LOVE IT OR LEAVE IT ...

[NanceGreggs]

“Love It or Leave It!”
By Nancy Greggs

It is now accepted as conventional wisdom that if you remember the ‘sixties, you obviously weren’t there.

But no matter how hazy your recollection, if you came of age in that decade, you will never forget the words “Love it or Leave it.”

It was a phrase hurled at Liberal, anti-establishment, anti-Viet Nam War protesters back in my youth, often used by those who felt that any criticism of American policy, domestic or foreign, was a sign of being unpatriotic. It adorned posters and bumper-stickers, five words that could incite anger or smugness, depending on which side of the shouted epithet you found yourself on.

I think it’s time to bring back the concept, but in a different light. It is time for real Americans, patriots who hold steadfastly to the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, the Declaration of Independence upon which our nation was founded, to tell those among us who would thwart the spirit of those sacred documents that it might be time to pack up and go.

Don’t misread me; I am not talking about people who are dissatisfied with certain laws of the land, and attempt to change them through legislative channels, or even protests or civil disobedience. I am talking about people who wish to change, subvert, or circumvent the very ideals this country was founded upon.

Rosa Parks is a case in point, a shining example of an American willing to stand up for our country not as it was, but as it was meant to be. When she refused to give up her bus seat to a white man, she may have broken the prevailing segregationist laws that decreed that a woman of her race had ‘betters’ to be bowed to. But her act of defiance was in keeping with the concept of all men (and women) being created equal. She may have refused to conform to the mindset of her neighbours, but in so doing, she upheld the very concept of equality and freedom that our country was based upon.

The rest, as they say, is history.

But there has been a prevailing mindset throughout our nation of late, a mindset born of and encouraged by the current administration and its policies. It is time for Americans to stand firm in their belief that we are one nation, and those who would divide it for the sake of their own agenda would do best to move along.

Freedom of religion, and the right for each of us to express it in our own way, is a cornerstone of our democracy set firmly in place by the founders of our nation, people who had more than a passing familiarity with those who would persecute others for holding religious beliefs other than their own.

Unfortunately, the so-called Religious Right would have our beloved nation go down that very path of intolerance, and would destroy the carefully structured wall that separates Church and State.

There are still places around the world governed completely by religious fanatics, who have no patience with those who do not embrace their views. Perhaps the Religious Right should call their travel agents now. Granted, these regimes tend to be non-Christian; but those who truly believe that freedom of religion should not apply here in the USA would probably feel more comfortable among those who share their one-religion-fits-all philosophy. Besides, what more fertile ground could one find to spread Christianity than a country where it is in such short supply? Godspeed!

Freedom of the press; now there’s a concept. But given the current state of journalism in our nation, one would have to argue that freedom to disseminate bold-faced lies passed off as ‘facts’ are missing the Constitutional point. Freedom of the press was meant to be part of the checks-and-balances that keeps the citizenry informed, and those in government accountable. Far too many members of the press have become propagandists for the current administration and its policies, and the country would be better served if these so-called journalists looked elsewhere for employment.

There are any number of dictatorships where their endeavours would be welcome. A resume which includes a well-crafted piece on Jessica Lynch’s fight-to-the-death and subsequent rescue, or a thought-provoking article on how outing a CIA agent isn’t really a matter of law but an obscure technicality – well, with credentials like that, what propaganda-dispensing regime could resist?

Hey, remember Freedom of Speech? According to the current philosophy of some of our fellow citizens, this is a particular ‘freedom’ that has its limits. No, I’m not talking about the classic you-can’t-yell-fire-in-a-crowded-theatre idea. I’m talking about those who think that questioning a presidential decision – oh, for instance, getting the country involved in a quagmire of a war based on, shall we say, less than accurate information – is tantamount to treason.

The prevailing wisdom from this faction is that every American is free to express their opinion, so long as it aligns completely with the current president’s view.

Of course, this concept has a tendency to change according to how the prevailing political wind is blowing. We all remember that when a Democrat was in the White House, open disagreement was not only encouraged; in some quarters, it was mandatory. But apparently the rules change with a Republican administration. Anti-war protesters are anti-American. Those who question the economic soundness of enormous tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans at the expense of the poorest are Communists. Apparently, the pursuit of happiness is still marginally operational – just so long as you have the big bucks to afford it.

To those of you who think that freedom to express one’s opinion, openly and without fear of retribution, applies only to some political groups and not to others, I bid a fond farewell. There are countries around the globe that alter the rights of their citizens depending on who happens to be ‘in office’ at any given moment, and there are ships that leave for such destinations on a daily basis. Bon voyage!

As an American citizen, I find it difficult to even address the notion of torture. It is mind-boggling to believe that any American citizen would even consider it, no less the idea that an American administration would not only condone, but encourage such heinous behaviour.

For those who think the Geneva Conventions are quaint, rather than seeing them as a framework that reflects our humanity as Americans and a safeguard of our troops in times of war, I would remind you that there are many countries out there that share that viewpoint.

Of course, the countries that condone torture tend to be a bit uncivilized, but that’s just the nature of the beast. Unfortunately, the perfect society for you would have been Iraq under Saddam Hussein. Perhaps the current administration should have considered your proclivities before deposing him. Anyway, I’m sure there are still countries out there that you’ll absolutely adore – and I’m more than willing to help you pack.

And who could forget the staunch supporters of the Patriot Act? Why should American citizens have the right to counsel, the right to face their accusers, the right to a fair and speedy trial before, not after, unlimited incarceration? These seem to be outmoded ideas that some of you obviously feel have no place in modern society.

Again, there are any number of places where such rights are accepted as being passé. In fact, it’s a downright shame that the old USSR doesn’t exist as it did in its glory days – you would have LOVED it! But fear not, there are still regimes where you and your ideas can find refuge – and if you need further information on how to find them, don’t hesitate to call.

When you really think about it, there are all kinds of things this country represents that are now repugnant to many – justice under the rule of law, transparency of government, social safety-nets for the poor, fair elections. It just seems downright unethical that so-called Americans who find these Constitutional rights abhorrent should be forced to stay in a country so out of keeping with their strongly held beliefs.

This nation was founded upon freedom and democracy; that’s the way it is and, despite the efforts of the current administration and the endless greed of the corporations that support it, in the end that is the way it will always be.

So if you don’t love the United States of America as it was framed by our forefathers and is still currently constituted, you are free to leave. And I, for one, would be more than happy to give you a lift to the airport.

Oh, and one more thing: Don’t let Democracy hit you in the ass on the way out the door!

[1620rock]

1. Very well said !

[OldLeftieLawyer]

2. Ugly

Not nice. Not nice back in the sixties, when it was just as stupid as this post.

Love it or leave it. Can there by anything more antithetical to the concept of free speech than a wornout, idiotic phrase like that?

Personally, I had those words hurled at me while we protested the VietNam debacle, so watching it come around again, only this time cloaked in the righteous and smarmy prose of an anti-Constitutionalist disguised as a lefti is sort of sickening.

Just ugly.

[driver8]

6. You think this post is stupid? Why?

I think it does an amazing job at showing those who follow like sheep that they are not the ones who are patriotic.

She used their words "love it or leave it" and threw them right back at them. I thought the meaning was clear and the post well written. She used a phrase that we hear all the time and turned it around on them -- what is wrong with that?

Maybe I'm missing something here, but I don't see any ugliness in this post.

[NanceGreggs]

7. I think (hope) you have missed my point ...

I, too, protested in the 'sixties and had this phrase hurled at me.

I am simply trying to point out the difference here. We (who protested Viet Nam) were told we should love or it leave it because WE were the ones seen as being anti-American, anti-Freedom, anti-Democracy.

We weren't, of course -- but that was the perception encouraged by a corrupt administration and its minions.

I think it's time to turn that argument around on those who would attempt to use it yet again.

WE who believe in the Constitution and all the rights and liberties it conveys are again being cast as the anti-Americans. Believing in the Constitution is ANTI-AMERICAN? No, I'm sick of hearing THAT ONE.

There is a difference between protesting a war, a law, a policy, and PROTESTING the operation of our democracy via signing statements, wire-tapping, secet prisons, torture ...

I am not talking here about those who disagree with me, or with Democrats. I am talking about people who would seek to UNDO the very things that AMERICA IS, WAS, AND ALWAYS SHOULD BE.

If you disagree with the current American policies, foreign and domestic, disagree with the way this administration, or any other political group, is pushing their agenda, SPEAK UP. THAT IS THE AMERICAN WAY.

But when you openly disagree with my country's very FOUNDATION of freedom and democracy, and seek to change the very concepts it was founded on -- well, those people would probably be happier elsewhere. And I'd be happy to see them go.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

9. Using that phrase is simply an invitation

to the kind of invidious comparisons that were made back in the sixties. It's dumb, it's anti-American, and it's just plain wrongminded, in my opinion.

I'm not sure that your premise is correct, by the way, that you or I have an absolute corner on what defines our democracy, since even the Constitution is a living document, continually reinterpreted and re-examined. So, if you think others are corrupting the way you think our democracy would best be served - and I daresay you and I would agree on practically everything there - then the idea is to work to change the system that's currently in place (elect Democracts), not to take an ugly, wornout, divisive, and dumb phrase and throw it back at people with whom you disagree.

One of the things that's been lost in the past twenty years - so you know this, as well, and probably agree with me - is the time-honored concept of compromise and cooperation in the Congress. It was important enough for Tom DeLay to attempt to mock it during his final speech on the House floor, making himself out to be even more of a very sore loser than I'd expected (it was heartening). That's what this phrase precisely does not invite, and that's not my idea of the American way of democracy, or even or a representative republic.

I hold free speech, in all its various incarnations, to be sacred, and the most hateful speech requires the most protection, so, while I defend everything about your right to post such a piece of writing, I would also respectfully point out that you're addressing this wornout and misguided old vitriol at people who don't have the wherewithal to know that they're being lied to, that what is going on is not lawful, that their biggest crime - this is unfortunate, but, I believe, true - is believing their leaders.

I'd rather try to invite them inside and see if they can learn something from us. Sort of like watching DU recently, with the people (such as I) questioning the veracity of the Leopold story being subjected to all sorts of rabid personal attacks by people with agendae that were other than truth and reasonable thought. I'm hoping that the latest developments regarding Karl Rove and his unindicted status will, perhaps, allow their heads to clear long enough for them to consider that, perhaps, they, too, were lied to by their leaders, or by those they chose to follow, and now it's time for them to reconsider their positions.

So, that's why I found your words offensive. But, they're your speech, and I say that that is precisely the kind of speech that must be protected and encouraged.

[NanceGreggs]

12. I agree with (almost) everything you have said ...

However, there is a difference, IMHO, between disagreeing (and vocally) with our nation's direction, policies and goals - and in most cases, there are valid points on 'both sides of the aisle', as they say -- and trying to change the BASICS of freedom and democracy to suit yourself or your political agenda. And I do try to see both sides.

But when a president, an administration, ANY American starts protesting my birthright as an American citizen, that's NOT mere disagreement - that is an attempt to undo the democracy our country was founded upon.

Yes, the Constitution is a living document, and is (as it should be) re-examined in light of changing times, changing mores, changing public opinion. But when a president blatantly IGNORES it (no re-examination on the wire-tapping issue, for example, just IGNORING our rights), that should not be acceptable or tolerated as in, "Oh, Bush just 'disagrees' with our basic rights, so he's going to arbitrarily dismiss them."

I could not agree with you more on your point about ALL of us having lost on way in the area of cooperation and compromise. I have stated in other articles published here on DU that 'divisiveness', pitting one citizen against the other (and often on truly meaningless points) has been the greatest sin of this administration.

I am not calling for people who disagree with ME to leave - I am INVITING people who disagree with DEMOCRACY to leave. And as I have stated in my original post, there are places where they might be much happier if they find things like free speech, freedom of religion, etc., totally unacceptable.

A case in point is Bill Kristol's comment last week about having a 'Supreme Leader'; he said that he liked the sound of that. My first thought was, "Well, we don't have a Supreme Leader in a democracy like the United States. So if you're really pining to live somewhere they DO, please move there and leave my democratic country out of your little fantasies."

It all boils down to this (for me, anyway): If you are unhappy with our country, work to change it - through protests, through voting, through supporting a candidate you believe in, whatever. But if you are unhappy with our country's freedoms and think they should be changed to YOUR liking, it's much easier for everyone if you just find a place that ISN'T democratic and live there -- and leave the rest of us to sort out our differences in a democratic way.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

14. No, sorry ........

You're calling "unhappy" what others are actually living, and you're disregarding the reality that they've been lied to. As I said, their biggest crime was believing their leaders - which they were taught to do in school, as were we all.

Not everyone enjoys the intellectual sophistication some of us have been privileged to enjoy and cultivate, and I think you're missing a huge segment of the population and how they think.

That's what's lacking in your equation. It's divisive and unthinking, and hardly what I would call "American."

I don't want us to be as bad as the people who hurled those words at us all those years ago. We are obligated to be better. Your piece diminishes all of us.

[NanceGreggs]

19. This isn't a matter of 'intellectual sophistication' ...

... nor a matter of people who have been duped into believing certain things.

It is a matter of this nation being a democracy.

Americans who disagree with abortion, same-sex marriage, etc. have a right (a duty) to speak their minds. I may disagree with them wholeheartedly, but I defend and support their right to follow their conscience.

But when someone disagrees with my right to freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom from a government agency wire-tapping my phone, THAT'S a whole different kettle of fish.

An analogy, if I may? If someone REALLY wants to live in a monarchy, if they truly believe that is the best course of action, I say, "Fine. If that's what you want, that's what you want. But it's better for you to move to a country that has a monarchy, than to try to turn my country's democracy into one."

As I have said before, it is one thing to disagree with the course our country is taking. It is something else entirely to support the concept that the country should be set on a course TOTALLY CONTRARY to its democratic ideals and its founding principles.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

21. At this point,

I no longer know what you're talking about.

If you disregard your targets and where they're coming from, you're going to miss your point, and so you have.

Now you are negating free speech, which is, in your words, "TOTALLY CONTRARY" to what defines free speech.

I do believe you've lost your way here. Maybe not. But, you surely have lost me.

Again, best of luck to you. But, I don't want you defining democracy for me, either.

[NanceGreggs]

23. I do not deign to define free speech ...

... I would rather let the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the Declaration of Independence do it for me.

It is you have defined my 'targets' and declared that I have missed them. As the person who wrote the piece, I think I know who my targets are.

[stevietheman]

41. But you seem to lost on any worthwhile action proposed here at DU. n/t

n/t

[Fiendish Thingy]

44. So you're saying "Love the CONSTITUTION or...

Leave the US"?

[Name removed]

53. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Demeter]

33. Besides, What Country Would Want All Those Ugly Americans?

No matter how much illegally gotten loot they brought with them!

[stevietheman]

39. Well, we're going to use it anyway.

The best way to counter the stupid right is to use their words against them.

If it's ugly, so be it. But "nice" doesn't win elections.

[electropop]

3. WOW!

This would be a wonderful op-ed piece in a major newspaper. Have you sent it to anybody?

[driver8]

4. This is, perhaps, my favorite post ever!!

There are so many people that I know that just don't get it. Your post hits the nail on the head in so many ways. This is a great post and you are an amazing writer.

Would you mind if I posted this on my veteran's board? I have been told countless times by fellow vets that "if I don't like our country, then I should leave." They think that they are patriots for following along with everything the administration does and says -- they do not want to hear anything else.

Thank you for this wonderful post!!

[NanceGreggs]

10. Feel free to post where you like!

I always appreciate being named as the author (and a plug for DU as the original publisher, if you're posting on another site).

I've apparently upset OLL, which really makes me sad. I hope my words are not misconstrued here.

My point is this: It is one thing for any American to protest, disagree with, or attempt to change what they feel is wrong in their country. That is what democracy is all about.

But it is quite another thing for ANY American (especially the president of the US) to protest, disagree with, or attempt to change our Constitutional rights, freedoms and civil liberties. THAT, IMHO, is not disagreement - THAT is treason against my beloved country and my fellow citizens.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

11. You've "upset" OLL?

What an odd thing to post in something that's not a response to my reply to you.

No, you've not upset me, don't fear. I reserve getting upset for things that matter. You simply didn't think through your idea, and, because of it, you left it dangling, incomplete, and inchoate. That's hardly effective writing and it's a really inaccurate representation of how even the most basic of democratic liberties under our Constitution should be addressed.

You're looking at the wrong culprits, is what I think, and because of that kind of myopia, you're missing the real problem. Consequently, your attack falls short and flat.

But, really, I'm not upset. It's kind of a fun exercise, like starting up with a new Constitutional Law class of first-year law students, and watching them as they struggle and succeed in understanding how our country works. It's very exciting, watching minds open and embrace new concepts and thoughts. I wish that for you, too.

Jim Webb won the Democratic Senatorial primary in Mr. Jefferson's Commonwealth today, where I reside. I think that's an excellent start to taking back our country and righting the wrong this current administration has committed. A far better method than invoking a tired old phrase with ghosts older than I am hanging over it, rendering it worse than Scrooge's worst nightmare.

[NanceGreggs]

13. I was working on my reply to you (see above) ...

... which is why I mentioned you in another reply!

(God, this is like playing telephone tag!)

And yes, I was upset that you had taken my post in a way that was not intended. I always enjoy your posts on the threads here, and respect your even-handedness and ability to be the voice of reason on discussions that sometimes get out of countrol.

Please read my reply to you (above). I think we may be talking at cross-purposes.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

15. Oh, I write fast and clean, and so I just type

Oh, YOU were upset! I thought you said I was upset.

See, these words - you've got to be very careful with them. So, you were upset that I disagreed with you.

Good. The road to enlightenment starts with discomfort.

We're not talking at crosspurposes. I've already replied to you. As I said, I'm fast and clean - my publisher/editor at HarperCollins loves me for this and my agent keeps telling me not to let her know how fast I can write - so I've already made my position clear about your response.

It looks to me like you haven't thought through your concept, and, with that bit of carelessness, you tend to miss your mark. If you're content to settle for agitation, then you've succeeded, but I doubt that any responsible person would simply agitate towards no reasonable end.

You had your say, I had mine. That's it for me. I wish you the best of luck.

[JeffR]

16. OLL, God Bless Ya

The rhetorical tropes being employed in the OP are sarcasm and irony. Two of Nance's favorite rhetorical devices, actually. For much more, go here:

http://nancerants.awardspace.com/

As to the Constitution, she takes it way more seriously than she does the Bible. Ah what the hell, she can speak for herself. And I know she will.

Totally off-topic: Your contributions throughout the Leopold/Truthout debacle have been magnificent, and I'll just take the opportunity here to say thanks and job well done.

ON EDIT: Fixed link.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

18. Thanks for your kind words

I'm not sure what the OP had in mind, but I can't let that kind of stuff go past without reaching out and grabbing it by the collar. If there were sarcasm and irony being employed, I didn't pick up on that. I just saw misguided rhetoric badly placed. I'll pass on the link, with gratitude for your trouble.

But, thank you for your words of support. There's nothing more important than truth, and anyone who fucks with it really has to be called to task. To wit, Fuckface in the Oval Office.

I, like Chuck Norris, do not sleep.

I wait.

heh heh heh

[JeffR]

26. If you really missed the sarcasm and irony in the OP

Then I have to assume you're just weary from tilting at the windmill-tilters who are going to support Truthout & Leopold "no matter what" reality is shoved in their faces.

We've all had these catchphrases shoved down our throats for decades (those of us of a certain age, anyway) and I find it delightful to see them turned around and used against them. Political pragmatism aside, I wish they would all get the fuck out, go and found their Christian-principled pseudo-America on a remote island somewhere, and leave the rest of the body politic alone. Having said that, I support any American's right to free speech, even Ann Coulter's. I reserve the right, of course, to tell them to shove their opinions up their asses. That too, is what free speech is for.

The sarcasm and irony are pretty much implicit in every word of the OP, and the link - should you find time - is well worth following. Then again, I'm wretchedly partisan both in terms of the author and virtually everything she believes in. She and I disagree about dog discipline, but as far as politics or anything else, we agree pretty much down the line. How's that for lockstep leftist groupthink?

'Night, OLL.

EDITED for clarity. I hope.

[bleever]

5. Damn straight.

Great essay, Nance.

:thumbsup:

[racaulk]

8. Thank you! Thank you! Thank you!

Fine writing as usual, NanceGreggs! Great ideas! Thank you for posting this.

K&R...proudly!!! :)

[Mythsaje]

17. Kicked and Recommended...

Ol' Lefty doesn't like me either, so... :shrug: Make of that what you will...

Nice job, Nance.

[NanceGreggs]

22. Then I am not in GOOD company ...

... but GREAT company!

As always, thanks for your input, Mythsaje!

:hug:

[Mythsaje]

25. She put me on ignore a couple months ago

after I remarked that maybe a ruling banning Phelps and his crowd from protesting at military funerals might keep them safe from some pissed-off ranger or special forces types throwing on some modern ninja gear and dealing out their own brand of justice.

She thought I showed entirely too much glee at the prospect. :shrug: I was actually imagining some of the hoo-hah types I've known and thinking that I could see some of them getting that idea in their head.

I wasn't arguing in favor of a ban...or cheering the prospect of someone kicking the crap out of them...I thought I was just making an ironic observation.

[NanceGreggs]

27. Whoa, gotta agree with you on the Phelps observation ...

How do you know you're on IGNORE, BTW?

[Mythsaje]

30. I don't...but she more or less said she was...

And she hasn't jumped in to bite my head off yet for anything else.

Plus it's a DU rule to actually PUT someone on ignore if you say you're going to.

[treestar]

20. I don't know what they love, but it's not America as defined in its

history and the Constitution - that's what is funny about it. It's like whenever they find out that America does run by the rule of law, they complain.

With the Christian right sometimes I think they are subconsciously envious of Muslims where there are Islamic states. Their hatred flows out of their envy. They'd like to have similar control. They decry what is happening here and I think, well, if you don't like living in a place where anybody can do whatever they want regarding religion, then go find someplace where people can't.

It's the control freak in them, too. They have to have everything under control all the time, wrapped up and answered. Love it or leave it is a way of pretending they have control (we're not going to change, so if you don't like it, leave). It is an attempt to shut down the discussion by pretending that citizens who don't agree with them are something less than citizens. Because they fear that free speech which gives other people the ability to talk in disagreement, and that might convince somebody, and then they might have to love it or leave it.

Sometimes you run into people who seem angry that we don't live in a police state. That a trial is not just for show. If the police arrested someone, that person must be guilty, so the system "didn't work" if there is an acquittal. They seem genuinely outraged when their personal opinions are not validated by the legal system. Because they have to be correct about everything, their snap judgment of whether some particular defendant is guilty becomes some sort of moral imperative.

[NanceGreggs]

24. Well said - all of it!

"I don't know what they love, but it's not America as defined in its
history and the Constitution ..."

Exactly my point, Treestar - thanks for putting it so succinctly (I tend to run off at the mouth a bit too much!)

And the rest of your post is dead-on.

[ArkySue]

28. The correct phrase....

is "America: Change it or Lose it." Had a bumper sticker on my VW way back when....

[NanceGreggs]

29. Never heard of THAT one ...

... time to dust that phrase off and bring it back!!!

[LisaLynne]

31. Well said!

This phrase was particularly interesting: "Rosa Parks is a case in point, a shining example of an American willing to stand up for our country not as it was, but as it was meant to be." I think that touches on something very fundamental in the differences between the "America, right or wrong" crowd and those of us who are adults about things. When we critize or protest in all of the forms it can take, we are aiming for the ideal of what America is supposed to be. We can see the problems and where we as a nation fall sort and want to work towards the ideal, a better America. And maybe that's what freaks the conservatives out -- either they are too lazy and the thought of work makes them panic or they simply do not agree with that great ideal, which I think your post expresses very well.

[987654321]

32. Job well done!

By the way, I don't find your use of the term "love it or leave it" offensive in the slightest. It is quite common for people to take ownership over words or phrases that were once hurtful and used to degrade them. It takes the power of its original intention away from the word or phrase.

Besides, I believe you're not telling anyone that they don't have the right to their ideas, or to free speech. You're telling people that they should respect the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights. Those are what had made us such an amazing country, a true beacon for hope and freedom once seen shining brightly around the world. But they are also now what many people are trying to destroy. There are people who call themselves true American patriots are actually trying to destroy our system of government. Their behavior could even be considered treasonous, in my opinion. So telling them to love it or leave it seems extremely appropriate at this juncture.

[Blutodog]

34. Talk and more Talk

I guess I have outrage fatigue as it's been called. It seems all any of us really do is waste our energy in these sites. Maybe, it's better then marching around like we did in the 60's ( I'm too tired for that anymore anyway) but it just seems that these sites are acting as steam vents for our fury and then we all go back and watch Survivor or Lost and do this again & again. All the while the fascists are carrying forth their slow motion take over of this country. Since Dec 12,2000 I've watched us slip slowly into the void and nothing anyone does or says has slowed our descent. No matter how bad the endless scandals are or how many more die in Mr. Bu$h's war of choice or any of the rest of it in the end they keep pushing the line to the hard right. Look at the things were discussing TORTURE for Christ sakes TORTURE by the US? By our Gov't. It get's worse yet the masses sleep and we can bet the Bu$hiviks have Nov. well in hand already especially now that Turd blossom will free to do his magic. I fear a year from now we will all be still here screaming about how they stole endless numbers of elections last fall right in front of our faces and yet once again we all did nothing.

[Kablooie]

35. xxx

[tsuki]

36. I've been telling the fascists for years, the American Constitution...

Love It or Leave. You want your telephone conversations monitored, you want everyone to agree with you, you want "to be safe?" Then, find a nice little dictatorship, like Kusbekistan. Living in a democracy was never meant to 'easy' or 'safe.' And YOU do not have the right to give away MY freedoms.

Usually, that stops them, but if it doesn't, I can continue.

[jillan]

37. "My country right or wrong.....

If it's right, keep it right, if it's wrong make it right." John Kerry

Don't give up the fight people.

[stevietheman]

42. Strangely enough, Kerry is paraphrasing what a Republican said in 1872...

"Our country, right or wrong. When right, to be kept right; when wrong, to be put right." — U.S. Senator Carl Schurz (R-MO), 29 February 1872

[Son Of Spy]

38. Love it or leave it

I seem to vaguely recall being present in the sixties and early 70's :)
...including the Mayday Demonstrations on the green when our constitutional rights
were suspended for 24 hours. (or was it longer, I can't remember?)

I particularly remember being outraged by this very same phrase and was therefore
delighted to find this bumper sticker in Massachusetts around 1971. I didn't have
a car at the time but I saved this bumper sticker for years meaning to put it on
my first vehicle. I think it got badly damaged so I never got to....

It was just this color and I still love every word of it.




Cheers!

Son Of Spy

[stevietheman]

40. Sounds good, but I'd rather say "The Constitution: Love it or leave...

the country!"

[Fiendish Thingy]

43. My country has left me, so I soon may leave my country...

Well written Nance, I agree with pretty much everything you've said, but I'm confused- you've already moved to Canada, right? Could you say more about your OP from the perspective of an expatriate (or, as I will refer to myself if the time comes for me to leave, a "patriot-in-exile")?
I mean, you're inviting the lawbreakers, constitution-shredders, torturers, et al, to leave your country, when you yourself have already left? Please say more about your feelings from the Great White North...

As for me, all it will take is one more stolen election, one more illegal war; even if the Dems retake one or both houses, if they stay spineless and don't fight back, don't investigate, etc., then I can't stand by and watch the "final throes" of our democracy. In the meantime, I'll continue to fight (I hope to add my name to Debra Bowen's list of campaign volunteers soon), continue to speak out. But I've done my research (I'm going to BC this week to check out neighborhoods), and I'm ready to leave if we don't "turn the corner" soon...

BTW, the perfect soundtrack companion piece to your OP is Eddie Vedder's rewrite of Phil Och's "Here's to the State of Mississippi". I heard him sing it at the Bridge School concert just before the election in 2004, and it really choked me up. He's never officially released it, but there's bootleg mp3's of it floating around...I don't have all the lyrics handy, but the chorus goes like this:

"Here's to the land,
You tore out the heart of;
George Dubya (Dick Cheney, John Ashcroft, Judge Rehnquist)
go find yourself another country
to be part of"

(edited for clarity)

[NanceGreggs]

51. Yes, I live in Canada (Toronto) ...

... but I came here many years ago, long before Bush-the-First was in office, no less the Idiot Son. And my move here had nothing to do with politics - I was married to my first husband then, and he was offered a PLUM job here (that was back in the day when Americans were seen to be better at EVERYTHING than the average Canadian - a mindset now long gone).

My present husband (No. 3 - JeffR) is also an American, who came here with his family as a teenager.

When JeffR and I got together, it was the beginning of the Clinton years -- we talked constantly then about moving back to the States. But my daughter (born here, a Canadian citizen) was still a kid, and her dad lived here, so we figured we'd wait until she was an adult and could choose to come with us or stay here.

But then BU$HCO happened, and we realized that the country we'd dreamed about going back to was not the same one we had left. And quite frankly, we are not in a financial position to make a move back home even feasible under the Bush Regime. As we get older, and more prone to health problems, we could not possibly afford medical insurance. My son (born in NY and an American) moved back to the States several years ago. What HE pays for medical insurance would be beyond our means -- and he was 25 at the time, and perfectly healthy! What would the coverage be for us, in our fifties?

Job outsourcing is not the rampant problem here that it is back home. Taxes are high, but we don't see them being plowed into Halliburton's pocket on a daily basis. We live right downtown in the largest Canadian city, but we still leave the doors unlocked when we go out to shop. The city is rapidly growing, but it's still clean and safe. Being gay or lesbian is accepted here, and smoking marijuana is no big deal. In short, Canada is quickly becoming what the US SHOULD HAVE BEEN BY NOW, were it not for Bush administration.

I am now, and always will be an American citizen. We both vote; neither of us have applied for Canadian citizenship (or even dual citizenship). We consider ourselves to be Americans, living as guests in another country.

Will we ever get home again (which is where we both want to be)? As long as the neo-cons are running our country into the ground, the answer is no.

When I first moved here, everyone asked: "Why would you want to leave the States to live in Canada?"

Now people say: "You're an American? Good God, aren't you glad you got OUT when you still could?"

This is what it has come to. And that is what makes me sadder, and more willing to put up a fight, than anything.

[pooja]

45. What I can't understand is how these repubs have bamboozled

the Christian population. When JFK was elected, it was monumental because he was catholic. 100 yrs ago Catholics and Protestants were so far removed from each other, they didn't commune with one another. The fight still persists in Ireland... So, who was smart enough to get all these Christians homogenized, when there are still rivalries between methodists and baptists on a local basis..... The media and pollsters did this.

Are you Christian?
yes
no

Are you for abortion?
yes
no

Are you pro-marriage?
yes
no


Now, the christian right is against abortion and gay marriage... so now you must follow the rest of the heard since you are a Christian right???

[slampoet]

46. "'If you don't like this country then ,

why don't you just leave it?'

- 'Because i don't want to be victimized by its foreign policy'"

- Barry Crimmins -

[NanceGreggs]

49. Great quote! n/t

[krispos42]

47. America: Fix it or leave it!

That's a republican-esque counter-talking-point

[flamin lib]

48. Change it or lose it was the other side of that coin. nt

[Bluzmann57]

50. I remember "Love it or Leave it"

Oh yeah, I remember it. Some rednecks used to say that shit to my parents. My dad worked his ass off in a factory so his family could have a better life, my mom didn't at first, but due to certain things, later returned to the work force. And both of them gave of themselves a lot so that others could have something. They were (and are) anti war and in part because of that fact, were told more than once to "Love it or leave it". There are a couple of people who I will never ever forgive because of the love it or leave it shit they spewed at my parents just because they didn't want their children, or anybody else's children to go to an illegal war, which Viet Nam was. My dad, a Korean war vet and one of the most religious people ever, and these idiots wanted him to "Love it or leave it." When their children threw rocks at me and my younger sister, that's when I got mad and turned violent (fisticuffs people). I was wrong, so they said, and my parents were rasing a wild violent child. Well, the "love it or leave it" crowd can kiss my ass. In fact, I agree with the op, why don't you get the hell out of my country?

[Sarah Ibarruri]

52. Wonderful post!!!!!!

The 60s "love it or leave it" people were haters of immigrants, blacks, lefties, etc. They're the Karl Roves and George Bushes of today. I don't mind saying to them, "love it or leave it." Their intent is and has always been, to harm our country and to harm our people. They have no good intentions in mind. Why must we walk on egg shells around them? Hell no.

[133724]

54. Its the Constitution: LOVE IT OR LEAVE...N/T