Ramsay Gimp Posted April 24, 2014 Share Posted April 24, 2014 Let's hope this goes better.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
karaddin Posted April 24, 2014 Share Posted April 24, 2014 Well at least they are people not a piece of cloth :p Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted April 24, 2014 Share Posted April 24, 2014 Ramsey,I'm always surprised by the very harsh and negative reaction to not saying the pledge. Are advanced civics really that difficult to understand? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1918me Posted April 24, 2014 Share Posted April 24, 2014 Not really news, but there's an interesting analysis on 538 about when people form partisan loyalties, and what it may mean for the foreseeable future of both parties. http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/partisan-loyalty-begins-at-age-18/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Summah Posted April 24, 2014 Share Posted April 24, 2014 As a kid I was always uncomfortable with the pledge and thought it a bit creepy. I still don't like it, but no one makes me say it anymore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramsay Gimp Posted April 24, 2014 Author Share Posted April 24, 2014 Ramsey,I'm always surprised by the very harsh and negative reaction to not saying the pledge. Are advanced civics really that difficult to understand? Apparently. Then you feel like an asshole for being "that guy", even though they are the ones engaging in something ridiculous. There's no excuse for a teacher to come down on a student for refusing, but it happens all the time. And none of this would be improved by just removing "under God." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ormond Posted April 24, 2014 Share Posted April 24, 2014 Not really news, but there's an interesting analysis on 538 about when people form partisan loyalties, and what it may mean for the foreseeable future of both parties. http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/partisan-loyalty-begins-at-age-18/ The yearly cohort which most skews toward the Republicans on that chart are people born in 1937, who are having their 77th birthdays this year. This also points out the big difference between the early and late Baby Boomers. I've mentioned on this board before how early boomers are actually less politically conservative in many ways than later boomers. This chart shows that perfectly -- boomers are born between 1946 and 1964, and those who were turning 18 in the last couple of Carter years and the first few Reagan years were born between 1960 and 1964 -- basically the tail end of the boomers. As the Silent Generation Eisenhower Republicans die off the electorate will become more Democratic. But then when the Boomers start to die off those of us who are less Republican will be the first ones to go. So in the 2020s those in their 70s will be less "conservative" than people in their 70s will be in the 2030s. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jarl the climber Posted April 24, 2014 Share Posted April 24, 2014 Apparently. Then you feel like an asshole for being "that guy", even though they are the ones engaging in something ridiculous. There's no excuse for a teacher to come down on a student for refusing, but it happens all the time. And none of this would be improved by just removing "under God." This is such a funny issue for me in so many ways and it goes against my nature to say what I really think but just say the damn pledge and if you don't like it cross your fingers behind your back, do everyone a favor but ecspecially yourself and do not be, "that guy", there's enough trouble in the world without going around looking for it. I have this guy who works for me, and over the past couple of years he has gotten involved in a biker group and its starting to get him into trouble and frankly its stupid. If they just lost the jackets and the tats nobody would even know they exist or give a shit about them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted April 24, 2014 Share Posted April 24, 2014 jarl,So, just conform? That's the answer? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Formerly Tetrarch42 Posted April 24, 2014 Share Posted April 24, 2014 What's wrong with the pledge? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted April 24, 2014 Share Posted April 24, 2014 Tetrach,It's a loyalty oath. That presumes the US is the ultimate source for liberty and justice. I don't care for unquestioning loyalty oaths. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shryke Posted April 24, 2014 Share Posted April 24, 2014 Pledge of Allegiance is creepy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grumdin Posted April 24, 2014 Share Posted April 24, 2014 What's wrong with the pledge? It was dreamt up by a socialist that's enough for me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramsay Gimp Posted April 24, 2014 Author Share Posted April 24, 2014 This is such a funny issue for me in so many ways and it goes against my nature to say what I really think but just say the damn pledge and if you don't like it cross your fingers behind your back, do everyone a favor but ecspecially yourself and do not be, "that guy", there's enough trouble in the world without going around looking for it. I have this guy who works for me, and over the past couple of years he has gotten involved in a biker group and its starting to get him into trouble and frankly its stupid. If they just lost the jackets and the tats nobody would even know they exist or give a shit about them. Just to be clear, you're advocating conformity for its own sake? Just regurgitate the words without believing them, or thinking about them? That may fly with other social activities, but for a pledge of loyalty??? That's insane, even though it's probably what most people do. The only ones looking for trouble are the ones who insist you say the pledge. We just want to be left alone, so your biker comparison makes no sense What's wrong with the pledge? These are my objections, copied from the previous thread: The fact that it requires children to recite a loyalty oath (yes, I know they can legally abstain but the social pressure is enormous, and many students and teachers alike don't realize they have that right) is a better reason. It's pure nationalist propaganda, and it's creepy. Especially when they're too young to understand most of the concepts, like "indivisible", "republic", etc. I would also submit that pledging allegiance to a piece of cloth is no more rational than acknowledging a deity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramsay Gimp Posted April 24, 2014 Author Share Posted April 24, 2014 Tetrach,It's a loyalty oath. That presumes the US is the ultimate source for liberty and justice. I don't care for unquestioning loyalty oaths. It also presumes that the current geopolitical borders of the US are sacred - "One nation, under God, indivisible". Kinda gets in the way of my Cascadia dreams... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grumdin Posted April 24, 2014 Share Posted April 24, 2014 Chait has a great post here on future demographics and voting. Basically, he concludes that The Emerging Democratic Majority written 12 years ago looks truer and truer today despite these objections: There's far more in there; that's just my favorite segment. Weren't they talking up a natural Repub majority ten years ago? I'm a tad skeptical about assuming voting patterns based on ethnicity. The Hispanic vote seems very winnable for Repubs if they get their act together. Hispanics are not like black and Jewish voters, they are not wedded to the Dems as a bithright. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramsay Gimp Posted April 24, 2014 Author Share Posted April 24, 2014 There's far more in there; that's just my favorite segment. Yeah, I wish the libertarian thing was true but I have to agree with his assesment about young voters. However, thanks to the Ron Paul movement there are a lot more politically active libertarians youngsters now. I think our long-term impact will be in changing the GOP rather than affecting national elections. Look for us in the primaries Then again if the Republicans nominated someone that outflanked their Democratic opponent on the Left for social issues and foreign policy, it may cancel out the advantage the Dem has on economic issues. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shryke Posted April 24, 2014 Share Posted April 24, 2014 Weren't they talking up a natural Repub majority ten years ago? I'm a tad skeptical about assuming voting patterns based on ethnicity. The Hispanic vote seems very winnable for Repubs if they get their act together. Hispanics are not like black and Jewish voters, they are not wedded to the Dems as a bithright. Who's "they"? Cause the only people I remember talking up the "permanent republican majority" back in the 2000s were delusional republicans basing it on nothing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted April 24, 2014 Share Posted April 24, 2014 It's interesting that the Pledge is one of the few cases where an action of Congress explicitly added religious wording something. That, in my opinion, is an explicit rather than an implicit violation of the establishment clause."Congress shall make no law regarding the establishment of religion." That's exactly what it did in adding "Under God" to the pledge. Not that the pledge is any less a blind loyalty oath without "under God". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1918me Posted April 24, 2014 Share Posted April 24, 2014 It's interesting that the Pledge is one of the few cases where an action of Congress explicitly added religious wording something. That, in my opinion, is an explicit rather than an implicit violation of the establishment clause."Congress shall make no law regarding the establishment of religion." That's exactly what it did in adding "Under God" to the pledge. Not that the pledge is any less a blind loyalty oath without "under God". I've always found this odd. Seems to be throwing the whole "separation of church and state" thing out the window, if nothing else. I may be in the minority in that the existence of the pledge itself has never really bothered me all that much, but the point you bring up has always irked me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.