Patriotism

A “moderate” posts some view on patriotism and between her attempts to poke those with whom she apparently disagrees also thinks patriotism is synonymous with progressive and that the notions of liberty and freedom are fixed things. Apparently “flag” does not equate with patriotism. This book is an exhaustive and interesting review of how our different definitions of liberty and freedom and the symbols we’ve used to represent them have changed (changed!) throughout last 200 years and that book’s very existence demonstrates that her simplistic rejection of caricatured representations of the ideas of patriotism, freedom, and liberty mean and how they are symbolized by people who are not her.

Those who want a return to small government (e.g.,  a lot of those in the Tea Party) don’t necessarily want a return to some mythic past. Saying that is their view is a caricature, a straw man. Honoring a symbol of your nation as representing honor to the thing represented isn’t wrong or even hard to understand (really it isn’t). She writes:

The definition of patriotism is love for or devotion to one’s country. To love or be devoted to someone or something usually means to want what is best for that someone or something, to be willing to make the effort, do what must be done to protect that something or someone. Conservatives seem to want the opposite. They seem to want to destroy the very thing they claim to love.

No. Conservatives don’t “want to destroy” the nation. They want to save it from the destruction that they see “progressives” are steering us toward. If you love a ship which is sailing toward ice flows and you see progressives as “fixing” the problem not by steering away from the ice, but by adding pressure to the boiler. The policy differences in left and right is a vision of what is wrong and what needs to be done to fix it, not that conservatives want to break it and liberals want the reverse. Thinking that is naive (or perhaps a result of not actually having any contact with actual conservatives).

If you want to go along with her definition of patriotism, loving someone means also rising to defend the object of your love from attacks, verbal and otherwise. Conservatives see liberals as unwilling to do this, in fact so much as to offer agreement with those attackers. If you are at a dinner party with your beloved wife, and some at the table point out her flaws in insulting ways, whether or not you (and she) are working on said flaws in private, at that dinner her flaws are not admitted but defended. To not do so is a betrayal. This is something the left can’t seem to fathom.

 

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

39 comments

  1. Boonton says:

    No. Conservatives don’t “want to destroy” the nation. They want to save it from the destruction that they see “progressives” are steering us toward.

    The front runner status of Donald Trump means anyone who seriously believes the above statement is hopelessly delusional. The William F Buckley era of the Conservative movement is deader than he is.

  2. Mark says:

    Boonton,
    Ok. We know you’re a Democrat. If you want to claim that only Democrats want to save the nation and conservatives/GOP “want” to destroy it. You can pretend that. You’d be wrong and stupid for thinking that, but hey, I won’t judge.

  3. Mark says:

    Boonton,
    Allegedly educated liberals think they are better than the other side at seeing “the way the other” thinks. This they feel is an essential part of multiculturalism and promoting diversity. Statements like you just made and was quoted (conservatives want to destroy) is proof positive that notion and feeling is completely wrongheaded and incorrect.

  4. Mark says:

    Boonton,
    I will go further. None. Not one. No conservative ever has desired a policy in order to destroy the nation. Ever.

    Thinking that’s the case is just … well, I’m at a loss for words.

  5. Boonton says:

    If you think this country will be saved or destroyed based on things like will Obamacare be repealed or not then either this country isn’t worth saving or you aren’t capable of making judgements worthy of serious attention.

  6. Mark says:

    Boonton,
    Uhm, you seem to have forgotten how ethics works? Ethics is at the root the study of the good. Everyone, even your most tainted horrible villains, acted with good intentions. What is “good”? Well, everyone has their own way of interpreting that. But everyone acts toward that. Now if you want to pretend that conservatives see “good” in destroying their country … you’d have to back that up with proof, because as noted. Nobody. Not one does. You should (and probably could) act under the assumption that all are acting in good faith, that they honestly want what is better for the country.

    This does actually substantiate the maxim that while conservatives see liberals as naive, misguided, and/or blind to obvious consequences; liberals think conservatives are evil. (Hint: liberals are wrong and, well, naive, misguided, and/or &c to think this)

    You seem to be under the impression that the GOP debates are about Obamacare. I’ve been out of town and traveling and so on, but seems to me that isn’t what they are talking/debating about. Right? OK. Apparently you think taking on more underfunded government liabilities, increasing government intervention in your life is good. That is how you perceive things. It also becomes clear that you are unable to comprehend anyone disagreeing with that that notion. This, as noted, is directly at odds with your notion that you liberals are better at seeing the other sides point of view.

    If you think unfunded liabilities cannot destroy … you apparently have missed Detroit and the ongoing unraveling of Chicago and Illinois finances, the second tragedy there hasn’t quite come out into the sun, but it will. It will.

  7. Boonton says:

    You seem to be under the impression that the GOP debates are about Obamacare. I’ve been out of town and traveling and so on, but seems to me that isn’t what they are talking/debating about. Right?

    Not really, the GOP debates are currently a somewhat staged TV reality show and nothing more.

  8. Mark says:

    Boonton,
    Oh, so the debates are scripted, kinda like pro-wrestling in your opinion. Hmm. Who is masterminding all this then? What sneaky mythical behind the scenes guru is staging this in your left wing fantasy.

    Which also begs the question … because this isn’t limited to the debates. By what metric do you see the “Obamacare” discussion dominating conservative/GOP discourse vis a vis the primary race?

  9. Mark says:

    Boonton,

    GOP debates are currently a somewhat staged TV reality show

    Are you sure you’re not confusing that with Clinton press conferences?

  10. Boonton says:

    Who is masterminding all this then?

    You think ‘masterminds’ are behind reality TV?

  11. Mark says:

    Boonton

    You think ‘masterminds’ are behind reality TV?

    Uhm, I think the majority of reality TV is as unscripted as professional wrestling. Or should I say, similarly scripted. Why? Does that pop some cherished bubble?

  12. Mark says:

    Boonton,
    You had remarked .. “are currently a somewhat staged TV reality show and nothing more”. Reality shows are staged. And I suggest partially scripted. A staging and a scripting requires a producer, a stage manager and a script writer. You (strangely) having suggested yourself that there is a mastermind, a stager, a scripter that I should tell you who that is? That is really really odd. You suggest a mastermind but then ask me if I think there are masterminds behind it.

    No. I don’t. I don’t think it is a staged reality TV event. I even don’t think that “if you support Trump you want for the destruction of the nation” as you do. Where do you get that idea? Apparently you’ve met a number of Trump supporters, interviewed them and found that indeed they admit they want the US destroyed as that is the only reasonable way to arrive at making that statement. Alas, I don’t believe that you did that or found such. I think it is mostly just evidence that your elitism is showing. You don’t respect the opinion of others as much as your liberal pretenses pretend.

    As an aside, it was pointed out that while Trump’s rhetoric vis a vis immigration for example is very, well, boisterous. His actual policy suggestions, which were released, were not far fetched and preposterous as one one be led to believe based on his boisterous rhetoric. Perhaps these people who support him have figured that out, or just realized that you have to got to get a lot of “it” right be a successful entrepreneur.

  13. Boonton says:

    Reality shows are not really scripted but predictable. Producers line up dysfunctional people into a dysfunctional environment and then encourage dysfuctional behavior. With that stage set you can pretty much have a decent reality show without much additional ‘masterminding’.

    And of course even producers here aren’t ‘masterminds’. The business is driven by ratings which means shows that produce outrage will be rewarded while snoozers will disappear.

  14. Mark says:

    Boonton,

    Reality shows are not really scripted but predictable.

    I see. And if something occurs which trends to higher ratings and interest absolutely nothing is done by the hands off producers to encourage such actions, behavior, or trends. I don’t think you even believe that.

  15. Boonton says:

    It does sometimes happen that a character will take off and achieve wild popularity. While I’m sure the producers are happy when such things happen, it isn’t something they can command. Likewise if the character becomes big enough they can take on a life of their own, demanding higher pay and spin off shows or even jumping ship entirely and becoming a producer of their own series of shows.

    That IMO is actually not a bad analogy with the current GOP nomination process. We even have stories of Fox News trying to scuttle Donald Trump but being unable to do so.

  16. Mark says:

    Boonton,

    It does sometimes happen that a character will take off and achieve wild popularity. While I’m sure the producers are happy when such things happen, it isn’t something they can command.

    The “game” reality shows are 100% on the up and up. Rules and outcomes are never bent to allow popular people or interactions to remain on the show? Hmm.

    That IMO is actually not a bad analogy with the current GOP nomination process. We even have stories of Fox News trying to scuttle Donald Trump but being unable to do so.

    Your analogy fits all politics if you stretch it that far.

  17. Boonton says:

    “Your analogy fits all politics if you stretch it that far.”

    Yes, but it fits the GOP today with only a bit of stretching. Thanks for agreeing with me!

  18. Mark says:

    Boonton,

    Yes, but it fits the GOP today with only a bit of stretching.

    Hmm. And fits the Dems with not bit more stretching. Your primary candidate should be wearing Orange (the Black) and your second runner is still trying to figure out if he is a commie or not, and your “third” place hasn’t announced his candidacy, for alas, he’s “giving it serious thought” (don’t hold your breath for that to occur … thoughts for him are like kind of like air on Everest.). But hey, get a group of disreputable .. oh wait.

    You (and many others) like to pretend Trump is a front runner, which in a weird way he is and isn’t. I’ve read in cricket races he loses to any other given candidate, it’s just that with such a large field …

    You still need to support your accusation that telling a pollster you’re “for Trump” is treasonous. Where did you get that notion? From interviewing .. whom?

  19. Boonton says:

    Your primary candidate should be wearing Orange (the Black) …

    White guys shouldn’t try to rap, unless they can do it well. It’s one thing to swap style with substance but diminishing returns do set in, and you’re far down that curve.

    You (and many others) like to pretend Trump is a front runner, which in a weird way he is and isn’t.

    The front runner is mathematically defined as the one leading in the polls. It isn’t a very post-modern concept that requires a lot of vague hand waving. Trump is the front runner. That may change or it may not but right now he is. He is also the leader since the other candidates are unable to do anything but riff off the subjects he is leading with.

  20. Mark says:

    Boonton,
    Yes. Disreputable/disfunctional. Do you include Mr Carson in that mix?

    The front runner is mathematically defined as the one leading in the polls.

    Take a system where you have 21 candidates. In a general poll, one candidate has 20% and the others each 4%. But … no person who would vote for one of the 20 would vote for the one. In a head to head challenge between the “front runner” and any one of the 20, the polling split is 20% to 80%. Your favorite cricket racer Nate Silver dismisses Trump’s chances, and it may be likely the losing head to head against everyone is the reason.

  21. Boonton says:

    Last I heard Trump was at 32%. If I hear your argument correctly, the problem with Trump is that while he leads among a slate of 17-21 candidates, he loses in a nationwide contest of himself and any one of those 21 candidates individually.

    The problem is that you don’t get a head to head contest. Imagine an NFL team that can beat any other team, but does not have the stamina to do that for more than two weeks in a row. While in theory they would automatically win if they were playing the Superbowl, they can’t get to the Superbowl unless they survive the regular season. Trump, in theory, has no problem surviving since he has his personal resources to pull from. As the season goes on more and more candidates will be forced off as they exhaust resources. Their backers then will split between Trump and other remaining candidates (or some might drop out entirely opting not to support any GOP candidate after their favorite is eliminated). Presumably we’ll be left with a much smaller field at the end. After it becomes Trump.v.Someone the game will be very different so how much you can tell from polls today is shakey IMO. Another possibility is that you don’t narrow it to two candidates, there could be several GOP nominees challenging Trump all the way to the final primary…in that case, though, we already know Trump seems to have an advantage when he is challenging multiple candidates.

    The deeper problem is not that Trump is a sure thing to the nomination, he very well may not be. The deeper problem IMO is that there is no evidence that the other candidates are better leaders than Trump is himself….and the consensus among better informed people on both sides of the political spectrum seems to be that Trump is pretty crappy.

  22. Mark says:

    Boonton,
    You have an error in your logic.

    Their backers then will split between Trump and other remaining candidates (or some might drop out entirely opting not to support any GOP candidate after their favorite is eliminated).

    The extreme assumption here (which may be close to correct) is that all the backers of the dropped candidate will go to a non-Trump alternative. So as the field thins, the remaining candidates will move up in relation to Trump. His “momentum” will falter as a result … that failing momentum will shift Trump backers who like him because he is a front runner will also lose Trump voters.

    Your second error is that “we already know Trump seems to have an advantage when he is challenging multiple candidates” … the suggestion is that Mr Trump’s “high unfavorable” is that it is very likely his “32%” is his high water … that he cannot rise above that in any field. All the possible Trump yield him 32%, in a field of one other, he would still be at 32. In field of 4, he would be at 32 … and likely another candidate would be higher than that.

    That is, tell me why Mr Silver is wrong in saying he won’t get he nomination.

    The deeper problem IMO is that there is no evidence that the other candidates are better leaders than Trump is himself.

    On what basis do you make that claim. Or are you just trying to distract from the incredibly weak Dem field?

  23. Boonton says:

    You’re saying all the other candidates are basically fighting to capture the anti-Trump vote, which being nearly 70% of the GOP is sufficient to defeat Trump as soon as a sufficient number of candidates drop out.

    But why? Since Trump is not a regular in the GOP why would so much of the GOP be united against him? I could see that dynamic if Trump represented say some dramatic policy shift such as being pro-choice. If that was the case it might make sense 1/3 of the base whose tired of being anti-abortion might rally behind him while the rest of the base is united against any change, with the only question being who will be that champion? But Trump appears to be aligned with the other GOP candidates on all the major ‘correct positions’ and the other candidates seem to be trying to show that they too agree with Trump on being anti-immigration. This analysis would make more sense, IMO, if it was applied to say Ron Paul.

  24. Mark says:

    Boonton,
    To say that means you figure there is no rational reason for Trump’s very large negatives. Which is odd, because (without justification or rationale you figure support for Trump is akin to treason) for your own self you find lots of reasons to dislike Trump without his being, say, Ron Paul.

    But alas, the reason the shift will likely occur as noted is because of his very high negatives, high enough that the majority of those non-Trump voters dislike Trump. Hence his inability to beat anyone in a head to head poll.

  25. Mark says:

    Boonton,

    You’re saying all the other candidates are basically fighting to capture the anti-Trump vote

    That statement betrays a non-understanding of the nature of multiple candidate electoral mathematics. Pick any voter, call him Mr Franks. All the other candidates are indeed basically fighting to capture the anti-Franks vote.

    What is unusual in this case, is that because of Mr Trumps large negatives most of the non-Trump voters will not swing to Trump. He has little left to gain.

  26. Boonton says:

    (without justification or rationale you figure support for Trump is akin to treason)

    Could you remind me when I said that?

    To say that means you figure there is no rational reason for Trump’s very large negatives

    There’s always a rational reason for attributing any negative to Trump. A simple one might be that since he is the front runner and the most well known of the candidates, negatives stick to him . You will be able to say what you like and dislike about someone you know much more than someone you don’t know.

    That statement betrays a non-understanding of the nature of multiple candidate electoral mathematics. Pick any voter, call him Mr Franks. All the other candidates are indeed basically fighting to capture the anti-Franks vote.

    Mathematics here has to be nuanced by human motivation on the ground. I wouldn’t call every Hillary vote an anti-Bernie vote, for example. But many Bernie votes may indeed be anti-Hillary votes. Does that mean translate into a large portion of those Bernie voters either jumping ship to the GOP candidate or staying home if Hillary is the nominee? Well recall McCain attempted to target Hillary supporting women voters and failed miserably. Not clear to me at all if Trump keeps winning and candidates keep dropping out he won’t continue to gain momentum.

    Math
    So I made a little spreadsheet. Let’s say there are 1000 voters and 16 candidates. I gave candidate A 333 votes (about 33%). All the other candidates get 44-46 votes to even the total out to 1000 in total.

    Next I set an ‘anti-A’ threshold of 50%. That means each of those candidates have half of their votes in the mindset of ‘not A’. I assume if that candidate drops out those voters will not go to A. So every time a candidate drops out A gains not the candidates entire set of voters but only those who are not in the ‘anti-A threshold’. I’m assuming here that every candidate who drops out does so in competition with A.

    At 50%, A ends up with 666.5 votes. A clear majority. Even at a 70% threshold A still ends up with 533 votes. Again a majority. At 80% A only ends up with 466, which is just under a majority but might still be if some of those anti-A voters simply drop out entirely thereby making the threshold for a majority smaller. If every anti-A voter stays in and unites around whoever the last candidate other than A to remain only then can the anti-A voters deny the nomination to A. Of course that assumes none of those voters who are anti-A might not also be anti-some other candidate as well.

    Mathematically your theory doesn’t work unless you’re assuming almost everyone who is voting for someone other than Trump is doing so because they absolutely hate Trump.

  27. Mark says:

    Boonton,

    So I made a little spreadsheet.

    So, in a head to head matchup, does your front runner lose every matchup? No? I thought not. So … bad model. Try again.

    Could you remind me when I said that?

    Well, I extrapolated a little. It’s not “officially” treason but you claimed (and here’s the link) that support for Trump was to support the decline/demise of the US. Acting consciously to harm your own country by action is I think a good definition of treason.

    I had claimed that Conservatives who support Trump don’t want the destruction of the nation (but that see Progressive “reforms” as harmful). You rejected that logic claiming they were “hopelessly delusional”. Since the claim that 11% of the country is undergoing a psychotic break with reality is not tenable, I’m left with your rejection of the statement “Conservatives who support Trump don’t want the destruction of the nation”, the only rejection of that is that “Conservatives who support Trump do want the destruction of the nation” which is what you were left with. My shorthand for wanting the destruction of your own nation as treason.

    As for the other part, thinking that Progressive policy is harmful might be delusional? WTF? You think conservative policies are harmful, which is why you oppose them. Strangely nobody, even conservatives, don’t think that POV is delusional. Your assumption that people who disagree with your policy suggestions are delusional is not the path to fruitful discussion. In fact, it might be viewed itself as somewhat delusional or at least quixotic.

    Seems to me it is likely that you’ve never met or talked with with a Trump supporter. Ever.

  28. Boonton says:

    So, in a head to head matchup, does your front runner lose every matchup? No? I thought not. So … bad model. Try again

    Too complicated a model. I’m assuming candidate A will be left at the end of the day and one other candidate (which doesn’t matter). As each candidate is eliminated, his or her voters will either switch to a remaining non-A candidate or go to A. Even if 70% of the voters for all the other candidates are anti-A, A still manages to collect a majority by pocketing the 30% of voters from each defeated candidate plus the 33% or so he had to start with.

    We can do this math with even less complication. A starts with about 33%. The remaining 16 candidates collectively hold 67%. For A to get 50%, he must collect only 17%. The voters for the other candidates could be up to about 74.626% ‘anti-A’ voters and that would not be sufficient to deny A the nomination.

    Did I say under no circumstances could A be defeated? Of course not, if 75% or more of the non-A voters were united in seeing anyone but A win the nomination then A could be defeated. But that would mean almost all the support for the other candidates are about opposing A rather than other things like supporting a strong pro-lifer, a hawkish military, a Tea Party type person etc.

    Well, I extrapolated a little. It’s not “officially” treason but you claimed (and here’s the link) that support for Trump was to support the decline/demise of the US. Acting consciously to harm your own country by action is I think a good definition of treason.

    You’re inserting the claim ‘consciously’ here. One could just as easily say Trump supporters are advancing the decline of the US because they are stupid. A sign that this may be at least partially the case can be found at https://twitter.com/e_considine/status/643463208855040000 (yea I’m on Twitter now, follow me! My followers are growing nearly 20% ever few days, I’m gaining followers faster than ISIS! World domination will follow soon…assuming trends maintain their current pace).

    Since the claim that 11% of the country is undergoing a psychotic break with reality is not tenable, I’

    Actually I suspect it is quite tenable. You vastly overestimate human nature.

    Seems to me it is likely that you’ve never met or talked with with a Trump supporter. Ever.

    Actually I did last week. A friendly co-worker woman. She supports Trump (but isn’t attending rallies or anything). Is her grasp on reality tenable IMO? No it isn’t but the human mind is very compartmentalized so people can be sane in enough aspects of life (i.e. work, family, walking around on the streets without throwing poo at people or setting things on fire) to make their insane aspects not harmful enough for them to be filtered out of the population. Again that’s human nature. If you think it’s impossible for over 11% of the population to buy into an absurd and insane idea then you just haven’t been paying attention.

  29. Mark says:

    Boonton,
    You’re model doesn’t match the facts. I read that Trump loses virtually every head to head matchup. Your model doesn’t care if you take out the opposition one at at time or all at once. Your front-runner wins all the time. But … the problem is your front runner loses every head to head matchup. So. Your. Model. Doesn’t. Match. Reality. Don’t be a climate scientist. Change the model if it doesn’t match reality.

    You’re inserting the claim ‘consciously’ here.

    Yes. And no Trump supporter is supporting him because he is (a) delusional or (b) deciding to ruin his own country.

    Look. Liberals (claim I think falsely … but bear with me) think they are better than conservatives at understanding the “other” persons point of view. You’re failing miserably here by assuming they are delusional. They aren’t. Mr Jindal spelled it out for you and explained in a lot of commonsense small words why people are following Trump, and the of course adds why that is not quite the right thing to do, again in small words.

  30. Boonton says:

    I read that Trump loses virtually every head to head matchup.

    this isn’t the NFL, the primaries are not a series of one on one matchups.

  31. Mark says:

    Boonton,

    this isn’t the NFL, the primaries are not a series of one on one matchups.

    I realize that. The statement made is a comment on your model not the primaries. Your model predicts Trump would win every head to head. Yet he doesn’t. Your model needs adjustment.

  32. Boonton says:

    I’m not sure my model predicts that at all. In fact, that doesn’t really make any sense. If you had a head to head where you only allowed Trump and one random person on the ballot Trump would have his 333 voters and the other guy would have his 46 voters. But what about the other 700 or so voters? They would be allowed to vote obviously so whether or not Trump would win the head to head would depend upon their preferences. Given their #1 guy isn’t on the ballot, is this other guy higher or lower than Trump if they had to list their candidates in order of preference from #1 to #16 or so?

  33. Boonton says:

    Keep in mind preferences change over time, people are very prone to changing their preferences in tune with crowds (recall the psych experiments where a class full of people purposefully give a wrong answer to a simple question and the test subjects will more often than not change their answer to align with the one they know is wrong).

    With most candidates running Trump could win the first few primaries. As he is perceived to be more of a winner, he can peal away voters from other candidates who wouldn’t have normally voted for him if there the contest was just some single blind poll that happened before any other votes were taken (remember the odd thing about the primary system is that most people who vote in them will be voting after other multiple votes have already happened and the results announced

  34. Mark says:

    Boonton,
    Your model was a spreadsheet. You had 333 votes for one, 46 for each of the others. When you removed any candidates you apportion votes the others based on a formula. Applying that formula when removing all but your front runner and any one other as you said unless the “disapproval” is higher than about 75% the front runner wins. This is your models. Your model does predict that.

    If you had a head to head where you only allowed Trump and one random person on the ballot Trump would have his 333 voters and the other guy would have his 46 voters. But what about the other 700 or so voters?

    Your model has a formula for how to apportion the other 700 or so.

  35. Mark says:

    Boonton,

    Keep in mind preferences change over time, …

    How is this relevant to your spreadsheet model?

  36. Boonton says:

    So I’m unclear where you are getting ‘head to head’ comparisons. My model would predict as candidates drop out some of their voters will go to other candidates and some will go to ‘A’ (i.e. the stand in for Trump). Since A already has 1/3, he does not have to pick up a majority of the remaining votes to win a majority. A minority of votes from each of the remaining candidates will be sufficient to push him over 50%.

    Of course if some states have a winner take all system without regard to majority then it gets even easier for A since all he has to do is come into a state with 1/3 of the vote and walk away with all of its delegates.

  37. Mark says:

    Boonton,

    So I’m unclear where you are getting ‘head to head’ comparisons.

    It’s real complicated. A cricket racer asks a person “If the race was between Trump and X who would you vote for?” This is a head to head. You must have heard of polls, err cricket races, of that sort.

  38. Anonymous says:

    BVLGARI(バッグ?財布?小物)CHLOE(バッグ?財布、小物)偽物ブランド,激安,コピー?ルイヴィトンバッグ,偽物?ルイヴィトン財布,コピーバッグ,ブランドバッグ,偽物バッグ,偽物シャネルバッグ,偽物エルメスバッグ,偽物グッチバッグ,偽物財布,コピー財布,時計の專門店 http://www.gowatchs.com/brand-183.html

  39. Anonymous says:

    フランスも誕生したたくさんの有名な時計ブランドを含む有名のトップブランドブレゲ、そして彼の姉妹ブランドL.LEROY、ハイエンドのPequignet赫柏林など、優秀なブランドは、新古典設計スタイル抜群。面白いのは、”と呼ばれる時計の父」ブレゲ時計師さんがそろそろ人生の3分の2のはフランス過ごした、彼はパリ学習タブ技術、そしてまたパリを発明した多くの時計技術及び技術、陀フライホイール、万年暦、ブレゲさんがパリ発明のさえ、ブレゲ時計ブランドはすべてフランス創立の。 パネライ時計コピー今日は私たちは瑞表で見た多くの技術やデザインはフランスから伝わってきたもので、パリ飾釘、玑粘紋、ブレゲ指針など、フランス手厚いタブ歴史ヨーロッパ時計業界全体に影響を与えている今。 http://www.newkakaku.com/lxq8.htm