This is the common whine of the left. They think that freedom of speech means freedom from criticism. When a shit bag like Moore goes around europe insulting the people of his country with the worst language one can only assume he hates them.
Wait a second. You reckon the left isn't able to take criticism, but you describe Moore's criticism of the right and of the actions of the Bush administration as "a shit bag insulting the people of his country" with "hateful insults"?
Who was it that isn't able to take criticism again?
Nothing anti-America there Scott. Don't confuse anti-Americanism with well justified criticism of certain personnel within a US administration, who have demonstrated rank incompetence (and far worse). The bit about Americans' appalling geographical ignorance is rueful observation. It is embarassing in the extreme that 83% of American college age students were unable to locate Afghanistan on a map, and 25% couldn't even place the Pacific Ocean (!), the largest geographical feature of Earth!!!!. It is good to point out our faults, so we can do something about it and improve as a nation. How else do we advance? To remain in silence and acceptance is the anti-American stance.
Well as you mentioned, it is something to be touchy about. I never claimed that one side was exempt or perfect. I just said that questioning ones patriotism to me seems much less a hateful act than question how one treats entire groups of people and the planet. Claiming you might not love say, America as much as you someone else could be very hurtful because you have a deep sense of nationalism. But is that hate? Do you really consider that, even when placed in the most hateful context to be the same as someone claiming you hate all women, everyone who is brown (Bush was linked with the dragging of James Byrd), old people (Bush was shown pushing an old woman off a cliff in a DNC ad), etc. Here is a nice one calling Bush a torturer. You know just to make sure the facism is associated with an entirely new modern day angle.
Nick
Yep, the criticism of Bush can get pretty harsh.
But again, what I am talking about is the constant linking of the entirety of the American left with indiscriminate hatred.
Ya'll want to go after Kerry, Kennedy, Boxer, et al, by all means. We will continue to spiritedly disagree.
Denounce the left as naive slaves to big government and income redistribution if you must. Sure, call the democrats socialists and what not, no skin off my back. Clinton is the devil. Hillary is the anti-christ. Whatever.
But can't we please lay off the Democrats hate America stuff? It's just that it's so pointless, and so charged, and so false. When we are ostensibly waging a war, talk of treason and traitorousness seems to suggest a desire to see "liberals" charged and imprisoned-- I mean, that is the logical outcome of that kind of rhetoric.
Which really leaves "sexist" in the dust. I get that it's personally galling to you, but this is a much broader brush, and it is being used much more indiscriminately.
The idea that you can inprison someone for being critical of a government, a political figure therein, or their actions is usually associated with a police state.
What we did see was a trumpeting of the man and his policies all over the news media. A lot of us acknowledged the passing of a man-- a president-- and his death would have inevitably led to a discussion about his policies.
Nixon is another example. Should we remember him first for opening the door to China or for his White House scandals? White House scandals are a dime a dozen, but it seems that will be his legacy forever.
Americans ARE more ignorant of the rest of the world then any other western nation, both the 90% without passports and the 10% with them. Hell, your PRESIDENT couldn't name the leader of PAKISTAN mere weeks before election. Or is Bush atypically ignorant?
Refute THAT if you can.
And America has bombed more countries then any other since the last world war, and has brought down democracies in Chile and other places with massive loss of innocent life.
Refute THAT.
And you know what, that doesn't make me a hater of the US either, which has also (at times but not now) been a beacon of freedom.
Nyhan's not telling the whole story, and I will send him an email in the morning.
The three issues at play were cost, industry interests and the traditional conservative view that the EPA should not be involved in regulating these things. As USA Today reported , they had pressure tremendous pressure for water companies and local governments not to force system upgrades because many water supplies were in the 15-20 ppb range.
Here is how it really went down:
Quote:
USA TODAY
August 6, 2001, Monday, FINAL EDITION
SECTION: NEWS; Pg. 7A
LENGTH: 614 words
HEADLINE: Revisiting arsenic policy a mistake, EPA chief says
BYLINE: Traci Watson
DATELINE: WASHINGTON
BODY:
WASHINGTON -- Environmental Protection Agency head Christie Whitman says she made a strategic mistake in reconsidering a strict federal limit on arsenic levels in drinking water.
Her announcement in March that the EPA would take a second look at a new arsenic standard set by the Clinton administration was not bad policy, Whitman says, but it was naive politics.
"Politically, if I'd been smart, I would've never changed it. I never would've gone back. I would've let the courts decide," Whitman said in an interview. "We were going to be sued anyway by the Western states and a bunch of water companies, and I should've just left it there."
Whitman said she was unprepared for the fallout of her decision on the arsenic limit, which prompted outrage from environmental groups and jokes on late-night television.
Arsenic, which is thought to cause cancer, is found naturally in some kinds of rock and can leach into groundwater through erosion or mining. High arsenic concentrations are found mostly in the drinking water of Western cities, such as Albuquerque.
For decades, the U.S. limit on the chemical in drinking water stood at 50 parts per billion. In 1999, the National Academy of Sciences said that limit needed to be lowered as soon as possible. One of the last acts by the Clinton administration in January was to cut the arsenic limit to 10 parts per billion.
Mining groups, many water companies and some Western lawmakers protested immediately. They said that the cost of lowering the levels by filtration or by finding new water sources would be devastating and that the scientific rationale was unproven. Several months later, Whitman agreed to re-examine how low to set the limit.
Her decision came the same day the Bush administration said it also would suspend new limits on mining. A week earlier, the president had backed off a campaign pledge to cut global-warming emissions from power plants.
The string of events helped portray Bush as weak on public-health issues and the environment, political analysts said.
Analysts also said Whitman's arsenic decision played a prime role in giving the administration an image problem. "Some well-known poison obviously gets people's attention in a way that another chemical would not," Republican pollster Whit Ayres said.
Debbie Sease, legislative director of the Sierra Club, characterized Whitman's decision as "a terrible political mistake" that helped focus the public's attention on Bush's environmental policies. "Arsenic . . . is not complicated. It's just scary and bad," Sease said.
In response to the arsenic uproar, both the House and Senate approved measures calling for tougher arsenic limits. That makes it likely Congress will send Bush an arsenic-limiting provision, probably attached to a spending bill.
If that happens, Whitman said, she's not sure she'd advise a presidential veto because of the possible consequences of turning down a spending bill.
Whitman, who was governor of New Jersey before taking the helm at the EPA, said she's still unlikely to let the courts settle future policy decisions.
Americans ARE more ignorant of the rest of the world then any other western nation, both the 90% without passports and the 10% with them. Hell, your PRESIDENT couldn't name the leader of PAKISTAN mere weeks before election. Or is Bush atypically ignorant?
Refute THAT if you can.
That Americans are more ignorant? That's irrefutable because ignorance (especially the collective kind) is unmeasurable.
BUT there are a few factors at work here. Not only is the USA quite expansive geographically, it's only bordered by two other counries and therefore a bit isolated. If I wanted to visit another state, I'd have to drive at least 200 miles just to do so.
There's quite a bit of diversity in the US itself as well, so many Americans choose to expose themselves to domestic travel first. It's cheaper and more convenient...
I cannot, to save my life, name the governor of Montana. Does that make me ignorant?
Anyway here we are. NYT. And yea it is the Brooks article. Please refute it if you can.
With pleasure. How about this hateful piece of anti-americanism from Moore:
Quote:
"It's all part of the same ball of wax, right? The oil companies, Israel, Halliburton."
Oh wait, that seems perfectly reasonable and innocuous because I left out the totally biased intro to the quote:
Quote:
In Liverpool, he paused to contemplate the epicenters of evil in the modern world: "It's all part of the same ball of wax, right? The oil companies, Israel, Halliburton."
Look, Moore appears to suggesting that Israel is Evil!
What about right after 9-11 when Moore lamented that the terrorists attacked the wrong part of the country and should have killed more republicans? Kind of a hateful thing to say.
What about right after 9-11 when Moore lamented that the terrorists attacked the wrong part of the country and should have killed more republicans? Kind of a hateful thing to say.
the USA quite expansive geographically, it's only bordered by two other counries and therefore a bit isolated. If I wanted to visit another state, I'd have to drive at least 200 miles just to do so.
Imagine that the EU pushed it's federalisation up a notch and became the United States of Europe, or that in America the states' rights were strengthened to the point where you needed a passport to travel between them.
Got that pictured in your head?
Now is that really going to affect the ability of the citizens of these various countries to find Afghanistan or the Pacific Ocean on a map?
But again, what I am talking about is the constant linking of the entirety of the American left with indiscriminate hatred.
Ya'll want to go after Kerry, Kennedy, Boxer, et al, by all means. We will continue to spiritedly disagree.
Denounce the left as naive slaves to big government and income redistribution if you must. Sure, call the democrats socialists and what not, no skin off my back. Clinton is the devil. Hillary is the anti-christ. Whatever.
But can't we please lay off the Democrats hate America stuff? It's just that it's so pointless, and so charged, and so false. When we are ostensibly waging a war, talk of treason and traitorousness seems to suggest a desire to see "liberals" charged and imprisoned-- I mean, that is the logical outcome of that kind of rhetoric.
Which really leaves "sexist" in the dust. I get that it's personally galling to you, but this is a much broader brush, and it is being used much more indiscriminately.
Adda, I linked to some examples. Could you do me a favor and link to some examples so I can better understand the depth of what you are saying?
I find your comments to be twisted. There is no shortage of liberals and Democrats who truly "hate" George W. Bush, for example. There is no shortage of screaming vitrolic attacks on the President and his party. It was liberals who coined the term "hate radio" as I recall.
I generally don't consider liberals hateful. However, look around at the number of times conservatives are called racists, sexists, gay-haters, etc. There is little basis for these comparisons in today's world, yet they are made.
This in itself is hateful.
There has been a lot of debate about being unpatriotic. The Left claims that when it disagrees with the party in power, they are labeled as unpatriotic. This is nor true. I label one unpatriotic when he screams that the President betrayed the country during a time of war, or when he accuses him (on the Senate floor) of lying. That's unpatriotic.
Now is that really going to affect the ability of the citizens of these various countries to find Afghanistan or the Pacific Ocean on a map?
I wouldn't expect it to, but the baseline for this discussion was naming the leader of Pakistan. As for those surveys that find how XX percent of Americans can't identify the Pacific Ocean on a map or think Bolivia is the capital of Beefjerkistan, I really wonder who they're polling sometimes.
Maybe it's the people Bill Cosby is yelling at.
According to the National Geographic survey I think you're referring to 71% of Americans surveryed can identify the Pacific Ocean on a map. 60% for the French. 71% for Germans. 52% for Brits. 59% for Sweden.
But an extended localized version of the study also says 11% of Americans can't find the USA on a map. 49% can't find New York. 70% can't find New Jersey.
"Young people in Canada and Great Britain fared almost as poorly as those in the U.S."
I find your comments to be twisted. There is no shortage of liberals and Democrats who truly "hate" George W. Bush, for example. There is no shortage of screaming vitrolic attacks on the President and his party. It was liberals who coined the term "hate radio" as I recall.
I generally don't consider liberals hateful. However, look around at the number of times conservatives are called racists, sexists, gay-haters, etc. There is little basis for these comparisons in today's world, yet they are made.
This in itself is hateful.
There has been a lot of debate about being unpatriotic. The Left claims that when it disagrees with the party in power, they are labeled as unpatriotic. This is nor true. I label one unpatriotic when he screams that the President betrayed the country during a time of war, or when he accuses him (on the Senate floor) of lying. That's unpatriotic.
God amighty!
I start a thread talking about how the right has gotten carried away with branding the left as "hate filled" and "america hating" and conservatives start posting examples of "left wing hatefulness" and "America hatred".
It is a fact that the right has made a reflexive mantra out of the idea that liberals hate america and that they are filled with "irrational" hatred of Bush.
Now, let me say it again: that is the most transparently ideologically serving bullshit imaginable. It is a deliberate effort to delegitimize the rhetoric of the left by making it "insane" and "illegal".
I can't do anything about the punditry at large, but the point of the thread is that se don't have to do it here. Wild talk of America hating and irrational hatred is so pervasive on these boards that they amount to personal attacks.
Before anyone starts in again about liberal "whining", let me put it this way:
Anyone care to accuse me of hating my country or being filled with irrational hatred or supporting terrorism? Anyone care to accuse any other of our more liberal posters of same? Because this is clearly what is intended, but if the attacks were more direct it would get most of the conservatives on these boards banned. Or it should, who knows.
The point being that the right has already so normalized this talk that it is not being singled out for being the outrageous lie it is.
So what's it going to be?
Admit the obvious truth that no one here hates America etc., or outing the child molesting right?
I label one unpatriotic when he screams that the President betrayed the country during a time of war, or when he accuses him (on the Senate floor) of lying. That's unpatriotic.
If a President tells a lie on the Senate floor, is pointing it out unpatriotic?
May I please have some more arsenic in my water.... yeah, I know it sounds like a strawman, but in this instance the weaker argument that I appear to be making up to knock down happens to be the real argument. Claiming Bush wants to feed you mercury and give you a nice glass or arsenic to wash it down with is the reality proposed in the ads.
Can you honestly give me another motivation someone would ascribe to Bush for wanting to give children arsenic besides, oh hate?
Nick
Ah, it must be hate! Give me a link or something of what you're talking about. You supplied a link on the same subject, but from Gephardt-- not an ad (which your entire post talked about. loopy, i know)
Comments
Originally posted by Scott
This is the common whine of the left. They think that freedom of speech means freedom from criticism. When a shit bag like Moore goes around europe insulting the people of his country with the worst language one can only assume he hates them.
Wait a second. You reckon the left isn't able to take criticism, but you describe Moore's criticism of the right and of the actions of the Bush administration as "a shit bag insulting the people of his country" with "hateful insults"?
Who was it that isn't able to take criticism again?
Originally posted by Scott
This one's a little short on direct quotes but you get the gist.
Michael Moore at Home in 'Old Europe'
Nothing anti-America there Scott. Don't confuse anti-Americanism with well justified criticism of certain personnel within a US administration, who have demonstrated rank incompetence (and far worse). The bit about Americans' appalling geographical ignorance is rueful observation. It is embarassing in the extreme that 83% of American college age students were unable to locate Afghanistan on a map, and 25% couldn't even place the Pacific Ocean (!), the largest geographical feature of Earth!!!!. It is good to point out our faults, so we can do something about it and improve as a nation. How else do we advance? To remain in silence and acceptance is the anti-American stance.
Originally posted by trumptman
Well as you mentioned, it is something to be touchy about. I never claimed that one side was exempt or perfect. I just said that questioning ones patriotism to me seems much less a hateful act than question how one treats entire groups of people and the planet. Claiming you might not love say, America as much as you someone else could be very hurtful because you have a deep sense of nationalism. But is that hate? Do you really consider that, even when placed in the most hateful context to be the same as someone claiming you hate all women, everyone who is brown (Bush was linked with the dragging of James Byrd), old people (Bush was shown pushing an old woman off a cliff in a DNC ad), etc. Here is a nice one calling Bush a torturer. You know just to make sure the facism is associated with an entirely new modern day angle.
Nick
Yep, the criticism of Bush can get pretty harsh.
But again, what I am talking about is the constant linking of the entirety of the American left with indiscriminate hatred.
Ya'll want to go after Kerry, Kennedy, Boxer, et al, by all means. We will continue to spiritedly disagree.
Denounce the left as naive slaves to big government and income redistribution if you must. Sure, call the democrats socialists and what not, no skin off my back. Clinton is the devil. Hillary is the anti-christ. Whatever.
But can't we please lay off the Democrats hate America stuff? It's just that it's so pointless, and so charged, and so false. When we are ostensibly waging a war, talk of treason and traitorousness seems to suggest a desire to see "liberals" charged and imprisoned-- I mean, that is the logical outcome of that kind of rhetoric.
Which really leaves "sexist" in the dust. I get that it's personally galling to you, but this is a much broader brush, and it is being used much more indiscriminately.
Originally posted by ShawnJ
What we did see was a trumpeting of the man and his policies all over the news media. A lot of us acknowledged the passing of a man-- a president-- and his death would have inevitably led to a discussion about his policies.
Nixon is another example. Should we remember him first for opening the door to China or for his White House scandals? White House scandals are a dime a dozen, but it seems that will be his legacy forever.
Americans ARE more ignorant of the rest of the world then any other western nation, both the 90% without passports and the 10% with them. Hell, your PRESIDENT couldn't name the leader of PAKISTAN mere weeks before election. Or is Bush atypically ignorant?
Refute THAT if you can.
And America has bombed more countries then any other since the last world war, and has brought down democracies in Chile and other places with massive loss of innocent life.
Refute THAT.
And you know what, that doesn't make me a hater of the US either, which has also (at times but not now) been a beacon of freedom.
Originally posted by trumptman
Spinsanity
Nyhan's not telling the whole story, and I will send him an email in the morning.
The three issues at play were cost, industry interests and the traditional conservative view that the EPA should not be involved in regulating these things. As USA Today reported , they had pressure tremendous pressure for water companies and local governments not to force system upgrades because many water supplies were in the 15-20 ppb range.
Here is how it really went down:
USA TODAY
August 6, 2001, Monday, FINAL EDITION
SECTION: NEWS; Pg. 7A
LENGTH: 614 words
HEADLINE: Revisiting arsenic policy a mistake, EPA chief says
BYLINE: Traci Watson
DATELINE: WASHINGTON
BODY:
WASHINGTON -- Environmental Protection Agency head Christie Whitman says she made a strategic mistake in reconsidering a strict federal limit on arsenic levels in drinking water.
Her announcement in March that the EPA would take a second look at a new arsenic standard set by the Clinton administration was not bad policy, Whitman says, but it was naive politics.
"Politically, if I'd been smart, I would've never changed it. I never would've gone back. I would've let the courts decide," Whitman said in an interview. "We were going to be sued anyway by the Western states and a bunch of water companies, and I should've just left it there."
Whitman said she was unprepared for the fallout of her decision on the arsenic limit, which prompted outrage from environmental groups and jokes on late-night television.
Arsenic, which is thought to cause cancer, is found naturally in some kinds of rock and can leach into groundwater through erosion or mining. High arsenic concentrations are found mostly in the drinking water of Western cities, such as Albuquerque.
For decades, the U.S. limit on the chemical in drinking water stood at 50 parts per billion. In 1999, the National Academy of Sciences said that limit needed to be lowered as soon as possible. One of the last acts by the Clinton administration in January was to cut the arsenic limit to 10 parts per billion.
Mining groups, many water companies and some Western lawmakers protested immediately. They said that the cost of lowering the levels by filtration or by finding new water sources would be devastating and that the scientific rationale was unproven. Several months later, Whitman agreed to re-examine how low to set the limit.
Her decision came the same day the Bush administration said it also would suspend new limits on mining. A week earlier, the president had backed off a campaign pledge to cut global-warming emissions from power plants.
The string of events helped portray Bush as weak on public-health issues and the environment, political analysts said.
Analysts also said Whitman's arsenic decision played a prime role in giving the administration an image problem. "Some well-known poison obviously gets people's attention in a way that another chemical would not," Republican pollster Whit Ayres said.
Debbie Sease, legislative director of the Sierra Club, characterized Whitman's decision as "a terrible political mistake" that helped focus the public's attention on Bush's environmental policies. "Arsenic . . . is not complicated. It's just scary and bad," Sease said.
In response to the arsenic uproar, both the House and Senate approved measures calling for tougher arsenic limits. That makes it likely Congress will send Bush an arsenic-limiting provision, probably attached to a spending bill.
If that happens, Whitman said, she's not sure she'd advise a presidential veto because of the possible consequences of turning down a spending bill.
Whitman, who was governor of New Jersey before taking the helm at the EPA, said she's still unlikely to let the courts settle future policy decisions.
And on the other end, one of the major NRO articles on it argued for the third, essentially a lifting of regulations.
Bush/Whitman, but that's totally obvious even if you know nothing about it. After all, what do you think, they ordered the review to lower it? Sure.
Originally posted by Harald
Americans ARE more ignorant of the rest of the world then any other western nation, both the 90% without passports and the 10% with them. Hell, your PRESIDENT couldn't name the leader of PAKISTAN mere weeks before election. Or is Bush atypically ignorant?
Refute THAT if you can.
That Americans are more ignorant? That's irrefutable because ignorance (especially the collective kind) is unmeasurable.
BUT there are a few factors at work here. Not only is the USA quite expansive geographically, it's only bordered by two other counries and therefore a bit isolated. If I wanted to visit another state, I'd have to drive at least 200 miles just to do so.
There's quite a bit of diversity in the US itself as well, so many Americans choose to expose themselves to domestic travel first. It's cheaper and more convenient...
I cannot, to save my life, name the governor of Montana. Does that make me ignorant?
Originally posted by Scott
Anyway here we are. NYT. And yea it is the Brooks article. Please refute it if you can.
With pleasure. How about this hateful piece of anti-americanism from Moore:
"It's all part of the same ball of wax, right? The oil companies, Israel, Halliburton."
Oh wait, that seems perfectly reasonable and innocuous because I left out the totally biased intro to the quote:
In Liverpool, he paused to contemplate the epicenters of evil in the modern world: "It's all part of the same ball of wax, right? The oil companies, Israel, Halliburton."
Look, Moore appears to suggesting that Israel is Evil!
Great article.
Originally posted by Scott
What about right after 9-11 when Moore lamented that the terrorists attacked the wrong part of the country and should have killed more republicans? Kind of a hateful thing to say.
Yawn.
Link.
Originally posted by Eugene
the USA quite expansive geographically, it's only bordered by two other counries and therefore a bit isolated. If I wanted to visit another state, I'd have to drive at least 200 miles just to do so.
Imagine that the EU pushed it's federalisation up a notch and became the United States of Europe, or that in America the states' rights were strengthened to the point where you needed a passport to travel between them.
Got that pictured in your head?
Now is that really going to affect the ability of the citizens of these various countries to find Afghanistan or the Pacific Ocean on a map?
Originally posted by addabox
Yep, the criticism of Bush can get pretty harsh.
But again, what I am talking about is the constant linking of the entirety of the American left with indiscriminate hatred.
Ya'll want to go after Kerry, Kennedy, Boxer, et al, by all means. We will continue to spiritedly disagree.
Denounce the left as naive slaves to big government and income redistribution if you must. Sure, call the democrats socialists and what not, no skin off my back. Clinton is the devil. Hillary is the anti-christ. Whatever.
But can't we please lay off the Democrats hate America stuff? It's just that it's so pointless, and so charged, and so false. When we are ostensibly waging a war, talk of treason and traitorousness seems to suggest a desire to see "liberals" charged and imprisoned-- I mean, that is the logical outcome of that kind of rhetoric.
Which really leaves "sexist" in the dust. I get that it's personally galling to you, but this is a much broader brush, and it is being used much more indiscriminately.
Adda, I linked to some examples. Could you do me a favor and link to some examples so I can better understand the depth of what you are saying?
Nick
I find your comments to be twisted. There is no shortage of liberals and Democrats who truly "hate" George W. Bush, for example. There is no shortage of screaming vitrolic attacks on the President and his party. It was liberals who coined the term "hate radio" as I recall.
I generally don't consider liberals hateful. However, look around at the number of times conservatives are called racists, sexists, gay-haters, etc. There is little basis for these comparisons in today's world, yet they are made.
This in itself is hateful.
There has been a lot of debate about being unpatriotic. The Left claims that when it disagrees with the party in power, they are labeled as unpatriotic. This is nor true. I label one unpatriotic when he screams that the President betrayed the country during a time of war, or when he accuses him (on the Senate floor) of lying. That's unpatriotic.
Originally posted by stupider...likeafox
Now is that really going to affect the ability of the citizens of these various countries to find Afghanistan or the Pacific Ocean on a map?
I wouldn't expect it to, but the baseline for this discussion was naming the leader of Pakistan. As for those surveys that find how XX percent of Americans can't identify the Pacific Ocean on a map or think Bolivia is the capital of Beefjerkistan, I really wonder who they're polling sometimes.
Maybe it's the people Bill Cosby is yelling at.
According to the National Geographic survey I think you're referring to 71% of Americans surveryed can identify the Pacific Ocean on a map. 60% for the French. 71% for Germans. 52% for Brits. 59% for Sweden.
But an extended localized version of the study also says 11% of Americans can't find the USA on a map. 49% can't find New York. 70% can't find New Jersey.
"Young people in Canada and Great Britain fared almost as poorly as those in the U.S."
Maybe it's harder to teach geography in English!
Originally posted by SDW2001
Addabox:
I find your comments to be twisted. There is no shortage of liberals and Democrats who truly "hate" George W. Bush, for example. There is no shortage of screaming vitrolic attacks on the President and his party. It was liberals who coined the term "hate radio" as I recall.
I generally don't consider liberals hateful. However, look around at the number of times conservatives are called racists, sexists, gay-haters, etc. There is little basis for these comparisons in today's world, yet they are made.
This in itself is hateful.
There has been a lot of debate about being unpatriotic. The Left claims that when it disagrees with the party in power, they are labeled as unpatriotic. This is nor true. I label one unpatriotic when he screams that the President betrayed the country during a time of war, or when he accuses him (on the Senate floor) of lying. That's unpatriotic.
God amighty!
I start a thread talking about how the right has gotten carried away with branding the left as "hate filled" and "america hating" and conservatives start posting examples of "left wing hatefulness" and "America hatred".
It is a fact that the right has made a reflexive mantra out of the idea that liberals hate america and that they are filled with "irrational" hatred of Bush.
Now, let me say it again: that is the most transparently ideologically serving bullshit imaginable. It is a deliberate effort to delegitimize the rhetoric of the left by making it "insane" and "illegal".
I can't do anything about the punditry at large, but the point of the thread is that se don't have to do it here. Wild talk of America hating and irrational hatred is so pervasive on these boards that they amount to personal attacks.
Before anyone starts in again about liberal "whining", let me put it this way:
Anyone care to accuse me of hating my country or being filled with irrational hatred or supporting terrorism? Anyone care to accuse any other of our more liberal posters of same? Because this is clearly what is intended, but if the attacks were more direct it would get most of the conservatives on these boards banned. Or it should, who knows.
The point being that the right has already so normalized this talk that it is not being singled out for being the outrageous lie it is.
So what's it going to be?
Admit the obvious truth that no one here hates America etc., or outing the child molesting right?
If you are against the war or dislike Bush and you don't say much, you are anti-american
If you are against the war or dislike bush and you protest or write one too many articles, you are a terrorist
Originally posted by SDW2001
I label one unpatriotic when he screams that the President betrayed the country during a time of war, or when he accuses him (on the Senate floor) of lying. That's unpatriotic.
If a President tells a lie on the Senate floor, is pointing it out unpatriotic?
Why?
http://www.chronicallybiased.com/index.php?itemid=672
A novel about killing President Bush!
Originally posted by trumptman
Obviously you haven't seen the "Mercury, it's what's for dinner" and also the ads that claim Bush is ADDING arsenic to the water.
Spinsanity
May I please have some more arsenic in my water.... yeah, I know it sounds like a strawman, but in this instance the weaker argument that I appear to be making up to knock down happens to be the real argument. Claiming Bush wants to feed you mercury and give you a nice glass or arsenic to wash it down with is the reality proposed in the ads.
Can you honestly give me another motivation someone would ascribe to Bush for wanting to give children arsenic besides, oh hate?
Nick
Ah, it must be hate!