Hate America?

[Marginal]

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]

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]

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]

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.

The punitive aspects of this doctrine were made especially plain in debates over the liberals' favored policies. If one asked whether it was really fair to impose employment quotas for women and minorities, one often heard the answer, "White men imposed quotas on us, and now we're going to do the same to them!" Was busing of school children really an effective means of improving educational opportunities for blacks? A parallel answer was often given: "Whites bused blacks to enforce segregation, and now they deserve to get a taste of their own medicine!" Do we really strengthen our own security by undercutting allied governments in the name of human rights, particularly when they are replaced by openly hostile regimes (as in Iran and Nicaragua)? "This"--the answer was--"is the price we have to pay for coddling dictators." And so it went. Whenever the arguments were pressed, one discovered a punitive motive behind most of their policies.

Naturally, it was somewhat difficult to advance the tenets of Punitive Liberalism in the public arena, and especially tricky to do so in electoral contests. The broader public, after all, is unlikely to take kindly to the idea that it needs to be punished for the sins of past generations. For this reason, Vice President Mondale, an experienced politician, felt that Jimmy Carter had made a serious mistake in calling the American people to task for their "malaise," since it is counter-productive for an elected politician to attack the voters. The Punitive Liberals thus chose instead to advance their causes in the regulatory bodies and in the federal courts--the latter being the perfect arena for leveling blame and exacting punishment. And they did so with considerable success.

Their success, however, was the undoing of the nation. The Punitive Liberals, because they sought to cultivate guilt in order to leverage policy, proved incapable of adopting practical measures to strengthen the economy or to advance American power in the world. Such goals, in any case, would have been contradictory to their deeper longings, which were to dispel American pride, and to shrink American ambitions at home and abroad. The Cold War, in particular, seemed to them a pointless struggle between two flawed empires, "two scorpions in a bottle." While they did not wish to see the Communists win, neither were they prepared to swallow the triumphalism that would accompany a victory by the West. A strong economy, meanwhile, would disproportionately reward the rich and the self-contented middle classes--the very groups that the Punitive Liberals wished to chastise.

And thus it was perhaps inevitable that the policies of the Punitive Liberals would give us the worst of all worlds--weakness and embarrassment abroad, inflation and unemployment at home, and a public that was beginning to lose hope in its future. By 1980, the nation had seen the results of its experiment with Punitive Liberalism, and was beginning to look for an alternative vision.

Fortunately for all of us, Ronald Reagan stepped into the void and supplied that vision. He understood, more than any other candidate of the time, that the pervasive negativism of the Democratic party was largely responsible for our national difficulties. And thus his pragmatic proposals for tax cuts, deregulation, and defense spending were accompanied with inspiring rhetoric about national pride and a hopeful future.

He stated the matter with abundant clarity in his acceptance speech before the Republican Convention in July 1980:


The major issue of this campaign is the direct political, personal and moral responsibility of the Democratic Party leadership--in the White House and in Congress--for this unprecedented calamity which has befallen us. They tell us that they have done the most that humanly could be done. They say that the United States has had its day in the sun; that our nation has passed its zenith. They expect you to tell your children that the American people no longer have the will to cope with their problems; that the future will be one of sacrifice and few opportunities.

"My fellow citizens," he continued, "I utterly reject that view. The American people, the most generous on earth, who created the highest standard of living, are not going to accept the notion that we can only make a better world for others by moving backwards ourselves."

Ronald Reagan during the campaign and then in office challenged the leaders who had encouraged the spirit of malaise and doubt. He exposed, confronted, and eventually defeated the bizarre and self-flagellating doctrine of Punitive Liberalism. For this, as for so many other things, he earned the eternal gratitude of the American people.

 

[Tgace]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[sgtmac_46]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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]

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]

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.

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

Was Chomski supposed to be a moderate?

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

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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?

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]

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.

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.

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...

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]

 

[sgtmac_46]

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.