senschuh (senschuh) wrote in gop_vs_dem,
senschuh
senschuh
gop_vs_dem

Happy Loyalty Day!

A Proclamation by the President of the United States of America

Americans believe that every man, woman, and child has unalienable rights, dignity, and matchless value. Advancing these ideals was the honorable vision of our Founders and the mission that helped shape this great country. On Loyalty Day, we celebrate the legacy of freedom and the shared ideals that bind us together.

Our Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, Marines, and Coast Guardsmen demonstrate their love of country by stepping forward when America needs them most. By putting our country's security before their own, the men and women of the Armed Forces have strengthened our Nation and brought hope to millions around the world. All Americans are grateful to the members of the military and their families for their service, sacrifice, and dedication, and we are proud of their accomplishments.

Through their good works, our Nation's volunteers bear witness to their steadfast love for America, as exemplified in their commitment to service and good citizenship. Loyalty to this country brings with it a commitment to aid our family, friends, and fellow citizens all across this broad and welcoming land. These volunteers demonstrate their gratitude for the blessings of freedom by helping build a more hopeful future for our children and grandchildren. All Americans can put their loyalty into practice by learning more about the history of our country, flying the American flag, and contributing to our communities.

Two hundred and thirty-two years after the founding of our country, we remain committed to advancing freedom and renewing the values that sustain our liberty. Through the spirit and determination of our people, our Nation will prosper and our liberty will be secure.

The Congress, by Public Law 85-529, as amended, has designated May 1 of each year as "Loyalty Day." This Loyalty Day, and throughout the year, I ask all Americans to join me in reaffirming our allegiance to our Nation.

NOW, THEREFORE, I, GEORGE W. BUSH, President of the United States of America, do hereby proclaim May 1, 2008, as Loyalty Day. I call upon all people of the United States to join in support of this national observance and to display the flag of the United States on Loyalty Day as a symbol of pride in our Nation.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this twenty-second day of April, in the year of our Lord two thousand eight, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and thirty-second.

GEORGE W. BUSH
  • Post a new comment

    Error

    Anonymous comments are disabled in this journal

    default userpic

    Your IP address will be recorded 

  • 13 comments
Loyalty day. First of all, what a horseshit name. And second of all, what a horseshit idea.
Maybe if you went out and put a uniform on for your country, you'd learn better. The only horse crap I see being slung around is by people like you, that want to fight doing even the slightest thing for our armed forces. Maybe you should move to Berkley, and get it over with. I hear they have a parking space ready for you, in front of the Marine recruiting office.
Ah, the disgruntled ex-soldier. Gotta love 'em.

Find where I disrespected the Armed Forces. Nice people.
Me disgruntled? I liked serving my country. Did you? And if I go back, it certainly won't be begrudgingly. Also, I'm not an ex-Soldier (learn how to spell; Soldier and Marine are capitalized, by the way). If you're ex, then you never were, in the first place. Finding your disrespect is easy: the tone of your entire response dripped with it. You took the passage as another chance for your liberal, politicizing bullcrap, in order to find something else to beat President Bush over the head with. All that, as opposed to saying something like: "well, while I don't agree with him, politically, I do agree that the armed forces, for all their hard work (which I certainly wouldn't do), the least they deserve is a special day set aside for them, as a show of respect".

However, such polite discourse is no longer in you.

It's like the real Taudiophile died, and some liberal filled with hatred and bile hijacked his LiveJournal. You talk about me being a "...disgruntled ex-soldier..."; you should look in the mirror and find out what made you a disgruntled ex-moderate.
Learn how to spell? Perhaps, if I was specifically referring to the US Army. But soldier is just as acceptable for a member of a military in general.

I dislike being called a liberal probably just as much as you do. I'm not opposed to a day for the military, but this "Loyalty Day" is downright Orwellian and a stupid idea.

A disgruntled ex-moderate? Well, 4-5 years ago or so I was a conservative. Then I realized they were absolutely full of shit. That's what made me disgruntled. George W Bush's term has been a miserable failure, one of the worst on record. Government debt is crushing us, we're embroiled in two major foreign wars that show no signs of ending, and the US reputation (dollar, prestige, whatever) is lower than it has been since WWII.

While we're on the topic, it's one thing if the US military is defending us from legitimate threats to our freedom. But I can't really think of a major foreign war we've been involved in since WWII or so that has really directly threatened the US people.
"Learn how to spell? Perhaps, if I was specifically referring to the US Army. But soldier is just as acceptable for a member of a military in general." Uh, no it isn't. Go call a Marine a sailor or airman, and see what happens.

As for calling a day honoring the armed forces "...Orewllian...", that just shows how badly you're suffering from cognitive dissonance. You claim you're a fan of the armed forces, and yet the first time we start doing even the most minor of things for them, you start screaming "WAR IS PEACE!" Then, you claiming that President Bush is your justification for becoming a neoliberal is just absolute crap. (And you absolutely know not one thing that you're talking about, if you say his terms in office were worse than that of James Earl Carter, terrorist legitimizer extraordinare). There are Republicans I don't like (like McCain), but I'm not going to become a liberal, just on his account. There are Christians I don't like, and yet I'm not going to become islamic, catholic or buddhist, on their account. There are military personnel I absolutely can't stand (like Admiral Fallon), but that's not going to make me renounce my loyalty to the armed forces, or affect my decision as to whether I should return to duty, or not. Government debt? Guess what? Clinton passed the biggest tax hike in history (http://www.nfib.com/object/10340.html), and the DNC is looking to top that (http://news.aol.com/elections-blog/2007/05/18/democrats-push-largest-tax-hike-in-history/). Wars? It was the bad decisions of the Clinton Administration that got us into a state of war with Osama bin-Laden's boys, in the first place:

"But your most disgraceful case was in Somalia; where- after vigorous propaganda about the power of the USA and its post cold war leadership of the new world order- you moved tens of thousands of international force, including twenty eight thousands American solders into Somalia. However, when tens of your solders were killed in minor battles and one American Pilot was dragged in the streets of Mogadishu you left the area carrying disappointment, humiliation, defeat and your dead with you. Clinton appeared in front of the whole world threatening and promising revenge , but these threats were merely a preparation for withdrawal." -Osama bin-Laden, http://www.pbs.org/newshour/terrorism/international/fatwa_1996.html

And if you can't think of a war where Americans were threatened, prior to the Second World War, you really need to stay out of these kinds of debates, because it just shows that you know absolutely nothing. As a veteran of the goings on the the Republic of Panama (from the US Army), I can tell you that Panama declared war on us and very quickly began a campaign of kidnapping and murder (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=940DE0DE103BF930A25757C0A96E948260). We commenced to retaliate when plans reached us that they were planning a full assault on a civilian (PCC - Panama Canal Commission) housing area. Then, let's not forget Saddam Hussein using Western hostages in his country as Human shields, during Operation: Desert Shield:

On 23 August 1990 Saddam Hussein appeared on state television with Western hostages to whom he had refused exit visas. They were seen as human shields, though Saddam Hussein denied the claim. In the video he is seen ruffling the hair of a young boy named as Stuart Lockwood and asks through the interpreter if he is "getting his milk". He went on to say "We hope your presence as guests here will not be for too long. Your presence here, and in other places, is meant to prevent the scourge of war."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/august/23/newsid_2512000/2512289.stm

Quite frankly, though, if you're going to sit on your rear end until Americans are directly threatened, all you're going to do is enable people like Israelis to be massacred by bloodthirsty arabs and persians, as well as clear the way for a second September 11th.
Alright, god, get all semantical Nazi on my ass. Soldier (with a decapitalized C) works. You may be a Soldier (US Army specific), or maybe a soldier (any army), it doesn't really matter. Kind of pointless to be arguing about it.

Good strawman argument. I never said I was a "fan" of the armed forces. I can't see how a stupid declaration and a day (that no one knows about) "helps out" the armed forces. How about a pay raise or something real? I didn't criticize the idea of saluting the armed forces, just the horrible naming. How about Armed Forces Day? (oh, already have it) Or "Thank a Soldier day?" I was always a neoliberal, if belief in property rights and proper international development is what you mean, but I disagree in principle more with the Democrats than the Republicans. George Bush didn't change my opinions, I just realized he was completely ineffective and decided I felt more in line with a different ideology.

It's always great to argue ad hominem. You don't know anything. You're not a soldier so you have no standing to argue. Oh, and your great strawman argument. It's a shame I have enough free time at my job to waste contesting your illogical emotional rant.

I'm not sure why you bring up Clinton's tax hike when talking about government debt. In light of the situation, it was a good idea to raise taxes. And as much as I hate to say it, someone has to raise taxes now, because I don't see spending falling and the continued deficits are ridiculous. Not to mention the fact I disagree with Bush does not mean I agree with Clinton. There's more than two opinions in the world, and it's too bad our political system is structured that way. (I prefer parliamentary)

Blah blah blah, Americans are at risk everywhere. It's a risk you take when you travel overseas. Attack however you want, I don't care, to protect our citizens, yeah, that's fine with me, but these neverending conflicts we really shouldn't be involved in (Vietnam, Iraq) are pretty ridiculous. If Saddam threatened us, watch him. Why squash him unless he's a legitimate threat. (which he clearly was not) Yes, unless Americans are at risk on a large scale, don't bother sending in 400,000 troops for 10 years and over a $1 trillion dollars. I'm not a fan of socialized health care but it'd be a better idea then blowing up a country, rebuilding it, and watching it get blown up again. Iraqis don't want us there, so let's say fuck 'em and come home. They aren't worth our money and blood.
"Stawman"?! Save that crap for Star Trek v Star Wars websites. As for the day 'helping out', I never said that. Now who's putting words in who's mouth. I clearly stated that it was respectful. "...pay raise..."? More evidence you don't know what you're talking about a 4.1% pay raise was issued in the year 2003 (http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/aafedpaycut.htm and http://usmilitary.about.com/od/fy2003paycharts/l/aapayraise.htm).

That real enough for you? Or are you still going to rant, because (allegedly) the name of the day has you up-in-arms?

"George Bush didn't change my opinions," That's funny. Sure didn't sound like that, just 2 posts ago.

"It's always great to argue ad hominem. You don't know anything. You're not a soldier so you have no standing to argue." It's increasingly laughable, reading your thrashing replies. You claim I'm emotional, and yet you're the one that could barely restrain (and failed to, by the way) the profane diatribes. Also, as for your encyclopedic knowledge of the US armed forces, you seem to think the designation Soldier and Marine are just interchangable (which it isn't), then you go on about there being no pay raises, or anything "real". However, I guess to neoliberals, pointing out anything they say that isn't true is an "ad hominem" attack. Well, prepare to be attacked, again:

"Military Gets Bigger Pay Raise" (http://www.military.com/features/0,15240,134457,00.html)

"Bush Backs Bigger GI Bill" (http://www.military.com/features/0,15240,165937,00.html)

"I'm not sure why you bring up Clinton's tax hike when talking about government debt." Because your last post seemed to have the tenor of implying government debt didn't occur, until recently.

"In light of the situation, it was a good idea to raise taxes." Typical liberal grasp of macroeconomics. The GDP is made up of several things: Consumption + Investments + Government Spending + Net eXports = GDP. When the economy slows down, several tactics are used (successfully), including increasing government spending and lowering the interest rates. When the ROI (Return on Investment) increases, that's because the interest rates (controlled by the Federal Reserve) drops. When that drops, INVESTMENTS increase, because big business (the demon nemesis of the neoliberal) has more money, and invests it more into such things as improvements and hiring, which also brings the US closer to another macroeconomic term: FULL EMPLOYMENET. With the increase in GOVERNMENT SPENDING (such as letting us keep more of our tax money; they don't give you money), it increases CONSUMPTION, which, again, increases GDP. Increasing taxation, on the other hand (answer in the bible of the tax-and-spend neoliberal) DECREASES the CONSUMPTION rate, which, in turn, impacts business (as less people can afford goods & services). This causes the economy to slow down into eventual RECESSION. Businesses reduce INVESTMENT and layoff/terminate workforces, increasing unemployment, and further decreasing CONSUMPTION. Recessions last anywhere from (approximately) 10 months (about a year). Increasing taxes will hurt the economy, because it infringes upon things like borrowing and CONSUMPTION. CONSUMPTION makes up some 70% of the RGDP (Real Gross Domestic Product). That should tell you which approach is right, between Clinton and Bush. Want to reduce costs? Reduce spending. Still want higher taxes? Protest by sending your rebat check back to the IRS with a nasty letter. Better yet, be even more like a socialist, and redistribute your wealth. Don't wait for Hillary or Obama to do it. And if you like parliments (which I don't believe work with the system of checks-and-balances, move to Britain; Britian is a socialist country, anyway).
I never implied that Bush didn't give them a pay raise, Jesus. Rather than a stupid day with a stupid name that no one remembers, I said how about a pay raise, or a bonus. (Something in addition to whatever)

And once again you wrongly assumed what I thought. Bravo. No, I didn't imply government debt didn't occur until recently. Clinton had a sizeable amount of debt. However, it has reached massive numbers under two Republicans, George Bush and Ronald Reagan. I don't understand how fiscal conservatives aren't defacing effigies of them. Credit to Clinton, or credit to the Repubs in Congress, we had actually decreasing debt during the late 90s. More importantly, Bush controls congress and therefore the skyrocketing debt CAN be squarely placed on his shoulders.

Liberal grasp? You should try taking basic macroeconomics, because that is the general consensus of all economists. It's not a coincidence that most economists are libertarian-leaning. Besides, his "unprecedented tax hike" was primarily on the wealthy. I'm not saying that's good, but most Americans did not feel a rise in their taxes.

The economy was growing at 2.5-3% rate, which is extremely healthy. You don't have to explain GDP to me, because I'm an economics major and probably have taken several more courses in economics. Your diatribe is pretty amusing though. Among various errors in your argument is that neoliberals hate big businesses? That's hilarious, because liberals rage on us for being chill with large companies. Neoliberal generally is the same as libertarian, which I am. And we favor large enterprises, just not the idea of a corporation which is maintained by the state.

Tax hikes do decrease consumption, no economist will disagree. But given the inflation rate during 1992/1993 (increasing by about a 1%) compared to the GDP growth rate, slowing consumption a bit is a good idea. Your theory is correct, if taxes are jacked up too highly. The fact among others that the United States did not enter a recession after the tax hikes clearly shows that the tax hike was reasonable and did not cause major adverse effects on the economy.

Second of all, regarding macroeconomics, if you've studied it you are also aware that continuing government deficits reduce the level of investment. It's called crowding out. As the tax hike helped to start to close the deficit, the interest rate decreases, investment thus increases.

Clearly the Bush administration has shown that checks-and-balances don't work too well in the United States either. The judicial system hasn't really prevented him from his various illegal actions, and if they have, he's gotten his slight-majority Congress to ram a provision through. I said I favored a parliamentary system, mostly because there is a real diversity of opinion that is lacking in the United States. And the last comment is kind of ironic, because being a libertarian, I am diametrically opposite of socialism. You, my conservative wacko friend, are closer to socialism that I am.
"I'm not a fan of socialized health care but it'd be a better idea then blowing up a country, rebuilding it, and watching it get blown up again." Yeah, England's system's working so well, they're cutting it back to only emergency care. Canada's? See "Dead Meat", "Two Women" and "A Short Course in Brain Surgery" (http://www.onthefencefilms.com/video/deadmeat/). Iraq's falling apart? You should stop listening to liars like Keith Olberman:

"Mahdi Army Fades Away" (http://www.strategypage.com/qnd/iraq/articles/20080428.aspx)

"Remind me again — who’s losing in Basra?" (http://hotair.com/archives/2008/03/30/remind-me-again-whos-losing-in-basra/)

"Yon: Nineveh AQI’s likely last stand" (http://hotair.com/archives/2008/03/25/yon-nineveh-aqis-likely-last-stand/)

"Iraq’s improvements too much to ignore, says…UN" (http://hotair.com/archives/2008/01/21/iraqs-improvements-too-much-to-ignore-saysun/)

"Iraqis don't want us there, so let's say fuck 'em and come home. They aren't worth our money and blood." Good thing they didn't let people like you into government, around the Second World War.

Stop assuming. I am opposed to a socialized health care system, very much so. But it'd still be better than shitting out the money we are now, wouldn't it? Pretty much anything would be. Optimally, instead we'd stop running such a massive deficit.

I really couldn't care if Iraq is coming along, or if Iraqis want us there. They don't deserve our help, we've got better stuff to do with a trillion dollars.
Loyalty Day and its brother Law Day are left overs from the Cold War. They're both responses to the wobbly communist May Day.
I think this year's declaration is quite nice.
Man, my friend's gonna be pissed. That's his birthday.

If we're going to celebrate a holiday on the first day of May, let's celebrate Beltane and make with the drinkin' and fuckin'. "Loyalty Day" might be well-intentioned and all but it sounds as if they specifically designed the name to set off Orwellian red flags in my brain.

Seriously, in another context, in another time, this would probably have been a good idea. But in light of the past 20-50 years, any state instituting "Loyalty Day" sounds downright dystopic. If you came to me yesterday (before I read this) and asked me the question: "Which country in the world celebrates 'Loyalty Day' as a national holiday?" I would've responded with North Korea. I might just come from some softie intellectual Ivy League liberal background, but I get a little antsy when unpopular national governments institute national celebrations for people who do favors for them, especially when it's happening as one of the last acts of the most widely unpopular head of state the country may have ever seen.