Hate America?

[Flatlander]

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]

Ditto Flatlander.

 

[sgtmac_46]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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]

<Duplicate Post>

 

[Makalakumu]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

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.

Cheers.

 

[Marginal]

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]

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?

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]

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]

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
Noam Chomsky
Michael Moore
Al Franken
Hillary Clinton
Bill Clinton
Ralph Nader

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]

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.

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

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]

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)"

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]

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.

"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.

"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."

"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]

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