most erudite version of "spin" I've ever read. Kudos.
He still said what he said, and the one actual "Communist" I do know, (a fellow from Brazil who helped get Lula elected) agrees with my interpretation.
Posted by The_Tom (Member # 38) on :
Well, don't mind me, then. I just study the stuff.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
Convergence!
Simon's current text, which he has not even opened, yet: The Economic & Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844.
Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
...or 1848 even...
quote: Well, don't mind me, then. I just study the stuff
Likewise... Consiousness vs Spontenaity, anyone?
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
My implication was not meant to be along the lines of "I too am reading things published in that famed year of turbulence." but rather "I too am stuck studying 19th century Hegelians."
Posted by Peregrinus (Member # 504) on :
What was it Ferris Bueller said about "isms"...?
--Jonah
Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sol System: My implication was not meant to be along the lines of "I too am reading things published in that famed year of turbulence." but rather "I too am stuck studying 19th century Hegelians."
Ah, right, ok. Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
quote:Originally posted by The_Tom: Well, don't mind me, then. I just study the stuff.
You do not have an IQ that's reputedly between 167-176. Nor do you wear a skirt. You will not win.
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
quote:Originally posted by The_Tom: Well, don't mind me, then. I just study the stuff.
OOH.
In that case, do you think Marx is correct when he states that use value can be completely omitted from his derivation of exchange value?
Because it seems that not only can use value be quantified, (marginal utility) but it is the primary force in determining the market value of goods.
If you work for forty years on making the perfect widget, but a widget which no one has a use for, the cost of your labor is irrelevant.
Posted by Cartmaniac (Member # 256) on :
Of course, many "useless" widgets invented over the past two centuries have actually turned out to be quite useful, but hey...
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
Well, of course. Those are the ones you've heard of. Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
quote: If you work for forty years on making the perfect widget, but a widget which no one has a use for, the cost of your labor is irrelevant.
In either 'ism' this is about right, you have to provide an item that is at least useful to someone, in order to recoup your loss in, at least, time. Ask any starving artist....
Posted by Vogon Poet (Member # 393) on :
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
Figures. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
. Basically he was the only Marxist leader who believed a socialist revolution could occur from top down, instituted by professional revolutionaries and also that it could occur without the period of capitalist development Marx specified. The Provisional Government's failure to deal with the land and war questions didn't help matters for the democracy movement...
![[Wink]](wink.gif)