Hate America?

[Makalakumu]

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]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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).

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]

Logical Fallacy: Appeal To Ridicule

 

[sgtmac_46]

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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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).

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?

I fail to see the irony...

That may be part of your problem.

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.

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.

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.

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]

Why does the Guardian (UK Newspaper) Hate America ?

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

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]

Omer Mahdi in Haditha and Rory Carroll in Baghdad
Monday August 22, 2005
The Guardian


[font=Geneva,Arial,sans-serif]The executions are carried out at dawn on Haqlania bridge, the entrance to Haditha. A small crowd usually turns up to watch even though the killings are filmed and made available on DVD in the market the same afternoon.
[/font]
[font=Geneva,Arial,sans-serif]One of last week's victims was a young man in a black tracksuit. Like the others he was left on his belly by the blue iron railings at the bridge's southern end. His severed head rested on his back, facing Baghdad. Children cheered when they heard that the next day's spectacle would be a double bill: two decapitations. A man named Watban and his brother had been found guilty of spying.

[/font]