# Hate America?



## Tgace (Jul 30, 2005)

This guy pulls no punches...

http://www.tysknews.com/Depts/gov_philosophy/hate_america.htm
http://www.tysknews.com/Depts/gov_philosophy/hate_america_2.htm



> George M. Haddad has a Bachelors Degree in Sociology and a Masters Degree in Social Administration with extensive work experience with the mentally ill. The former Executive Director - National Institute for Burn Medicine - affiliated with the University of Michigan. He is retired from the National Staff of the YMCA as a troubleshooter in financial management and administration and has worked as a management consultant to non-profit corporations. He has written frequently on medical, social and political issues and has many published articles to his credit.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jul 30, 2005)

Guy has a very slanted view of things...seems to believe that disagreeing with the government is wrong.

I've found that our founding fathers had a different view of such activities. But, what would Jefferson and Franklin know abuot such things.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jul 30, 2005)

Bob Hubbard said:
			
		

> Guy has a very slanted view of things...seems to believe that disagreeing with the government is wrong.
> 
> I've found that our founding fathers had a different view of such activities. But, what would Jefferson and Franklin know abuot such things.


Kind of depends on the situation.  If a democrat was president, this guy would be the dissident.  During the Clinton administration, people who thought this way about Leftists were considered kooks and wackos and labelled as dangerous.  Now the shoes on the other foot, leftists are all PRO-dissent.  Funny how politics does that when the opposition becomes the party in power.


----------



## Tgace (Jul 30, 2005)

I believe its important for the Democrats to really look at why they have been loosing power and elections lately. While yeah, this guy is extreme, why do the Dems really believe they have been slipping? Dont tell me they really believe its all a "vast right wing conspiracy"? I also believe the Republicans really need to look at their association with far right Christian groups and re-evaluate their stance on economics and the environment if they want to maintain their power. IMO each group is just going where they think there are votes more than where they really stand on these issues. Which is predictable being politicians. Everybody needs to take a step towards the middle IMO.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jul 31, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> I believe its important for the Democrats to really llok at why they have been loosing power and elections lately. While yeah, this guy is extreme, whay do the Dems really believe they have been slipping? Dont tell me they really believe its all a "vast right wing conspiracy"? I also believe the Republicans really need to look at their association with far right Christian groups and re-evaluate their stance on economics and the environment if they want to maintain their power. IMO each group is just going where they think there are votes more than where they really stand on these issues. Which is predictable being politicians. Everybody needs to take a step towards the middle IMO.


 No, they really believe it's a vast-right wing conspiracy.  In their minds they've been winning the elections, but the Republican's have been cheating.  Honest self-evaluation is beyond many of them.


----------



## Shaolinmack (Jul 31, 2005)

no offence intended, but I have my issues and opinions about amarica.. Not the people who live there per-say but the governing members who would stupe so low as to try to politicaly brainwash the world with there theorys of terrorism and national sucurity. "The attacks on our President and on the present government leadership by the Elitist democrats and liberal news media is far in excess of their concern relative to bringing Hussein, al Qaeda and the Taliban to heel. In the surge for power our own president is regarded as a worse enemy than the terrorists. This is what constitutes the democrat party of today. It is only a shell of what was once substantive, strong, valued and honorable"   True cuz the man invades a country That His father attacked Without a decloration of war and he also violated every ruel of ingagment set forth to save civilian lives. not to mention the counless Crimes of war he commits that in the last century we exicuted German solders for.
       I find it hard to beleve that bushes agenda involves saving anyones life. but im of topic and i dont feel i should push my political belefs on anyone. but http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/ i find it informative.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jul 31, 2005)

The Democrats lose because they are both out of touch and unable to cheat as well as the Republicans.  The Republicans win because they are out of touch and can cheat better than their opponents.

Ironically enough, both parties are only seperated by a thin line, and some sound bytes, and have switched fence sides at least once in the last 50 years. 

Personally, I think both parties should be abolished, and we see how the 3rd parties can do.  Course I also think I should be king, and we just know that won't happen either.


----------



## Tgace (Jul 31, 2005)

Well.."cheating" may give an edge but only when its a close race. Why is it such a close race? The Dems. had a hold on power for a long stretch. Why has it become so close now? They need to re-evaluate themselves.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jul 31, 2005)

Well, you had 12 years Republican (Reagan 8 yrs, Bush 4), 8 yearn Democrat (Clinton) now 8 years Republican (Bush II).

The question here is, will Bush get a 3rd term (supposedly illegal, but with all the hidden crap in all those unread laws they pass, who knows), or more likely, is there a leader in either party who can step forward for the next election? Hillary Clinton is pushed as the possible Dem, but I'd rather vote for my cat than her. Cheney won't run. Too old, Too ill. Who else is there?  The normal (ie last few elections) procedure is for the VP to try and follow the P after 8 yrs, so Cheney's inability to follow W2 opens a hole that the Dems can try to slip through.  Again though, I don't see a real contender in either party at this time.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jul 31, 2005)

Shaolinmack said:
			
		

> no offence intended, but I have my issues and opinions about amarica.. Not the people who live there per-say but the governing members who would stupe so low as to try to politicaly brainwash the world with there theorys of terrorism and national sucurity. "The attacks on our President and on the present government leadership by the Elitist democrats and liberal news media is far in excess of their concern relative to bringing Hussein, al Qaeda and the Taliban to heel. In the surge for power our own president is regarded as a worse enemy than the terrorists. This is what constitutes the democrat party of today. It is only a shell of what was once substantive, strong, valued and honorable" True cuz the man invades a country That His father attacked Without a decloration of war and he also violated every ruel of ingagment set forth to save civilian lives. not to mention the counless Crimes of war he commits that in the last century we exicuted German solders for.
> I find it hard to beleve that bushes agenda involves saving anyones life. but im of topic and i dont feel i should push my political belefs on anyone. but http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/ i find it informative.


 The distortions of reality present in this post boggle the mind. By the way, i've already debunked a great deal of what's on "whatreallyhappened.com", so I won't rehash that, except to say it's more smoke and mirrors than it claims Bush's evidence was. I think the authors need to remember to take their seroquel in the future...or remember the aluminum foil. 



			
				Bob Hubbard said:
			
		

> The Democrats lose because they are both out of touch and unable to cheat as well as the Republicans. The Republicans win because they are out of touch and can cheat better than their opponents.
> 
> Ironically enough, both parties are only seperated by a thin line, and some sound bytes, and have switched fence sides at least once in the last 50 years.
> 
> Personally, I think both parties should be abolished, and we see how the 3rd parties can do. Course I also think I should be king, and we just know that won't happen either.


 Don't sell the Democrats short, they cheat very well. In fact, they actually cheat far better than Republicans are capable of. Many Republicans are confined by a quaint, anachronistic phenomenon known as morality. Many leftists aren't subject to that same weakness.  As Lenin said, "There is no objective truth, except that which serves the party". Truer words were never spoken by a leftist.

The reason Democrats lose is arrogance. They are so confident in their ability to brainwash the great masses, that they've gotten lazy. They think that all they need is class and race warfare soundbites to win. They are shocked when that isn't enough.


----------



## Tgace (Jul 31, 2005)

Bob Hubbard said:
			
		

> Well, you had 12 years Republican (Reagan 8 yrs, Bush 4), 8 yearn Democrat (Clinton) now 8 years Republican (Bush II).
> 
> The question here is, will Bush get a 3rd term (supposedly illegal, but with all the hidden crap in all those unread laws they pass, who knows), or more likely, is there a leader in either party who can step forward for the next election? Hillary Clinton is pushed as the possible Dem, but I'd rather vote for my cat than her. Cheney won't run. Too old, Too ill. Who else is there? The normal (ie last few elections) procedure is for the VP to try and follow the P after 8 yrs, so Cheney's inability to follow W2 opens a hole that the Dems can try to slip through. Again though, I don't see a real contender in either party at this time.


I was referring to the Senate and Congress where the real power to make change in this country is.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4196936


> A: Since the advent of the current two-party system, the longest period of Democratic control of Congress was between 1954, when they captured both chambers, until 1980, when they lost the Senate to the GOP. Republicans didn't win back the House until 1994, and that 40-year period of control is the longest any party has been in the majority of either the House or Senate.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jul 31, 2005)

Bob Hubbard said:
			
		

> Well, you had 12 years Republican (Reagan 8 yrs, Bush 4), 8 yearn Democrat (Clinton) now 8 years Republican (Bush II).


 It's a little more complicated than that.  Reagan never had a majority of congress, that has only occurred since 1994.  Further, for several decades previous, Democrats dominated Congress and, for the most part, the presidency, with a few notable exceptions.



			
				Bob Hubbard said:
			
		

> The question here is, will Bush get a 3rd term (supposedly illegal, but with all the hidden crap in all those unread laws they pass, who knows), or more likely, is there a leader in either party who can step forward for the next election? Hillary Clinton is pushed as the possible Dem, but I'd rather vote for my cat than her. Cheney won't run. Too old, Too ill. Who else is there? The normal (ie last few elections) procedure is for the VP to try and follow the P after 8 yrs, so Cheney's inability to follow W2 opens a hole that the Dems can try to slip through. Again though, I don't see a real contender in either party at this time.


 "will Bush get a 3rd term " Come on, Bob, you don't even believe that.


----------



## Tgace (Jul 31, 2005)

That is a little "tin hat" Bob.


----------



## Tgace (Jul 31, 2005)

http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=8061

Read the whole thing, but heres a piece.



> Every loss is the fault of outside forces instead of the candidates and their messages. Elections are stolen, they are bought by special interests, or they are manipulated by sneaky, conniving Republicans who have become experts at pulling the wool over voters eyes. The Democratic Party is apparently suffering from a mirror shortage. Theres no other way to explain their cluelessness as to whom to blame for the electoral realignment in America.
> 
> And so they go on and on about a majority party which has the temerity to govern according to the precepts which made it a majority party in the first place. They rant about the lack of bipartisanship as if they had cornered the market on olive branches, while spouting some of the most partisan bile heard in Washington in decades. And, as they become more wild-eyed and maniacal, they turn off more and more voters who can only figure out what theyre against (anything President Bush is for) while wondering what theyre in favor of (other than returning them to power). The Democrats are simply not a viable alternative for most centrists.
> 
> Its a vicious circle that promises to keep the GOP in a majority position for a long time to come. I suppose thats good news for Republicans. But its still painful to watch.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jul 31, 2005)

Regarding a 3rd term for Bush, there have been attempts to remove the 2 term limit, the most recent vote was alot closer than folks believe. Given that the election is still some time away, it would not surprise me to see another motion pushed through to remove that limit before then. Especially given the current balance in the government, though W's continuing losses in popularity may make it a hard sell.
http://www.mapcruzin.com/news/bush050703a.htm
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c108:H.J.RES.11.IH:
 (democratic attempt during Clinton admin) This was a dual attempt to repeal the 22nd admendment.)

 Current status:


> *H.J.RES.11*
> *Title:* Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to repeal the twenty-second article of amendment, thereby removing the limitation on the number of terms an individual may serve as President.
> *Sponsor: *Rep Serrano, Jose E. [NY-16] (introduced 1/7/2003)       Cosponsors (3)
> *Latest Major Action: *3/6/2004  Referred to House subcommittee. Status: Referred to the Subcommittee on the Constitution.]/quote]
> ...


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jul 31, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=8061
> 
> Read the whole thing, but heres a piece.


 I think that's a good part of it.  The Republican party as a whole is alot more solid than the Democrats. In the last election, I found myself in alot more agreement with the Republicans than I expected. I still voted Libertarian though, since that party was the one that fit my own viewpoints best.

I'd have loved to see a real debate with the other 3 parties, Green, Libertarian and whatever Nader was doing that week.


----------



## Tgace (Jul 31, 2005)

I also believe the Reps. are acquiring the majority of Governorships and an increasing number of state legislatures as well. The Dems. have to really take a look at why and not get mired down in the "cheating" and various other excuses. People are voting Republican. Why?


----------



## psi_radar (Jul 31, 2005)

Most of us on MT are Americans, and for the most part, we all love our country. It's our home. How can any of us hate it? Perhaps we hold a different vision of what it should be, which is our right. And I am ashamed right now.

The discussion of this topic is justified if you think blind support of your leaders is a requirement of patriotism. The links provided are crap. His  arguments are completely inane and unsubstantiated. For example, he blames Dems for not doing enough to fight communism or commit enough forces in Vietnam. Um. Dems started the fight, erroneously or not, and Nixon, a Republican, didn't turn it around. And a lot of our current administration was directly involved (ironic? I think so). It was a bi-partisan failure. 

Today, Democrats aren't saying much besides deriding the current administration, which is awfully tempting since it's so abominable. They need to step up  and provide real solutions rather than just trying to go for the jugular of the Neo-con government. 

I'm a libertarian, but last election I voted all democrat nationally because, really, anything would be better than we have right now, and I figured they had more of a chance than my party of choice. Since the Bush cabal is lame duck, I'll reconsider my vote next time. I'd love to see McCain in the White House. 

I challenge anyone to state exactly why opposing the current administration would be unamerican. The problems I have with it are as follows:

The tax schemes favor the rich, reduce revenues, and have decreased upward mobility in our country.

Neglect of research into alternative means of energy and tax breaks for larger business vehicles (6000 pounds+) heightens gas use and further  entrenches the aging oil economy. (And gee, how many of the current cabinet have oil ties. I've seen a model of the Condaleeza oil tanker. Nice ship.) 

The War On Terror, whoops, I mean the War Against Extremism, is tapping resources we could use at home for TRUE security.

The War on (whatever) actually increases proliferation of terrorist training and active cells throughout the globe.

We haven't caught Osama. But I guess that just doesn't matter any more. Especially if you're buds with his family.

They lied about the Iraqi threat. 200 billion of our dollars and counting. 2000 American lives, some because they were improperly equipped. Untold innocent Iraqi lives, at least 20,000 reported by major news outlets, probably many more. And we got all upset about those 10,000 Kurds Saddam gassed. Child's play. Bring our guys home, many of whom have lost jobs, linbs, and their sanity already. 

There are others, like stem cell research. My dad has Parkinson's. Deficient health care. My son is autistic.  

Is it so unamerican to say, let's stop, take a look, and consider a new tack?

I'll wave the flag again when I'm proud.


----------



## Tgace (Jul 31, 2005)

Questioning our leaders is as American as you can get. However the perception of a "blame/hate America first" policy in the Dem. party is what turned me away from the party years ago. Long before W's administration. Id feel safe to say that they could probably gain back many members if they attempted to address that issue. 

If you require having your way on all those various issues in order to be "proud again" you might as well burn the Flag you have. Im proud of my country even when I disagree with its leaders. Im as partiotic now as I was under Clinton. An opinion I have of Libs is that they always seem to have some issue that keeps them from being proud of their country. Im not holding my breath.


----------



## psi_radar (Jul 31, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> Questioning our leaders is as American as you can get. However the perception of a "blame/hate America first" policy in the Dem. party is what turned me away from the party years ago. Long before W's administration. Id feel safe to say that they could probably gain back many members if they attempted to address that issue.



I don't think Dems equate hating America with their issues with our administration. They are, after all, part of the same machine. I do agree with you that they lack a true voice and identity in policy or solutions.



			
				Tgace said:
			
		

> If you require having your way on all those various issues in order to be "proud again" you might as well burn the Flag you have. Im proud of my country even when I disagree with its leaders. Im as partiotic now as I was under Clinton. An opinion I have of Libs is that they always seem to have some issue that keeps them from being proud of their country. Im not holding my breath.



How the hell is the unwillingness to wave the flag equate to the desire to burn it? I slept under one for many years, which is probably illegal. I love what our country stands for, which is far removed from its actions since 2003. Our leaders represent America. We voted them in. We are responsible, to the world, and ourselves. I love America, but this is a dark time.  I won't be complicit in actions I know to be wrong. 

I don't like what we're doing to others and ourselves.


----------



## Tgace (Jul 31, 2005)

Hmmm...my point was "if you have to have your way on all those different issues to be proud again" you might as well burn the flag you have.... meaning you might as well get rid of your flag because you wont be waiving again anytime soon. Wasnt implying you were a "flag burner".


----------



## psi_radar (Jul 31, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> Hmmm...my point was "if you have to have your way on all those different issues to be proud again" you might as well burn the flag you have.... meaning you might as well get rid of your flag because you wont be waiving again anytime soon. Wasnt implying you were a "flag burner".


I see what you're saying now, but maybe you can see how I lost your point in context. 

Our actions are what we are. This administration has diminished us. We voted this guy in A SECOND TIME. Bush, and his people, especially his people, are self-serving megolomaniacs. And as a democratic society, we have to take responsibility.

I do hope to wave my flag again. Looks like maybe 2008. I'm not quite sure what to do with my old one, it's getting a little ratty. Anyone know what the proper disposal procedure is, since reverent burning was tradition in the past? I guess I'll give it to the VFW.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jul 31, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> No, they really believe it's a vast-right wing conspiracy. In their minds they've been winning the elections, but the Republican's have been cheating. Honest self-evaluation is beyond many of them.


"Cheating" is a separate issue.  "If" it really happened, it could only really affect a very small percentage of votes.  The rest, the right took with their command of the issues.  Good discussion.


----------



## andy (Jul 31, 2005)

In answer to the comment about the democrats losing the seats of power all across the country--
It's because of the extreme leftist stance on gun control that was taken in the 1990's
there are around 2 hundred million private gun owners in america that were getting fed up. Yes, thats not the only reason but it is a large one.


----------



## michaeledward (Jul 31, 2005)

andy said:
			
		

> there are around 2 hundred million private gun owners in america that were getting fed up. Yes, thats not the only reason but it is a large one.


I think this 'fact' needs to be checked. 

The current population of the country is around 280,000,000 people. I do not believe that more than 66% of the country are private gun owners.


----------



## andy (Jul 31, 2005)

michaeledward

"#of guns#of owners all firearms 200-240million
60-65 million handguns 75-80 million 30-35 million (3)(7)

" but there are some people who would be on this platform today who lost their seats in 1994 because they voted for the brady bill and they voted for the assault weapons ban, and they did it in areas where people could be frightened."-Bill Clinton.

my source is--www.justfacts.com/gun_control.htm:flame:


----------



## michaeledward (Jul 31, 2005)

andy said:
			
		

> michaeledward
> 
> "#of guns#of owners all firearms 200-240million
> 60-65 million handguns 75-80 million 30-35 million (3)(7)
> ...


Hey Andy, take a look at this.



			
				andy said:
			
		

> It's because of the extreme leftist stance on gun control that was taken in the 1990's
> there are around 2 hundred million private gun owners in america that were getting fed up.


Andy, first off, this quote of yours is a grammatical disaster. This thought is actually two sentences. You probably meant to indicate that with the carriage return. But, in common usage, we end a sentence with a period, and begin the next sentence with a capital letter. 

Your thoughts should look like this:



			
				andy said:
			
		

> It's because of the extreme leftist stance on gun control that was taken in the 1990's*.*
> *T*here are around 2 hundred million private gun owners in america that were getting fed up.


So now, let's examine the second sentence.



			
				andy said:
			
		

> *T*here are around 2 hundred million private gun owners in america that were getting fed up.


Sentences in English have 'subjects', in this case the noun 'owners' is the subject of the sentence. 

We describe nouns with adjectives. In this sentence you have used several adjectives to describe the 'owners'; '2 hundered million' is an adjective, 'private' is another adjective, and 'gun' is the last adjective. Each of these adjectives was used to describe the subject of the sentence' 'owners'.

So, your adjective of '2 hundred million' is describe the 'owners', not the guns. 

I am quite certain the guns were not "getting fed up". It was the 'owners' that were getting 'fed up'.

Please, come along and play, but do try to say what you mean. 

The statement is incorrect. Also, the assumption that there are only two hundred million weapons in America, I think, may also be wrong. That number seems very low. And, as an expert on gun control, I'm sure you know there is no one place, anywhere, where information about what weapons are sold is stored.

And, lastly, the 'Brady Bill' is 'extreme'? To check an make sure that someone with a criminal record is not purchasing a weapon is an 'extreme leftist stance'? You might be able to argue that the 'Brady Bill' is in conflict with the Second Amendment to the Constitution; is a five day waiting period an 'infringment' on the right to keep and bear arms? Not to mention, the provision was set to expire in 1998 anyhow.


----------



## Tgace (Jul 31, 2005)

So are you saying that the Dems. stance on gun control isnt a factor in theyre recent decline?

*Hoping my grammar is correct*


----------



## Tgace (Jul 31, 2005)

http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/bminiter/?id=110005899



> What Americans will not tolerate is pessimism, defeatism and stagnation. It's not for nothing that Jimmy Carter's presidency ended amid an era of "stagflation." When Mr. Carter put a sweater on in the Oval Office and told Americans to get ready to start accepting less, he might as well have resigned. Ronald Reagan won the presidency in a landslide in 1980, promising a brighter, better and stronger America. Four years later he won in a walk talking about "morning in America."
> 
> Americans don't want to make do with less or accept defeat. They want a new beginning, a fresh start, a rebirth. Franklin D. Roosevelt knew he couldn't offer the same old tired solutions to the greatest economic crisis to beset the nation. Instead he offered the New Deal, itself a derivation from his cousin Teddy Roosevelt's Square Deal decades earlier. Bill Clinton similarly understood this and ran for president as a "new Democrat"--a Democrat who would be tough on crime, strong on defense and not a big spender.





> There's a debate raging now whether the election really did turn on "values"--as if the word only applied to abortion and gay marriage. If that is the extent of the debate for Democrats, it will prove to be a dead-end street. The short answer is, of course the election turned on values. But the hard answer is that it's hard to think of an election that didn't. Fighting the war on terror, bringing democracy to the Middle East, protecting Social Security, ending an era in education dominated by the soft bigotry of low expectations--it's hard to find a contentious political issue that is devoid of fundamental moral judgments. And on each one of these issues, it is the Republican Party that has been offering fresh ideas, a chance for a new beginning. Democrats need to get a reform agenda and start thinking about ways to be born again.


----------



## Tgace (Jul 31, 2005)

And heres another criticism of the Democrats I see repeated frequently...
http://www.mwilliams.info/archives/004350.php


> The problem faced by the left, however, is that they don't want the type of success that emerges from a distributed, bottom-up economic and political system (capitalism, democracy). They want to be the elite rulers of a top-down power structure (socialism, oligarchy). Unfortunately for them, top-down just isn't as competitive as bottom-up, so they keep losing despite their expectations.



How accurate is that in your opinions? And even if its inaccurate, if thats the perception that is loosing votes, how do you fix it?


----------



## andy (Jul 31, 2005)

well thanks for the english lesson. as for the stats I found-I didn't gather them, I was simply clarifying where i read them.

It's quite clear the liberal stance on gun control cost alot of dems the positions of power they enjoyed. Also, the quote on the brady bill was from bill clinton not I. As for checking someones background to see if they are one shy of a sixpack?--Of course thats a good idea. It's the fringe gun grabbing groups that played a keyrole in bringing the democrats down. For example: the misrepresentation of an assault weapon versus a semi-automatic that was constantly played out with the the so called "assault weapons ban."
'

the number of guns in america and the source could only take the count from those civilians that cared to share the info. Obviously not everyone took the time to take the study. (If i understand your point)I myself did not make an assumption sir, it was a quote
from a source you may or may not choose to consider.


----------



## Dan G (Jul 31, 2005)

Bob Hubbard said:
			
		

> Course I also think I should be king, and we just know that won't happen either.


Mmmm.... suspiciously knowledgeable on tea drinking...

pro-monarchy views... 

Sound almost English...

I'd send your CV to Buckingham Palace on the off-chance that a vacancy arises. Charles Windsor isn't the strong contender that he once was, so you might be in with a chance.

Any chance of a knighthood?:knight:  

Dan


----------



## Makalakumu (Jul 31, 2005)

Sorry, this may be a bit off topic.  I'm not sure what the Dems can do to win back votes.  Telling the truth is out.  When Carter sat down and told Americans that would should begin to settle for less, he was right.  And, the tough solutions he proffered were political suicide.

Reagan promised hope.  We got it with the following...

1.  We run up our national deficits into the trillions.
2.  We outsourced our energy resources.
3.  Americans have absolutely nothing saved, on average.
4.  Americans are saddled with more more debt then we ever have been before.
5.  Our banks can only cover 1.5% of the wealth they claim...(and this number is still dropping).
6.  We make less money, when adjusted for inflation.
7.  We work harder and longer.
8.  Etc...

This promised helped us grow.  And every year, this hopeful promise stretches our economic system further and further.  The party isn't going to last forever folks...there will be a limit.

Here is a little advice...

1.  Buy some land in the country.
2.  Pay off your debts.
3.  Buy gold.

upnorthkyosa


----------



## Tgace (Jul 31, 2005)

Ah the defeatism mentioned upthread personified....

If the Dems have a better solution, the key is in how its presented. Defeatism, pessimism and "Anti-Americanism" (or the perception thereof) is whats killing them IMO. Instead of lamenting the opponents works they have to package their plan as one of hope and "pro America" if they want more people on their side IMHO.


----------



## Tgace (Jul 31, 2005)

And yet Regan will go down in history as the President that "won the cold war". My memory of Carter is hostages, desert one and Billy Beer.


----------



## Tgace (Jul 31, 2005)

Or you can belittle those who vote against you...

http://slate.msn.com/id/2109218/

That wins hearts and minds (and ballots).


----------



## andy (Jul 31, 2005)

michaeledwards?
care to comment on my grammer? or the points i raised. (because my grammar sucks) but the points are legit,--

 since my grammar lacks I tried to clarify my points


----------



## Tgace (Jul 31, 2005)

This article has a lot of interesting points...
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/A11901023.htm



> *The era of Democratic dominance in the 20th century was shaped by the muscular presidency of Franklin Rooseveltactivist at home as well as abroad. FDRs New Deal defined a domestic liberalism that consisted of government intervention in the economy to provide jobs and social insurance. Its constituency was blue-collar, and its exemplars, after Roosevelt, were Presidents Truman, Kennedy, and Johnson.
> 
> This tradition was ruptured in the late 1960s and early 1970s when the movement against the Vietnam war redefined liberalism around the issues of peace, race, and freedom of lifestyle, and on behalf of a new constituency of college students and graduates. *The new liberalism was effective in defeating the old liberalism in the battle for control of the Democratic party, but it proved pitifully weak against the Republicans.
> 
> ...


If the bold part were reversed I may just switch affiliation again.


----------



## andy (Jul 31, 2005)

tgace,
good article


----------



## Makalakumu (Jul 31, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> Ah the defeatism mentioned upthread personified....
> 
> If the Dems have a better solution, the key is in how its presented. Defeatism, pessimism and "Anti-Americanism" (or the perception thereof) is whats killing them IMO. Instead of lamenting the opponents works they have to package their plan as one of hope and "pro American" if they want more people on their side IMHO.


What can you really tell people?

For twenty five years, we've stretched our countries wealth in order to grow. We've "created" wealth in the form of debt in the name of progress. Most Americans are worth less then absolutely nothing. Most financial institutions operate on the belief that your money is actually there. And our "real" wealth is going overseas at the rate of 600 billion dollars a year. 

What could you tell people about this? Could you suggest that American's suddenly stop spending and pay their debts? Our economy would crash overnight. Could you tell people that if one of our major trading partners suddenly lost faith in the American financial system that our dollar would only be worth 1.5 cents if we were lucky?

What can you really tell people? How can you possibly spin this? Or should we just ignore it and hope it goes away?  Both Dems and Reps are guilty of this.

I wouldn't want to be president and have to deal with this fiasco, because there are absolutely no easy solutions. One can only forarm themselves with this knowledge and attempt to create real wealth for the future. One can reject materialism and embrace pragmatism in order to get a jumpstart on a spartan future.


----------



## Tgace (Jul 31, 2005)

another interesting excerpt from it....



> It is true that voters tend to see the Republicans as the party of the rich. Asked whether Bush paid more attention to the interests of large corporations or of ordinary Americans, 54 percent said the former, 41 percent the latter. Voters who cited the economy as their most important issue went for Kerry five to one, and voters who said that what mattered most to them was a candidate who cares about people like me opted for Kerry over Bush three to one. In view of Bushs regular-guy persona and Kerrys patrician remoteness, the reason for this must have been simply that Kerry was the Democrat.
> 
> Yet when it came to policy, the answers tilted in a different direction. Asked whether government should do more to solve problems or is doing too many things better left to businesses and individuals, voters opted for the latter by 49 to 46. Asked whether Bushs tax cuts had been good or bad for the nations economy, 41 percent said good and 32 percent bad. Asked whom they would trust to handle the economy, they gave the edge to Bush by 3 percentage points.
> 
> ...


----------



## Tgace (Jul 31, 2005)

Try to win an election on "the sky is falling"...good luck. Like the sky hasnt looked low for previous generations of Americans. 

If you have so little faith in the American spirit, go dig a fallout shelter.

Or..
1. Buy some land in the country.
2. Pay off your debts.
3. Buy gold.

I would also add some guns, ammo, water purifiers, a big pick-up truck and a horde of gasoline. Perhaps a copy of the Turner Diaries.


----------



## Tgace (Jul 31, 2005)

Andy, heres a good speech about the 2nd Amendment and the Rep/Dem...Con/Lib split. Dont get too hung up on the whole "gun" thing the speech itself has a lot content appropriate to this thread.

http://home.earthlink.net/~ttursine/speech1.htm


----------



## Makalakumu (Jul 31, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> Try to win an election on "the sky is falling"...good luck. Like the sky hasnt looked low for previous generations of Americans.


One isn't going to win with that kind of attitude, but I can't think of a positive way to deliver the message.  Can you?



			
				Tgace said:
			
		

> If you have so little faith in the American spirit, go dig a fallout shelter.


http://www.energybulletin.net/2877.html



			
				Tgace said:
			
		

> Or..
> 1. Buy some land in the country.
> 2. Pay off your debts.
> 3. Buy gold.
> ...


Hey, good idea!  I've never heard of the Turner Diaries, though...

I would add, "invest in alternative energy" to the list.


----------



## andy (Jul 31, 2005)

Yet another great article. I wonder though.
will those that need to consider it bother reading?


----------



## michaeledward (Jul 31, 2005)

andy said:
			
		

> michaeledwards?
> care to comment on my grammer? or the points i raised. (because my grammar sucks) but the points are legit,--
> 
> since my grammar lacks I tried to clarify my points


I don't think I recognized any new points you raised. I already commented on the points you did raise; your fact needs to be checked, because it is erroneous. And, I do not think the Brady Bill is 'extreme'.



			
				andy said:
			
		

> well thanks for the english lesson.


You're welcome.



			
				andy said:
			
		

> as for the stats I found-I didn't gather them, I was simply clarifying where i read them.


Is that the statistic that said there were 200,000,000 gun owners getting fed up? I'm quite ceratin that the source from which you gatherd your facts did not state there were that many gun owners in the country. The source probably didn't indicate that the gun owners, however many their are, were getting 'fed up'. 



			
				andy said:
			
		

> It's quite clear the liberal stance on gun control cost alot of dems the positions of power they enjoyed.


This is not quite clear to me. You can certainly attempt to clarify the point for me further. Please demonstrate where there has been an abandonment of democrats because of 'gun control'. 



			
				andy said:
			
		

> Also, the quote on the brady bill was from bill clinton not I. As for checking someones background to see if they are one shy of a sixpack?--Of course thats a good idea.


I saw the quote from Bill Clinton. I was not disputing that a part of the 1994 Republican Revolution was due to the Brady Bill. 

But this does not make 200,000,000 Americans law abiding gun owners. The fact is incorrect.

And, if it is a 'good idea' to check someone's background, how do you define this good idea as something other than 'gun control'? And, if it is a 'good idea', how is it that only the 'fringe', as you describe in the next quote, seems capable of voicing this 'good idea'.




			
				andy said:
			
		

> It's the fringe gun grabbing groups that played a keyrole in bringing the democrats down.


I don't understand. 

The Democratic Party in the United States, according to the last election, represented more than half of the country (Democrats received more votes than Republicans), and yet you premise that 'fringe' groups control the party. The logic in this statement escapes me.



			
				andy said:
			
		

> For example: the misrepresentation of an assault weapon versus a semi-automatic that was constantly played out with the the so called "assault weapons ban."'


I don't understand what you are saying with this sentence. 



			
				andy said:
			
		

> the number of guns in america and the source could only take the count from those civilians that cared to share the info. Obviously not everyone took the time to take the study. (If i understand your point)I myself did not make an assumption sir, it was a quote from a source you may or may not choose to consider.


I believe I said that, or at least inferred that. I believe I said I believe the number of weapons owned in the United States is greater than the 200,000,000 that you referenced. Obviously, I did consider your source. I concluded it was, probably, inaccurate.


----------



## andy (Jul 31, 2005)

so will you misdirect mike? or will you read from the sources you asked me for?

or will you infer other issues to missdirect. play around the issue- but the point was made for all to see if any cares to read. jeez my grammar sucks.

maybe we should focus on my spelling


----------



## Tgace (Jul 31, 2005)

andy said:
			
		

> Yet another great article. I wonder though.
> will those that need to consider it bother reading?


Probably not. Its easier to place the blame on the "vast right wing conspiracy" than it is to really look at why people are turning away....


----------



## michaeledward (Jul 31, 2005)

andy said:
			
		

> so will you misdirect mike? or will you read from the sources you asked me for?
> 
> or will you infer other issues to missdirect. play around the issue- but the point was made for all to see if any cares to read. jeez my grammar sucks.
> 
> maybe we should focus on my spelling


Andy ...

For what information, specifically, should I read from the 'just facts' web site?

That is the only site, you have pointed me to at this juncture, correct?


----------



## andy (Jul 31, 2005)

mike---hee,hee
how many other sources do you want friend?
or maybe I should elaborate on your subtle misdirection of topics?


----------



## michaeledward (Jul 31, 2005)

Well, Andy, I guess I would have to ask, "What is your point?"

You started with this:
_In answer to the comment about the democrats losing the seats of power all across the country--
It's because of the extreme leftist stance on gun control that was taken in the 1990's
there are around 2 hundred million private gun owners in america that were getting fed up. Yes, thats not the only reason but it is a large one._​I asked you to check your facts, because it is highly unlikely that the gun owning population of the United States is the 200,000,000 you claim.

We also discussed the 'extreme leftist stance' on gun control includes such things as background check, which you then called a "good idea". 
_It's quite clear the liberal stance on gun control cost alot of dems the positions of power they enjoyed. Also, the quote on the brady bill was from bill clinton not I. As for checking someones background to see if they are one shy of a sixpack?--Of course thats a good idea. It's the fringe gun grabbing groups that played a keyrole in bringing the democrats down. For example: the misrepresentation of an assault weapon versus a semi-automatic that was constantly played out with the the so called "assault weapons ban."_​Is there another point you are trying to make? If there is, I can't see it.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jul 31, 2005)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> Well, Andy, I guess I would have to ask, "What is your point?"
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Actually, the total number of gun owners is 70 Million...which makes it a significant number of the electorate. Firearms ownership is a bigger issue to me than abortion (which I have no opinion one). It's a bigger issue for most of the people I know than abortion, yet abortion gets played up in the media far more. I'd be more tempted to vote Democrat, if they didn't align themselves with gun-grabbers like HCI.




The big political issues for me that make me vote Republican are:

Foreign policy
Gun Control
Crime and Punishment


Other than those issues, I could be persuaded to vote Democrat on many topics where I ride the fence, such as:

The environment
Social Security/Privatization
Health Care Reform
Taxes

But i'm not willing to sacrifice those first issues. 



			
				michaeledward said:
			
		

> We also discussed the 'extreme leftist stance' on gun control includes such things as background check, which you then called a "good idea"._It's quite clear the liberal stance on gun control cost alot of dems the positions of power they enjoyed. Also, the quote on the brady bill was from bill clinton not I. As for checking someones background to see if they are one shy of a sixpack?--Of course thats a good idea. It's the fringe gun grabbing groups that played a keyrole in bringing the democrats down. For example: the misrepresentation of an assault weapon versus a semi-automatic that was constantly played out with the the so called "assault weapons ban."_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Why don't you name some more of those "Reasonable extreme leftist stances".


Background checks are a compromies issue. Most leftists support the outright ban of firearms, but they know that is not possible in this political environment, so they use the foot in the door tactics, i.e. the "appearance" of reasonable gun control measures. Once the population accepts those measures, the gun grabbers decide other "reasonable" measures are necessary, and so on, until they manage to pass legislation, such as the recent "cop-killer bullet legislation", under the radar under the guise of "reasonable" gun control.

Lets examine how this works under the guise of the recent attempt by Ted "Chappaquidick" Kennedy to pass this little "reasonable sounding" legislation past congress. Kennedy wanted to ban "cop-killer" bullets. Sounds reasonable, right, I mean nobody wants bullets designed to "kill cops". Problem is, there is no such bullet as a "cop-killer" bullet, it's a smoke mirrors deception. 

What Kennedy wanted to do was ban any bullet capable of penetrating soft body armor. That includes virtually every round fired from any rifle. This law, in essence, would backdoor ban ammunition for every hunting rifle, shotgun, or high-powered pistol in the country. What Kennedy was trying to do was score a backdoor victory making every long gun in the country ammunitionless. How's that for "honest", "reasonable" gun control.

When this was pointed out, the "right wing media" got on the bandwagon, accusing hunters of wanting to shoot deer with "cop killer bullets" (you could write that off as the moronic mental ability of the average reporter, I could accept that explaination). 

Much of the lefts "reasonable" gun control legislation is like this. They use rhetoric and propaganda, along with out right distortion of the facts, to give the appearance of "reasonable" gun control legislation. Ultimately, however, they have no intention of passing reasonable gun control leglistation, as in their minds they've already come to the conclusion that the only "reasonable" gun control leglislation is the outright BAN of the private ownership of firearms. 

Sorry, no sale. I am the NRA!

But I will tell you about real "reasonable" gun control measures, backed by the NRA (and opposed by many of the gun grabbers as well as the ACLU). Operation Exile is a program whereby many state governments have passed laws enhancing sentencing on violent felons in possession firearms. In effect, it makes it a felony for felons to even possess ammunition. The NRA backed this, supported it, and helped put it in place. It's TRULY reasonable because it punishes those who abuse firearms, not those who don't. It puts criminals who possess firearms BEHIND BARS for a long time. Now THAT'S reasonable (and opposed by the left, go figure). What's MORE?! It actually WORKS!!! The left doesn't like it because it punishes criminals, not law abiding gun owners (the lefts true target). 

http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/nyw/proj_exile.htm
http://www.dcjs.virginia.gov/exile/
http://www.vahv.org/Exile/index2.html
http://www.senate.gov/~rpc/releases/1998/Exile-kf.htm
http://www.nraila.org/News/Read/Releases.aspx?ID=693
http://www.nracentral.com/project-exile.php

Compare this to such ill advised gun control schemes as "Gun buy backs", where cities and private foundations buy back guns, no questions asks, for a moderate price.  Sounds reasonable, right?  The result was, however, an INCREASE in stolen firearms.  Drug users were stealing guns to "fence" to the police because they knew they could unload them, no questions asked.  Brilliant.


----------



## andy (Aug 3, 2005)

Geez louis
with all those facts that the-- sgtmac-- brought to the table, I don't know how to argue against his points. Unless maybe I read some of them.
but if i did that : then my perception might be changed. So I guess I won't read his sources.


----------



## michaeledward (Aug 3, 2005)

andy said:
			
		

> Geez louis
> with all those facts that the-- sgtmac-- brought to the table, I don't know how to argue against his points. Unless maybe I read some of them.
> but if i did that : then my perception might be changed. So I guess I won't read his sources.


 
sgtmac has earned his way on to my ignore list. 

andy, if *you *have something you want to say, please say it. 

If you want to argue with sgtmac's words, I am not going to play. Sorry.


----------



## Bester (Aug 4, 2005)

Hey Andy: You need to read this: 7 Easy Ways to Online Respect or, The Dummies Guide to Forum Behavior. It's located in the support forum here.Might help you.

Otherwise, unless you have something to add to the conversation besides sarcasm, and rudeness, I suggest you be quiet. This is a place for serious discussion.


----------



## andy (Aug 4, 2005)

Actually, I have contributed to this conversation earlier. But was meant with a bit of misdirection and a bit of smugness (I won't name names )
 I will stand by my viewpoint-sgtmac has made some very good points. I was simply acknowledging them.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Aug 4, 2005)

andy said:
			
		

> Actually, I have contributed to this conversation earlier. But was meant with a bit of misdirection and a bit of smugness (I won't name names )
> I will stand by my viewpoint-sgtmac has made some very good points. I was simply acknowledging them.


 I actually feel honored to have earned a place on Ward's distinquished "ignore list". I know I must be doing something right. It's high praise to be ignored by folks like Ward. It means they've lost the debate of ideas, and are simply praying you'll go away.  I'm touched.


----------



## Tgace (Aug 4, 2005)

Gee..I would have thought I would have beat you onto it.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Aug 4, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> Gee..I would have thought I would have beat you onto it.


 Who says you haven't?


----------



## Makalakumu (Aug 4, 2005)

Ee gads!  The delusions of granduer!


----------



## Flatlander (Aug 4, 2005)

*Mod Warning:*

 This discussion needs to get back on track immediately.

 Thank you.

 -Dan Bowman-
 -MT Moderator-


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Aug 5, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Ee gads! The delusions of granduer!


 I'll defer to your expert opinion.


----------



## Makalakumu (Aug 5, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> I'll defer to your expert opinion.


Well, at least we agree on something!


----------



## Bester (Aug 5, 2005)

Gents, you may all be enlightened by my earlier suggestion, I think.
Mr. Bowman has put down his mighty boot indicating a desire that we return our discourse to the topicality of this discussion fragment. It would most probably be to our advantace to accomodate the constable, lest we find ourselves hung, drawn and quartered, or worse.

That means, back on topic ye scurvy sea dogs!  :lol:


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Aug 5, 2005)

Bester said:
			
		

> Gents, you may all be enlightened by my earlier suggestion, I think.
> Mr. Bowman has put down his mighty boot indicating a desire that we return our discourse to the topicality of this discussion fragment. It would most probably be to our advantace to accomodate the constable, lest we find ourselves hung, drawn and quartered, or worse.
> 
> That means, back on topic ye scurvy sea dogs! :lol:


 I think this really is the topic, a discussion of the left versus the right.  We have embodied that topic of "Does the left really hate America?".  Ironic, don't you think?  

North and Michael Ward may argue about whether or not they hate America, but it is very clear they hate the America that I love.  It would seem that we are all at a philosophical impasse.  This is clear by the rhetoric that seems to designed to alter the definition of what is "good" and what is "bad" in America to fit their vision.  In fairness, from their perspective i'm sure they believe the same about me.  

Is that better for getting back on the topic?


----------



## Tgace (Aug 5, 2005)

Moderator in training? Or....


----------



## andy (Aug 5, 2005)

Tgace-sgtmac,
I think you have hit the proverbial nail on the head.
(now that i've typed this I'm waiting for the backlash of private messages)


----------



## Bester (Aug 5, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> Moderator in training? Or....


 Me?  A Mod?  Right. :rofl:  
Too PC a job for me. I like being able to be blunt, and not have to "play nicey nicey".  If I can help nudge things along, or help out, hey, I'm there. But, keep the badge. It crimps my style. :lol:

As to the rest, yup.  

(ok, back to sharpening my blade, there's gots ta be anuda soapy soke hiding in the weeds somewhere. haha) :wavey:


----------



## Makalakumu (Aug 5, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> I think this really is the topic, a discussion of the left versus the right. We have embodied that topic of "Does the left really hate America?". Ironic, don't you think?
> 
> North and Michael Ward may argue about whether or not they hate America, but it is very clear they hate the America that I love. It would seem that we are all at a philosophical impasse. This is clear by the rhetoric that seems to designed to alter the definition of what is "good" and what is "bad" in America to fit their vision. In fairness, from their perspective i'm sure they believe the same about me.
> 
> Is that better for getting back on the topic?


Hate is too strong of a word.  I don't hate you or anything you believe in.  I disagree with a few things.  Sometimes strongly, but not hate.  I would be saddened if a future of political debate featured, such and such hates the america that I love.  What ever happened to the pluralism in which our country was founded?


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Aug 6, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Hate is too strong of a word. I don't hate you or anything you believe in. I disagree with a few things. Sometimes strongly, but not hate. I would be saddened if a future of political debate featured, such and such hates the america that I love. What ever happened to the pluralism in which our country was founded?


 Pluralism stopped whenever most of America started putting all it's political eggs in to two baskets.


----------



## Flatlander (Aug 6, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> Pluralism stopped whenever most of America started putting all it's political eggs in to two baskets.


That's a really good point.  With only two opposing options, people will end up on either side of the fence.  I think you all need more choices.  At any rate, I don't believe for one second that anyone on this board hates America.  People wouldn't spend their time in here discussing these issues if they did.  They'd be busy planning bomb attacks.


----------



## michaeledward (Aug 6, 2005)

Try my best to avoid him, and then someone quotes him .... Grrr!

When ever a claim is made about something that is "very clear", it should be apparent that the claim is anything but that. The claimant has abandoned discussion and argument, and descended into ad hominem attacks.


----------



## Tgace (Aug 6, 2005)

Topic expert


----------



## andy (Aug 6, 2005)

So,
 we all are back to the topic.
'hate america'
who rides the fence, who makes a choice? what is clear?
The issues both partys wave?
 Or,maybe the two party system should be scrapped; the founding fathers never liked the idea of partys anyway. 
maybe that brings it down to the founding of "american" values versus foreign interests?


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Aug 6, 2005)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> Try my best to avoid him, and then someone quotes him .... Grrr!
> 
> When ever a claim is made about something that is "very clear", it should be apparent that the claim is anything but that. The claimant has abandoned discussion and argument, and descended into ad hominem attacks.


I must have said something pretty close to the mark to get him all riled up like that.

In general, it seems to me on this topic of "Leftist hating America", real dialogue is almost impossible. The main difference between the way the right argue and leftists argue is that conservatives seem to desire a dialogue.  A leftist wants to dominate, and if he can't dominate the argument, they'll do their best to shut down all argument.  They'll simply label their opponent fascist, stupid, or beneath them, and feign superiority so as to not have to deal with the argument.  They can't handle real debate (i.e. the iggy option).  

Personally, I love debating someone with opposing views and a semi-intelligent perspective.  I'll give north props on that point, I may not always agree with north, but at least north actually engages in dialogue and doesn't pull the typical leftist routine of "I have my fingers in my ears, I can't hear you."  

Also, I don't really believe north hates America, as much as north disagrees with my vision of it.  Oh well, that's why Baskin Robbins has 31 flavors.


----------



## Phoenix44 (Aug 9, 2005)

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]*Regarding equating criticizing the president with "hating America," I thought you might like to read this quotation by President Theodore Roosevelt, a progressive Republican:*[/font]

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]*"The President is merely the most important among a large number of public servants. He should be supported or opposed exactly to the degree which is warranted by his good conduct or bad conduct, his efficiency or inefficiency in rendering loyal, able, and disinterested service to the Nation as a whole. Therefore it is absolutely necessary that there should be full liberty to tell the truth about his acts, and this means that it is exactly necessary to blame him when he does wrong as to praise him when he does right. Any other attitude in an American citizen is both base and servile. To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. Nothing but the truth should be spoken about him or any one else. But it is even more important to tell the truth, pleasant or unpleasant, about him than about any one else."* [/font]


----------



## Tgace (Aug 9, 2005)

If it were indeed the "truth" that was being discussed instead of partisan attacks than I would agree 110%.


----------



## Phoenix44 (Aug 9, 2005)

I'm not sure where you would draw the line between "partisan attacks" and legitimate criticism of the president. For instance, in his article, Haddad said:

"Which party detoured the final impeachment process of a president whose legacy is bemired in the most corrupt, insidious and treacherous presidency in our history?"

I assume he was referring to Clinton, but some of us truly believe that "the most corrupt, insidious and treacherous presidency in our history" is the George W. Bush administration. So is Haddad telling the "truth" and we are making "partisan attacks," or is Haddad making a "partisan attack" and we're telling the truth?


----------



## Marginal (Aug 9, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> In general, it seems to me on this topic of "Leftist hating America", real dialogue is almost impossible. The main difference between the way the right argue and leftists argue is that conservatives seem to desire a dialogue.  A leftist wants to dominate, and if he can't dominate the argument, they'll do their best to shut down all argument.


So calling anyone who disagrees with you a traitor is supposed to be opening a dialogue? Wheeling out the old you hate America chestnut is all about sitting down and opening the old speechhole?


----------



## Andrew Green (Aug 9, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> If it were indeed the "truth" that was being discussed instead of partisan attacks than I would agree 110%.


 When has "truth" ever been a objective thing in politics?


----------



## Tgace (Aug 9, 2005)

"True"...however discussing the "truth" is different from insults, Hitler comparisons, shots at peoples education/intelligence etc. etc.


----------



## Phoenix44 (Aug 9, 2005)

Yes, and you'd probably have to include the accusation that liberals "hate America" in the same set of unacceptable insults.

The whole issue reminds me of conversations I had with my father in law.  Whenever I disagreed with him, he said, "No, but you don't understand!"  Yes, I do understand...I just happen not to agree with you.

Is that fair?  If I happen to believe that we should have universal basic health care in America, is it OK for me to believe that?  Or am I just a "limousine liberal"? If my research leads me to believe that George W. Bush was dishonest about his basis for invading Iraq, am I entitled to that opinion, or am I just "Bush bashing"?

One is an invitation to dialog, and one is hostility.


----------



## michaeledward (Aug 9, 2005)

Phoenix44 said:
			
		

> Yes, and you'd probably have to include the accusation that liberals "hate America" in the same set of unacceptable insults.
> 
> The whole issue reminds me of conversations I had with my father in law. Whenever I disagreed with him, he said, "No, but you don't understand!" Yes, I do understand...I just happen not to agree with you.
> 
> ...


Nobody here just goes out and says that 'Liberals Hate America' on this board, do they? 

I don't recall saying anything about 'Conservatives Hate America'. I can't imagine the other guys would be so crass.


----------



## Phoenix44 (Aug 9, 2005)

"Hate America?"  No, I'm sure you're right, I never saw that phrase here.


----------



## Tgace (Aug 9, 2005)

Well you dont see many conservatives saying stuff like this do ya?

http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=25717


----------



## arnisador (Aug 9, 2005)

Dennis Miller has stated quite clearly that he's become much more conservative since 9/11.


----------



## Tgace (Aug 9, 2005)

http://www.debatepolitics.com/archive/index.php/t-2268.html



> They think your stupid. They think all freedom loving Americans are stupid. They think patriotism is stupid. They think chruchgoing is stupid. They think having big families is stupid. They are sure that where you live - anywhere but near or in a few major cities - is a insipid cultural wastland.
> They think your SUV is evil, although theirs is absolutely necessary. They think owning a gun is criminal, though some have armed body guards. They think George W. Bush is an idiot. They even think it's wrong for us to protect our nation & our loved ones. Worst of all, they think our abiding belief in the goodness of America & its founding principles is naive & misguided.
> Notice that the Liberal elites want America to be torn down, tradition by tradition, how Hollywood is politically moronic. The Liberal elites are theophobic & bent on eradicating religion from American life. Notice how the anti-war crowd is really anti-Americanism is disguise, how our current immigration policies border on insanity, how our schools try to brainwash students with political correctness & anti-Americanism. Ask yourself why is it that Liberals are for all this & more.
> A reporter asked John Kerry, "Are you for or against gay marriage? As usual, his answer was, "Yes."
> Want to make a liberals angry? Defend the United States.



Now all those "theys" push this point to the extreme end. The concepts here are beliefs that many people do hold. True or not, why is it that so many people believe them?


----------



## Phoenix44 (Aug 9, 2005)

Yeah, and I put a lot of stock in the opinion of Chrissie Hynde, too.


----------



## Tgace (Aug 9, 2005)

http://www.frontpagemag.com/articles/printable.asp?ID=17671


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Aug 9, 2005)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> Nobody here just goes out and says that 'Liberals Hate America' on this board, do they?
> 
> I don't recall saying anything about 'Conservatives Hate America'. I can't imagine the other guys would be so crass.


 Nah, we're just all fascist, ignorant, slack-jawed, bible-thumping, red-state rednecks. It's a little late for either side of this political debate to try and take the pure high-ground. 



			
				Marginal said:
			
		

> So calling anyone who disagrees with you a traitor is supposed to be opening a dialogue? Wheeling out the old you hate America chestnut is all about sitting down and opening the old speechhole?


 Truthfully, I believe we are well beyond any kind of real dialogue, Marginal. You've drawn your line, and so have I. That's the unfortunate reality of it all.

However, as far as hating America, and who does, there's a simple formula to figure that out. If, in any discussion, on any topic, having to do with foreign policy or domestic, your first inclination is to blame America first, and ask questions later, then it should seem pretty obvious that you Hate America. 

It's almost as if leftists have the same relationship with America, that some people have with a parent they blame for a disfunctional childhood. There seems to be a great deal of resentment and they never seem to be able to get over it. I guess leftists are the middle children of America, always upset because their other siblings got more of something than they did, and always blaming America for their failures.  

In that sense, I don't think most leftists truly hate America, I think they just resent the heck out of it and their fellow citizens.  

Two psychiatrists meet on the street. One says to the other,
"You know, I thought I'd been completely analyzed, but yesterday
I experienced the most remarkable Freudian Slip."

The friend nods and waits to hear more...

The first psychiatrist continues, "I was having dinner with my
mother, and I meant to say, 'Please pass the butter', but instead
I said, "I hate you, mother, you've ruined my life!!!".


----------



## Makalakumu (Aug 9, 2005)

sgtmac46

I think you would be surprised at how much liberals actually love America. With that being said, I think that most liberals believe that we live in a good country. There is always room from improvement. Take a look at a speech from Senator Paul Wellstone, for instance...



> By Paul Wellstone
> 
> America is good. Ours is a land of bounty and beauty, blessed by Providence. By most measures of quality, l...ife in America at the dawn of the 21st Century surpasses that of nearly any other place or time.
> 
> ...


In no way does this man hate America and he was about as liberal as one gets.

upnorthkyosa

ps...this speech was posted in an earlier thread on MT and was part of a public archive. I no longer have the link to the original source. I apologize.

http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=18516


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Aug 9, 2005)

Does anyone ever notice a huge "But..." at the end of every speech a leftist gives about "Loving America".  There always has to be a qualifier.  Actually, the whole "I love America, but..." preface is nothing more than a way to make sure the audience doesn't write these folks off for what they sometimes are.  They know their actions and words have created doubts in peoples minds, so they have to reassure you that they do, in fact, love America...no matter what their actions and words might suggest.


----------



## Tgace (Aug 9, 2005)

Yeah..you seldom see a "Pro-American" statement go uncontested if made by somebody else. Or unqualified if made by themselves.


----------



## arnisador (Aug 9, 2005)

What's wrong with "I love America, but it could be improved"? That attitude has made a lot of positive changes.

From Peter, Paul, and Mary:


> Laws are made by people
> And people can be wrong



It's that simple.


----------



## Phoenix44 (Aug 9, 2005)

I love my partner.  I love my kids.  I love myself.  That doesn't mean we don't have any flaws or that we couldn't make ourselves better.  There's a lot I love about America.  I love the fact that I can criticize my government, and not be thrown in jail for it.  I thought that this was the kind of freedom that makes America great.  I don't get it...so we're supposed to *have* that freedom, and *spread* that freedom, and *defend* that freedom, and even *die* for that freedom, but we're not supposed to actually *exercise* that freedom, because that would mean we hate America???


----------



## Tgace (Aug 9, 2005)

arnisador said:
			
		

> What's wrong with "I love America, but it could be improved"? That attitude has made a lot of positive changes.



That kind of attitude would be nice. 

If you had a significant other that constantly criticized you (I love you but I wish you would.....) day in and day out until you felt you could do nothing right and you were a total looser, at what point would you say OK! ENOUGH! ?


----------



## Phoenix44 (Aug 9, 2005)

The analogy doesn't hold.  I don't believe that "the George W. Bush administration" is synonymous with "America."  Many of us believe that the Bush administration has done tremendous damage to the country we love.  When we criticize "Bush," we're not criticizing "America."  We may detest Bush, and still love America.


----------



## Tgace (Aug 9, 2005)

For that matter..what if that person called you an arrogant fat headed pig who has NEVER done anything right? Thats the feeling I get from many I would call "libs".


----------



## Phoenix44 (Aug 9, 2005)

So if you criticized Clinton when he was president, did that mean you hated America, but now that Bush is president, you love America?


----------



## Tgace (Aug 9, 2005)

Ive had that feeling long before "W". Its one of the reasons I left the Dem. party in the early 90's.


----------



## arnisador (Aug 9, 2005)

I acknowledge points on both sides...some people always find something about this country to criticize, and I also wonder why they don't find someplace they'd prefer to live. Yet, criticizing the administration is different from criticizing the country.


----------



## Tgace (Aug 9, 2005)

Its not about the President to me. The President has always been "fair game". You cant deny the stream of national "anti-americanism" (at least thats how it seems. Even if its not true, a lot of people percieve it). Its about how when you say "America is the home of freedom" You get "Americans killed Indians, Interned Japanese yadda yadda". Make a comment about the bravery of American soldiers and the topic of prisoner abuse arises. WWII and liberating the world turns into Pax Americana. When you are enjoying the traditional American Christmas, people are having signs and decorations taken down. Religion...wont even open that can of worms. It never seems to end, the constant stream of "yeah buts...."


----------



## Phoenix44 (Aug 9, 2005)

Well, Tgace, I don't doubt that you run into people who say those things.  But I've been pretty active in progressive causes in the past few years, and I associate with a lot of progressive individuals, and to us, *it absolutely IS about the president *and his administration.  

We are concerned with Iraq, social security, independent news media, health care, privacy, deficits, open government, verifiable voting, accountability, sustainable energy, and education.  My guess is that's the exact same stuff most people on the right are concerned with, too.  I have never, *not even once*, heard anyone mention Indians, Japanese-American internment, or guns.  Yeah, we criticize the Bush Administration plenty, but we're working very hard for what we see is a way to bring the country we love back on track.  If we hated America, yeah, we would leave.


----------



## Tgace (Aug 9, 2005)

Well good for you guy's. However the perception does exist. Is the left above introspection to try and figure out why that is? Are conservatives simply supposed to become more "openminded" and take some national responsibility for things our nation has done, but the left can just blame the "vast right wing conspiricy" and radio personalities for their decline? If they dont like the "Anti-American" label perhaps they need to become more openminded to why it exists.


----------



## Tgace (Aug 9, 2005)

I guess the bottom line is all in the approach. My wifes problems with my bathroom habits get much more attention when they are discussed than when she starts screaming about what a slob I am. Sometimes those "discussions" can turn into yelling matches where we dig up all the old skeletons, but we at least try to start out each discussion as a civil one. The arguments that start out as "I am totally right and you are totally wrong" always turn ugly. And yes, I can acknowledge my role in those arguments.

Get my analogy here?


----------



## Phoenix44 (Aug 9, 2005)

I don't really get the analogy, but I will say this.   When I discuss the Bush administration, the Iraq war, or any important issue with a person more to the "right" than I am, I expect a couple of things:

#1  Information.  You are entitled to your opinion, but if you don't read the newspaper, you haven't heard of the 9/11 Commission, you don't know how many soldiers have died in Iraq, and you still believe that Saddam was responsible for 9/11 and had WMD (when even Bush doesn't believe that anymore), then we probably have nothing to talk about.

#2  Spare me the platitudes and slogans.  If I hear "Sudan offered Osama Bin Laden on a silver platter," or "Well what did Clinton ever do to prevent terrorism?" then #1 probably applies, and we probably have nothing to talk about.

#3  Never mind the epithets.  My grandparents came over in steerage after they got booted out of the old country for being Jews.  I'm hardly liberal "elite."  And if you disagree with me, fine, but don't tell me what I'm saying is "bull****"  or expect the conversation to be over.  
I've actually had a few civil conversations with conservatives.  We didn't agree with each other, but at least we had a command of the facts.


----------



## Tgace (Aug 9, 2005)

Yep...I guess you dont get me.


----------



## Flatlander (Aug 9, 2005)

> Get my analogy here?


 Just put the seat down when you're finished Tom, and you'll be fine. :ultracool


----------



## Tgace (Aug 9, 2005)

:flushed:


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Aug 9, 2005)

Phoenix44 said:
			
		

> I love my partner. I love my kids. I love myself. That doesn't mean we don't have any flaws or that we couldn't make ourselves better. There's a lot I love about America. I love the fact that I can criticize my government, and not be thrown in jail for it. I thought that this was the kind of freedom that makes America great. I don't get it...so we're supposed to *have* that freedom, and *spread* that freedom, and *defend* that freedom, and even *die* for that freedom, but we're not supposed to actually *exercise* that freedom, because that would mean we hate America???


 Big difference between questioning administrations (I've done my share) and suggesting that America might be wrong on a topic, than celebrating anything anti-American, and giving any anti-American statement the benefit of the doubt no matter the reality.



			
				Phoenix44 said:
			
		

> I don't really get the analogy, but I will say this. When I discuss the Bush administration, the Iraq war, or any important issue with a person more to the "right" than I am, I expect a couple of things:
> 
> #1 Information. You are entitled to your opinion, but if you don't read the newspaper, you haven't heard of the 9/11 Commission, you don't know how many soldiers have died in Iraq, and you still believe that Saddam was responsible for 9/11 and had WMD (when even Bush doesn't believe that anymore), then we probably have nothing to talk about.


 First of all, this is a bit of misinformation and distortion. The idea that anyone EVER actually claimed Iraq was behind 9/11 is a strawman. 

Iraq was about a decade of violated UN resolutions, continued aggression, a desire on Saddam's part to bribe his way out of sanctions and back in to building WMD AND a willing accomplice in the UN, France, Germany and Russia. Saddam was about unfinished business that should have been finished in 1991. Better late than never. 

What's further more, virtually every single intelligence apparatus on the planet believed that Saddam continued to maintaint WMD. The fact that, in hind sight, none has been found does nothing to alter that fact. We don't make decisions based on what we will know in the future. 



			
				Phoenix44 said:
			
		

> #2 Spare me the platitudes and slogans. If I hear "Sudan offered Osama Bin Laden on a silver platter," or "Well what did Clinton ever do to prevent terrorism?" then #1 probably applies, and we probably have nothing to talk about.


 See, this is what i've been talking about. Now you've ventured well beyond any pretense of objective views, and in to the realm of pure partisanship. The Clinton administrations dealings with Osama Bin Laden took place over the course of nearly a decade. From WTC 1, in 1992 to the USS Cole, the Clinton administration treated Al-Qaeda as if it were a law enforcement problem. It was the ineptitude and mistakes in those dealings that lead to 9/11. 

Those who desire to blame 9/11 on Bush have what you listed as #1 as a HUGE problem for several reasons, not the least of which was that the Bush administration had only been in officer for 8 months, while the planning for 9/11 took place over a period of more than 2 years. What's more, whenever Bush took over the White House, Bush had temporarily left numerous Clinton appointies in key intelligence positions, those included CIA direction George Tenet among many others. These men were trused by Clinton, they should have been able to be trusted under Bush. 



			
				Phoenix44 said:
			
		

> #3 Never mind the epithets. My grandparents came over in steerage after they got booted out of the old country for being Jews. I'm hardly liberal "elite." And if you disagree with me, fine, but don't tell me what I'm saying is "bull****" or expect the conversation to be over.
> I've actually had a few civil conversations with conservatives. We didn't agree with each other, but at least we had a command of the facts.


 If you aren't the liberal elite, then you obviously aren't who the "Leftists hate America" comments are directed too. You also have no frame of reference to determine that those undermine America at every turn, really don't hate America. It is obvious that many truly do. 

Simply disagreeing with specific policy is FAR DIFFERENT than the blanket statements that I hear from leftists all the time "Bush is a fascist", "We need a thousand Mogadishus", blah, blah, blah. I can deal with specific gripes in a reasonable manner. I respect disagreement. But there is no intelligence response to statements like the above, they just represent a general mindset that is based on the philosophy of blaming America first.

In fact, i've actually heard some moronic leftists actually make the claim that Dictatorships and Totalitarianism is no worse than Democracy.  Now, do you call that intelligent, pro-American perspective?  There seem to be two types of leftists:

1) Those that have specific gripes with America and how it's run
2) Those who's knee jerk reaction is a simply, all encompassing hatred for anything American and most especially for anything conservative.  

Folks can pick which branch fits them the most.


----------



## Tgace (Aug 9, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> What's further more, virtually every single intelligence apparatus on the planet believed that Saddam continued to maintaint WMD. The fact that, in hind sight, none has been found does nothing to alter that fact. We don't make decisions based on what we will know in the future.


Hmmm like our own politicians did before we went in?

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do"
-- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
-- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

Could find many more democrats who said similar things if needs be....they thought they were there too. they just didnt want to do anything signifigant about it.


----------



## Makalakumu (Aug 10, 2005)

In the future, a democrat may be elected to office.  What if this "hate america" rhetoric/stereotypes were turned around and pointed at conservatives?  I suppose I could come up with long "lists" that could show it..  Yet, it would be the same as what we've been seeing above...BS.  Perhaps its time we all start believing that some folks on the other side really are sincere respectable individuals...


----------



## qizmoduis (Aug 10, 2005)

Sgtmac needs to stop beating that giant strawman he's constructed.  Liberals are not defined by Rush Limbaugh and his followers, but you've bought into that shtick hook, line, and sinker.

I would suggest you tone down your vicious rhetoric and actually pay attention to what real liberals (not the nonexistent caricatures you foam about) are trying to tell you.


----------



## MisterMike (Aug 10, 2005)

qizmoduis said:
			
		

> Sgtmac needs to stop beating that giant strawman he's constructed.  Liberals are not defined by Rush Limbaugh and his followers, but you've bought into that shtick hook, line, and sinker.
> 
> I would suggest you tone down your vicious rhetoric and actually pay attention to what real liberals (not the nonexistent caricatures you foam about) are trying to tell you.



He hasn't had to create anything. Everything he's mentioned has been quite factual, and diversion tactics will never change that.


----------



## Tgace (Aug 10, 2005)

Yes. Its easier to blame Rush and the right wing conspiracy though.


----------



## qizmoduis (Aug 11, 2005)

MisterMike said:
			
		

> He hasn't had to create anything. Everything he's mentioned has been quite factual, and diversion tactics will never change that.



Bull.  Of course, I expect this kind of idiocy from you.


----------



## qizmoduis (Aug 11, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> Yes. Its easier to blame Rush and the right wing conspiracy though.



Can I help it if you guys constantly bleat lunatic right-wing talking points rather than facts?  If you don't want to be confused with Rush and his ilk, then stop sounding like a dittohead.


----------



## MisterMike (Aug 11, 2005)

qizmoduis said:
			
		

> Bull.  Of course, I expect this kind of idiocy from you.



Yup - sucks going down in flames with your party eh?


----------



## Phoenix44 (Aug 11, 2005)

sgtmac 46: I wasn't arguing that *Bush claimed Saddam was responsible for 9/11.* I was arguing that _many people I've tried to have an intelligent conversation with believe and espouse that view_. According to a Harris poll conducted 2/2005, 47% of Americans believe that Saddam was involved in 9/11! My point is that in order for me to want to discuss Iraq policy, my basic requirement is that the person I'm talking to be a little better informed than that.

When you discuss people who "criticize everything that America does" or people who "hate America," why do you just assume that "liberals" in general feel that way, or that in some way, that's the definition of a "liberal"? As I mentioned, I've been active in liberal causes. I certainly don't "hate America," and neither do the other progressive people I associate with. We just don't agree with Bush policy.


----------



## Tgace (Aug 11, 2005)

qizmoduis said:
			
		

> Can I help it if you guys constantly bleat lunatic right-wing talking points rather than facts? If you don't want to be confused with Rush and his ilk, then stop sounding like a dittohead.


Ahhh...so its how we "sound" thats important. Sounds like Rush is made out of straw.


----------



## Flatlander (Aug 11, 2005)

Everybody breathe for a second here and pay attention to this key point that was nearly made very well upthread:



> There seem to be two types of leftists:
> 
> 1) Those that have specific gripes with America and how it's run
> 2) Those who's knee jerk reaction is a simply, all encompassing hatred for anything American and most especially for anything conservative.


  There seem to be three types of non-apathetic People in a Democracy:
     1) Those that have specific gripes with thier country and how its run.
     2) Those whose knee jerk reaction is an all encompassing hatred for anything to do with the party in power.
     3) Those that are satisfied with the status quo.

 It seems to me that, by and large, most voters will fall into category 1. Very few informed people will ever be number 3's. People are just damn difficult to satisfy. Category 2 will usually be comprised of people with extreme views on whichever side of the spectrum which is not in power at the time, or, people who are so ignorant of current events and government processes, and unwilling to take responsibility for their own lack of success that "everything is the government's fault" all the time, irrespective of who or which party holds power.

     The key point is that Category 2's are ususally uninformed.

 There is no need to interject labels such as "American" or "Leftist" or "Rightist" into the statement. It stands fine as a general propostition describing people and their politics. Therefore, let us please have a little less of the right/left attacks, and try a little harder to find some common themes, and look a little deeper for the truths behind the statements people make.


----------



## Phoenix44 (Aug 11, 2005)

Ditto Flatlander.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Aug 13, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> In the future, a democrat may be elected to office. What if this "hate america" rhetoric/stereotypes were turned around and pointed at conservatives? I suppose I could come up with long "lists" that could show it.. Yet, it would be the same as what we've been seeing above...BS. Perhaps its time we all start believing that some folks on the other side really are sincere respectable individuals...


 No matter who is elected president I won't bash the nation, threaten to move to Canada, talk about how I admire other countries, how our country is really nothing but a travesty, etc, etc, etc. I'll just disagree with him, as an individual. A large number of American soldiers couldn't stand Bill Clinton, but they went to work every day and did their jobs.



			
				qizmoduis said:
			
		

> Sgtmac needs to stop beating that giant strawman he's constructed. Liberals are not defined by Rush Limbaugh and his followers, but you've bought into that shtick hook, line, and sinker.
> 
> I would suggest you tone down your vicious rhetoric and actually pay attention to what real liberals (not the nonexistent caricatures you foam about) are trying to tell you.


 Which real liberals do you want me to listen to? The ones who claim that the US is just a puppet for Israel, the ones who want to disarm every American, the ones who believe that every conservative in Washington is part of some Giant conspiracy? Just let me know who the real ones are.

I do love how you demonstrate your tolerance for opposing views by beating the old Rush Limbaugh bandwagon. It must be reassuring to have a visual image and caricature for your hatred. Thanks for demonstrating how to tone down the vicious rhetoric. I'll keep it in mind.



			
				qizmoduis said:
			
		

> Bull. Of course, I expect this kind of idiocy from you.


Can I assume this is more of that toned down, less vicious rhetoric? If you want to stop the vicious rhetoric, you might start where you live. Referring to another poster as an idiot is not a good way to start. 




			
				qizmoduis said:
			
		

> Can I help it if you guys constantly bleat lunatic right-wing talking points rather than facts? If you don't want to be confused with Rush and his ilk, then stop sounding like a dittohead.


 Who's creating caricatures now? I think the facts have been presented on our side, in return we get emotionally charged commentary. 




			
				Phoenix44 said:
			
		

> sgtmac 46: I wasn't arguing that *Bush claimed Saddam was responsible for 9/11.* I was arguing that _many people I've tried to have an intelligent conversation with believe and espouse that view_. According to a Harris poll conducted 2/2005, 47% of Americans believe that Saddam was involved in 9/11! My point is that in order for me to want to discuss Iraq policy, my basic requirement is that the person I'm talking to be a little better informed than that.


Congratulations, you have found that someone. 



			
				Phoenix44 said:
			
		

> When you discuss people who "criticize everything that America does" or people who "hate America," why do you just assume that "liberals" in general feel that way, or that in some way, that's the definition of a "liberal"? As I mentioned, I've been active in liberal causes. I certainly don't "hate America," and neither do the other progressive people I associate with. We just don't agree with Bush policy.


You might want to refer to back to the duality I described earlier. If the second group sounds more like you than the first, then what I have said applies to you. If not, don't get bent out of shape about something that does not apply to you. 

There seem to be two types of leftists:

1) Those that have specific gripes with America and how it's run
2) Those who's knee jerk reaction is a simply, all encompassing hatred for anything American and most especially for anything conservative.


If the hemp sandal fits, wear it. 

Now, as flatlander so eloquently pointed out, extremists (in this case leftist extremists) are usually driven by a mindset that is about as far from well informed as you can get. I have specific gripes about every administration, and I take exception with extremists of all stripes. 

If I was discussing this with a room full of right wing extremist conspiracy theorists, who believe the Illuminati have taken over the world, i'd still be pointing out their lunacy (as I found myself doing during the Clinton Administration). 

Now that left wing loonies are shaking the tamborine and chanting their mindless chants, and spouting their conspiracy theories, I find myself compelled to fight their idiocy. If a left of center president is elected next time, i'll find myself simultaneously disagreeing with him on specific issues, and arguing with extreme right wingers who will tell me he is one of the beasts of the apocalypse.  

As for Rush Limbaugh, he's nothing more than the strawman all leftwing extremists bring out and burn in effigy whenever they get in a debate with someone who doesn't agree with them.

Cheers.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Aug 13, 2005)

<Duplicate Post>


----------



## Makalakumu (Aug 13, 2005)

Just for kicks, I thought I'd do a google search on "hate america" and look at as many sites as I could before the kids woke up...

Here is the search...

http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rls=GGLD,GGLD:2005-17,GGLD:en&q=hate+america

This little inquiry was informative. We have a percentage of 60% for conservatives talking about how the left hates america. 20% for people talking about how other people hate america. 10% talking about how arabs hate america. 10% talking about hating the government.

Of the top ten sites, there was not a single leftist site dedicated to actually hating america. 

Oh I'm sure that some may find a "diamond in the rough" out there, but I think the numbers presented above are going to hold true and, if anything, perhaps weigh more heavily toward "conservatives talking about liberals hating america."

I think that this demonstrates that the whole "hate america" phenomenon is nothing but rhetorical device on the right. They certainly have the numbers on their side and the political technique is (sadly) proving effective. Actually finding a liberal who "hates america" is much more difficult.


----------



## MisterMike (Aug 13, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Of the top ten sites, there was not a single leftist site dedicated to actually hating america.



I'm guessing no-one would actually admit it. But if the left hates the right, and the right are the majority, wouldn't the left hate a mojority of America?


----------



## Marginal (Aug 13, 2005)

MisterMike said:
			
		

> I'm guessing no-one would actually admit it. But if the left hates the right, and the right are the majority, wouldn't the left hate a mojority of America?


Only works if the left actually hates the right. Disagrees on two or three talking points yes. Hates? Nah. 

Funny how it's only unpatriotic when the left questions the actions of the president. When the right wing elements spend ~50 years barking about the party that's in power, that's just not the same thing at all...


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Aug 13, 2005)

Marginal said:
			
		

> Only works if the left actually hates the right. Disagrees on two or three talking points yes. Hates? Nah.
> 
> Funny how it's only unpatriotic when the left questions the actions of the president. When the right wing elements spend ~50 years barking about the party that's in power, that's just not the same thing at all...


 Barking at the party in power is far different than calling for a "Million Mogadishu's".  Nowhere, ever, in the history of criticism of the left, have I heard any right winger spout anything as clearly looney as some of the diatribe and vitriole i've heard from the radical left.  What you describe above is what I referred to as one type of leftist, a reasoned, articulate leftist, who disagrees on a few points.  Bravo for being one of those.

But if you are blind to the fact that you share a political division with a set of raving lunatics, then you need to start listening to what comes out of many of their mouths.  I wouldn't acknowledge they existed either, if I were you.


----------



## Makalakumu (Aug 13, 2005)

Careful now...there are a lot of nutjobs on the right and some of them have loud and, unfortuneately, very public voices.  Jerry Falwell for instance claimed that 911 was Gods punishment for a degenerate America.  Michael Savage claimed that "Aids cures homosexuality."  Etc, etc.  Pot, Kettle, Black.


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Aug 13, 2005)

Its interesting how both the Left and Right have people in their ranks who tend to demonize and stereotype the other side.  The other day I had an RSS feed of a leftist who was every bit as vitriolic as Rush.  I changed channels.  

To say the Right is the majority as MisterMike suggests is misleading.  The right is in power, certainly, but when one goes to throwing lables we find that the right is hardly monolithic...just as the left is not.

Witness current events.  Bill Frist starts supporting stem cell research and alienates conservative evangelicals, who then snub him.  He then is lauded by the Left.  Hillary Clinton moves to the center and is lambasted by the Left for selling out and from the Right for posturing.  

John Roberts is demonized by the Left for a case he worked involving abortion protesters, and he's maligned by the Right for having given ten hours of pro bono work to a Gay rights case.

The Left and Right are not clearly defined in a country whose population approaches 300 million.  We are hardly the "melting pot," nor approaching the pluralistic ideal.  But then too there has been some homogenization, and we find that many...if given a line item veto on their politics...strike unique stances of their own at various points of the political spectrum.

I'm pro-choice, pro-Gay rights, pro-social programs.  I'm also pro-gun, anti-criminal, and pro-military.  I love violent sports like NHB contests and boxing.  I'm all for the environment and support hunting.  I distrust big business more than big government.  I'm pro-labor, but recognize that the economy is inexorably going global.  I'm pro-education and can't stand stupidity regardless of its political orientation.  I believe in unrestricted free speech, yet recognize the need for imminant danger restrictions on such speech.   I'm all for the free expression of religion...as long as its all religions, and provided First Amendment protections of religions doesn't place life, liberty and property at risk---which it has at times.

If we were to take a quiz on these and other issues I suspect that many here would find their political orientations somewhat blurred by their own internal diversity of opinon.

The Left isn't always so Left, nor the Right so far to the Right...and neither is what they used to be.



Regards,


Steve


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Aug 14, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Careful now...there are a lot of nutjobs on the right and some of them have loud and, unfortuneately, very public voices. Jerry Falwell for instance claimed that 911 was Gods punishment for a degenerate America. Michael Savage claimed that "Aids cures homosexuality." Etc, etc. Pot, Kettle, Black.


 You might have missed my earlier comments about right wing wackos.  Please review it before commenting further.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Aug 14, 2005)

On second thought, i'll save you the trouble.  



			
				sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> Now, as flatlander so eloquently pointed out, extremists (in this case leftist extremists) are usually driven by a mindset that is about as far from well informed as you can get. I have specific gripes about every administration, and I take exception with extremists of all stripes.
> 
> If I was discussing this with a room full of right wing extremist conspiracy theorists, who believe the Illuminati have taken over the world, i'd still be pointing out their lunacy (as I found myself doing during the Clinton Administration).
> 
> ...


----------



## Marginal (Aug 14, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> Barking at the party in power is far different than calling for a "Million Mogadishu's".  Nowhere, ever, in the history of criticism of the left, have I heard any right winger spout anything as clearly looney as some of the diatribe and vitriole i've heard from the radical left.  What you describe above is what I referred to as one type of leftist, a reasoned, articulate leftist, who disagrees on a few points.  Bravo for being one of those.
> 
> But if you are blind to the fact that you share a political division with a set of raving lunatics, then you need to start listening to what comes out of many of their mouths.  I wouldn't acknowledge they existed either, if I were you.


Depends on if you want to define the majority of a party by the fringe outliers within a party. That's where the whole Nazi/Communist slurrage starts up and conversation ends. 

Regardless, I've heard the term Nazi tossed around by the right fringe elements plenty of times in reference to the moderate left etc. Dobson alone's known for playing the Nazi card about pretty much any topic he happens to speak on. Not to mention the goofy stuff that tends to pop out of Santorum's mouth. I'd hope that such drivel doesn't represent mainstream conservative values.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Aug 14, 2005)

Marginal said:
			
		

> Depends on if you want to define the majority of a party by the fringe outliers within a party. That's where the whole Nazi/Communist slurrage starts up and conversation ends.


 Of course the problem is that many on the left have been defining themselves by the fringe. Why else would they pick Howard Dean to head the DNC?



			
				Marginal said:
			
		

> Regardless, I've heard the term Nazi tossed around by the right fringe elements plenty of times in reference to the moderate left etc. Dobson alone's known for playing the Nazi card about pretty much any topic he happens to speak on. Not to mention the goofy stuff that tends to pop out of Santorum's mouth. I'd hope that such drivel doesn't represent mainstream conservative values.


 Yeah, i'm sure a few right wingers have popped the nazi bomb from time to time. The problem is that it seems the left's alleged moderates have been using the nazi label more and more frequently. 

Lets do a little test, which of the following should be considered leftwing moderates, and which are fringe:

Howard Dean
Ted Kennedy
Noam Chomsky
Michael Moore
Al Franken
Hillary Clinton
Bill Clinton
Ralph Nader

I mean, if we are going to claim that some of these folks are just extremists, and don't represent the bulk of the political left, lets be specific on which ones are the extremists and which ones are a valid representation of the views of most on the left.  I'll start by saying that it's always been my view that Bill Clinton is the consumate moderate.  He's made his entire political career taking the stand of least resistance.


----------



## heretic888 (Aug 14, 2005)

Just to chime in for a second...

A lot of things get said about Howard Dean. Very few of which are actually true.

Dean is an antagonist, to be sure. He has a tendency to use vitriolic, aggressive rhetoric and is not above launching ad hominems against his opponents. In fact, it was largely this 'negative' energy that helped to thrust the early anti-war movement within the Democratic party (after a long period of general submission to the administration).

However, if we're talking actual issues and positions, Dean is hardly an extremist. Unless, of course, your definition of extremist is "not a conservative". He has extremely moderate positions on both gun control and the environment, and a compromise position on gay rights (supporting civil union but not marriage).

To those interested, Dean wrote a sort of 'update' to Thomas Pain's _Common Sense_ that largely outlines what constitutes his core beliefs and positions. I believe it may still be available on his website.

Both Gore and Kerry are much further to the Left than Dean ever was. Don't mistake antagonism for extremism.

Laterz.  :asian:


----------



## Marginal (Aug 14, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> Of course the problem is that many on the left have been defining themselves by the fringe. Why else would they pick Howard Dean to head the DNC?


Largely because the non strategy of "Thank you sir, may I please have another?" was not working. Compare his rhetoric to Bush/Rove's, and it's virtually identical. 





> Yeah, i'm sure a few right wingers have popped the nazi bomb from time to time. The problem is that it seems the left's alleged moderates have been using the nazi label more and more frequently.


To be fair, I thought it was just legally incorperated into the equal time provisions. It's been flung about like brown matter in a monkeyfight lately. 



> Lets do a little test, which of the following should be considered leftwing moderates, and which are fringe:
> 
> Howard Dean
> Ted Kennedy
> ...



I gotta seperate Teddy, Chomsky and the Moore's of the world from the Bill Clinton's? 

Sort this right wing list:
Rick Santorum
James Dobson
Bill O'Riley
Rush Limbaugh
Bill Frist
Joe Hefley
Dr Laura


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Aug 15, 2005)

Marginal said:
			
		

> Largely because the non strategy of "Thank you sir, may I please have another?" was not working. Compare his rhetoric to Bush/Rove's, and it's virtually identical. To be fair, I thought it was just legally incorperated into the equal time provisions. It's been flung about like brown matter in a monkeyfight lately.


 It could be a plan by the DNC to continue to maintain loyal opposition status permanently. If so, it seems like a good plan. 




			
				Marginal said:
			
		

> I gotta seperate Teddy, Chomsky and the Moore's of the world from the Bill Clinton's?
> 
> Sort this right wing list:
> Rick Santorum
> ...


Why not? Just because you dodge questions doesn't mean I have to. If you go back through my posts you'll discover I never dodge a direct question, just because it's hard. I do find it telling that you have some difficulty differentiating the extremists from the moderates


Bill O'Riley (Moderate right)
Rush Limbaugh (Right wing)
Dr. Laura (Right wing)
Bill Frist (Right wing)
James Dobson (A little further Right)
Rick Santorum (Right wing)
Joe Hefley (Right wing)

At least that's my estimation. It certainly isn't scientific, but I gave it a shot.

Ironically enough, I was watching C-Span Book TV tonight and Bernard Goldberg was discussing his new book, "100 People who are screwing up America (and Al Franken is #37), and it was clear that even some liberals are getting a bit put off by the leftwing extremists. Anyone who is familiar with Bernard Goldberg knows he's not by any means a conservative, he won 6 emmy's working for CBS, yet he has clearly illustrated the biases, hyperbole and vitrole of the left. 

Anyone who gets a chance to see the C-Span Book Tv segment would find it interesting. Three different individuals in the audience asked questions that clearly showed the vitriole extremist leftwingers can exhibit during dialogue. Three audience members who were clearly angered based solely on the fact that Mr. Goldberg didn't agree with their conclusions.

It's become increasingly clear that what we are calling "Hating America" is really what James Piereson calls "Punitive Liberalism". Piereson writes:

"From the time of John Kennedy's assassination in 1963 to Jimmy Carter's election in 1976, the Democratic party was gradually taken over by a bizarre doctrine that might be called Punitive Liberalism. According to this doctrine, America had been responsible for numerous crimes and misdeeds through its history for which it deserved punishment and chastisement. White Americans had enslaved blacks and committed genocide against Native Americans. They had oppressed women and tyrannized minority groups, such as the Japanese who had been interned in camps during World War II. They had been harsh and unfeeling toward the poor. By our greed, we had despoiled the environment and were consuming a disproportionate share of the world's wealth and resources. We had coddled dictators abroad and violated human rights out of our irrational fear of communism. "

adding

"Given this bill of indictment, the Punitive Liberals held that Americans had no right at all to feel pride in their country's history or optimism about its future. Those who expressed such pride were written off as ignorant patriots who could not face up to the sins of the past; and those who looked ahead to a brighter future were dismissed as naive "Pollyannas" who did not understand that the brief American century was now over. The Punitive Liberals felt that the purpose of national policy was to punish the nation for its crimes rather than to build a stronger America and a brighter future for all. "

further adding

"Here the Punitive Liberals parted company from earlier liberal reformers such as FDR, Kennedy, and Lyndon Johnson, who viewed reform as a means of bringing the promise of American life within reach of more of our people. The earlier reformers believed deeply that the American experiment in self-government was inherently good, and that the task of policy was to improve it. But in the troubled years following Kennedy's death, the reform tradition took on a furrowed brow and a punitive visage. "

He then goes on to outline how this has morphed in to the modern left

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/004/245kubju.asp

Goldberg himself writes

"They are of a generation-or, more precisely, they are part of a generation-that long ago defined itself by it's skepticism about everything America is and everything America does. Most of these people came of age during Vietnam, and in some important ways, they've never moved beyond on of the core beliefs of those days: that America is a bully, that that it is an oppressor, and that standing up and saying so automatically defines you as a decent and moral person-no matter how you behave in the rest of your life."

Bernard Goldbert: "100 People that are screwing up America (and Al Franken is #37)"


----------



## Tgace (Aug 15, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> It's become increasingly clear that what we are calling "Hating America" is really what James Piereson calls "Punitive Liberalism". Piereson writes:
> 
> "From the time of John Kennedy's assassination in 1963 to Jimmy Carter's election in 1976, the Democratic party was gradually taken over by a bizarre doctrine that might be called Punitive Liberalism. According to this doctrine, America had been responsible for numerous crimes and misdeeds through its history for which it deserved punishment and chastisement. White Americans had enslaved blacks and committed genocide against Native Americans. They had oppressed women and tyrannized minority groups, such as the Japanese who had been interned in camps during World War II. They had been harsh and unfeeling toward the poor. By our greed, we had despoiled the environment and were consuming a disproportionate share of the world's wealth and resources. We had coddled dictators abroad and violated human rights out of our irrational fear of communism. "
> 
> ...


The perfect description of my impression of the "left". The bold part was why as an 18 yo first time voter I registered Democrat. The more I sensed the rest of what was stated above, the harder it was for me to stay.....


----------



## Makalakumu (Aug 15, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> It's become increasingly clear that what we are calling "Hating America" is really what James Piereson calls "Punitive Liberalism". Piereson writes:
> 
> "From the time of John Kennedy's assassination in 1963 to Jimmy Carter's election in 1976, the Democratic party was gradually taken over by a bizarre doctrine that might be called Punitive Liberalism. According to this doctrine, America had been responsible for numerous crimes and misdeeds through its history for which it deserved punishment and chastisement. White Americans had enslaved blacks and committed genocide against Native Americans. They had oppressed women and tyrannized minority groups, such as the Japanese who had been interned in camps during World War II. They had been harsh and unfeeling toward the poor. By our greed, we had despoiled the environment and were consuming a disproportionate share of the world's wealth and resources. We had coddled dictators abroad and violated human rights out of our irrational fear of communism. "


The funny thing about education is that sometimes you learn things that challenge your previous beliefs. Some people talk about "putting it on the line" as a trait of a martial artist and if you are really going to accept that some of this happened and allow that knowledge to come to play in forming one's personal beliefs, it is going to take some courage. My spirit as a reform minded individual sprung from learning stuff like this. I believe that America can do better and the more we turn our back on stuff like this, the better our country becomes. 



			
				sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> "Given this bill of indictment, the Punitive Liberals held that Americans had no right at all to feel pride in their country's history or optimism about its future. Those who expressed such pride were written off as ignorant patriots who could not face up to the sins of the past; and those who looked ahead to a brighter future were dismissed as naive "Pollyannas" who did not understand that the brief American century was now over. The Punitive Liberals felt that the purpose of national policy was to punish the nation for its crimes rather than to build a stronger America and a brighter future for all. "


This is the fundamental misunderstanding that conservatives have with the spirit of reform I mentioned above. As a liberal, I look to the mistakes of the past in order to inform my direction for the future. When a liberal mentions this stuff, it is in no way punative, it is cathartic. It is an acknowledgement of a mistake and the beginning step toward moving on to a brighter future.

I think the problem that many of us have with patriotism and the Right is the attitude that we percieve. I personally feel that the Right uses patriotism to justify an "American is good enough" outlook. For instance, in many conversations I've had with educated conservatives, it has become apparent that despite that list of mistakes above, "America is still the best and its good enough so we don't have to change anything anymore."

I reject this. America is certainly a great place to live and I would never want to leave, yet, as soon as we settle for the "good enough" attitude we enter a period of stagnation. As a martial artist, this is a familiar concept. How many people in the dojo just stop advancing one day because they feel their skills are good enough? It takes a lot of guts to keep going. One must "put it (their beliefs) on the line" if one is going to accept the lessons of history and constantly move on to a brighter future. 

In the end, I believe the "good enough" attitude is about as craven and "pollyanna" as it gets. America(ns) deserves better and we should constantly strive for a better future. The bottom line is that changing some of the stuff above is going to require some sacrifice and it will take courage and conviction of belief in order to do so.



			
				sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> "Here the Punitive Liberals parted company from earlier liberal reformers such as FDR, Kennedy, and Lyndon Johnson, who viewed reform as a means of bringing the promise of American life within reach of more of our people. The earlier reformers believed deeply that the American experiment in self-government was inherently good, and that the task of policy was to improve it. But in the troubled years following Kennedy's death, the reform tradition took on a furrowed brow and a punitive visage."


On page 7, I posted a speech by Paul Wellstone. He was a modern liberal and in no way fit the stereotypes bantered about on the right. If you read that speech, the spirit of reform that FDR, Lyndon Johnson, and Kennedy encampassed is not only alive and well, it is pervasive. Senator Wellstone embodied the real spirit of Liberalism and he pointed out place where he thought America could be better. There are "real" problems mentioned in that speech and they need solutions. The reason those things are not addressed is because of the "good enough" attitude I mentioned above. An old marine corps saying my uncle used to say comes to mind..."if you see a problem and do nothing, then you are a coward."



			
				sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> "They are of a generation-or, more precisely, they are part of a generation-that long ago defined itself by it's skepticism about everything America is and everything America does. Most of these people came of age during Vietnam, and in some important ways, they've never moved beyond on of the core beliefs of those days: that America is a bully, that that it is an oppressor, and that standing up and saying so automatically defines you as a decent and moral person-no matter how you behave in the rest of your life."


We are a generation dedicated to building a better and brighter future for America. We are generation that acknowledges and rejects the mistakes of the past. We are a generation prepared to make the sacrifices it takes to make America better. We are a generation dedicated to making America the best place on the planet in ALL catagories...ie human rights, freedom, lack of poverty, education, tolerance, clean environment, health care, etc. We are a generation that believes that our dealings with other peoples in the world should reflect the morals in which our country was founded. And we are a generation that will never ever accept an America that is just "good enough".

Liberals do not hate America. We love it and it is obvious to anyone who cares to look. This "Hate America" rhetoric is nothing but a manifestation of the "good enough" attitude.  It is being used to censure anyone who brings "certain" problems to the table.  America deserves better.

upnorthkyosa


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Aug 15, 2005)

The notion of "punitive liberalism" is largely a fallacy.  While there are some who demand reparations for past atrocities on the part of Americans and the American government, I submit that most of us disagree with the notions of reparations, say, in the form of cash payouts that some have demanded.  I am not responsible for slavery, genocide, land theft, or imperialistic aggression.

However, I...or I should say WE...are responsible for our present behavior.  Blithely sticking our heads in the sand and ignoring our country's current idiocies as well as its more sordid history is nothing more than jingoistic immaturity and intellectual dishonesty.

There are some in America who chastise the Japanese for not openly recognizing their war atrocities.  Their schoolbooks downplay their aggression and shield their children from some uncomfortable truths.  

So, when do WE get on that bandwagon and start doing it for ourselves?  


Regards,



Steve


----------



## Marginal (Aug 15, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> Why not? Just because you dodge questions doesn't mean I have to.


Well, I actually did answer it, though probably not in the manner you'd have liked. Moore etc were all on the far end, Clinton was on the center. I then went and provided a list of right wingers that I felt matched up with your left wing list. 

O'Riley's a not a moderate IMO. 



> I do find it telling that you have some difficulty differentiating the extremists from the moderates


Was Chomski supposed to be a moderate?



> Bernard Goldbert: "100 People that are screwing up America (and Al Franken is #37)"


Jon Stewart ripped into that book when Benard was on the Daily Show. That was some good TV.


----------



## heretic888 (Aug 15, 2005)

I have to to evaluate one's standards as a bit... "curious" when:

- Howard Dean --- who has a history of compromising/centrist positions on gun control, environmentalism, big government, and gay rights; constantly cites Christianity and the Bible as a basis for much of his beliefs; and summarized his belief system in an 'update' to Pain's _Common Sense_ --- is on the "Far Left", yet...

- Bill O'Reilly --- who has publicly stated that Michael Moore "deserves to be shot", the ACLU are "allies to the terrorists", and tells John McCaine (who was tortured for five years during the Vietnam War) that "torture works" --- is on the "Center Right".

"Curious", indeed.  :idunno:


----------



## Andrew Green (Aug 15, 2005)

What I find interesting is reading this thread, then the European-Americans one.

 In one everyone says "We're all one!" and in the other the same people are flinging insults about political views...

 As for the punitive stuff, well, thats just nonsense.  Recognizing past mistakes and wanting to fix them is a GOOD thing.

 Did I kill 6 people and rob the bank 3 years ago?  Who cares, that was 3 years ago.  Now I live a good life, pay my taxes, etc.  Those people that got killed aren't around anymore so what does it matter?

 Believing in your country is not about whitewashing the past.  Bad things happened, its a part of any developed nations past.  Recognizing that and trying to repair the damage and make the future better is a much better approach then dismissing it as in the past and irrelevant to today.

 I am Canadian, I am proud to be Canadian.  My county has things in its history that are not to be proud of, but they are there and they are a part of what this country is. What is done is done, but we CAN try to repair damage where it still exists, and we CAN try to make sure it doesn't happen again.  Acknowledging the past and trying to make the future better does not make a person _" no right at all to feel pride in their country's history or optimism about its future."


_


----------



## Tgace (Aug 15, 2005)

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/004/245kubju.asp?pg=2



> In many ways, Jimmy Carter, and his leading appointees, were the perfect exemplars of Punitive Liberalism. Given their sour outlook, it is no wonder that their leadership generated a sense of "malaise" among the American people.
> 
> During the 1970s an impressive network of interest groups was developed to promote and take advantage of this sense of historical guilt. These included the various feminist and civil rights groups who pressed for affirmative action, quotas, and other policies to compensate women and minorities for past mistreatment; the welfare rights organizations who claimed that welfare and various poverty programs were entitlements or, even better, reparations that were owed to the poor as compensation for similar mistreatment; the environmental groups who pressed for ever more stringent regulations on business; and the various human rights and disarmament groups who pressed the government to punish or disassociate the United States from allies who were said to violate human rights. These groups took up influential roles in the Democratic party and in the Congress, and ensconced themselves in university departments from which outposts they promoted and elaborated upon the finer points of Punitive Liberalism.
> 
> ...


----------



## Tgace (Aug 15, 2005)

http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110005246

Punitive liberals are often defensive about their patriotism--understandably enough, since their relentless complaining about America often is hard to distinguish from out-and-out anti-Americanism. Their defense is that "true" patriotism consists in acknowledging your own country's faults and exhorting it to improve.

Well, maybe. Certainly there's nothing unpatriotic about criticizing your government or its policies. And since love of country is a matter of the heart, it's presumptuous to question anyone's patriotism. But imagine a man who treats his wife the way the punitive liberals treat America: constantly belittling her, pointing out her faults and never showing her any kindness. He may love her, but most people would agree he has a twisted way of expressing it.


----------



## Tgace (Aug 15, 2005)

There is no end to it. Past wrongs are almost infinite and can be dredged up any time.

http://www.techcentralstation.be/080505I.html
*Punitive Liberalism*

One of those essays in those first fifty-four pages quotes a piece that James Piereson wrote for _The Weekly Standard.com_ on the occasion of President Reagan's death last year. Called "Punitive Liberalism", it's a great touchstone connecting the patriotic liberals of the FDR through LBJ era with those who came afterwards in the wake of George McGovern's failed 1972 presidential campaign. 

Goldberg says, logically, that most liberals have never heard of Piereson's phrase. But its symptoms resonate with them nonetheless, "because they see themselves as more sensitive, and more concerned about their fellow man. They say, 'well, this is a country that polluted our air and water', which it did. 'This is a country which had racist policies towards blacks', which it did. 'This is a country that treated women as second-class citizens', which it did."

Goldberg is quick to add,* "All these things were wrong", repeating the phrase slowly for added emphasis. "But most of us say, 'let's fix it. Let's make sure we don't do that anymore, and move on.'" In contrast, he says, the modern left dwells on these past transgressions.* "It doesn't occur to them somehow that people are literally killing themselves to get to this country. That poor people all over the world want to come to America, because this is a land of great opportunity.

Despite that, Goldberg notes that many, but not all of America's cultural elites are uncomfortable with America's power (and possibly with the idea of power itself).* "I think it stems from the fact that we do have a history where we did things wrong in this country. But for them it's always yesterday-they can't look forward. They enjoy that. They enjoy the fact that America isn't the perfect place. And it isn't." *

"But you know what?", Goldberg asks rhetorically, *"It's a lot more perfect than most other places."*


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Aug 15, 2005)

Ah, once again we find the back to back posts with the long and tedious articles...criticism of which you're likely not to engage, if experience serves me right.

Firepower is one thing.  Accuracy quite another.




Regards,


Steve


----------



## Tgace (Aug 15, 2005)

I prefer not to waste my breath....."progressive" must mean finding the wrongs with everything but their own philosophies.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Aug 16, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> he funny thing about education is that sometimes you learn things that challenge your previous beliefs. Some people talk about "putting it on the line" as a trait of a martial artist and if you are really going to accept that some of this happened and allow that knowledge to come to play in forming one's personal beliefs, it is going to take some courage. My spirit as a reform minded individual sprung from learning stuff like this. I believe that America can do better and the more we turn our back on stuff like this, the better our country becomes.


 The problem with much of what is "learned" in modern education, is that it is really more like indoctrination.  The belief that you are "freeing" your mind by submitting to the indoctrination is sometimes nothing more than a clever illusion.  I had a political science professor in college.  He constantly used the passive aggressive, subtle method of "guiding" our minds toward a more "progressive" (see also: leftist) world view.  I kept asking him these hard questions, and you could tell he found me to be insufferable.  And, while he tried to give the most clever answers he could, they usually had nothing to do with the questions I had asked.



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> This is the fundamental misunderstanding that conservatives have with the spirit of reform I mentioned above. As a liberal, I look to the mistakes of the past in order to inform my direction for the future. When a liberal mentions this stuff, it is in no way punative, it is cathartic. It is an acknowledgement of a mistake and the beginning step toward moving on to a brighter future.


 The problem isn't reform, it's the belief that in any situation, America is always in the wrong.  It's the lack of perspective that offends me.  "Punitive liberalism" is considered a virture because it is absolutely introspective, without any view to the outside world.  It is self-absordedn it's own alleged self-righteousness.  That's what I take offense at.  Of course, I have been wrestling with the source of this mindset, and I keep coming back to the same conclusion.  That the source is on the idea of self-sacrifice and masochism for their own sake.  Misplaced empathy, unguided by any rational understanding of cause and effect.  



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> I think the problem that many of us have with patriotism and the Right is the attitude that we percieve. I personally feel that the Right uses patriotism to justify an "American is good enough" outlook. For instance, in many conversations I've had with educated conservatives, it has become apparent that despite that list of mistakes above, "America is still the best and its good enough so we don't have to change anything anymore."


 And the problem I have with the left is, they lack perspective when talking about "good enough".  When we say that America is still the best, what we mean is that you fix the worst problems first.  If America needs to be reformed, you don't start with the most minor problems and most irrelavent issues.  

That applies to the world stage as well.  Many leftists focus on what are, relatively speaking in the overall scheme of things, minutae, and they ignore many of the HUGE problems because it is convenient only to talk about minutae.  I sometimes wonder if they are incapable of seeing the forest through the trees.  It's much like demanding that we fix a hang-nail, before keeping our neighbor from bleeding to death.



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> I reject this. America is certainly a great place to live and I would never want to leave, yet, as soon as we settle for the "good enough" attitude we enter a period of stagnation. As a martial artist, this is a familiar concept. How many people in the dojo just stop advancing one day because they feel their skills are good enough? It takes a lot of guts to keep going. One must "put it (their beliefs) on the line" if one is going to accept the lessons of history and constantly move on to a brighter future.


 It's not a matter of settling, it's a matter of saying that cynicism as virtue is unacceptable.  I suggest learning the lessons of history, and constantly moving on.  Punitive liberalism suggest dragging out the wrongs of history, and wrapping around our necks.  Big difference.  The whole "America is good enough" claim is a strawman argument, as no where was that suggest until your post North.  Nice try.  



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> In the end, I believe the "good enough" attitude is about as craven and "pollyanna" as it gets. America(ns) deserves better and we should constantly strive for a better future. The bottom line is that changing some of the stuff above is going to require some sacrifice and it will take courage and conviction of belief in order to do so.


 Striving for a better future is not the same as the belief that you must constantly foster the notion that America is the world's great evil.  Big difference there, partner.  Cynicism  never created a brighter future.



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> On page 7, I posted a speech by Paul Wellstone. He was a modern liberal and in no way fit the stereotypes bantered about on the right. If you read that speech, the spirit of reform that FDR, Lyndon Johnson, and Kennedy encampassed is not only alive and well, it is pervasive. Senator Wellstone embodied the real spirit of Liberalism and he pointed out place where he thought America could be better. There are "real" problems mentioned in that speech and they need solutions. The reason those things are not addressed is because of the "good enough" attitude I mentioned above. An old marine corps saying my uncle used to say comes to mind..."if you see a problem and do nothing, then you are a coward."


 I see lots of problems, and I rarely gets answers from the cynical left.  Rarely do they even answer tough questions, so content in their "Blame America" response that they aren't even capable of thinking outside of that self-absorded box.   In fact, all I ever hear from leftists are lists of problems, but I never seem to hear any answers.  The Blame Game never lead to a brighter future.  



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> We are a generation dedicated to building a better and brighter future for America. We are generation that acknowledges and rejects the mistakes of the past. We are a generation prepared to make the sacrifices it takes to make America better. We are a generation dedicated to making America the best place on the planet in ALL catagories...ie human rights, freedom, lack of poverty, education, tolerance, clean environment, health care, etc. We are a generation that believes that our dealings with other peoples in the world should reflect the morals in which our country was founded. And we are a generation that will never ever accept an America that is just "good enough".


 An generate dedicated to finding someone to blame.  That's why I never hear solutions, because finger pointing and punitive liberalism are comfortable places to work from.  I see lists of problems, with very few workable solutions.  Anytime I get in a discussion where solutions are required, I usually hear leftists A) Fall back on blame or B) Go silent



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Liberals do not hate America. We love it and it is obvious to anyone who cares to look. This "Hate America" rhetoric is nothing but a manifestation of the "good enough" attitude. It is being used to censure anyone who brings "certain" problems to the table. America deserves better.
> 
> upnorthkyosa


 It's that hypothetical America again.  The real America may not be the best it can be, but it's good enough for me to be happy with right now.  Improvement comes, but it doesn't come with cynicism and punitive liberalism.  I miss the "I can" liberalism of Kennedy and Roosevelt, as opposed to the "It's a big conspiracy" liberalism of Michael Moore and Howard Dean.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Aug 16, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110005246
> 
> Punitive liberals are often defensive about their patriotism--understandably enough, since their relentless complaining about America often is hard to distinguish from out-and-out anti-Americanism. Their defense is that "true" patriotism consists in acknowledging your own country's faults and exhorting it to improve.
> 
> Well, maybe. Certainly there's nothing unpatriotic about criticizing your government or its policies. And since love of country is a matter of the heart, it's presumptuous to question anyone's patriotism. But imagine a man who treats his wife the way the punitive liberals treat America: constantly belittling her, pointing out her faults and never showing her any kindness. He may love her, but most people would agree he has a twisted way of expressing it.


 And he would say "but she can improve, and i'm not going to settle for 'good enough'", "She can lose another 15 pounds".  He shows her love by criticism, because it wouldn't be very loving to settle for "good enough".


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Aug 16, 2005)

Marginal said:
			
		

> Well, I actually did answer it, though probably not in the manner you'd have liked. Moore etc were all on the far end, Clinton was on the center. I then went and provided a list of right wingers that I felt matched up with your left wing list.


 You didn't answer the question, you asked one.  Answer a question with a question is a dodge.  It's the typical reponse I get from those on the left.  They feel uncomfortable giving straight answers, preferring to try and be clever and flippant.  



			
				Marginal said:
			
		

> O'Riley's a not a moderate IMO.


 May have a lot to do with where you're standing.  O'Rielly sure angers a lot of leftists, but his political leanings are pretty mild, despite all the hyperbole and vitrole spewed in his direction.  It seems anyone who dares disagree with the left, no matter how small the disagreement, is labelled a right wing extremist.  

I'm not so all encompassing.  I have several people I could name who are left of center, but that I respect, and who from time to time have some excellent points.  It seems that many on the left are all or nothing.  Though to be far, it's just as likely that many on the right are the same way



			
				Marginal said:
			
		

> Was Chomski supposed to be a moderate?


I asked your opinion, if you don't feel comfortable committing to one, then don't.



			
				Marginal said:
			
		

> Jon Stewart ripped into that book when Benard was on the Daily Show. That was some good TV.


 Jon Stewart is very clever, though ripping in to anothers book on a comedy show isn't exactly the same as debunking it.  You get the opition, as a comedic entertainer, of really going over the line, and then being able to claim "Hey, i'm an entertainer, it's all fun and games".  So what.  

Bernard Goldberg was a happy, accepted member of the left, until he committed a couple acts of heresy, now many on the left LOVE to see him get ripped, even though many of his political views are well in line with theirs.  He just had the audacity to point out some inconsistencies and hypocracies of his fellow leftists.  The horror.  How dare he criticize those on the left.  It's funny, he isn't even criticizing their views, he's criticising their methods and ulterior motives.  

I think that's perfectly acceptable.  It takes a lot of intellectual honesty to say "Hey, I agree with you politically, but you're just wrong on some of things you're doing."  Or would you prefer he just shut up?


----------



## heretic888 (Aug 16, 2005)

For what its worth...

I followed the debates for the Democratic presidential candidacy during late 2003 on into 2004 very closely, even from their beginnings (had there not been a Republican incumbent I likely would have done the same for the Republican candidates). I listened to every debate I had access to, read every speech I could find, and watched every talkshow appearance the candidates would make (my personal favorite being the Daily Show).

I came out of it feeling as if I had at least a moderately informed position on the various candidates and their stances and issues. At least I like to think so.

And, guess what? At most, maybe _three_ of the ten or so candidates would be able to be described as 'Punitive Liberals' (most notably Kucinich and Sharpton). That hardly comes across as a sweeping majority within the top Democratic voices. In fact, the overwhelming consensus of presidential hopefuls tended to be centrists.

Funny, that.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Aug 16, 2005)

heretic888 said:
			
		

> For what its worth...
> 
> I followed the debates for the Democratic presidential candidacy during late 2003 on into 2004 very closely, even from their beginnings (had there not been a Republican incumbent I likely would have done the same for the Republican candidates). I listened to every debate I had access to, read every speech I could find, and watched every talkshow appearance the candidates would make (my personal favorite being the Daily Show).
> 
> ...


 Four, actually, the three you listed, and Dean, who is now the head of the DNC.  I don't claim that Punitive Liberals are the majority of the left, I claim that the punitive liberals have hijacked their voice.  With the installation of Dean as head of the DNC, instead of a more traditional progressive, I do believe i'm being vindicated in that view.


----------



## heretic888 (Aug 16, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> May have a lot to do with where you're standing. O'Rielly sure angers a lot of leftists, but his political leanings are pretty mild, despite all the hyperbole and vitrole spewed in his direction. It seems anyone who dares disagree with the left, no matter how small the disagreement, is labelled a right wing extremist.



It _does_ have a lot to do with where you're standing.

Speaking as a moderate and an Independent myself, I will categorically state that Bill O'Reilly is in no way a centrist. When you publicly state things like "Michael Moore deserves to be shot", "the ACLU are allies to the terrorists", "I believe there is an absolute evil, that it is sweeping across our country, and it is our duty to champion the forces of light and righteousness to overcome it", and tell Vietnam veteran (and moderate Republican) John McCaine that "torture works" immediately after he informs you that "I know from personal experience that torture does not work as a means of interrogation" (McCaine was tortured for five years as a POW in Vietnam) --- in no way, shape, or form are you even vaguely resembling a centrist.

I would suggest you take a look at your assessment of the Left, and perhaps consider exactly the same tendency is taking place within your own political evalutions. 

From where I'm standing, both the Right and Left are full of partisan, extremist nutjobs. O'Reilly happens to be one of them.

Laterz.


----------



## heretic888 (Aug 16, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> Four, actually, the three you listed, and Dean, who is now the head of the DNC.  I don't claim that Punitive Liberals are the majority of the left, I claim that the punitive liberals have hijacked their voice.  With the installation of Dean as head of the DNC, instead of a more traditional progressive, I do believe i'm being vindicated in that view.



For the umpteenth time, I suggest you actually familiarize yourself with Howard Dean's history as well as his written speeches and interviews. I would suggest beginning with his 'update' to _Common Sense_, which should still be available on his website.

The media (both Left and Right) has created a strawman depiction of Dean, not the least of which was infamous "shriek" which looks decidedly different when taken in the total context of the event. Part of the basis for this is that Dean has a tendency to say things that aren't part of the typical Democratic party-line (ironic that he is now head of the DNC). For example, at a time when Democrats were suggesting Social Security was fine "as is", Dean was simultaneously giving speeches on how Social Security has solvency issues that need to be addressed.

Again, I do have to find it a bit "curious" that one would consider Dean an extremist but view O'Reilly as a centrist. I think perhaps some self-evaluation is in order here.

Laterz.  :asian:


----------



## heretic888 (Aug 16, 2005)

In any event, assuming for the moment that Dean does fit the bill of a "Punitive Liberal" (which is hardly accurate but this is hypothetical anyway), that still leaves you 4 out of 10 presidential hopefuls leaning in this direction. Hardly a sweeping majority of the Democratic leadership.

As for Dean's election to chairman of the DNC, again, it helps to take things in their proper context. When you compare Dean to the others vying for that office, its fairly obvious Dean would have won. He has about 10 times the support and popularity of the rest of them combined (he was at one time a front-runner for presidential candidate).

A similar cirumstance would have happened if Biden or Lieberman had run. They are both popular Democratic leaders, too.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Aug 16, 2005)

heretic888 said:
			
		

> For the umpteenth time, I suggest you actually familiarize yourself with Howard Dean's history as well as his written speeches and interviews. I would suggest beginning with his 'update' to _Common Sense_, which should still be available on his website.


"I hate Republicans, and everything they stand for" Howard Dean

Hate seems such a strong word, don't it?  

"The truth is the President of the United States used the same device that Slobodan Milosevic used in Serbia. When you appeal to homophobia, when you appeal to sexism, when you appeal to racism, that is extraordinarily damaging to the country." Howard Dean

You mean aside from the ethnic cleansing?  Now Bush is just like brutal dictator?  Way to soften the tone.

"I believe that the flag of the Confederate States of America is a painful symbol and reminder of racial injustice and slavery which (Abraham) Lincoln denounced from here over 150 years ago" Howard Dean

I'll buy that.... 

"I still want to be the candidate for guys with Confederate flags in their pickup trucks." Howard Dean

But he'll accept votes from them. 

"You think the Republican National Committee could get this many people of color in a single room? Only if they had the hotel staff in here." Howard Dean

Now all conservative folks is racist. 

"Dealing with race is about educating white folks..." Howard Dean

Again, it's whitey. 

"We've gotten rid of (Saddam Hussein), and I suppose that's a good thing" Howard Dean

You suppose it's a good thing?

"I've resisted pronouncing a sentence before guilt is found. I will have this old-fashioned notion that even with people like Osama, who is very likely to be found guilty, we should do our best not to, in positions of executive power, not to prejudge jury trials." Howard Dean

Great, you'll give a murdering terrorist the benefit of the doubt when a HUGE amount of real evidence is stacked against him....

"I dont know. There are many theories about (9/11). The most interesting theory that Ive heard so farwhich is nothing more than a theory, it cant be provedis that he was warned ahead of time by the Saudis. Now who knows what the real situation is? But the trouble is, by suppressing that kind of information, you lead to those kind of theories, whether they have any truth to them or not, and eventually, they get repeated as fact. So I think the president is taking a great risk by suppressing the key information that needs to go to the Kean Commission." Howard Dean

But your political opponents are guilty based on an unprovable rumor?

http://en.thinkexist.com/quotes/howard_dean/

Oh yeah, this guy is a moderate....moderately kooky. 



			
				heretic888 said:
			
		

> The media (both Left and Right) has created a strawman depiction of Dean, not the least of which was infamous "shriek" which looks decidedly different when taken in the total context of the event. Part of the basis for this is that Dean has a tendency to say things that aren't part of the typical Democratic party-line (ironic that he is now head of the DNC). For example, at a time when Democrats were suggesting Social Security was fine "as is", Dean was simultaneously giving speeches on how Social Security has solvency issues that need to be addressed.


 He said they were going to take back the White House, then he screamed, what context? 



			
				heretic888 said:
			
		

> Again, I do have to find it a bit "curious" that one would consider Dean an extremist but view O'Reilly as a centrist. I think perhaps some self-evaluation is in order here.
> 
> Laterz. :asian:


And vice-versa. I challenge you to label the issues that O'Reilly is conservative on. He's anti-death penalty, for one, hardly a conservative issue. In fairness to O'Reilly, it's his confrontational style, not his politics, that have him being labelled a conservative. He's also labelled a leftist by some as well. Sounds like if he's getting it from both sides, then he may be closer to the middle. I have no interest in proving or disproving O'Reilly being a moderate, except what my eyes see. Politically, the guy is closer to middle of the road, like his confrontational demeanor or hate it. It's certainly made him a lot of money. 

Dean, on the other hand, is hard pressed to dodge his radical left wing label. His only attempt at it is to call himself an economic conservative, but even that is dubious. Socially, Dean is about nearly as far to the left as one can go.


----------



## heretic888 (Aug 16, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> Oh yeah, this guy is a moderate....moderately kooky.



A valiant attempt. Unfortunately, its a smokescreen.

Y'see, you seem to forget that I have actually _familiarized_ myself with Dean's positions --- by reading interviews, listening to speeches, researching his governance history, and so on. A few sound bites taken out of context will hardly be grounds to convince someone like me.

I should also point out three things about the aforementioned quotations:

1) That none of those quotations actually evince anything resembling an extremist "Left Wing" political orientations. Vitriolic, antagonistic, and agressive? Sure. But, that's a presentation style, not a political orientation.

2) That several of your "analyses" of those quotations are flawed. In the reference to the Saudi conspiracy, for example, Dean in no way asserts that an unproven theory "proves" Bush is guilty. He is saying that concealing information pertinent to the case will lead some to come to that conclusion (Dean himself admits he has no idea what the truth is).

3) That taking a dozen wacky quotations out of a site with several times more balanced and centrist quotations from the same man is hardly a fair presentation of the information.



			
				sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> He said they were going to take back the White House, then he screamed, what context?



What the media footage doesn't show you is that Dean wasn't the only person screaming in the room. In fact, he wasn't even the loudest. If you're actually interested, I'd suggest researching this particular issue on your own. You may be surprised at your findings.

There is a stark contrast between image and reality. 



			
				sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> And vice-versa. I challenge you to label the issues that O'Reilly is conservative on. He's anti-death penalty, for one, hardly a conservative issue. In fairness to O'Reilly, it's his confrontational style, not his politics, that have him being labelled a conservative.



What? The four examples I gave weren't good enough??

Personally, I think the "we must galvanize the forces of righteousness" bit I heard on his show is what did it for me...



			
				sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> Dean, on the other hand, is hard pressed to dodge his radical left wing label. His only attempt at it is to call himself an economic conservative, but even that is dubious. Socially, Dean is about nearly as far to the left as one can go.



Again, this assertion can only be supported if you simply ignore Dean's written speeches, interviews, and governance history. A media strawman of Dean's position is not the same as Dean's actual position.

Laterz.


----------



## Tgace (Aug 16, 2005)




----------



## sgtmac_46 (Aug 16, 2005)

heretic888 said:
			
		

> A valiant attempt. Unfortunately, its a smokescreen.
> 
> Y'see, you seem to forget that I have actually _familiarized_ myself with Dean's positions --- by reading interviews, listening to speeches, researching his governance history, and so on. A few sound bites taken out of context will hardly be grounds to convince someone like me.


 Well, maybe you could give me some context for statements such as "I hate Republicans and everything they stand for." Doesn't seem real nuanced. 

I do realize questioning Dean with hardcore leftists is like yelling "Allah is kosher" at an al-Qaeda training camp. 



			
				heretic888 said:
			
		

> I should also point out three things about the aforementioned quotations:
> 
> 1) That none of those quotations actually evince anything resembling an extremist "Left Wing" political orientations. Vitriolic, antagonistic, and agressive? Sure. But, that's a presentation style, not a political orientation.


 Vitriolic, antagonistic and aggressive, you got that right.  Isn't that typical of extremists?  "I hate republicans" and comparing Bush to Milosevich, among other things. They don't exactly have moderate written all over them.  So in what way can you pull "moderate" out of all that?  



			
				heretic888 said:
			
		

> 2) That several of your "analyses" of those quotations are flawed. In the reference to the Saudi conspiracy, for example, Dean in no way asserts that an unproven theory "proves" Bush is guilty. He is saying that concealing information pertinent to the case will lead some to come to that conclusion (Dean himself admits he has no idea what the truth is).


 No, he's attempt to distort reality while pretending to be objective. If he acknowledges it's just an unfounded rumor, why spread it, unless you WANT people to believe it. Why link it to "information" that by his own admission in all likelyhood has little to do with this allegation, which he admits is just a rumor. And you're defending this? It's like saying to a guy, "Hey, bob, I know this might be just a vicious rumor, and it's probably unfounded....but your wife is cheating on you." Give me a break. It's a cheap shot with a sad attempt at built in deniability. The fact that he ADMITS it's probably just rumor doesn't get him off the hook like he (and apparently you) think, it damns him even more for spreading what he ADMITS is nothing but rumor. I don't think you're making your point.



			
				heretic888 said:
			
		

> 3) That taking a dozen wacky quotations out of a site with several times more balanced and centrist quotations from the same man is hardly a fair presentation of the information.


 Kind of like when leftists ignore all the good with America, and focus on the few bad points as examples of how corrupt and wrong America is? lol, the irony. 



			
				heretic888 said:
			
		

> What the media footage doesn't show you is that Dean wasn't the only person screaming in the room. In fact, he wasn't even the loudest. If you're actually interested, I'd suggest researching this particular issue on your own. You may be surprised at your findings.


 So what your saying is that many of his supporters are even nuttier than he is? That's reassuring. 



			
				heretic888 said:
			
		

> Personally, I think the "we must galvanize the forces of righteousness" bit I heard on his show is what did it for me...


 I think it's the "I hate Republicans and everything they stand for" that does it for me. Sounds a little scary. 




			
				heretic888 said:
			
		

> Again, this assertion can only be supported if you simply ignore Dean's written speeches, interviews, and governance history. A media strawman of Dean's position is not the same as Dean's actual position.
> 
> Laterz.


 Hardly a strawman if they are his own words and actions. I think he's made his position very clear.


----------



## Makalakumu (Aug 16, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> The problem with much of what is "learned" in modern education, is that it is really more like indoctrination. The belief that you are "freeing" your mind by submitting to the indoctrination is sometimes nothing more than a clever illusion. I had a political science professor in college. He constantly used the passive aggressive, subtle method of "guiding" our minds toward a more "progressive" (see also: leftist) world view. I kept asking him these hard questions, and you could tell he found me to be insufferable. And, while he tried to give the most clever answers he could, they usually had nothing to do with the questions I had asked.


You were blessed to have a teacher challenge your beliefs.  This can be one of the most benificial experiences a student can have in education.  The insufferable part may have come from your tendancy to repeat yourself when answered succinctly...



> The problem isn't reform, it's the belief that in any situation, America is always in the wrong. It's the lack of perspective that offends me. "Punitive liberalism" is considered a virture because it is absolutely introspective, without any view to the outside world. It is self-absordedn it's own alleged self-righteousness. That's what I take offense at. Of course, I have been wrestling with the source of this mindset, and I keep coming back to the same conclusion. That the source is on the idea of self-sacrifice and masochism for their own sake. Misplaced empathy, unguided by any rational understanding of cause and effect.


Or maybe its a form of patriotism you haven't considered.  Perhaps striving to build a better America when the one we have is so obviously "good enough" marks a higher level.

btw - I refer again to Paul Wellstone's speech about America and its good points.  Very few, if any, liberals are going to come out and say our country "is always wrong".  That is just hyperbole.



> And the problem I have with the left is, they lack perspective when talking about "good enough". When we say that America is still the best, what we mean is that you fix the worst problems first. If America needs to be reformed, you don't start with the most minor problems and most irrelavent issues.


This is all just a matter of perspective and opinion.  Also, alot of this can depend on geography.  For instance, if you live in a city where 90% of the kids have asthma you may be very strongly influenced to make that your number one priority.  However, if you live in a city that has clean air, this will be lower on the list.  The thing about liberals is that they tend to be more empathetic and less judgemental about these things.  We look at the "human cost" of certain problems and attempt to understand another's passion.



> That applies to the world stage as well. Many leftists focus on what are, relatively speaking in the overall scheme of things, minutae, and they ignore many of the HUGE problems because it is convenient only to talk about minutae. I sometimes wonder if they are incapable of seeing the forest through the trees. It's much like demanding that we fix a hang-nail, before keeping our neighbor from bleeding to death.


A lot of liberals could say the same thing of conservatives.  The difference in opinion is okay.  If you really care about an issue, someone else may not care so much about it.  I, however, will not question your intelligence for being passionate about something.



> It's not a matter of settling, it's a matter of saying that cynicism as virtue is unacceptable. I suggest learning the lessons of history, and constantly moving on. Punitive liberalism suggest dragging out the wrongs of history, and wrapping around our necks. Big difference. The whole "America is good enough" claim is a strawman argument, as no where was that suggest until your post North. Nice try.


There are very few, if any, punative liberals in my opinion.  Even Dennis Kucinich, who I have met personally and who I have spoken at length with, does not hate america and does not hang America's faults around his neck.  Its all a matter of perception.  The "good enough" claim is my perception and although you think it is a strawman, you have fit the profile directly at least twice in this thread.  Once in the very post that I am quoting.  I will address it in a bit...



> Striving for a better future is not the same as the belief that you must constantly foster the notion that America is the world's great evil. Big difference there, partner. Cynicism never created a brighter future.


Again, I must refer to Paul Wellstone's speech.  Where is the cynicism?



> I see lots of problems, and I rarely gets answers from the cynical left. Rarely do they even answer tough questions, so content in their "Blame America" response that they aren't even capable of thinking outside of that self-absorded box. In fact, all I ever hear from leftists are lists of problems, but I never seem to hear any answers. The Blame Game never lead to a brighter future.


The same could be said about some on the right.  The extremes on both ends never have enough to complain about. 



> An generate dedicated to finding someone to blame.


Like the ACLU?  Like activist judges?  Like Liberals?  The blame game goes both ways.



> It's that hypothetical America again. The real America may not be the best it can be, but it's *good enough* for me to be happy with right now. Improvement comes, but it doesn't come with cynicism and punitive liberalism. I miss the "I can" liberalism of Kennedy and Roosevelt, as opposed to the "It's a big conspiracy" liberalism of Michael Moore and Howard Dean.


The "I Can" is still there.  You only have to pay attention to the passion that drives a liberal.  

btw - America may be "good enough" for you, but you aren't everybody.  "good enough" steals your passion and kills your motivation.  My perception comes from statements like this and subsequent rhetoric on how the status quo is also "good enough".

Also, loving your country is not like loving your spouse.


----------



## heretic888 (Aug 18, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> Well, maybe you could give me some context for statements such as "I hate Republicans and everything they stand for." Doesn't seem real nuanced.



That particular quotation was from a speech Dean made recently to an audience of young Democrats. The goal of this campaign of speeches is to raise money for his party (which, um, is kinda his job now, anyway).

You may dislike the language he is using in these speeches, but the truth is its connecting with the audiences he's addressing. Dean has raised more money in a non-election year than has ever been done before (for either party). He's accomplishing his goals, regardless of the rhetoric he uses.

That, class, is what we call _context_.



			
				sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> I do realize questioning Dean with hardcore leftists is like yelling "Allah is kosher" at an al-Qaeda training camp.



The very fact that you are addressing _me_ as a "hardcore leftist" (apparently for no other reason than I disagree with you on some issues) simply reaffirms my earlier suspicions that your political "evaluations" are rooted in ideology, not reason. Ironically enough, I've actually been chastised for being "conservative" by some of the people I've spoken with in the past.

Honestly, if you think I'm a "hardcore leftist" it comes as no surprise you think a media pundit like O'Reilly is a "moderate". You should just make it easier for everyone by making it clear that what you mean by "leftist" is "anyone that disagrees with me on anything".

Also, Dean is somewhat disliked by many "hardcore leftists" due to his centrist positions on government spending, gun control, environmentalism, abortion, and gay rights.



			
				sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> Vitriolic, antagonistic and aggressive, you got that right.  Isn't that typical of extremists?  "I hate republicans" and comparing Bush to Milosevich, among other things. They don't exactly have moderate written all over them.  So in what way can you pull "moderate" out of all that?



Personally, I prefer substance over surface. I do not confuse an individual's positions with the language and rhetoric he uses.  



			
				sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> No, he's attempt to distort reality while pretending to be objective. If he acknowledges it's just an unfounded rumor, why spread it, unless you WANT people to believe it. Why link it to "information" that by his own admission in all likelyhood has little to do with this allegation, which he admits is just a rumor. And you're defending this?



Personally, I don't make it a habit to psychoanalyze the hidden "motivations" and "intentions" of people I've never met. 'Of course he says that, but what he _really means_ is this!' I was unaware you were so intimately familiar with the unspoken contents of Dean's psyche.

Sorry, not my cup of tea --- especially since its devoid of proof of any sort. More ideology, I'm afraid.



			
				sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> It's like saying to a guy, "Hey, bob, I know this might be just a vicious rumor, and it's probably unfounded....but your wife is cheating on you." Give me a break. It's a cheap shot with a sad attempt at built in deniability. The fact that he ADMITS it's probably just rumor doesn't get him off the hook like he (and apparently you) think, it damns him even more for spreading what he ADMITS is nothing but rumor. I don't think you're making your point.



I know you don't. Re-read what I _actually_ wrote, and maybe it will become clearer.



			
				sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> Kind of like when leftists ignore all the good with America, and focus on the few bad points as examples of how corrupt and wrong America is?



Pretty much, yeah. 

I refer you to the point I made in another thread about the two traits extreme "rightists" and "leftists" have in common. I personally try and distance myself from both.



			
				sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> lol, the irony.


 
I fail to see the irony...

Unless, of course, you are referring to your earlier psychoanalysis of "liberalism" as being Jung's emotional-type and "conservatism" being Jung's thinking-type. An ironic explanation coming from an admitted "conservative" in that such a fanciful dichotomy has no basis in either psychology or in politics.



			
				sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> So what your saying is that many of his supporters are even nuttier than he is?



Actually, that's not what I'm saying at all. A crowd screaming at an emotionally-charged speech is hardly the definition of "nutty"...

Unless, of course, you are relying on ideological opportunism (one of the two traits ideological extremists share that I pointed out on another thread).



			
				sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> Hardly a strawman if they are his own words and actions. I think he's made his position very clear.



Yes, he has. 

Unfortunately, you never bothered to find out what that position is. Your comfortable with your media strawman, as it apparently reinforces a number of the ideological assumptions you have about "liberals" and the Democratic Party.

Hey, whatever works for you, man...

Laterz.


----------



## heretic888 (Aug 18, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

>



Logical Fallacy: Appeal To Ridicule


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Aug 19, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> You were blessed to have a teacher challenge your beliefs. This can be one of the most benificial experiences a student can have in education. The insufferable part may have come from your tendancy to repeat yourself when answered succinctly...


 Actually my teacher was blessed to have me challenging his beliefs, as it apparently had not occurred in quite some time.  And the insufferable part was his inability to answer the questions with intelligent answers at all, succinctly or otherwise. It just goes to show the false sense of infallibility created among many academicians.  They have a false world created around them where most people never dare question them.  It creates arrogance where none is really deserved. 



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Or maybe its a form of patriotism you haven't considered. Perhaps striving to build a better America when the one we have is so obviously "good enough" marks a higher level.


 Oh, I don't believe America is good enough, but I do believe America is the greatest nation on earth.  They are not the same.  In a perfect world, there is "good enough".  In an imperfect world, things are never good enough, just relatively better than most.  We have better than most.  The "Not good enough, so it must be bad" mindset is typical of idealists who don't really live in the real world anyway.  That's why most people don't take them seriously.  It's also why many of them segregate themselves in to false world's where they can have the illusion of infallability (See above).



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> btw - I refer again to Paul Wellstone's speech about America and its good points. Very few, if any, liberals are going to come out and say our country "is always wrong". That is just hyperbole.


 At least not the ones who have any hope of convincing mainstream America.  To actually voice the true leve of cynicism they feel would turn off their audience.  It's pure rhetoric designed to sound good in speech form.  It isn't necessarily reflective of how they truly feel, or what they truly say among those who agree with them.




			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> This is all just a matter of perspective and opinion. Also, alot of this can depend on geography. For instance, if you live in a city where 90% of the kids have asthma you may be very strongly influenced to make that your number one priority. However, if you live in a city that has clean air, this will be lower on the list. The thing about liberals is that they tend to be more empathetic and less judgemental about these things. We look at the "human cost" of certain problems and attempt to understand another's passion.


 Actually, more empathetic and less pragmatic would be the more appropriate response.  This is not a slight against empathy, however, empathy devoid of a reasonable understanding of cause and effect is meaningless.  I see many leftists who believe in empathy at all costs, not matter what the facts are.  They make their decisions based solely on which side makes them feel the most empathy, and I think that's dangerous.  



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> A lot of liberals could say the same thing of conservatives. The difference in opinion is okay. If you really care about an issue, someone else may not care so much about it. I, however, will not question your intelligence for being passionate about something.


 A lot of them do say the say things about conservatives, and worse.  Consider the "American Taliban" statements to describe conservative christians of "fascist" comments directed toward Bush.  Or "I hate Republicans and everything they stand for" comments by Dean.  

As for questioning someone's intelligence for being compassionate, that's a bit of an apples and oranges mix.  I think passion without reason is part of the problem.  Someone who displays incredible passion for an issue, but doesn't really have a clue on a rational level what's going on, is an idiot.  I see quite a bit of that going on, and I don't think it's wrong to point out how someone is unreasonable and wrong if they are, no matter how passionate they are.



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> There are very few, if any, punative liberals in my opinion. Even Dennis Kucinich, who I have met personally and who I have spoken at length with, does not hate america and does not hang America's faults around his neck. Its all a matter of perception. The "good enough" claim is my perception and although you think it is a strawman, you have fit the profile directly at least twice in this thread. Once in the very post that I am quoting. I will address it in a bit...


 Really, how about when liberal college professors claim America needs "A million Mogadishu's"?  Is that punitive liberalism?  Or those who claim America is nothing but an exploitive, racist, sexist, imperialistic, corperate nation?  Is that punitive liberalism?  

Take the issue of Slavery, for example, discussing it as a historical issue is fine, discussing it as an evil of America is asinine.  There is not one single person alive today who directly participated in, or was victimized by slavery.  To use the topic as a bludgeon, is nothing but punitive liberalism.



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Again, I must refer to Paul Wellstone's speech. Where is the cynicism?


 The cynicism was perfectly illustrated by Howard Dean.  He stated that he was willing to give Osama bin Laden the benefit of the doubt, despite the mountain of evidence linking him and al-Qaeda to 9/11, as well as recorded statements from bin Laden admitting to the act.  Then he turned around and took the most biased, unsubstantiated rumor (even by his own words) and spread it about President Bush.  Punitive Leftists would rather believe President Bush conspired to cause 9/11, or intentionally ignored evidence (this, despite absolutely not a shred of supporting evidence) than to believe that bin Laden attacked America.  The difference?  Bush is, in his (and their) mind, the real enemy.  If you can't see the cynicism, it may because your so surrounded by it, you can't see the forest through the trees.



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> The same could be said about some on the right. The extremes on both ends never have enough to complain about.


 Yeah, but you don't see me defending the fruit cakes on the right who claimed Clinton "Manufactured a war to cover up scandals", or that he was committing treason, blah, blah, blah.  Nor am I denying these fruitcakes even exists.  You are the one who is claiming that they don't exist on your side, and going to great links to refute any evidence of their existence.  One of us isn't living in reality.



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Like the ACLU? Like activist judges? Like Liberals? The blame game goes both ways.


 Yes, but you won't acknowledging even the fact that your side is in any way wrong, so how can the blame go both ways?



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> The "I Can" is still there. You only have to pay attention to the passion that drives a liberal.


 The passion to blame others for their problems.  That seems to be the driving passion of punitive liberals.  



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> btw - America may be "good enough" for you, but you aren't everybody. "good enough" steals your passion and kills your motivation. My perception comes from statements like this and subsequent rhetoric on how the status quo is also "good enough".


 Ah, but you see that's the problem.  You keep trying to frame my argument in to a strawman where i'm saying America is good enough, but it's a poor attempt on your part.  Not good enough isn't the issue.  "Don't destroy yourself because of the bad days, take pride in the good days and strive constantly to improve", that's a motto I live by.  It certainly isn't saying settle for good enough.  But the punitive liberal argument certainly isn't taking pride in America's good days, it seems to joy in to trying to destroy America because of the bad days, and I don't see them doing much to improve anything.

You see, I can try and improve America every day, and still take pride in America.  We've had alot of good days.  Unconditional love for my country does not mean i'm settling for "Good enough", it just means i'm not such a base coward as to feel that I can gain some sort of sophisticated status but constantly twisting every angle of America in to cynical terms.  There is a difference.  

I truly believe in the experiment that is America, the ideals we founded this country on are superior to any in history, and many nations have imitated us for it.  We fall short often, but no other nation has succeeded as much as us for as long.  Pointing that out doesn't mean i'm settling.  I don't have to be cynical to improve America.  Cynicism never made anything better anyway.



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Also, loving your country is not like loving your spouse.


 Of course, because you know as well as I do, love like you describe, would be abusive when directed toward a spouse.  I'd say that if I were you too.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Aug 19, 2005)

heretic888 said:
			
		

> That particular quotation was from a speech Dean made recently to an audience of young Democrats. The goal of this campaign of speeches is to raise money for his party (which, um, is kinda his job now, anyway).
> 
> You may dislike the language he is using in these speeches, but the truth is its connecting with the audiences he's addressing. Dean has raised more money in a non-election year than has ever been done before (for either party). He's accomplishing his goals, regardless of the rhetoric he uses.
> 
> That, class, is what we call _context_.


 Yes, thank you for that context.  I couldn't have my point better than you have.  It's ironic, though, that after claiming all this time, that this type of rhetoric wasn't mainstream, that you finally admit that things like "I hate Republicans, and everything they stand for" is the ideology of Dean's target audience.  I can't believe that you are so close to this topic that you actually think this was a point in your favor.  It merely proves the level of vitriole and hatred present among the radical left, the "Punitive left".  They hate those that disagree with them.  The fact that this type of language is allowing Dean to "connect" and raise "more money in a non-election year than has ever been done before" is truly telling.  I guess your statement that there aren't very many, if any, punitive liberals was a bit rash.




			
				heretic888 said:
			
		

> The very fact that you are addressing _me_ as a "hardcore leftist" (apparently for no other reason than I disagree with you on some issues) simply reaffirms my earlier suspicions that your political "evaluations" are rooted in ideology, not reason. Ironically enough, I've actually been chastised for being "conservative" by some of the people I've spoken with in the past.


 That statement was not directed toward you in particular (if the shoe fits, wear it, otherwise, let it pass by), it was meant as a general statement about the anger aroused by questioning one such as Dean in front of hardcore leftists.  

However, if you simply need affirmation that your suspicions about my political leanings, then use it as such.  It doesn't matter to me what you believe.  Of course since you really don't know what my ideology means, and I doubt you have any clue what I believe on specific issues, you're only making that assessment because i'm daring to disagree with you, which is apparently an unforgiveable crime punishable by being labelled an "idealogue".  Horrors.  



			
				heretic888 said:
			
		

> Honestly, if you think I'm a "hardcore leftist" it comes as no surprise you think a media pundit like O'Reilly is a "moderate". You should just make it easier for everyone by making it clear that what you mean by "leftist" is "anyone that disagrees with me on anything".


 I have yet to hear your criteria for determining who is a "moderate" and who is a right winger.  If O'Reilly is a right winger, what specific political views does he hold that illustrate those (other than you don't like his tone or his interview style).  It seems that you may be accusing me of something that you are guilty of as well.  It seems you have labels for anyone you disagree with, and you can't even tell me, what specifically, buys O'Reilly a status other than moderate.  Interesting.  



			
				heretic888 said:
			
		

> Also, Dean is somewhat disliked by many "hardcore leftists" due to his centrist positions on government spending, gun control, environmentalism, abortion, and gay rights.


 I said Dean was an extremist, not that there weren't factional disputes between him and other extremists.  Big difference there.  




			
				heretic888 said:
			
		

> Personally, I prefer substance over surface. I do not confuse an individual's positions with the language and rhetoric he uses.


 Well, since I don't know anyone who can read anothers minds, surface is all we get (surface being what they say, not what they mean).  So unless you have some other extra-sensory ability to determine what someone stands for, other than what they say and do, we're stuck with the surface.  In addition, it's sometimes unguarded moments and off the cuff responses that are more telling about a person, than thought out, edited, reasoned and proof-read responses.  




			
				heretic888 said:
			
		

> Personally, I don't make it a habit to psychoanalyze the hidden "motivations" and "intentions" of people I've never met. 'Of course he says that, but what he _really means_ is this!' I was unaware you were so intimately familiar with the unspoken contents of Dean's psyche.
> Sorry, not my cup of tea --- especially since its devoid of proof of any sort. More ideology, I'm afraid.


See above.  I never claimed to know what Dean "Really means", it actually appears to be you making that claim.  I have only his words, and what can logically be concluded by them, and since there is no other rational interpretation of Deans statement, what I concluded seems the most reasonable explaination.  The logical inference is easily made by reading what he says.  

I'm not the one claiming that I have other faculties to determine someone's "substance" other than what they say.  I just read the words, and follow the line of argument.  Thanks for projecting on to me, though.  

Again, my proof is Deans words themselves.  Short of evidence that he didn't say them, try another explaination of why Dean would purposely repeat what he even admits is unproven innuendo.  You can't, so that's why you merely label what I said "unspoken contents of Deans psyche", only problem is.....it WAS spoken.  



			
				heretic888 said:
			
		

> I know you don't. Re-read what I _actually_ wrote, and maybe it will become clearer.


  Oh, I know what you're trying to prove.  It's very clever (not clever enough to make up for a lack of substance, though). 




			
				heretic888 said:
			
		

> Pretty much, yeah.
> 
> I refer you to the point I made in another thread about the two traits extreme "rightists" and "leftists" have in common. I personally try and distance myself from both.


 You try to distance yourself from both, by denying that one of them even exists in the first place?



			
				heretic888 said:
			
		

> I fail to see the irony...


 That may be part of your problem.  



			
				heretic888 said:
			
		

> Unless, of course, you are referring to your earlier psychoanalysis of "liberalism" as being Jung's emotional-type and "conservatism" being Jung's thinking-type. An ironic explanation coming from an admitted "conservative" in that such a fanciful dichotomy has no basis in either psychology or in politics.


 When did I admit to being a conservative? Many conservatives are idealists, most of them the religious right, they are conservatives because that is the party that gives them the most religious deference.  

Those on the non-religious right are there for clearly pragmatic reasons.  The religious right has more in common with the left than either would admit, though the religious rights particular causes are often in conflict with leftists.  The irony is that it is religion that began the left, and fostered the environment of empathy often devoid of reason that is a halmark of radical leftist thought.  

In fact, Upnorth admitted above that empathy is a hallmark of all leftist political thought and ideology, though the more moderate leftists temper their political ideology with reason and pragmatism.  Are you now in disagreement with Upnorth about that very foundation of leftism, empathy?  

If you are, lets hear your argument for it, though i'm sure if there is an argument, it'll be of the anti-reductionist, holistic variety.  

Of course this discussion is a whole other discussion, and I believe Upnorth started a seperate thread for it.  If you want a debate on the psychology of political belief, post it in that thread.



			
				heretic888 said:
			
		

> Actually, that's not what I'm saying at all. A crowd screaming at an emotionally-charged speech is hardly the definition of "nutty"...


 You're the one who claimed that gave context to the whole thing.  Personally, I don't see how claiming everyone else was yelling too, really alters the context. In reality, I was actually being a bit ficitious.  Your response left it irresistable given the fact that you really didn't any context at all, merely spread the screaming to the entire audience.



			
				heretic888 said:
			
		

> Unless, of course, you are relying on ideological opportunism (one of the two traits ideological extremists share that I pointed out on another thread).


 Ah, a backhanded attempt to label me an ideological extremist.  Is the definition of ideological opportunism using something irrelavent or unproven for political gain?  Such us spreading an unsubstantiated rumor so as to give it more credibility because it came from your mouth?  Thanks for inadvertantly making another of my points.



			
				heretic888 said:
			
		

> Yes, he has.
> 
> Unfortunately, you never bothered to find out what that position is. Your comfortable with your media strawman, as it apparently reinforces a number of the ideological assumptions you have about "liberals" and the Democratic Party.


If I can't rely on what he says as his position, what am I going to rely on.  Further, I find it more telling to listen to someone's off the cuff responses, rather than their scripted ones.  It's the off the cuff comments that slipped past his handlers that seem to really telling.  

Of course, if telling everyone he hates Republicans, and every thing they stand for, and that gets more punitive liberals to send money, I guess it's worth it to him.  Whatever works.  

Cheers


----------



## michaeledward (Aug 22, 2005)

Why does the Guardian (UK Newspaper) Hate America ? 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1553969,00.html



			
				excerpt said:
			
		

> *Under US noses, brutal insurgents rule Sunni citadel*
> 
> [font=arial,helvetica,sans-serif]Guardian gains rare access to Iraqi town and finds it fully in control of 'mujahideen'[/font]
> 
> ...


[/font]


----------

