|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,952 Likes: 6
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
|
|
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,952 Likes: 6 |
Quote:
the G-man said:
I don't know too many conservatives who are insulted at being called "conservative." Therefore, it's intersting that liberals would be insulted at being called "liberals."
Why is that?
Are liberals self loathing? Or are do they believe that their views are out of the mainstream and that they can only get to power if they hide them?
Quote:
Matter-eater Man said:
There's another thread where I've mentioned several GOP candidates who are campaigning as "independents". I don't think their self loathing but more of a case of they know they can't win on their real record.
Actually, your thread was about them distancing themselves from Bush, and the republican party, not conservatism.
Also, WB makes, again, the good point that we (the Right Wing of the RKMBs) have actually cited democrats who have criticized the war in respectful, constructive ways, including Bill Clinton and Joe Biden.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 14,203
1 Millionth Customer 10000+ posts
|
|
1 Millionth Customer 10000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 14,203 |
Quote:
the G-man said:
I don't know too many conservatives who are insulted at being called "conservative." Therefore, it's intersting that liberals would be insulted at being called "liberals."
i never said he, or any other liberal, was insulted by it. i said bush used liberal as a slur. during the debates.
and hannity/coulter use it as a slur too. i've read coulter, o'reilly, franken, and all those huffington post blogs. the conservatives are more likely to attack someone for a belief or affiliation, whereas the liberals attack a specific person for specific acts.
Quote:
Are liberals self loathing? Or are do they believe that their views are out of the mainstream and that they can only get to power if they hide them?
no. some democratic senators are big pussies, but they stand by a lot of their views. all politicians try to get as many votes as possible. bush pandered to his base with the stem cell veto and will probably do some big moderate act to win some love for the republicans. the moving back and forth is politics, both sides do it.
however i don't think anyone would express political beliefs if they loathed them.
Bow ties are coool.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,469 Likes: 37
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
|
|
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,469 Likes: 37 |
Ohh, here we go... r3x29yz4a said:Wonder Boy said:
...demonstrate the same mindset as domestic U.S. Islamic organizations (i.e., enemies within our borders, whose first loyalty is to the enemies who wish to destroy us), in their eagerness to slice up America. As demonstrated in this map from an Islamic website : you're a racist, this much is obvious. also a bigot. Just because some terrorists are islamic (you like to ignore catholic and christian terrorists I notice) doesn't mean all islam is terrorism. As usual for you, when you can't make a case for something on the issue itself, you toss up a lot of smoke by accusing the opposition of being "racist" or whatever. Nice smear job. Using emotionally charged labels, rather than facts or logic, to misrepresent me, simply because you disagree with what I said. Congratulations, you've just (once again) demonstrated the factless and uncivil smear tactics of the Angry Left. Muslim is not a race, it is a belief system. So my distrust of muslims cannot be fairly described as racism. That's just an angry label you try to slap on me. It is a statistical fact (as several articles I previously posted to THIS topic detail) that Muslim cultures have an exceptionally high incidence of sectarian religious violence. It is a statistical fact that every frontier of the Muslim world (the Phillipines, Chechnya, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Sudan, Indonesia, China, India, etc) is a center of Islamic violence. Even in the United States, the most liberal form of Islam practiced in the world, it is estimated that 85% of the mosques in the U.S. teach Jihadist principles, directly from the Koran. In the wake of 9-11, a Washington Post article I posted showed that the number of Muslim students coming to the U.S. and Europe sharply declined in the year following 9-11. And that 30% to 50% of the populations in the Islamic world started boycotting U.S. businesses and products that year as well. Again, in pan-Islamic solidarity with the terrorists. It is a statistical fact, whether in the United States, in Canada, in Europe or elsewhere, that violence against non-Muslims, particularly against Jews, synagogues and Jewish graveyards, follows Muslim immigration wherever it goes in the world. And a sharp uptick accompanying Muslim immigration, of violence toward women as well. Is that "racist"? Or just a cold hard look at the facts? While I meet and interact with many peaceful Muslims, it can be argued that they are only peaceful because they are not strong adherents to Koranic teachings. Several I've talked to, while peaceful, expressed a vision that they will (in a war of ideas, rather than guns) convert the entire United States population into Muslims. They seemed oblivious to how this could be offensive to me, a Christian, living in a nation that is founded on the Bible and Christian principles. Violent? No. But threatening nonetheless, in their desire not to assimilate, but to abuse their welcome to this country, to assimilate us into their culture and beliefs. I find this offensive. And anti-American. And threatening. As I've detailed in several past posts, I've dated two Middle Eastern women, one from Morocco (a Sunni Muslim), another an Iranian (an athiest, who has rejected Islam and all religion, based on her experience fleeing Iran in 1979, when the Shah was overthrown, and her family left to escape being slaughtered. She described her nation as an intellectual paradise under the Shah, with great manifestations of education and the arts, that was destroyed by ignorant barbarians after the Islamic Revolution). If I were a "racist", would I have dated Middle Eastern women? Once again, r3x: Islam is not a race.It is a belief system. Like Soviet Communism. Like Nazism. And when the tenets of its belief system are fully indoctrinated and practiced, it is dangerous. r3x29yz4a said Dude, lets do the split as the map shows. See how the farmers get by without New York and California. You guys make this assumption that your tiny population spread over large bordered states means shit. So go for it. Once again, only you (bitter and divisive liberals, and the Muslims) are talking about carving up America. r3x29yz4a said
Go for the southern Klans and uneducated small towns where they still ban Tom Sawyer. Take your morals=oppression BS and leave us the fuck alone.
Now you'll probably take offense to that because you were being so nice with your anti-liberal bullshit. Now that's stereotyping. All Southerners are Klansmen? Give me a break. And it's not Tom Sawyer that schools ban, r3x. Have you even read Tom Sawyer? There's nothing offensive about it. It's a nostalgic look at childhood and boyish mischief, with a backdrop of the Mississippi region. I've only heard debate over banning of Huckleberry Finn, which is a more literary and political sequel to the first novel, in which Twain re-visits his boyhood with an adult disillusionment, which has Huck and Jim (a black slave) boat down the Mississippi, where they witness crowd violence, mistreatment of blacks, and other disturbing things. Discussion of banning the book (although I've never heard of it actually being banned, only debated) stems from the frequent use of the word "nigger", in its accurate portrayal of the period. Which, despite being a novel clearly critical of slavery and mistreatment of blacks, some high-minded school board thought it would be offensive to blacks, and that students and their parents were too stupid to discern the book's true intent to criticize slavery. (I actually think that despite your assumptions, r3x, it might actually have been --gasp, choke!-- liberals who pushed to have the book banned.) r3x29yz4a said W B said:
Interesting also that, compared to the U.S., Canada has a much larger Muslim population --arguably an out-of-control level of Muslim immigration-- that 60 Minutes in one of their news stories called "an Islamic aircraft carrier, within striking distance of the United States".
Domestic Muslims recognize the usefulness of complacent liberal majorities in the Blue States, and envision absorbing them into a like-minded Muslim-laden Canada. Has Canada had any terrorist attacks? again you are making a biggoted assumption that all muslims are terrorists. muslims are like christians or jews, people of faith who can be swayed but most of them aren't. you're a bigot and only a few lines of reasoning away from saying aborting black babies would lower the crime rate. You do realize that just a month or so ago a terror-cell was busted up in Canada, who even planned to behead the Canadian prime minister? Again, while ALL Muslims are not violent, I find it a threatening belief system, that gestates violence in every country where it is practiced, encouraging violence against governments and non-believers alike. And even against rival Muslim sects (Shia, Sunni, etc.) Again, that's not bigoted, that's based on the quantifiable information about Muslim cultures worldwide. r3x29yz4a said W B said:
Liberals in the U.S., with their contempt-filled divisive rhetoric, passively support the goals of those who wish to not just divide us politically, but envision splitting the nation territorially. Like your post above? Like every post you make? In fact most of the divisivness has come from conservatives. Bush attacked Kerry because he was "liberal," Coulter/Hannity/O'Reilly use the word liberal like it was a swear word. That's divisive. I think they just outline the flaws that are manifest in liberal rhetoric, and in liberal demonization of conservatives. r3x29yz4a said
And I don't think that you get that the Jesusland map is a joke, there's no real plan in place to seceed from the union, okay. A wise man once said: "Many a truth is said in jest..."Liberals consistently demonstrate such an intolerant contempt for those who don't believe what they believe. There was serious talk, both in 2000, and even more so in 2004, by liberals, that when Bush won, they wanted to leave the United States. Is that "joking" ? It was serious enough that the Canadian government made a statement that an exodus of liberals into Canada would not be permitted. And again, it's not patriotic of liberals to, rather than work to improve what they find wrong with the country, to just want to flee to somewhere else. That clearly states a first allegience to something other than the United States. r3x29yz4a said
And if questioning the actions of the president was destructive to the country then we never would have made it past John Adams. Read your history. Washington was the only truly popular president. Every one since has had detractors. A healthy debate is good for the country, where the best ideas are tested and utilized. But what you endorse, and manifest in your own venom-filled posts, is sweeping demonization of Republicans, and embracement of every defective policy and venomous smear campaign the Democrats utilize, to distract from the true facts and issues. And from a meaningful dialogue of the best ideas. While I lean Republican, I've stated many times my criticisms of Republican/conservative actions, and I feel this partisan debate is a distraction from the larger issues that threaten the country. While you never disagree with the liberal position, no matter how mean-spirited, divisive and venomous. I fail to see the point in demonizing Republicans, to exalt the superiority of Democrats who are just as immersed in corporate contributions, federal deficits, and budget pork spending.
- from Do Racists have lower IQ's...
Liberals who bemoan discrimination, intolerance, restraint of Constitutional freedoms, and promotion of hatred toward various abberant minorities, have absolutely no problem with discriminating against, being intolerant of, restricting Constitutional freedoms of, and directing hate-filled scapegoat rhetoric against conservatives.
EXACTLY what they accuse Republicans/conservatives of doing, is EXACTLY what liberals/Democrats do themselves, to those who oppose their beliefs.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 7,251
6000+ posts
|
|
6000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 7,251 |
Quote:
r3x29yz4a said
Go for the southern Klans and uneducated small towns where they still ban Tom Sawyer. Take your morals=oppression BS and leave us the fuck alone.
Now you'll probably take offense to that because you were being so nice with your anti-liberal bullshit.
w00t! We got us a new Rafact™.
First off the Book that's banned is Huck Finn not Tom Sawer and the places where it's been banned are all sensitve liberal types. Massachusetts, Conneticut and Washington DC to name a few. Huck fin is typically banned for the use of the word "nigger" claiming that the frequent use of the word classifies the book as racist. Even though the book is patently anti-racist.
This just goes to show that you are every bit the ignorant bigot you accuse others of being. You make assumptions about the south that are false because you know nothing about them. You hear about a classic work of literature and you assume that because you assume they're ignorant and fear having thier views challenged, when infact it turns out that it's your own side that demonstrated ignorance towards the works of Twain.
If i had neither the ability to speak or to type and I was asked to make the best case I could for conservitives and against liberals with my limited abilities I would simply point at Ray.
Putting the "fun" back in Fundamentalist Christian Dogma.
" I know God exists because WBAM told me so. " - theory9
JLA brand RACK points = 514k 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,894 Likes: 52
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
|
|
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,894 Likes: 52 |
Quote:
Wonder Boy said:
Quote:
Matter-eater Man said:
It's ironic Wonderboy when you use terms like spiteful & contempt-filled divisive rhetoric. This thread is all about some Republicans doing that for political gain.
On the contrary.
G-man and others have simply pointed out that the rhetoric of many liberal leaders and protestors is inherently anti-American. How many liberals don't simply voice a dissent from actions of their country, but instead demonstrate a deep contempt for the nation itself, and take the side of our enemies.
And parrot the political rhetoric of our enemies. From the Vietnam war forward, this is especially true.
That is not to say that Democrats and liberals are inherently traitors. When liberals/Democrats respectfully voice constructive criticism and offer a better alternative policy, they are contributing to the dialogue and helping to strenten their country.
But when they just whine, and blindly condemn their country, and sweepingly accuse their military and their President of war crimes and other forms of evil, liberals at that point are giving soundbytes (and aid and comfort, and inspiration) to our enemies.
We obviously dissagree. I do agree that constructive criticism is far better than mindless "Bush sucks!" type banter. What I think is even worse though are the ones who support a bad leader & enable him to make more messes. Even though I essentially feel that your contributing to hurting America with your support of Bush I don't have multiple "Conservatives hate (fill in the blank)" threads. I know you love this country despite your support for somebody who I think is bad for the country. Liberals love this country too Wonderboy.
Fair play!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 17,801
terrible podcaster 15000+ posts
|
|
terrible podcaster 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 17,801 |
This thread jumped the shark. 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833 Likes: 7
The conscience of the rkmbs! 15000+ posts
|
|
The conscience of the rkmbs! 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833 Likes: 7 |
Quote:
Captain Sammitch said:
I like talking down to people.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 14,203
1 Millionth Customer 10000+ posts
|
|
1 Millionth Customer 10000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 14,203 |
I really don't have the energy to go round and round with you tonight. I would only like to address this one point: Quote:
Wonder Boy said:
Several I've talked to, while peaceful, expressed a vision that they will (in a war of ideas, rather than guns) convert the entire United States population into Muslims. They seemed oblivious to how this could be offensive to me, a Christian, living in a nation that is founded on the Bible and Christian principles.
You do realize that Christianity has a long and bloody history of forced conversions, right? In fact the Christian Americas was founded on bloodshed and forcing "heathens" to convert.
Maybe the feeling you have of being attacked by outside beliefs trying to subvert yours is a paranoid sense of karma.
Me personally, I put about as much stock in a massive muslim conspiracy to overthrow christianity as i do in a jewish conspiracy to control the media and banking.
Yeah there are terrorists who are muslim, there's also the ira, and those guys in wyoming and montana with bunkers and guns, and you could argue the israelis do terrorist acts.
no religion of the big 3 is free of fringe evil elements.
Bow ties are coool.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833 Likes: 7
The conscience of the rkmbs! 15000+ posts
|
|
The conscience of the rkmbs! 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833 Likes: 7 |
Quote:
r3x29yz4a said:
You do realize that Christianity has a long and bloody history of forced conversions, right? In fact the Christian Americas was founded on bloodshed and forcing "heathens" to convert.
Maybe the feeling you have of being attacked by outside beliefs trying to subvert yours is a paranoid sense of karma.
There was no attrition in America. The Inquisitions were in Europe, not in the New World.
Quote:
Me personally, I put about as much stock in a massive muslim conspiracy to overthrow christianity as i do in a jewish conspiracy to control the media and banking.
But you do put a great deal of stock in a Christian conspiracy...
Quote:
Yeah there are terrorists who are muslim, there's also the ira, and those guys in wyoming and montana with bunkers and guns, and you could argue the israelis do terrorist acts.
no religion of the big 3 is free of fringe evil elements.
So for the record: You feel much more comfortable and secure while saying, "Your religion is bullshit!" to Muslims, within a community of Muslims, than you do to Christians?
I've never met a Christian who wanted to kill me because I said their denomination is bullshit. I have, however, met Muslims who threatened me with violence for saying such things.
For all of your complaining about America for being the world's Bible Belt, you really don't know or understand exactly how tolerant this land is of what you say.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,952 Likes: 6
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
|
|
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,952 Likes: 6 |
A Yale a cappella group was severely beaten after singing the national anthem in San Francisco on New Year's Eve How's this for an only-in-San Francisco story:
Members of the Baker's Dozen, the renowned, all-male a cappella singing group from Yale, are pummeled outside a New Year's Eve party after singing "The Star-Spangled Banner." It's not totally clear that the two things were connected and, in fact, the explanation for this could easy be that the attackers were just assholes. Certainly a general assholery is a more comforting explanation than the idea that young San Franciscans just viciously hate America. However, given the political bent of the vast majority of SF's population statistically its much, much, more likely than not that the attackers were liberal, not conservative.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,469 Likes: 37
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
|
|
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,469 Likes: 37 |
I wish that was an isolated case in California.
Another such incident is described in Pat Buchanan's book Death of the West (as he referenced from an August 28, 1999 issue of the Boston Globe) :
( Buchanan, Death of the West, page 128: )
...the demographic sea change [due to rapid out-of control immigration] especially in California, where a fourth of the people are foreign-born, and almost a third are latino, has spawned a new ethnic chauvanism.
When the U.S. soccer team played Mexico, in the Los Angeles Coliseum [in 1999], the "Star-Spangled Banner" was hooted and jeered, an American flag was torn down, and its few fans were showered with water bombs, beer bottles and garbage.
Among many larger incidents among Mexican Americans, Mexican legal immigrants, and Mexican illegals, acting and fomenting treason against the United States.
The common factor in these incidents is "multi-culturalism", that masks (and rationalizes, when it cannot mask) the toxic effect of liberalism, into a widespread California mindset that is unquestionably anti-American.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,952 Likes: 6
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
|
|
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,952 Likes: 6 |
New Trend On The Rise: The Patriotic TerroristQuote:
What is a patriotic terrorist?
It is an American who claims to love his or her country while enjoying the enemy's success against said country.
It is a person who gets deeply offended if you question their patriotism, while also appearing to share the same ideals of the more spirited folk who like to blow up innocent people.
Patriotic terrorists love America with so much intensity that it appears to the untrained eye that they hate it. But it's actually the most powerful form of "tough love" known.
Patriotic terrorists love America so much that they realize it needs an intervention - and real terror is the only way to enable that intervention.
Hey, I bet you've probably wondered why Al Qaeda hasn't struck in the US since 9/11. They don't have to. It has its own offshoot franchise here at work already. Patriotic Terrorists.
Think about how much both groups have in common:
-Both patriotic terrorists and Al Qaeda want the US to abandon Iraq, for that reveals Bush and America to be monstrous, laughable failures.
-For patriotic terrorists and real terrorists, car bombs going off ... proves that you can't offer democracy to troubled countries, as long as you've got terrorists standing in your way.
-Patriotic terrorists and the more committed terrorists both believe that infractions at Guantanamo Bay are far worse than anything a genocidal dictator could muster, and such horrors possess far more PR potential in denigrating the US than anything involving Ed Begley Jr.
-Both patriotic terrorists and Al Qaeda terrorists believe the US desires to control the Middle East, empower evil Israel and expand it's power base at the expense of innocent Arab lives. But both groups also realize that the US is too stupid to achieve these goals
Are you a patriotic terrorist?
Quote:
If you are intensely critical of the US, while tolerating homicidal enemies who condemn everything you previously claimed you are for - human rights, voting rights, gay rights, women's rights, porn - then you're a patriotic terrorist.
If you talk about tolerance constantly - and hilariously tolerate genocide and suicide bombers because those actions undermine your more intimate opposition, the American right - then you're a patriotic terrorist.
The only difference between a patriotic terrorist and a real one? Real terrorists are simply patriotic terrorists who've taken the extra step - choosing to actually die for their beliefs - rather than simply talking about them at Spago
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,952 Likes: 6
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
|
|
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,952 Likes: 6 |
Quote:
Matter-eater Man said:
Wanting to fix the mess Bush made is pro-American
This is a good example of what I was talking about above.
Some liberals claim to love America, but the only thing they ever do is criticize it. They seem to think that patriotism means ONLY criticism of Bush and/or the direction of the country in general.
Isn't is possible, once in a while, to actually say something positive about the place?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,894 Likes: 52
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
|
|
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,894 Likes: 52 |
Quote:
the G-man said:
Quote:
Matter-eater Man said:
Wanting to fix the mess Bush made is pro-American
This is a good example of what I was talking about above.
Some liberals claim to love America, but the only thing they ever do is criticize it. They seem to think that patriotism means ONLY criticism of Bush and/or the direction of the country in general.
Isn't is possible, once in a while, to actually say something positive about the place?
I love America G-man & proud to be one. I would also point out that criticising bad policy helps us get better ones. Our troops literally sat in Iraq for a number of years in to small of a number. While that was going on you & others didn't put any real pressure on the President but spent most of your time doing this type of stuff. Time to stop enabling bad policies IMHO.
Fair play!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,952 Likes: 6
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
|
|
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,952 Likes: 6 |
Quote:
the G-man said:
Isn't is possible, once in a while, to actually say something positive about the place?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,894 Likes: 52
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
|
|
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,894 Likes: 52 |
Why do you mix up bad policy with patriotism. When the next President is a Democrat will that make you the one who hates America? Actually right now there seems to be so little of it you do like beyond Bush & the RNC. Maybe it would be nice if you expressed your love for America beyond some limited partisan boundries?
Fair play!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 17,801
terrible podcaster 15000+ posts
|
|
terrible podcaster 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 17,801 |
Quote:
Matter-eater Man said:
Maybe it would be nice if you expressed your love for America beyond some limited partisan boundries?
I really don't need to do anything with that quote at all, do I? 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,894 Likes: 52
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
|
|
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,894 Likes: 52 |
Quote:
Captain Sammitch said:
Quote:
Matter-eater Man said:
Maybe it would be nice if you expressed your love for America beyond some limited partisan boundries?
I really don't need to do anything with that quote at all, do I?
Nuke it?
Fair play!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 17,801
terrible podcaster 15000+ posts
|
|
terrible podcaster 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 17,801 |
Ran out. 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,469 Likes: 37
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
|
|
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,469 Likes: 37 |
Quote:
Matter-eater Man said:
Quote:
Captain Sammitch said:
Quote:
Matter-eater Man said:
Maybe it would be nice if you expressed your love for America beyond some limited partisan boundries?
I really don't need to do anything with that quote at all, do I?
Nuke it?
If it weren't so obvious to everyone but you, M E M, Sammitch was pointing out how partisan your own comments are, and how funny it is that you'd criticize anyone else's partisanship, before making some effort to curb your own.
- from Do Racists have lower IQ's...
Liberals who bemoan discrimination, intolerance, restraint of Constitutional freedoms, and promotion of hatred toward various abberant minorities, have absolutely no problem with discriminating against, being intolerant of, restricting Constitutional freedoms of, and directing hate-filled scapegoat rhetoric against conservatives.
EXACTLY what they accuse Republicans/conservatives of doing, is EXACTLY what liberals/Democrats do themselves, to those who oppose their beliefs.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,952 Likes: 6
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
|
|
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,952 Likes: 6 |
The Progressive features an Independence Day essay by far-left historian Howard Zinn: - On this July 4, we would do well to renounce nationalism and all its symbols: its flags, its pledges of allegiance, its anthems, its insistence in song that God must single out America to be blessed.
Is not nationalism--that devotion to a flag, an anthem, a boundary so fierce it engenders mass murder--one of the great evils of our time, along with racism, along with religious hatred?
These ways of thinking--cultivated, nurtured, indoctrinated from childhood on--have been useful to those in power, and deadly for those out of power.
National spirit can be benign in a country that is small and lacking both in military power and a hunger for expansion (Switzerland, Norway, Costa Rica and many more). But in a nation like ours--huge, possessing thousands of weapons of mass destruction--what might have been harmless pride becomes an arrogant nationalism dangerous to others and to ourselves.
Didn't Zinn get the memo? Dissent is supposed to be "patriotic"
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 14,203
1 Millionth Customer 10000+ posts
|
|
1 Millionth Customer 10000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 14,203 |
America was not founded on patriotism. It was not founded on jingoism. It was founded on principles. Liberty, freedom of speech are not slogans for your bumper sticker while you wave the flag and say the president shouldn't be criticized in war time. The whole foundation of this country is ideas and ideals. Here are some more "terrorist" quotes that you would find hate America: "Those who would sacrifice freedom for security deserve neither"- Benjamin Franklin."If men are to be precluded from offering their sentiments on a matter which may involve the most serious and alarming consequences that can invite the consideration of mankind, reason is of no use to us; the freedom of speech may be taken away, and dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter."- George Washington the above is interesting, it directly contradicts the idea that debating Iraq and questioning Bush is bad. "If by a "Liberal" they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people — their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties — someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a "Liberal," then I'm proud to say I'm a "Liberal."- JFK "If this nation is to be wise as well as strong, if we are to achieve our destiny, then we need more new ideas for more wise men reading more good books in more public libraries. These libraries should be open to all — except the censor. We must know all the facts and hear all the alternatives and listen to all the criticisms. Let us welcome controversial books and controversial authors. For the Bill of Rights is the guardian of our security as well as our liberty."- JFK"Allow the President to invade a neighboring nation whenever he shall deem it necessary to repel an invasion, and you allow him to do so whenever he may choose to say he deems it necessary for such purpose, and you allow him to make war at pleasure. Study to see if you can fix any limit to his power in this respect, after having given him so much as you propose. If to-day he should choose to say he thinks it necessary to invade Canada to prevent the British from invading us, how could you stop him? You may say to him, — "I see no probability of the British invading us"; but he will say to you, "Be silent: I see it, if you don't." The provision of the Constitution giving the war making power to Congress was dictated, as I understand it, by the following reasons: Kings had always been involving and impoverishing their people in wars, pretending generally, if not always, that the good of the people was the object. This our convention understood to be the most oppressive of all kingly oppressions, and they resolved to so frame the Constitution that no one man should hold the power of bringing this oppression upon us. But your view destroys the whole matter, and places our President where kings have always stood."- Abraham Lincoln (I'm sure bin Laden would love that quote.  ) "History teaches that wars begin when governments believe the price of aggression is cheap."- Ronald Reagan"Government is not the solution to our problem. Government is the problem."- Ronald "Hating America" Reagan"Well, when the President does it, that means that it is not illegal."- Richard Nixon 
Bow ties are coool.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,469 Likes: 37
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
|
|
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,469 Likes: 37 |
Yeah, except you believe that level of scrutiny only applies to Republicans, no matter how false and trumped-up the charges.
And that holding Democrats (Bill Clinton, Hilary Clinton, Harry Reid, John Kerry, Nancy Pelosy, Richard Durbin, Howard Dean...) to the same standard is only "partisanship" and "right-wing conspiracy".
As fortune would have it, even a broken clock is right twice a day, and George W. Bush's presidency (in contrast to other Republican presidencies of recent decades) has been a showcase of errors and unused opportunities. But many of the same mistakes and abuses of office were ones you defended when it was Clinton in the white house, and not Bush.
But no matter how partisan, how vicious, and how unproven the allegations by Democrats about Republicans, or about the very principles and history of the nation itself, you're all too eager to beleive it.
- from Do Racists have lower IQ's...
Liberals who bemoan discrimination, intolerance, restraint of Constitutional freedoms, and promotion of hatred toward various abberant minorities, have absolutely no problem with discriminating against, being intolerant of, restricting Constitutional freedoms of, and directing hate-filled scapegoat rhetoric against conservatives.
EXACTLY what they accuse Republicans/conservatives of doing, is EXACTLY what liberals/Democrats do themselves, to those who oppose their beliefs.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 14,203
1 Millionth Customer 10000+ posts
|
|
1 Millionth Customer 10000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 14,203 |
Yeah, except you believe that level of scrutiny only applies to Republicans, no matter how false and trumped-up the charges.
And that holding Democrats (Bill Clinton, Hilary Clinton, Harry Reid, John Kerry, Nancy Pelosy, Richard Durbin, Howard Dean...) to the same standard is only "partisanship" and "right-wing conspiracy".
As fortune would have it, even a broken clock is right twice a day, and George W. Bush's presidency (in contrast to other Republican presidencies of recent decades) has been a showcase of errors and unused opportunities. But many of the same mistakes and abuses of office were ones you defended when it was Clinton in the white house, and not Bush.
But no matter how partisan, how vicious, and how unproven the allegations by Democrats about Republicans, or about the very principles and history of the nation itself, you're all too eager to beleive it.
You can't white wash history and pretend we're perfect. You know every other country thinks they're the greatest. And every empire in history has reached a certain level of prosperity and then fell apart due to corruption and hubris. I never had a problem with Clinton being investigated and scrutinized. But lying about oral sex? Was that really worth the millions in investigation? That was an orchestrated effort (by the very definition a conspiracy) to get Clinton. Coulter admitted to leaking information to drag out the Jones matter, Brock has come forward and admitted that he was part of it and took directives to get Clinton no matter what. These are more serious matters than sex or a civil lawsuit. Debating the war and criticizing a failing president is the best thing for this country. Stirring up debate helps get the right results, and admitting our faults and shortcomings allows us to improve. Just waving a flag and saying "America is great" only allows those faults and weaknesses to grow until we topple (see: Rome)
Bow ties are coool.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,952 Likes: 6
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
|
|
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,952 Likes: 6 |
RAY ADLER IS AN ANTI-AMERICAN SCUMBAG! I don't know if its true. However, as noted before, it would be nice if people like Ray would once and while say something positive about the country OTHER than how it gives them the right to bash it.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 14,203
1 Millionth Customer 10000+ posts
|
|
1 Millionth Customer 10000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 14,203 |
RAY ADLER IS AN ANTI-AMERICAN SCUMBAG! I don't know if its true. However, as noted before, it would be nice if people like Ray would once and while say something positive about the country OTHER than how it gives them the right to bash it. So you bypass my quotes from presidents and long speech about how America was founded on principles that are now being undercut by the jingoism and go right for calling me anti-american and saying i need to praise america more.
Bow ties are coool.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,469 Likes: 37
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
|
|
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,469 Likes: 37 |
Yeah, except you believe that level of scrutiny only applies to Republicans, no matter how false and trumped-up the charges.
And that holding Democrats (Bill Clinton, Hilary Clinton, Harry Reid, John Kerry, Nancy Pelosy, Richard Durbin, Howard Dean...) to the same standard is only "partisanship" and "right-wing conspiracy".
As fortune would have it, even a broken clock is right twice a day, and George W. Bush's presidency (in contrast to other Republican presidencies of recent decades) has been a showcase of errors and unused opportunities. But many of the same mistakes and abuses of office were ones you defended when it was Clinton in the white house, and not Bush.
But no matter how partisan, how vicious, and how unproven the allegations by Democrats about Republicans, or about the very principles and history of the nation itself, you're all too eager to beleive it.
You can't white wash history and pretend we're perfect. Did I say that? No, you just deliberately twisted reality, and scripted me to say that. From the other topic today: , from the Independence Day topic : When in fact, we have a history we can be proud of. I read an article a few years ago that said: "the United States has done more good and less evil than any government in the history of the world." Some mis-steps, certainly, but that should not be disproportionately over-emphasized, in an otherwise unique, great and noble history. Only cynics with prejudice and ulterior motives could see it otherwise.
and...
It seems to me that all you do is attack America. That you truly hate it, to the point that anything said about the good of this country makes you bristle with contempt.
I didn't say that this country is perfect. But I did say there's a lot more right than wrong.
With your attitude toward the United States and its citizens, I really think you belong in another country. Canada perhaps. Or Iran. Or France.
You know every other country thinks they're the greatest.
Not really. I had a girlfriend from Colombia who said for her and others in her country, their country was largely just a place where they lived, and that she never saw patriotism and proud display of the flag until she came to this country. I'll grant that for nations like France or Russia or China or many other nations with a longer history and cultural identity, that's probably true. But not always.
And every empire in history has reached a certain level of prosperity and then fell apart due to corruption and hubris.
Such as due to leftist disloyalty to national interests, wrong-headed students of liberalism who want to dissolve borders and melt our nation into some kind of international conglomerate. Corrupt liberal sympathies for muslim radicals who slaughter and behead innocent people, instead of sympathies for more legitimate interests of their own nation and its own higher standard of humanitarianism and justice, however occasionally flawed our nation is in a few abberant cases?
I never had a problem with Clinton being investigated and scrutinized. But lying about oral sex? Was that really worth the millions in investigation? That was an orchestrated effort (by the very definition a conspiracy) to get Clinton. Coulter admitted to leaking information to drag out the Jones matter, Brock has come forward and admitted that he was part of it and took directives to get Clinton no matter what.
Coulter exposed what she thought to be an outrage, that liberal/Democrat media was largely not reporting and sweeping under the rug. Both Clintons were involved in Whitewater, and in deliberately propping up a savings and loan to protect their own investment, causing a larger federal loss of roughly a billion dollars in taxpayer-funded bailout. The Clintons rented out the Lincoln bedroom to Chinese campaign donors, and then paid them off by allowing them to obtain missile technology, so the Chinese now have nuclear-tipped ICBM's that can reach the United States. The Clintons gave a billion a year in freebies to the North Koreans to bribe them into giving up nuclear development, and naively required no verification to assure the North Korean were complying, which gave the N. Koreans 10 years to freely develop nukes (which you now blame Bush for, and absolve Clinton of any responsibility in letting this happen). Clinton engaged in securing FBI files of key Republicans, to get the dirt on their private lives and try to intimidate them into silence (i.e., "Filegate"). And comparable to the Libby exoneration you have such contempt for, Clinton pardoned dozens of criminals right before he left office, a number of them campaign donors, or friends of campaign donors. Those are just the ones I can think of offhand. My point is, exactly what you criticize Bush and Republicans for, is exactly what you ignore, rationalize and gloss over, when it's liberals and Democrats doing the very same things or a damn close equivalent.
These are more serious matters than sex or a civil lawsuit.
no, that's just how you dismissively rationalize perjury and obstruction of justice. Not to mention selling out U.S. national security, as I detailed above. Debating the war and criticizing a failing president is the best thing for this country. Stirring up debate helps get the right results, and admitting our faults and shortcomings allows us to improve. Just waving a flag and saying "America is great" only allows those faults and weaknesses to grow until we topple (see: Rome) I'd say the decadence of the Left since 1965 is a closer parallel to Rome (undefended borders, rampant immigration, undermining belief in our nation and its institutions, allowing fragmentation along cultural/ethnic lines in the name of " multiculturalism", undermining the institutions of marriage and family, declining birth rates, abortion, and other assorted decadence) To your central point of debating the war, my problem is that you never voice anything but contempt for the United States. You rationalize muslim violence in alleged defense against American imperialism, but simultaneously paint the entire 150,000 soldiers in Iraq as guilty of the same behavior as 7 aberrant army guards at Abu Ghraib. There is a difference between constructive criticism of the United States, and your blind condemnation of everything our nation does in defense of its interests, and the interests of the free world. (You also ignore that I've voiced a small mountain of constructive criticism myself, in many posts here over the last 6 years).
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,469 Likes: 37
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
|
|
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,469 Likes: 37 |
RAY ADLER IS AN ANTI-AMERICAN SCUMBAG! I don't know if its true. However, as noted before, it would be nice if people like Ray would once and while say something positive about the country OTHER than how it gives them the right to bash it. So you bypass my quotes from presidents and long speech about how America was founded on principles that are now being undercut by the jingoism and go right for calling me anti-american and saying i need to praise america more. Yeah, like you quote Ronald Reagan because you believe in his principles. Or any of these guys, except maybe Kennedy. Give me a break. You contemptuously allege the racism and tyranny of the United States from throughout its history, and only argue its virtues when using it as a weapon in further trying to slander conservatives. You quoting Reagan. Now that's funny. We all know what an admirer you are of Reagan's.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 14,203
1 Millionth Customer 10000+ posts
|
|
1 Millionth Customer 10000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 14,203 |
Yeah, like you quote Ronald Reagan because you believe in his principles. Or any of these guys, except maybe Kennedy. Give me a break. You contemptuously allege the racism and tyranny of the United States from throughout its history, and only argue its virtues when using it as a weapon in further trying to slander conservatives. You quoting Reagan. Now that's funny. We all know what an admirer you are of Reagan's. Reagan was a dick, but the quote I used from him was a good one. The fact is that you do white wash history everytime you bitch about someone bringing up something negative (or when you say slaves didn't have it that bad or whatever the hell the exact racist crap was you spewed). America is not some holy country where god blessed everyone and had jesus hand deliver the bill of rights. America is a country built by very very smart men. Smart men who adapted ideas of democracy from other countries in history and adapted the bill of rights from England and put it all together to create a powerful foundation. America is from it's origins an intellectual place, founded on ideas. For the country to really last we must have total honesty with ourselves and our history. So yes our very great faults should be brought up, and they should be constantly mentioned until the shame of it makes us want to have a "never again" attitude. That is how countries improve and stay around, by refreshing themselves. I see your stance as dangerous. As I've said we're not the first big empire in history that thinks we're blessed by god and history shows that such an attitude leads to stagnation. See you love America no matter what and just want to heap nothing but praise upon it. I love America because it was founded on some excellent ideals and I get very very mad when we play the role of the bad guys, and I think that right now with what Bush is doing we need to remind ourselves of our sins in the past, remind ourselves that we are not perfect and that we have made some grave mistakes. Because I will never be happy with this country until we have leaders who are valued for their intellect and wisdom, and who make decisions based on facts and morals not based on hunches and their faith.
Bow ties are coool.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,469 Likes: 37
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
|
|
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,469 Likes: 37 |
You despise Reagan, but you consider this a "good quote".
You talk about the need for honest debate, but I find your argument to be the pinnacle of intellectual dishonesty. You despise Reagan, and then pretend to hold his quoted ideas in high regard in the same breath.
And in between, you characterize me as wanting "nothing but praise" for the United States (despite my repeated comments that it is a flawed nation, but whose merits still outweigh its flaws, and that those merits should be proportionately mentioned).
And you also toss in a little anti-Christian charicature and bigotry that doesn't reflect reality either. If our founding fathers were inspired by the Bible and Christian principles, that doesn't mean that we think every action our nation takes is blessed by God. It's far more a case of conducting our nation in a way that's worthy of being blessed by God, of earning that blessing, not that whatever we do is sanctioned by God.
Wow, what a display of intellect and honesty!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 14,203
1 Millionth Customer 10000+ posts
|
|
1 Millionth Customer 10000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 14,203 |
You despise Reagan, but you consider this a "good quote".
You talk about the need for honest debate, but I find your argument to be the pinnacle of intellectual dishonesty. You despise Reagan, and then pretend to hold his quoted ideas in high regard in the same breath.
A broken clock is right twice a day. Your problem is that if you don't like someone or oppose them outright then you dismiss everything they have to say immediately. Like if bin Laden said Bush was a bad President then you would say he was wrong just because bin Laden is a bad guy. And in between, you characterize me as wanting "nothing but praise" for the United States (despite my repeated comments that it is a flawed nation, but whose merits still outweigh its flaws, and should be proportionately mentioned). You know. I've never trusted Klingons. And I never will. I can't forgive them for the death of my boy. And you also toss in a little anti-Christian charicature and bigotry that doesn't reflect reality either. If our founding fathers were inspired by the Bible and Christian principles, that doesn't mean that we think every action our nation takes is blessed by God. It's far more a case of conducting our nation in a way that's worthy of being blessed by God, of earning that blessing, not that whatever we do is sanctioned by God.
Wow, what a display of intellect and honesty! Manifest Destiny. Adding "One Nation Under God." George W. Bush and his statements about Democracy being a gift from god.
Bow ties are coool.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,469 Likes: 37
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
|
|
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,469 Likes: 37 |
America is not some holy country where god blessed everyone and had jesus hand deliver the bill of rights. America is a country built by very very smart men. Smart men who adapted ideas of democracy from other countries in history and adapted the bill of rights from England and put it all together to create a powerful foundation.
And you also toss in a little anti-Christian charicature and bigotry that doesn't reflect reality either. If our founding fathers were inspired by the Bible and Christian principles, that doesn't mean that we think every action our nation takes is blessed by God. It's far more a case of conducting our nation in a way that's worthy of being blessed by God, of earning that blessing, not that whatever we do is sanctioned by God.
Wow, what a display of intellect and honesty!
Manifest Destiny. Adding "One Nation Under God." George W. Bush and his statements about Democracy being a gift from god. None of these examples prove your allegation that our nation is made up of men who beleive we are "some holy country where god blessed everyone and had jesus hand deliver the bill of rights". We are a nation based on Christian principles, not, as you allege, setting ourselves up as some holy instrument of righteousness to exact God's vengeance. The founding fathers were unquestionably Christian, and clearly intended the country to be based on Biblical principles, reverent of God, and accountable to God. And where the Bible and biblical principles were to be taught in our schools. But they clearly did not intend for us to be another theocracy, like they fled from in Europe, in search of religious freedom. - "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"
"Manifest destiny" is the belief, beginning in the 1840's proclaimed by journalist John L. O'Sullivan, that once the U.S. extended its borders West past the Mississippi River that it was the destiny of the United States to extend its territory all the way West to the Pacific. That we were the largest industrial power on the continent, and despite the claim on the land by Russia, Britain, Spain, Mexico, and the United States, it was the United States that fully had the resources to develop this largely unexplored and unpopulated territory. You somehow spin the notion of "manifest destiny" into yet another attack on Christians, that they are responsible for this belief. But please show me the Biblical verse where it instructs Christians to take the Western United States. Adding "one nation under God" to the pledge is equally irrelevant to your point, and much less significant. "Under God" had been unofficially said since the Pledge of Allegiance's creation (by a protestant minister) before it was finally officially added. And it was largely added just to contrast us with state-enforced atheism in communist nations, cerainly not as a Christian rallying banner to conquer the world. And Bush's references to God in political speeches are indistinguishable from similar references by other Presidents over many decades, if not centuries. You make it sound like Bush was acting militarily as part of some Christian holy war. But clearly, despite Bush's christian beliefs, these military actions are unmistakeably for secular geopolitical reasons, in an effort to contain decades of escalating violence and instability caused by Saddam Hussein and Al Qaida. So wrong again, despite your attempts to use it to demonize Christians.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 12,353
Award-Winning Author 10000+ posts
|
|
Award-Winning Author 10000+ posts
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 12,353 |
You somehow spin the notion of "manifest destiny" into yet another attack on Christians, that they are responsible for this belief. But please show me the Biblical verse where it instructs Christians to take the Western United States.
It's in Deutoronomy. I can't fault you for missing it. Few people can read through that long-ass part of the Bible....
Knutreturns said: Spoken like the true Greatest RDCW Champ!
All hail King Snarf!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,469 Likes: 37
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
|
|
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,469 Likes: 37 |
You somehow spin the notion of "manifest destiny" into yet another attack on Christians, that they are responsible for this belief. But please show me the Biblical verse where it instructs Christians to take the Western United States.
It's in Deutoronomy. I can't fault you for missing it. Few people can read through that long-ass part of the Bible....  Wow, how did I miss it, it was right there ! Right next to that verse about partial birth abortions, I'm sure.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 12
Praise Allah! few posts
|
|
Praise Allah! few posts
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 12 |
We believe that the biggest thieves in the world are Americans and the biggest terrorists on earth are the Americans.
Praise Allah!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,894 Likes: 52
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
|
|
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,894 Likes: 52 |
It's pretty pathetic that you have to create alts to attack me G-man. I say kabul Zick now but when it's a couple of months before the '08 election I'll be quoting & summarizing whatever video Bin Laden produces for the RNC, just like I did in '04! My apologies to everyone, I know this type of fighting is boring as shit but as long as G-man chooses to attack me personally I will keep responding.
Fair play!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,952 Likes: 6
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
|
|
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,952 Likes: 6 |
Al Franken summed it up in his Lying Liars book:"They (conservatives) don't get it. We love America just as much as they do. But in a different way. You see, they love America the way a four-year old loves her mommy. Liberals love America like grown-ups. To a four-year-old, everything Mommy does is wonderful and anyone who criticizes Mommy is bad. Grown-up love means actually understanding what you love, taking the good with the bad, and helping your loved one grow. Love takes attention and work and is the best thing in the world. That's why we liberals want America to do the right thing. We know America is the hope of the world, and we love it and want it to do well. We also want it to do good." Liberal writer Al Franken, meet liberal writer Richard Cohen: - [The] tendency to blame America for the moral shortcomings of others unfortunately permeates the left and the Democratic Party.
I got the first whiff of it after Sept. 11 when some people reacted to the terrorist attacks here by blaming U.S. policy -- in the Middle East specifically but around the world in general.
The same sort of reasoning -- if it can be called that -- surfaced before and during the war with Iraq. Although I supported the war, I could always understand some of the arguments against it. But I could not understand those who said the war was about oil or empire or reconstruction contracts and who seemed to think that Saddam Hussein was the lesser of two evils -- the United States being the greater, of course.
Below the surface of this reasoning seethes a perplexing animosity toward the United States -- not the people but the government and the economic system.
Some liberals claim to love America, but the only thing they ever do is criticize it. They seem to think that patriotism means ONLY criticism of Bush and/or the direction of the country in general.
Isn't is possible, once in a while, to actually say something positive about the place (other than that it gives them the right to bash it)?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 5,958
some RKMB'ers are Obsessed with Black People Hmmm? 5000+ posts
|
|
some RKMB'ers are Obsessed with Black People Hmmm? 5000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 5,958 |
That Franken quote ticked you off that much that to respond you have to ressurect your idioticly titled "Do liberals Hate America" thread rather than responding to my quote in the thread where it was placed, eh? Again the answer is a resounding NO. Despite how many times right wingers try to frame dissent of Bush policies as being "anti-American". and sorry, you can't put people who have 76% of the country AGREEING with them as "hating America". WE ARE AMERICA!!! As far as "bush hating", Sorry, that one doesn't fly anymore either. You are so 2004, with your bullying tactics. When most of the country dissaproves of Bush policies and doesn't even trust the guy when he makes speeches on things like the economy becuase he's completely discredited everywhere else, yelling "Bush hating" isn't really indicting anyone. It sort of tempts me into starting a "Do Cons have contempt and hate for the wishes of most American's" thread myself. 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,952 Likes: 6
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
|
|
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,952 Likes: 6 |
That Franken quote ticked you off that much that to respond you have to ressurect your idioticly titled "Do liberals Hate America" thread rather than responding to my quote in the thread where it was placed, eh? No. But it seemed like an appropo point to bring up here, where the thoughts behind it have been addressed more than once.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 17,801
terrible podcaster 15000+ posts
|
|
terrible podcaster 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 17,801 |
Apparently 76 percent of a very limited selection of Americans answering painfully loaded questions counts as 76 percent of Americans now. If that's the case then 76 percent of Americans can fuck right off.
|
|
|
|
|
