Which are there more of?

Posted:
in General Discussion edited January 2014
Two choices.

I saw a part of Hillary Clinton's rabble-rousing speech today and I was left with the question: Who are there more of, people who say "disagreeing with the president is unpatriotic" or people who say "disagreeing with the president is not unpatriotic."?



So, which is more prevalent?
«1

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 35
    scottscott Posts: 7,431member
    Of course theses days people's right to free speech is "taken away" when their stupid statements blow up in their face. I doubt anyone's been criticized for intelligent criticism of anything. But that's not what we get from the untouchable liberal elite of the country.
  • Reply 2 of 35
    groveratgroverat Posts: 10,872member
    Well of course everyone wants to be martyred without dying, but this is a cry I often hear.



    I'm just at a loss to find people who have actually said "disagreeing with the president is unpatriotic". I've honestly never heard it.
  • Reply 3 of 35
    moogsmoogs Posts: 4,296member
    I don't know which is more prevalent, but I know which one is more retarded.
  • Reply 4 of 35
    naderfannaderfan Posts: 156member
    I've actually heard a couple people (once in one of my classes) say that to be against the President is to be against the country and that anyone against the war should leave the country. I'm beginning to hear more people talking in defense of free speech, even when morons like Michael Moore screw it up for those who use it (free speech) responsibly. But I'll bet it also depends where you are.
  • Reply 5 of 35
    That's an interesting question.



    I think more people believe that disagreeing with the president is not unpatriotic. At the same time, I think the people who believe that disagreeing with the president is unpatriotic are more vocal.



    So I think the question becomes, "Prevalent where?"



    I voted for the first option though.



    \
  • Reply 6 of 35
    aquafireaquafire Posts: 2,758member
    Never trust an X President who sux when he blows & blows when he sux.
  • Reply 7 of 35
    lucaluca Posts: 3,833member
    I actually hear "Disagreeing with the president is not unpatriotic" more often, but I really notice it when it's the other way around.
  • Reply 8 of 35
    pfflampfflam Posts: 5,053member
    I think what you actually do see is people who are not just disagreeing but attacking the president's aideas and stance, and, often his person . . . and then there are the choruses of "that's unpatriotic"



    I heard them . . . in fact here there was a very famous visiting artist who made a very vague joke about the intelligence of leaders (ths was shortly after the war in Afghanistan started) and a very vocal man in the audience stood up and yelled at him for a very long time about it being unpatriotic in a time of war.



    There was also that right-wing pundit dude with the round thick rimmed glasses who practically physically attacked Susan Sontag as well as called her unpatriotic and anti-American simply for her wanting to ask the question of, and saying that there were, other reasons for hatred of America, other than 'they are jealous'



    and others exist too



    but really the question is pretty silly and hell . . . I had difficulty understanding exatly what you were asking anyway . . . . so I didn't answer
  • Reply 9 of 35
    fellowshipfellowship Posts: 5,038member
    There are idiots on both sides...



    That simple.



    Fellows
  • Reply 10 of 35
    groveratgroverat Posts: 10,872member
    My question is simply asking whether or not there are a lot more people crying wolf than there are wolves.



    I seem to hear that after anyone who bashes the president or something is even confronted.
  • Reply 11 of 35
    Quote:

    Originally posted by groverat

    My question is simply asking whether or not there are a lot more people crying wolf than there are wolves.





    Whoa...Whoa...WHOA.



    You have two groups of people:

    1) Those who view criticism of the president as unpatriotic

    2) Those who view criticism of the president as not unpatriotic



    If 2) is bigger than 1), does that necessarily imply that 2) "cries wolf?"



    Certainly not.



    I don't believe the number of people for or against something matters as much as you imply.



    What matters more, a small group of powerful, vocal people or a large group of less powerful, less vocal people?
  • Reply 12 of 35
    ...er, what happened to the Dixie Chicks, again?
  • Reply 13 of 35
    It's just that people who don't criticise your President don't get censured because... they haven't done anything.



    People that do, like the Dixie Chicks, evidently and very obviously are.



    Surely the fact that it happens AT ALL is the point, not the number of people that think it's OK or not?
  • Reply 14 of 35
    der kopfder kopf Posts: 2,275member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by FellowshipChurch iBook

    There are idiots on both sides...



    That simple.



    Fellows




    Exactly, some of them even fail to use verbs.
  • Reply 15 of 35
    brussellbrussell Posts: 9,812member
    Dumbest question ever.



    It's not unpatriotic to criticize the president. People who suggest it is are wrong in an absolute sense. So why compare people who make an outrageous claim to those who make a correct claim, as if one could balance out the other. :confused:



    That's like asking which is more prevalent: those who say "killing puppies is OK, or those who say it is not OK?" Of course most people will say it's not OK, because, well, it's not OK. Does the fact that lots of people say it's not OK absolve the bastards who say it is OK? Why make the comparison at all?



    The Republicans who make these arguments (and let's not kid ourselves, it's going to be Bush's primary campaign theme in 2004) won't explicitly come out and say it. They'll just imply it.



    (OK, I take that back. I found plenty who will come right out and say it.)

    Quote:

    Originally posted by groverat

    I'm just at a loss to find people who have actually said "disagreeing with the president is unpatriotic". I've honestly never heard it.



    Been putting your hands over your ears and saying "lalalalala I can't hear you" much?



    A few examples:



    Max Cleland, who lost 3 of his 4 limbs in Vietnam, was compared during the 2002 election to bin Laden and Saddam Hussein for minor disagreements with Bush over the Homeland Security bill.



    Conservatives are currently running ads against moderate Republicans Snowe and Voinovich, comparing them to the disloyal French, for wanting to scale Bush's 550 billion tax cut to 350 billion.



    Ann Coulter started out a column just after 9/11 and the Afghanistan operation that "Liberals are up to their old tricks again. Twenty years of treason hasn't slowed them down."



    When Daschle made critical comments about Bush and the War on Terror, the RNC said that Daschle's "divisive comments have the effect of giving aid and comfort to our enemies," and Republican representative Mark Foley issued a press release titled, uh, get this: "Foley Questions Daschle's Patriotism."



    When Daschle criticized Bush's use of the term "axis of evil," Limbaugh called him "Hanoi Tom" and said that he had "allied himself with the axis of evil."



    When Bush's homeland security plans were criticized, Ashcroft said "to those who scare peace-loving people with phantoms of lost liberty, my message is this: Your tactics only aid terrorists, for they erode our national unity and diminish our resolve."
  • Reply 16 of 35
    hassan i sabbahhassan i sabbah Posts: 3,987member
    double post
  • Reply 17 of 35
    hassan i sabbahhassan i sabbah Posts: 3,987member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by groverat

    Well of course everyone wants to be martyred without dying, but this is a cry I often hear.



    I'm just at a loss to find people who have actually said "disagreeing with the president is unpatriotic". I've honestly never heard it.




    Oh look.



    Quote:

    NEW YORK_?_

    "We decided we can't sit idly by while President Bush's agenda, specifically his continuing efforts on the war on terror, specifically Iraq ? while they ? Democrats, the left wing and Hollywood ? conduct a well-coordinated, well organized, well-financed effort to undo the president and really to destroy him, because that's their goal," David Bossie, president of Citizens United, told Foxnews.com.



    and:



    Quote:

    Weigel said students who want to oppose the anti-war ? what he calls an "anti-American" movement ? should invite speakers to campus and should take part in rallies to get the message out to the media that there is another corner of the debate.



    "Being there at an anti-war protest, it may seem silly," he said, "but that has the effect of not letting the media treat it like a burgeoning anti-war movement ?if there is no pro-America presence."





    I am a link.
  • Reply 18 of 35
    bungebunge Posts: 7,329member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by groverat

    My question is simply asking whether or not there are a lot more people crying wolf than there are wolves.



    Does what anyone actually physically says have any correlation to how the world functions? How does rhetoric correspond to action? Have you ever heard the term passive aggressive?



    Just curious.
  • Reply 19 of 35
    groveratgroverat Posts: 10,872member
    You know, it's really more simple than all this.



    I asked a very simple question, very easy to answer.



    Funny I missed those who have said that criticizing the president is unpatriotic, I don't often seek out the opinions of conservative hacks like Coulter and Limbaugh.



    There's something highly amusing about those two being brought up as evidence of oppression.



    Ashcroft is just scary.

    Weigel and Bossie... who the hell are they?



    The Dixie Chicks were NEVER censored.



    Of course, my favorite rocker when I was little (Bruce Springsteen) told me that being mean to the Dixie Chicks was "un-American" so I'd better be quiet.



    YOU THE MAN, BOSS!
  • Reply 20 of 35
    sammi josammi jo Posts: 4,634member
    Re. who are there more of: people who say that disagreeing with the Pres. is unpatriotic, or disagreeing with the Pres. is not unpatriotic: Has anyone taken a poll?



    Before the Iraq war, Americans were divided about 50:50 on Bush's plan to go to war (without a UN mandate). After the war started, the President's support rose to about 72%. People were saying that exact phrase: "it is unpatriotic not to support the President in times of war". I know thats no indication as to which there are more of...but a good 22% of Americans changed their tune when the fighting started. It's not exactly the same thing as "disagreeing with the President" but whatever.



    My own take on it: I feel that disagreeing with the president is not unpatriotic. Take that a step further and remove the double negative: "I feel that disagreeing with the President is patriotic". This one, specifically.
Sign In or Register to comment.