Apparently, I am a traitor *shrugs*

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Adrian Baker
If all your postings were well reasoned like this one, and not so confrontational, perhaps more people would listen to what you have to say.

Couldn't agree more. Thats the most lucid post I've seen from you in here in a long, long time.

BTW, my NAM is in a shoebox somewhere.

And I've been here 10 months now and I finally know what you did in the military.

 

[Zero]

Well, let's get back on topic, ok?

Which, I guess, is this: Are statements of truth an act of treason, if they don't make Bush look good? What about saying that the invasion and occupation of Iraq isn't going smoothly; is that statement giving aid and comfort to the enemy, or is it just a reflection of the reality of the situation? What about Bush's disasterous tax cuts? Is bringing attention to the fact that new growth has little to do with tax cuts, lots to do with the business cycle, and has left the country with huge amounts of debt, is that the sign of an 'America-hater'?

While we can debate whether or not anything in that last paragraph is true(which we do, constantly) none of those things is against America, unless you consider Bush to be king, and all his policies to be ordained by God.

 

[Loren Booda]

Zero,

These arguments seem more reasoned. They reflect more a civil, even common consensus than your previous, emotionally charged statements.

The emperor has no clothes.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Loren Booda
Zero,

These arguments seem more reasoned. They reflect more a civil, even common consensus than your previous, emotionally charged statements.

The emperor has no clothes.

Actually, the preferred phrase is 'the clothing has no emperor'... the presidency is lacking a president. I also find it ironic that those same people, especially in the media, who blasted Clinton for made-up crimes, and for his personal life, consider complaints about Bush's policies to be an unwarranted attack on the presidency. It is something of an odd double standard, to say the least.

 

[Jeebus]

Originally posted by Zero
Actually, the preferred phrase is 'the clothing has no emperor'... the presidency is lacking a president. I also find it ironic that those same people, especially in the media, who blasted Clinton for made-up crimes, and for his personal life, consider complaints about Bush's policies to be an unwarranted attack on the presidency. It is something of an odd double standard, to say the least.

If the Republicans remain in power for decades to come, perhaps it's because of what the Reagan era Republicans have in common, other than a conservative ideology, which, polls tell us, the American majority does not support. Reagan, Bush, and Bush Jr. have positioned themselves as semi-articulate, anti-intellectual, non-thinkers who react to circumstances with instinct and platitudes. Texas State history professor James McWilliams sees this strain of American politics going back to Andrew Jackson, a man of "dubious literacy" who was elected by the people because he "would not let law get in the way of war" and "acted first and thought later" as he "justified the slaughtering of the Seminoles" on the basis of his emotions.


Bush is similar to Jackson as he "puts forth the image of a rugged individualist, a doer, a true frontiersman, a man who's never quoted a law in his life but has made laws to suit his base urges, a plowman rather than a professor. Who knows why we lap it up, but lap it up we do...The nation has no patience for long-winded justifications. In fact, it is suspicious of them. Until someone figures out that the house of cards the administration has built must be crumbled by a yeoman with a sledgehammer and not a smarty-pants with a book, King George's manifest destiny will be to reign as the favored son of King Andrew."

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Zero
- Are statements of truth an act of treason...?

-What about saying that the invasion and occupation of Iraq isn't going smoothly; is that statement giving aid and comfort to the enemy, or is it just a reflection of the reality of the situation?

-What about Bush's disasterous tax cuts?

-Is bringing attention to the fact that new growth has little to do with tax cuts, lots to do with the business cycle, and has left the country with huge amounts of debt, is that the sign of an 'America-hater'?

No.

-That depends on what exactly you say about it. Just plain saying that it isn't going smoothly is not giving aid or comfort to the enemy. And that's an opion.

-Opinion again. In general it isn't anti-american to have or state an opinion (as long as its well substantiated).

-No.

Zero, the fact that you are being so reasonable in this thread is the most ironic part of it: when you say reasonable things, there is nothing wrong with them. Its not the reasonable things you say that are objectionable/unpatriotic, its the unreasonable things you say that are.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by russ_watters
No.

-That depends on what exactly you say about it. Just plain saying that it isn't going smoothly is not giving aid or comfort to the enemy. And that's an opion.

-Opinion again. In general it isn't anti-american to have or state an opinion (as long as its well substantiated).

-No.

Zero, the fact that you are being so reasonable in this thread is the most ironic part of it: when you say reasonable things, there is nothing wrong with them. Its not the reasonable things you say that are objectionable/unpatriotic, its the unreasonable things you say that are.

Who gets to decide what is unreasonable, you? John Ashcroft? I don't think much of what I have said is unreasonable in the least...even the idea of paving over Israel has its benefits!

 

[Adrian Baker]

Back onto Topic then...


Someone who believes that everything 'Bush' or the Republicans do is inherently 'evil' or 'bad' is a misguided soul, who can't see the world around them without distorting everything to suit their world view.
It is a political blindness that suits people who like to delude themselves that their is a simple answer to all the world's problems.

It is not treasonous, but is rather stupid.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Adrian Baker
Back onto Topic then...


Someone who believes that everything 'Bush' or the Republicans do is inherently 'evil' or 'bad' is a misguided soul, who can't see the world around them without distorting everything to suit their world view.
It is a political blindness that suits people who like to delude themselves that their is a simple answer to all the world's problems.

It is not treasonous, but is rather stupid.

On the other hand...if dozens of Nobel Prize-winning economists say Bush's economic plan is bad news,; if the majority of scientific research disagrees with Bush's policies on health and the environment; if the majority of experts in every field disagree with nearly every single policy of this White House, wouldn't you say that a reasonable person should side with the experts, and not with the slacker from Texas?

Find me something good that Bush has done, and I'll show you the fine print that proves that it actually does the opposite of what he claims it will. Bush is doing such a bad job that even other Republicans are starting to notice.

 

[Andy]

"Captain America's been torn apart now he's a court jester with a broken heart"

That was written back in 1987 is it still relevant? lol.

Oh and I agree with zero, I think Israel would look quite good paved over.

 

[Adrian Baker]

Originally posted by Zero

Find me something good that Bush has done, and I'll show you the fine print that proves that it actually does the opposite of what he claims it will. Bush is doing such a bad job that even other Republicans are starting to notice.

This seems like the kind of argument one has with Religous Creationists. Absolutely pointless. Try reading my last posting again.

But, I will answer...as I like a challenge.
Steel Tariffs. Bush introduced them and now he has got rid of them. So, I suppose you argue that he was wrong to introduce them, and also wrong to scrap them do you?

Perhaps he should just go and screw a few young female interns to make the liberal lefties like him more? Or is he wrong for NOT doing this too?

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Adrian Baker
This seems like the kind of argument one has with Religous Creationists. Absolutely pointless. Try reading my last posting again.

But, I will answer...as I like a challenge.
Steel Tariffs. Bush introduced them and now he has got rid of them. So, I suppose you argue that he was wrong to introduce them, and also wrong to scrap them do you?

Perhaps he should just go and screw a few young female interns to make the liberal lefties like him more? Or is he wrong for NOT doing this too?

Now you are just being silly. Steel tariffs were apparently illegal, and were going to cost America billions in counter-tariffs. You don't get points for undoing an illegal mistake under threat of punishment.

Anyways, all of this is besies the point. The point is, I shouldn't be accused of treason for being progressive, or for stating the facts as I, and many others, see them.

 

[Nereid]

fear? maybe even terror??

Originally posted by Zero
Well, let's get back on topic, ok?

Which, I guess, is this: Are statements of truth an act of treason, if they don't make Bush look good? What about saying that the invasion and occupation of Iraq isn't going smoothly; is that statement giving aid and comfort to the enemy, or is it just a reflection of the reality of the situation? What about Bush's disasterous tax cuts? Is bringing attention to the fact that new growth has little to do with tax cuts, lots to do with the business cycle, and has left the country with huge amounts of debt, is that the sign of an 'America-hater'?

While we can debate whether or not anything in that last paragraph is true(which we do, constantly) none of those things is against America, unless you consider Bush to be king, and all his policies to be ordained by God.

On the one hand, this is, as several have already said, a more unemotional statement. It's also pretty unexceptional, and hard for any American to disagree with.

On the other hand, Zero, I thought the point of your original post had more to do with fear. Weren't you more concerned with the climate of fear which is growing in the US (if I understand stuff I read in PF and elsewhere). Certainly the *right* to say stuff still exists; but folk are becoming more fearful of the consequences to themselves of exercising those rights. And that fear stems from the actions of Ridge, Ashcroft, and their boss. This is the way I interpreted your earlier comments.

I've a question for long-time residents and citizens of the US: to what extent do you feel there is an increasing polarisation in politics? On balance, would you say that the current administration is being more divisive than inclusive/consensual?

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Nereid
On the one hand, this is, as several have already said, a more unemotional statement. It's also pretty unexceptional, and hard for any American to disagree with.

On the other hand, Zero, I thought the point of your original post had more to do with fear. Weren't you more concerned with the climate of fear which is growing in the US (if I understand stuff I read in PF and elsewhere). Certainly the *right* to say stuff still exists; but folk are becoming more fearful of the consequences to themselves of exercising those rights. And that fear stems from the actions of Ridge, Ashcroft, and their boss. This is the way I interpreted your earlier comments.

Oh, absolutely there is a feeling amongst many in this country that this administration is trying to stifle debate, and intimidate politicians and pundits that disagree with the radical right-wing agenda that Bush is cramming down our throats. For instance, any politician who disagrees with any part of Bush's agenda, even Republican moderates, is bludgeoned until they get into line, or accused of being anti-American.

I've a question for long-time residents and citizens of the US: to what extent do you feel there is an increasing polarisation in politics? On balance, would you say that the current administration is being more divisive than inclusive/consensual?

Bush is divisive, no question about it. Daily reports show that Democrats in Congress are being shut out of the process of lawmaking. The Republican party has gotten confused about how American government is supposed to work. They somehow think that because they hold a majority, the government doesn't have to represent the half of Americans who don't hold their views. Remember, Gore won the popular vote in 2000, so we know about 50%(+/-) don't completely support the Republican agenda, yet BushCo. pretends that they have a mandate from the people to enact damaging policies that will take decades to fix.

 

[Adrian Baker]

Originally posted by Zero
Now you are just being silly. Steel tariffs were apparently illegal, and were going to cost America billions in counter-tariffs. You don't get points for undoing an illegal mistake under threat of punishment.

Anyways, all of this is besies the point. The point is, I shouldn't be accused of treason for being progressive, or for stating the facts as I, and many others, see them.

Me? Being silly? Yes I was...I totally agree with you actually...

Your posting on free speech is important though and something that I totally support. It is not just a 'problem' for your Democrat leaning people though... For example if I were an extreme right wing racist (I'm not by the way) it would be illegal here in the UK to discuss my views with others (it is called inciting racial hatred).

A Priest over here aired his views last month about Homosexuality. He said that he "believed most homosexuals could be cured with therapy". Now many would not agree with him and some would, fair enough, but he is a Priest and should be allowed to air his views.

But what happened is someone complained to the police and they investigated his 'crime' and put forward a file to the Crown Prosecution Service to prosecute him! Fortunately common sense prevailed (after an outcry in the press) and he was 'let off with a warning'. This is surely madness?

It gets worse... A prison Officer was sacked last week (ie he lost his job) for the offence of replying "that's because there is a picture of Bin Laden down there" when asked why he threw his keys a little hard down a key chute. The reason given was that "there were some Asian people near by who may have overheard him". This country is going bloody mad.

Free Speech seems nowadays to be the freedom to speak out for what the 'Politically Correct' believe. Other views are seen as 'divisive' and 'need to be curtailed' Now that is madness!

We are on the same side Zero!

 

[selfAdjoint]

This is the way I size it up too. Most of the current polarization is due to the bullying tactics that, along with constant lying, are the characteristics of the Bush administration.

But there is a long term polarization too, that they are exploiting but did not create. Political scientists point out that the population is about 50-50 split on many issues. The war is one, of course, a whole generation was radicalized by 9/11; the point is the radicalization went two ways, right and left, and currently the right holds the upper hand.

But social issues are the underlying polarizer. Abortion, guns, crime in the cities, religious expression in public venues, and now gay marriage. For a long time the left-liberals had their way; they made abortion legal, passed the Brady bill and kept the Bible out of the public schools. But every advance of the left-liberal agenda was matched by rising indignation and fury by the small town and rural populations. Their Faith and their cherished customs were being trampled on, and they couldn't deal emotionally with the social change. So they united and pushed hard. They were never numerous enough to control the national government, but by allying with the self-interested business bloc they attained 50% parity, leading to the present situation.

I don't see a good outcome out of all this. The agenda of each bloc actually _hurts_ the people in the other bloc. It can't go on.

 

[kat]

Originally posted by Zero
Oh, absolutely there is a feeling amongst many in this country that this administration is trying to stifle debate, and intimidate politicians and pundits that disagree with the radical right-wing agenda that Bush is cramming down our throats. For instance, any politician who disagrees with any part of Bush's agenda, even Republican moderates, is bludgeoned until they get into line, or accused of being anti-American.

And on the other side of the spectrum is the feeling amongst many in this country that the LLL has become stark raving mad and equal in stifling debate by dismissing anyone who so much as corrects them on their statements, presuming immediately that if your not agreeing with them your part of the oppressive right (as opposed to the equally oppressive left), to the point of (believe it or not) educated, successful and seemingly mature adults...who in all other respects would seem calm and rational, quite literally frothing at the mouth and shooting spittle across the preciously small space (that hopefully is granting a bit of physical safety) that divides yourself and they.

Bush is divisive, no question about it. Daily reports show that Democrats in Congress are being shut out of the process of lawmaking. The Republican party has gotten confused about how American government is supposed to work. They somehow think that because they hold a majority, the government doesn't have to represent the half of Americans who don't hold their views. Remember, Gore won the popular vote in 2000, so we know about 50%(+/-) don't completely support the Republican agenda, yet BushCo. pretends that they have a mandate from the people to enact damaging policies that will take decades to fix.

Two thoughts here, it seems to me that whenever a republican becomes president, and whenever a republican majority exists there becomes an air of division..my above observations in mind..I have to wonder if it can rightfully all be blamed on Bush. I believe the presently rabid left has quite a bit to be blamed for on this front as well. If your on the "left" and you cannot accept that you might want to look in the mirror and realize you are probably one of those I'm speaking of.
Secondly, it's really hard to say that we know about 50%(+/-) don't or do support any agenda when ONLY 50%(+/-) let us know what they are thinking by taking advantage of their very precious right to vote!

 

[Loren Booda]

With which would one rather share part of our government - the Neonazis, Skinheads, White Arians, and Ku Klux Klan or the American Communist Party, Earth Liberation Front, the Weathermen, and Black Panthers?

 

[Zero]

kat, you'd have a point, if there were a powerful left wing in this country...which there is not. There is the centrist Democratic party, the left-wing Green Party, and the rabid right wing. Howard Dean, for instance, is a pragmatic centrist, not a liberal. Clinton was an avowed and actual centrist. The whole 'liberal' thing is a lie created by the right wing.

 

[kat]

Well...Zero...if you getting hung up on the LLL then just slip in Democrat or Democratic Activist, whatever lable you want to put on them..but they're vocal, rabid, and divisive.

As for the left moving to center fiction/fact(?) sometime, in another thread, perhaps..I'd like to see comments/input from those knowledgeable on the subject as to why, when ideology is measured by applying a simple spatial voting model to the roll call
voting data this study found that

The regional differences within the Democratic Party have almost completely disappeared and Democrats as a whole have become more liberal. In contrast, Republicans have become more conservative since the 1980s. The combination of the Democrats becoming more liberal and the Republicans more conservative has resulted in a trend towards ideological polarization within both chambers.

http://voteview.uh.edu/chminds.pdf

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by kat
Well...Zero...if you getting hung up on the LLL then just slip in Democrat or Democratic Activist, whatever lable you want to put on them..but they're vocal, rabid, and divisive.

As for the left moving to center fiction/fact(?) sometime, in another thread, perhaps..I'd like to see comments/input from those knowledgeable on the subject as to why, when ideology is measured by applying a simple spatial voting model to the roll call
voting data this study found that http://voteview.uh.edu/chminds.pdf

That's pretty well nonsense, no offense...the Dems, especially from within the DNC, have specifically moved towards the center. Clinton was a perfect example. If you call Clinton a 'liberal', then it basically means you either don't see the situation objectively, or you don't understand the meaning of the word 'liberal'.

 

[kat]

Originally posted by Zero
That's pretty well nonsense, no offense...the Dems, especially from within the DNC, have specifically moved towards the center. Clinton was a perfect example. If you call Clinton a 'liberal', then it basically means you either don't see the situation objectively, or you don't understand the meaning of the word 'liberal'.

1. As I said, in another thread...but..fight the data and method..not offer your opinion.

2. What is this fetish with Clinton..nobody mentioned Clinton.

3. As I said

If your on the "left" and you cannot accept that you might want to look in the mirror and realize you are probably one of those I'm speaking of.

Note the quotation marks around "left", Zero.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by kat
1. As I said, in another thread...but..fight the data and method..not offer your opinion.

2. What is this fetish with Clinton..nobody mentioned Clinton.

3. As I said Note the quotation marks around "left", Zero.

The point of mentioning Clinton (and Dean in another post somewhere around here) was obvious: the leaders of the Democratic Party are not moving anywhere but towards the center...doesn't it make sense to say taht the rest of the party generally follows suit?

 

[Zero]

And, I think we have hijacked my thread long enough...

 

[kat]

Originally posted by Zero
The point of mentioning Clinton (and Dean in another post somewhere around here) was obvious: the leaders of the Democratic Party are not moving anywhere but towards the center...doesn't it make sense to say taht the rest of the party generally follows suit?

Not if the data shows otherwise. I think THAT should be obvious.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by kat
Not if the data shows otherwise. I think THAT should be obvious.

Wow, how hard did you have to dig to link me to somebody's college thesis? And, really, all that paper says is pretty much teh opposite of what you suggest it does. Nice try though, I suppose.