'Songbird' John McTumor: Nationalism is Unpatriotic

[ColonelAngus]

It's nice to be proud of your country.

 

[MarkDuffy]

John McCain Delivered a Strong Condemnation of White Nationalism
Reckoning with the Age of Trump.

John McCain has faced a journey of his own in the Age of Trump. It began in 2015, when candidate Donald Trump mocked McCain's military service in Vietnam. That was a period that saw McCain serve multiple years, enduring torture, as a prisoner of war while Trump faced his "personal Vietnam" trying to avoid sexually transmitted diseases in 1970s New York. More recently, in July, McCain was diagnosed with an aggressive form of brain cancer, and has been undergoing treatment ever since. But, based on a speech McCain gave Monday on being honored with the Liberty Medal by the National Constitution Center, it seems that what happened in between affected the Arizona senator most deeply.

In stirring remarks after he was introduced by former Vice President Joe Biden, McCain made thinly veiled reference to the politics of the Trumpian far right—and went on the attack. He decried the rise of "half-baked, spurious nationalism," and the drive among some to see the United States abandon its role as a leader on the world stage. He seemed to characterize both sides of the Trump appeal as fundamentally unpatriotic.

John McCain Delivered a Strong Condemnation of White Nationalism

McCain ~ Not blood & soil

Blood & Soil ~ white nationalism

 

[MarkDuffy]

Blood and Soil - Wikipedia

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Nationalism indeed. Recall Washington's parting warnings regarding "foreign entanglements".

At the time the United States could stay free of foreign entanglements. The idea of a Pearl Harbor or 9/11 happening was impossible. I would remind you of Jefferson's war against the Barbary pirates. Technology has made Washington's desire impossible.

Not the point. The country was founded in nationalism, not globalism.

No, no it wasn't. It was based on a haven free from oppression. Quit confusing patriotism with nationalism.

I am not the confused party here. Patriotism is the expression of nationalism.

And yes, it was.

No, it is not. When the United States was formed did they pick only to allow immigrants from a particular race? Religion? Language? Ancestry?

I'll save you the time, no they did exactly the opposite.

I find your thought patterns vaguely amusing. Some remedial reading for you. Start here - special emphasis on The Intolerable Acts - then the remainder of the site.

Learn About the United States (U.S.) Declaration of Independence & More | Constitution Facts

 

[Auld Phart]

 

[MarkDuffy]

McCain, in speech, denounces 'spurious nationalism'

“To fear the world we have organized and led for three-quarters of a century, to abandon the ideals we have advanced around the globe, to refuse the obligations of international leadership and our duty to remain ‘the last best hope of earth’ for the sake of some half-baked, spurious nationalism cooked up by people who would rather find scapegoats than solve problems,” McCain said, “is as unpatriotic as an attachment to any other tired dogma of the past that Americans consigned to the ash heap of history.”

America is about what America stands for, McCain said.

“We live in a land made of ideals, not blood and soil,” he said. “We have a moral obligation to continue in our just cause, and we would bring more than shame on ourselves if we don’t. We will not thrive in a world where our leadership and ideals are absent. We wouldn’t deserve to.”

McCain, in speech, denounces 'spurious nationalism'

 

[Lewdog]

At the time the United States could stay free of foreign entanglements. The idea of a Pearl Harbor or 9/11 happening was impossible. I would remind you of Jefferson's war against the Barbary pirates. Technology has made Washington's desire impossible.

Not the point. The country was founded in nationalism, not globalism.

No, no it wasn't. It was based on a haven free from oppression. Quit confusing patriotism with nationalism.

I am not the confused party here. Patriotism is the expression of nationalism.

And yes, it was.

No, it is not. When the United States was formed did they pick only to allow immigrants from a particular race? Religion? Language? Ancestry?

I'll save you the time, no they did exactly the opposite.

Were there laws on the books at that time to prevent immigrants from entering?

are there now?

No, there wasn't laws back then... laws restricting certain immigrants didn't start until almost 100 years after gaining independence.

 

[MarkDuffy]

In Speech, Sen. McCain Decries 'Half-Baked, Spurious Nationalism'

In what appeared to be a thinly veiled reference to politics in the Age of Trump, Sen. John McCain on Monday warned Americans against "half-baked, spurious nationalism," calling the abandonment of U.S. global leadership "unpatriotic."

Speaking in Philadelphia, where he was being honored with the Liberty Medal by the National Constitution Center, McCain did not mention the president by name, but his words appeared to be aimed at Trump and his administration.

"To abandon the ideals we have advanced around the globe, to refuse the obligations of international leadership for the sake of some half-baked, spurious nationalism cooked up by people who would rather find scapegoats than solve problems," he said, "is as unpatriotic as an attachment to any other tired dogma of the past that Americans consigned to the ash heap of history."

In an apparent reference to white supremacists who sparked violence in Charlottesville, Va., in August, McCain said: "We live in a land of ideals, not blood and soil."

The Nazi slogan "blood and soil" was shouted by tiki-torch-wielding white supremacists in Charlottesville.

In Speech, Sen. McCain Decries 'Half-Baked, Spurious Nationalism'

Say it again John! A True American Patriot!

 

[Lewdog]

At the time the United States could stay free of foreign entanglements. The idea of a Pearl Harbor or 9/11 happening was impossible. I would remind you of Jefferson's war against the Barbary pirates. Technology has made Washington's desire impossible.

Not the point. The country was founded in nationalism, not globalism.

No, no it wasn't. It was based on a haven free from oppression. Quit confusing patriotism with nationalism.

I am not the confused party here. Patriotism is the expression of nationalism.

And yes, it was.

No, it is not. When the United States was formed did they pick only to allow immigrants from a particular race? Religion? Language? Ancestry?

I'll save you the time, no they did exactly the opposite.

I find your thought patterns vaguely amusing. Some remedial reading for you. Start here - special emphasis on The Intolerable Acts - then the remainder of the site.

Learn About the United States (U.S.) Declaration of Independence & More | Constitution Facts

The Intolerable Acts were passed by Great Britain... and aren't even on the page you posted. You are going to have to be a lot more specific.

And maybe you should read the first Amendment again...

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.[1]"

First Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia

That's totally OPPOSITE the ideal of Nationalism which is joining under a common religion, language, race, ancestry, etc.

 

[Steve_McGarrett]

Nationalism indeed. Recall Washington's parting warnings regarding "foreign entanglements".

At the time the United States could stay free of foreign entanglements. The idea of a Pearl Harbor or 9/11 happening was impossible. I would remind you of Jefferson's war against the Barbary pirates. Technology has made Washington's desire impossible.

Not the point. The country was founded in nationalism, not globalism.

No, no it wasn't. It was based on a haven free from oppression. Quit confusing patriotism with nationalism.

I am not the confused party here. Patriotism is the expression of nationalism.

And yes, it was.

No, it is not. When the United States was formed did they pick only to allow immigrants from a particular race? Religion? Language? Ancestry?

I'll save you the time, no they did exactly the opposite.

The Naturalization Act of 1790, the very first legislation by the first Congress:

[United States Naturalization Law of March 26, 1790 (1 Stat. 103) provides the first rules to be followed by the United States in the granting of national citizenship. This law limits naturalization to immigrants who are free 'white persons' of good character. It thus excludes American Indians, indentured servants, slaves, free blacks and Asians.]


To make America great again, we must return to this specific legislation.

 

[Kosh]

McCain is a filthy liar! If he changed parties to democrat, he would still be a filthy liar, but it might help the republican morons in Arizona realize the were always voting for a democrat!

You're incapable of noticing an honorable man since you're up Trump's ass and no one has EVER accused Trump of being honorable.
John McCain is a bonified hero, maverick and person of integrity.
Trump is slimeball of the highest order and today is a prime example.
You are shameless.

Yes we know you far left drones still spit on the vets.

 

[Lewdog]

At the time the United States could stay free of foreign entanglements. The idea of a Pearl Harbor or 9/11 happening was impossible. I would remind you of Jefferson's war against the Barbary pirates. Technology has made Washington's desire impossible.

Not the point. The country was founded in nationalism, not globalism.

No, no it wasn't. It was based on a haven free from oppression. Quit confusing patriotism with nationalism.

I am not the confused party here. Patriotism is the expression of nationalism.

And yes, it was.

No, it is not. When the United States was formed did they pick only to allow immigrants from a particular race? Religion? Language? Ancestry?

I'll save you the time, no they did exactly the opposite.

The Naturalization Act of 1790, the very first legislation by the first Congress:

[United States Naturalization Law of March 26, 1790 (1 Stat. 103) provides the first rules to be followed by the United States in the granting of national citizenship. This law limits naturalization to immigrants who are free 'white persons' of good character. It thus excludes American Indians, indentured servants, slaves, free blacks and Asians.]


To make America great again, we must return to this specific legislation.

That doesn't have to do with who gets into the country... simply how they become a citizen.

 

[Steve_McGarrett]

Not the point. The country was founded in nationalism, not globalism.

No, no it wasn't. It was based on a haven free from oppression. Quit confusing patriotism with nationalism.

I am not the confused party here. Patriotism is the expression of nationalism.

And yes, it was.

No, it is not. When the United States was formed did they pick only to allow immigrants from a particular race? Religion? Language? Ancestry?

I'll save you the time, no they did exactly the opposite.

The Naturalization Act of 1790, the very first legislation by the first Congress:

[United States Naturalization Law of March 26, 1790 (1 Stat. 103) provides the first rules to be followed by the United States in the granting of national citizenship. This law limits naturalization to immigrants who are free 'white persons' of good character. It thus excludes American Indians, indentured servants, slaves, free blacks and Asians.]


To make America great again, we must return to this specific legislation.

That doesn't have to do with who gets into the country... simply how they become a citizen.

We need only Whites as citizens, like the wise founders wanted.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Not the point. The country was founded in nationalism, not globalism.

No, no it wasn't. It was based on a haven free from oppression. Quit confusing patriotism with nationalism.

I am not the confused party here. Patriotism is the expression of nationalism.

And yes, it was.

No, it is not. When the United States was formed did they pick only to allow immigrants from a particular race? Religion? Language? Ancestry?

I'll save you the time, no they did exactly the opposite.

I find your thought patterns vaguely amusing. Some remedial reading for you. Start here - special emphasis on The Intolerable Acts - then the remainder of the site.

Learn About the United States (U.S.) Declaration of Independence & More | Constitution Facts

The Intolerable Acts were passed by Great Britain... and aren't even on the page you posted. You are going to have to be a lot more specific.

And maybe you should read the first Amendment again...

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.[1]"

First Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia

That's totally OPPOSITE the ideal of Nationalism which is joining under a common religion, language, race, ancestry, etc.

Definition of nationalism (Merriam-Webster)

1 :loyalty and devotion to a nation; especially a sense of national consciousness exalting one nation above all others and placing primary emphasis on promotion of its culture and interests as opposed to those of other nations or supranational groups

2 :a nationalist movement or government

First known use: 1798

You are thoroughly confused, and I'm sorry you can't find your way around a logically-designed site. Indeed, they are not on the page I listed. That's why I suggested you research the entire site. They are plainly marked.

 

[Lewdog]

No, no it wasn't. It was based on a haven free from oppression. Quit confusing patriotism with nationalism.

I am not the confused party here. Patriotism is the expression of nationalism.

And yes, it was.

No, it is not. When the United States was formed did they pick only to allow immigrants from a particular race? Religion? Language? Ancestry?

I'll save you the time, no they did exactly the opposite.

I find your thought patterns vaguely amusing. Some remedial reading for you. Start here - special emphasis on The Intolerable Acts - then the remainder of the site.

Learn About the United States (U.S.) Declaration of Independence & More | Constitution Facts

The Intolerable Acts were passed by Great Britain... and aren't even on the page you posted. You are going to have to be a lot more specific.

And maybe you should read the first Amendment again...

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.[1]"

First Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia

That's totally OPPOSITE the ideal of Nationalism which is joining under a common religion, language, race, ancestry, etc.

Definition of nationalism (Merriam-Webster)

1 :loyalty and devotion to a nation; especially a sense of national consciousness exalting one nation above all others and placing primary emphasis on promotion of its culture and interests as opposed to those of other nations or supranational groups

2 :a nationalist movement or government

First known use: 1798

You are thoroughly confused, and I'm sorry you can't find your way around a logically-designed site. Indeed, they are not on the page I listed. That's why I suggested you research the entire site.

Did you read your own definition you posted?

"emphasis on promotion of its culture and interests as opposed to those of other nations or supranational groups"

Are you trying to say that a newfound FREEDOM to be one's own person free to practice their own religion and speech was the "culture" of the newly formed United States of America?

The newly formed United States of America was all about people being able to represent their own culture, ancestry, and religion... that's OPPOSITE of Nationalism. Why is this so hard to understand?

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

I am not the confused party here. Patriotism is the expression of nationalism.

And yes, it was.

No, it is not. When the United States was formed did they pick only to allow immigrants from a particular race? Religion? Language? Ancestry?

I'll save you the time, no they did exactly the opposite.

I find your thought patterns vaguely amusing. Some remedial reading for you. Start here - special emphasis on The Intolerable Acts - then the remainder of the site.

Learn About the United States (U.S.) Declaration of Independence & More | Constitution Facts

The Intolerable Acts were passed by Great Britain... and aren't even on the page you posted. You are going to have to be a lot more specific.

And maybe you should read the first Amendment again...

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.[1]"

First Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia

That's totally OPPOSITE the ideal of Nationalism which is joining under a common religion, language, race, ancestry, etc.

Definition of nationalism (Merriam-Webster)

1 :loyalty and devotion to a nation; especially a sense of national consciousness exalting one nation above all others and placing primary emphasis on promotion of its culture and interests as opposed to those of other nations or supranational groups

2 :a nationalist movement or government

First known use: 1798

You are thoroughly confused, and I'm sorry you can't find your way around a logically-designed site. Indeed, they are not on the page I listed. That's why I suggested you research the entire site.

Did you read your own definition you posted?

"emphasis on promotion of its culture and interests as opposed to those of other nations or supranational groups"

Are you trying to say that a newfound FREEDOM to be one's own person free to practice their own religion and speech was the "culture" of the newly formed United States of America?

The newly formed United States of America was all about people being able to represent their own culture, ancestry, and religion... that's OPPOSITE of Nationalism. Why is this so hard to understand?

The nation was founded as a "Melting Pot" of assimilation, and was indeed known for that quality until quite recently. What you describe is known as "Balkanization", and is a clear goal of the Democrats as shown by their constant categorization and division of various special interest groups into isolated political camps, with each claiming to be "the true American legacy". It's funny, because many such groups, for example La Reza and the Aztlan movement, are not American at all.

 

[Lewdog]

No, it is not. When the United States was formed did they pick only to allow immigrants from a particular race? Religion? Language? Ancestry?

I'll save you the time, no they did exactly the opposite.

I find your thought patterns vaguely amusing. Some remedial reading for you. Start here - special emphasis on The Intolerable Acts - then the remainder of the site.

Learn About the United States (U.S.) Declaration of Independence & More | Constitution Facts

The Intolerable Acts were passed by Great Britain... and aren't even on the page you posted. You are going to have to be a lot more specific.

And maybe you should read the first Amendment again...

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.[1]"

First Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia

That's totally OPPOSITE the ideal of Nationalism which is joining under a common religion, language, race, ancestry, etc.

Definition of nationalism (Merriam-Webster)

1 :loyalty and devotion to a nation; especially a sense of national consciousness exalting one nation above all others and placing primary emphasis on promotion of its culture and interests as opposed to those of other nations or supranational groups

2 :a nationalist movement or government

First known use: 1798

You are thoroughly confused, and I'm sorry you can't find your way around a logically-designed site. Indeed, they are not on the page I listed. That's why I suggested you research the entire site.

Did you read your own definition you posted?

"emphasis on promotion of its culture and interests as opposed to those of other nations or supranational groups"

Are you trying to say that a newfound FREEDOM to be one's own person free to practice their own religion and speech was the "culture" of the newly formed United States of America?

The newly formed United States of America was all about people being able to represent their own culture, ancestry, and religion... that's OPPOSITE of Nationalism. Why is this so hard to understand?

The nation was founded as a "Melting Pot" of assimilation, and was indeed known for that quality until quite recently. What you describe is known as "Balkanization", and is a clear goal of the Democrats as shown by their constant categorization and division of various special interest groups into isolated political camps, with each claiming to be "the true American legacy". It's funny, because many such groups, for example La Reza and the Aztlan movement, are not American at all.

The melting pot idea is not about people losing their individual identity in order to fit the mold of the new country they live in. It's about the ability for all different kinds of people being able to live together...

So once again, it isn't nationalism... which would be them giving up their identities and culture to accept a singular one for the country.

 

[MarkDuffy]

 

[MarkDuffy]

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

I find your thought patterns vaguely amusing. Some remedial reading for you. Start here - special emphasis on The Intolerable Acts - then the remainder of the site.

Learn About the United States (U.S.) Declaration of Independence & More | Constitution Facts

The Intolerable Acts were passed by Great Britain... and aren't even on the page you posted. You are going to have to be a lot more specific.

And maybe you should read the first Amendment again...

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.[1]"

First Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia

That's totally OPPOSITE the ideal of Nationalism which is joining under a common religion, language, race, ancestry, etc.

Definition of nationalism (Merriam-Webster)

1 :loyalty and devotion to a nation; especially a sense of national consciousness exalting one nation above all others and placing primary emphasis on promotion of its culture and interests as opposed to those of other nations or supranational groups

2 :a nationalist movement or government

First known use: 1798

You are thoroughly confused, and I'm sorry you can't find your way around a logically-designed site. Indeed, they are not on the page I listed. That's why I suggested you research the entire site.

Did you read your own definition you posted?

"emphasis on promotion of its culture and interests as opposed to those of other nations or supranational groups"

Are you trying to say that a newfound FREEDOM to be one's own person free to practice their own religion and speech was the "culture" of the newly formed United States of America?

The newly formed United States of America was all about people being able to represent their own culture, ancestry, and religion... that's OPPOSITE of Nationalism. Why is this so hard to understand?

The nation was founded as a "Melting Pot" of assimilation, and was indeed known for that quality until quite recently. What you describe is known as "Balkanization", and is a clear goal of the Democrats as shown by their constant categorization and division of various special interest groups into isolated political camps, with each claiming to be "the true American legacy". It's funny, because many such groups, for example La Reza and the Aztlan movement, are not American at all.

The melting pot idea is not about people losing their individual identity in order to fit the mold of the new country they live in. It's about the ability for all different kinds of people being able to live together...

So once again, it isn't nationalism... which would be them giving up their identities and culture to accept a singular one for the country.

No, it would not.