American Patriotism

[chowder]

I once had Americans pegged as the most patriot people on the planet, now I'm none to sure.

Constant GWB bashing, criticism of your Govt. and armed forces, persons on this board who appear to hate the country of their birth....and for no apparent reason.

I'll admit that Bush is not the brightest star in the sky but he is your elected
president and as such surely he is deserving of your support. Maybe he will win another term, maybe not. Who is to say that his successor will be any better or worse than he is.

You may rest assured that whoever succeeds GWB then that person also will make mistakes, will you then turn on him in much the same way

Blair is my elected Prime Minister and while I may not agree with some of his actions I have to respect them to a certain degree.

Yours is still a great nation in all senses, you have your problems of course, but then again what country doesn't?.

You were once a God fearing nation but this has also flown out the window from what I can gather by the constant repudiation of an Almighty which I witness on this board.

So tell me, are Americans just a fiercely patriotic as they once were or have I got the wrong end of the stick

[FRDE]

Under the US Constitution Bush cannot serve another term, even without losing his majority in Congress he is already a lame duck.

It is also debateable whether Bush was actually elected, there was a bit of confusion over the count.

The SDMB is not necessarily representative of the USA as a whole, for a start the spelling is a lot better :)

Being from the UK myself, I'm just ashamed of Blair - it is not pleasant having a leader that is ... well embarrassing.

[Secret Volcano Lair]

I'll admit that Bush is not the brightest star in the sky but he is your elected president and as such surely he is deserving of your support. Maybe he will win another term, maybe not.


He can't win another term.

[jjimm]

Poor Americans. Most of us foreigners accuse them of being too patriotic, and now you're telling them they're not patriotic enough. They can't win with us, can they?

chowder, the SDMB is so not indicative of the US majority views. When was the last time you visited? I was there in late 2005 and can assure you that patriotism and being "under God" are alive and well, and in your face. Certainly where I was (LA, TN, and NYC), anyway. Maybe if you went to San Francisco or somewhere you might draw a different opinion, but SF doesn't represent the majority of the country.

[Starving Artist]

Well, first and foremost, you need to know that the readership (or more accurately, the postership) of this board is not representative of the nation at large.

There is more that I could say, but it would only lead to vigorous argumentation, and it's late and I must get to bed. I will address one other of your questions first though. You asked: "You may rest assured that whoever succeeds GWB then that person also will make mistakes, will you then turn on him in much the same way"

The answer is, it depends: If he/she is a Democrat, he/she will get a pass from most of the board's posters regardless of any malfeasance, just like Bill Clinton got a pass from from the feminist movement. If he/she is a Republican, you can count on four to eight more years of non-stop president-bashing around here, though it will be less war-centric and geared more toward that particular president's personality and/or the problems he/she may be trying to contend with. America-bashing, however, is likely to continue undiminished, as it has among the collegiate and post-collegiate crowd in this country since the late sixties.

[chowder]

He can't win another term.
Sorry, was unaware of that :smack:

[chowder]

Poor Americans. Most of us foreigners accuse them of being too patriotic, and now you're telling them they're not patriotic enough. They can't win with us, can they?

chowder, the SDMB is so not indicative of the US majority views. When was the last time you visited? I was there in late 2005 and can assure you that patriotism and being "under God" are alive and well, and in your face. Certainly where I was (LA, TN, and NYC), anyway. Maybe if you went to San Francisco or somewhere you might draw a different opinion, but SF doesn't represent the majority of the country.
Last time was in 2004, before that 2002, I like the USA and have many pals over there.

[glee]

I once had Americans pegged as the most patriot people on the planet, now I'm none to sure.

Constant GWB bashing, criticism of your Govt. and armed forces, persons on this board who appear to hate the country of their birth....and for no apparent reason.

I'll admit that Bush is not the brightest star in the sky but he is your elected
president and as such surely he is deserving of your support. Maybe he will win another term, maybe not. Who is to say that his successor will be any better or worse than he is.

You may rest assured that whoever succeeds GWB then that person also will make mistakes, will you then turn on him in much the same way

Blair is my elected Prime Minister and while I may not agree with some of his actions I have to respect them to a certain degree.

Yours is still a great nation in all senses, you have your problems of course, but then again what country doesn't?.

You were once a God fearing nation but this has also flown out the window from what I can gather by the constant repudiation of an Almighty which I witness on this board.

So tell me, are Americans just a fiercely patriotic as they once were or have I got the wrong end of the stick

This seems an alarmingly simplistic set of views!

Firstly the criticism is of Bush's policies, together with reasons why.

Secondly what is your evidence that board members 'hate the country of their birth'?
Where is the mass emigration?
You can be a patriot, 'support the troops' and still detest Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib.

Next blind faith in elected leaders is unwise. Should people in Zimbabwe support Mugabe, just because he's elected?
You should judge leaders on their actions, not whether their hypothetical successors will be better or worse.

Saying 'all countries have their problems' is silly. :rolleyes: Would you rather live in Sweden or Eritrea? Bermuda or Rwanda?

As for America not being a God-fearing nation because of a few hundred posts on a message board - good grief. :smack:

76.5% of American adults are Christian (52% Protestant; 24.5% Catholic).

http://www.religioustolerance.org/us_rel1.htm

[FRDE]

If he/she is a Republican, you can count on four to eight more years of non-stop president-bashing around here, though it will be less war-centric and geared more toward that particular president's personality and/or the problems he/she may be trying to contend with. America-bashing, however, is likely to continue undiminished, as it has among the collegiate and post-collegiate crowd in this country since the late sixties.

I'm a bit surprized at that, I would have expected a really good Republican President to get treated according to their merits.

I would also reckon that the Republicans would have to field an exceptional candidate for him/her to get elected.

[Starving Artist]

Secondly what is your evidence that board members 'hate the country of their birth'?Their posts are his cite!

:D

(And with that, I'm outta here. 'Night, all.)

[pool]

Patriotism is support and love for a country. If you think the leader of your country is having a harmul effect on it then it makes sense to be unsupportive of them. I'm not sure why you think being unsupportive of Bush is unpatriotic.

[Der Trihs]

Constant GWB bashing, criticism of your Govt. and armed forces, persons on this board who appear to hate the country of their birth....and for no apparent reason.How many reasons do you want ? When people rant about Bush, they generally rant about something he's done, or left undone. Where all all these people who hate him for no reason ? I have plenty of reasons.

I'll admit that Bush is not the brightest star in the sky but he is your elected president and as such surely he is deserving of your support.Whether he was really elected is debatable, and to the extent he actually won it was due to the stupidity of the American public and the incompetence of the Democrats, not the nonexistant virtues of the virtue-free Bush. And I owe him no support whatsoever, since I regard him as scum and my enemy; I owe him nothing but hatred, contempt and implacable opposition.

Maybe he will win another term, maybe not. Who is to say that his successor will be any better or worse than he is.As said, fortunately that's against the law. As for his successor being no better, while possible that's unlikely; I consider him easily the worst President since the Civil War, at the least.

You may rest assured that whoever succeeds GWB then that person also will make mistakes, will you then turn on him in much the same wayI doubt he will make nearly as many, and I hate Bush as much for his deliberate actions and inactions as his mistakes. And of course I'd "turn on him" if the next President is as bad. Although "turn on him" implies that I was once on his side.

Blair is my elected Prime Minister and while I may not agree with some of his actions I have to respect them to a certain degree.Why ?

Yours is still a great nation in all senses, you have your problems of course, but then again what country doesn't?.What is it with the way certain British grovel before America ? It's disturbing. And self destructive; Blair's America-toadying has not been good for Britain.

You were once a God fearing nation but this has also flown out the window from what I can gather by the constant repudiation of an Almighty which I witness on this board.Gah. America is rabidly religious; it's one of the more disgusting things about it.

So tell me, are Americans just a fiercely patriotic as they once were or have I got the wrong end of the stickUnfortunately they are, or worse.

[chowder]

Der Trihs: I am not grovelling at all. I like the USA , nothing wrong with that is there?.

[Fuzzy Wombats]

Constant GWB bashing, criticism of your Govt. and armed forces, persons on this board who appear to hate the country of their birth....and for no apparent reason.

I'll admit that Bush is not the brightest star in the sky but he is your elected
president and as such surely he is deserving of your support. Maybe he will win another term, maybe not. Who is to say that his successor will be any better or worse than he is.

To begin, I think it's worth repeating that the SDMB is by no means even close to a representative sample of the United States. Not by a long shot.

While Bush is my President, he does not deserve my support, not one bit. I will grant the Office of the President respect, but respect and support are two very different things. I wouldn't spit on him but I certainly wouldn't cheer for him. Bad policies don't get a free pass because of the office. Yet, I consider myself patriotic despite this view.

I consider it my right and my duty to speak out when my government does wrong.

My country, right or wrong; if right, to be kept right; and if wrong, to be set right.

I'd say what you've seen is the left-leaning portion of this board venting their frustration after 6 years of watching this country take a direction many do not like. And yet we still have those on the other side arguing their cause.

If I had to wager, I'd say the next President, Republican or Democrat, is going to have a rather rough ride.

As it's after 5:30 and I've not been to bed yet I'll wrap up this up. Patriotism still beats strong in America, but, and this is my contention, since 9/11, nationalism has held the upper-hand and will continue to do so for some time.

Vehement disagreement and attacks of the President, the Government, and its policies do not equal a lack of patriotism, in some cases it may the a hallmark of it.

I can love my country and bitterly disagree with its actions at the same time.

[MerryMagdalen]

I'm going to chime in, as an American to the left of Starving Artist . Not that I've got anything against him/her/it.

I am an American that believes in the American Constitution and Bill of Rights (the first 10 or so amendments...they've been around pretty much since the Constitution was ratified, but they're actually amendments.)

I believe in the ideas my country was founded on - freedom of speech, citizen's militia, etc. And I think that we've added on some good stuff (votes for women, blacks, etc.)

One of the things I noticed when I was in London a few months ago was CC cameras everywhere. That's ok, I guess, since I wasn't doing anything weird, but it made me very uncomfortable - I don't like being looked at on camera while I'm drinking my beer and leaving everyone else alone.

I think the US has got a great Constitution, and I think that many Americans believe that their Constitution stands for certain things. And I think that lately many Americans think that the behavior of the President does not fit with the letter or spirit of our Constitution as written (in the 18th century). And also, our behavior does not fit with the ideals we espoused/were assumed to have espoused in the 20th century.

(ETA: I think things got posted in the interim. They may be better than me.)

[chowder]

Yes I hold my hands up. The SDMB is more or less what I was basing my views on, rather stupid of me, I apologise.

I also should have said The Office of President rather than The Prez himself, another cock-up by moi ::smack::.

On reflection it seems that this thread was ill advised

[Secret Volcano Lair]

Gah. America is rabidly religious; it's one of the more disgusting things about it.

"Rabidly religious"? You really think the USA is "rabidly religious"?

Unfortunately they are, or worse.

Whats unfortunate about that? Is someone not a good person according to you unless they don't like the U.S.? What if someone sees positive things about this country? Do you think it isn't possible?

[Fuzzy Wombats]

Yes I hold my hands up. The SDMB is more or less what I was basing my views on, rather stupid of me, I apologise.

No worries, it'd be difficult to find anything that would resemble a representative sample anywhere. Salad bowl of America and all that.

At least the points here are generally well-argued?



I also should have said The Office of President rather than The Prez himself

Not necessarily, depending on the question. Re-reading the OP it begins with support in reference to Bush, but switches to respect with Blair, so it wasn't immediately clear, to me at least, which you were going for.

I'd maintain that Bush nor the Office of the President deserve my support by virtue of their station. I do however grant the Office respect and so, by association, Bush, at least a little.

That may be a little convoluted, it's hard for me to tell at this hour, but I hope you get my meaning?

[Der Trihs]

"Rabidly religious"? You really think the USA is "rabidly religious"?Oh, yes.

Whats unfortunate about that? Is someone not a good person according to you unless they don't like the U.S.? What if someone sees positive things about this country? Do you think it isn't possible?Of course it's possible; I object to all the people who believe that America has the right to stomp on the rest of the world, to all the people who deny all of America's flaws and evils because they refuse to believe that America has any. I object to the people who regard non-Americans as expendable, and regard criticism of America's behavior as treason. I object to all of the people who claim that America is the greatest country in the world, and then refuse to define "greatest", or claim that it's wealth or military make it greater than all others.

[GomiBoy]

Der Trihs: I am not grovelling at all. I like the USA , nothing wrong with that is there?.

Sure there is - Der Trihs hates America and all it stands for, and anyone who disagrees is clearly ignorant and misinformed. :rolleyes:

As for your OP - you've got some things incorrect as already posted, and some things are blown out of proportion on this message board, and this message board is not very representative of the US as a whole, but in my humble opinion as someone else already said - if you love your country (as I do) but feel your leadership is doing damage to the country you love (as I do) then it is your duty as a true Patriot to attempt to stop this damage and attempt to repair it in the country you love (as I am doing). The US has built-in measures to correct this, mainly through elections but also through extreme actions such as censure and ultimately impeachment, and as already posted Bush cannot win another term in office. I think the recent Congressional elections were a pretty strong statement by the electorate that they think the US was being led in the wrong direction, but one last thing to keep in mind - those mid-term elections are largely based on local issues, seldom on national ones.

I like to think myself rational (even though I chose to live in England :p) and think that if the next guy, be s/he Republican or Democrat, does a good job they will get my support, but I am also an independent which puts me slightly at odds with many on this board from both sides :)

[GomiBoy]

Of course it's possible; I object to all the people who believe that America has the right to stomp on the rest of the world, to all the people who deny all of America's flaws and evils because they refuse to believe that America has any. I object to the people who regard non-Americans as expendable, and regard criticism of America's behavior as treason. I object to all of the people who claim that America is the greatest country in the world, and then refuse to define "greatest", or claim that it's wealth or military make it greater than all others.

So freedom of speech just so long as they agree with you. Lovely.

[Secret Volcano Lair]

Of course it's possible; I object to all the people who believe that America has the right to stomp on the rest of the world, to all the people who deny all of America's flaws and evils because they refuse to believe that America has any. I object to the people who regard non-Americans as expendable, and regard criticism of America's behavior as treason. I object to all of the people who claim that America is the greatest country in the world, and then refuse to define "greatest", or claim that it's wealth or military make it greater than all others.

Ok, well I got the vibe from you saying it was "unfortunate" that there are a lot of patriotic people in the US that you think that most "patriotic" people are the kind that you object to. If that's what you believe, what do you base that on? How could you know how people feel about those things without knowing them? How many people do you know? What if most people loved this country because of everything positive it had going for it? Would you still consider it unfortunate that there is a lot of them out there?

It seems that you would prefer that people focus primarily on negativity, and that simply acknowledging it isn't good enough.

[Jonathan Chance]

Well, in all honestly focusing on the negative is what should make us better. While focusing on the positive is a feel-good thing focusing on the negative is what begins the process of self-correction.

As to patriotism in the US I agree that it's alive and well but it sure doesn't mean supporting the government blindly. What's that old Twain thing:

"Patriotism is supporting your country all the time, and your government when it deserves it."

That fairly sums it up for me. I love the US, think that the Constitution is a brilliant document with the ability to self-correct (and has needed it!), but have deep doubts about government in all of its forms and enjoy and take pride is beating it up periodically.

[Secret Volcano Lair]

Well, in all honestly focusing on the negative is what should make us better. While focusing on the positive is a feel-good thing focusing on the negative is what begins the process of self-correction.


Perhaps I should have said it differently. I know that giving attention to what is negative is a good thing to do. I guess what I meant is that he seems to be the opposite of the type of person he described as someone he would object to, but instead of being someone who refuses to admit there's anything wrong with his country, he seems to refuse to admit there's anything right with it.

[Der Trihs]

So freedom of speech just so long as they agree with you. Lovely.And where did I suggest that anyone's freedom of speech be restricted in any way ? What does what I said have anything to do with freedom of speech ? Do you actually read the posts you criticize ?

It seems that you would prefer that people focus primarily on negativity, and that simply acknowledging it isn't good enough.What Jonathan Chance said; it's negative feedback that makes the system work. As for for positive feedback; America is awash in it; the last thing it needs is more self-back-patting.

[chowder]

A question Der Trihs Do you really hate America.

If so, why?

[Quiddity Glomfuster]

Constant GWB bashing, criticism of your Govt. and armed forces, persons on this board who appear to hate the country of their birth....and for no apparent reason.

The belief that one should support one's country/elected representatives/leader/whatever right or wrong is a dangerous, dangerous thing. You don't idolize any of the above if it means abandoning your sense of right and wrong.

That a large amount of Americans (and Dopers) recognize that the actions of their administration in the name of their country have been reprehensible indicates that they have respect for what is good, fair, and just. If anybody in their administration acts in a way contrary to what is good, fair, and just then that individual does not deserve respect merely by dint of position. It is not 'unpatriotic' to refuse to render slavish allegiance to someone who you feel is not upholding the values you believe in.

[Hamlet]

The answer is, it depends: If he/she is a Democrat, he/she will get a pass from most of the board's posters regardless of any malfeasance, just like Bill Clinton got a pass from from the feminist movement. If he/she is a Republican, you can count on four to eight more years of non-stop president-bashing around here, though it will be less war-centric and geared more toward that particular president's personality and/or the problems he/she may be trying to contend with. America-bashing, however, is likely to continue undiminished, as it has among the collegiate and post-collegiate crowd in this country since the late sixties.As usual, more SA partisan hackery. How refereshingly.... typical.

As to the OP, I believe that, since Clinton's Presidency, the United States is more loudly divisive than at almost any time. But it is not a lack of patriotism, but rather more partisanship and more politics. I was very surprised during Clinton's administration, at the level of hatred, and vileness, expressed for him. It was a new thing to me. I didn't see that level of animosity and over the top rhetoric during Ford, Carter, Reagan, or Bush I. Even with the pardons, the hostages, Iran/Contra, and raised taxes, and other mistakes, the prior presidents, as I remember, never faced the rabid hatred from the opposite party. Then came Clinton. And the political rhetoric started to go beyond simple disagreements over policies and the political party system became much more divisive. I'm not sure if it came from talk radio, more adament support of your own party, more people becoming involved in politics, or a increase in hostility in the zeitgeist, but the country, as a whole, seemed to become more divisive and ... demonizing. Of course I didn't hear the same claims of lack of patriotism during the Clinton administration, so draw your own conclusions.

The other major issue I see regarding the OP is that Bush really is a horrible, horrible President. Immediately following 9/11, our country was much more united, much more patriotic. But with the Iraq invasion, intelligence issues, the NSA, Plame, the unitary executive, a do nothing Congress, the nigh but constant lying, and the myriad of other missteps by this administration has done, all that partiotism, all that cohesiveness, was lost.

And now, we have claims that non-support for Bush means a lack of patriotism. And we have the rhetoric of religion as under attack in the US. Both of which are in the OP. And it certainly isn't looking like its getting any better.

[tomndebb]

The answer is, it depends: If he/she is a Democrat, he/she will get a pass from most of the board's posters regardless of any malfeasance, just like Bill Clinton got a pass from from the feminist movement. If he/she is a Republican, you can count on four to eight more years of non-stop president-bashing around here, though it will be less war-centric and geared more toward that particular president's personality and/or the problems he/she may be trying to contend with. America-bashing, however, is likely to continue undiminished, as it has among the collegiate and post-collegiate crowd in this country since the late sixties.There is a remote chance that your first statement has some validity. In the current environment, I would guess that there are a few foibles of some Democrats that would get a pass where the same foibles by a Republican would be attacked. However, there is a bit of history to recognize, there. During Clinton's presidency, there was a very active anti-Clinton faction on the SDMB. Following the 2000 election and all the way up to the War in Afghanistan, there was still a sizable number of posters representing the Right wing. I would have said that the board still tilted Left/Libertarian rather than Right/Libertarian, but there was a substantial Right wing presence--to the point where many posts fell just short of calling opponents to the Iraq war traitors and a significant number of posts called opponents of the Iraq war fools. Between the impeachment proceedings and the 2000 election, we actually had a few Left leaning posters withdraw citing tedium vitae regarding having to constantly defend Clinton in threads that had nothing to do with his presidency. Following the 2000 elections, we had long and vigorous (not to mention tiresome) rehashings regarding the legitimacy of that event with nearly equal representation by factions on both sides.

The loss of Right wing supporters began with the revelations about Abu Ghraib, the failure to find Weapons of Mass Destruction, increasing evidence that the war was micro-(mis)managed from Rumsfeld's office, etc. Of course, it had an unfortunate cumulative effect in that as each prominent Right wing poster departed, the remaining posters were more clearly in a minority, making it more difficult for them "take on" larger relative numbers of Left wing advocates.

However, the Teeming millions have a long and treasured history of opposing power in any form. It will not be long before the TM begin tearing up the Democratic Congress (I can point to the first stirrings of those feelings already) and the next president will be challenged, regardless of party.

[Shodan]

I didn't see that level of animosity and over the top rhetoric during Ford, Carter, Reagan, or Bush I.
Ford or Bush 1, perhaps not. But for Reagan, I suggest you might not have been looking terribly hard.
And the political rhetoric started to go beyond simple disagreements over policies and the political party system became much more divisive.
Because what people objected to in Clinton was not necessarily policy, but lying and other forms of personal sleaze.

Another problem is that liberals had to abandon their principles in order to defend Clinton. Sexual harassment, for instance - a dreadful thing, and disqualifying a person for public office. Except if it's Clinton.

And the politics of personal destruction was a game played with a great deal of enthusiasm by the Clinton White House. Witness the attacks on Ken Starr.

Another bit of it is the baffled fury of the Left, at people like Rush Limbaugh for actually finding an audience that challenged the mainstream media's stranglehold on public debate. And the continued screaming frustration over the 2000 election, which Democrats believed should be theirs by right, even before the recounts.

The Internet and the SDMB are merely revealing what the harder parts of the hard Left think about every Republican President. It's not going to change - I would expect that, a year or so after the next Republican is elected President, there will be some one of the Usual Suspects or other who will post that "I hated Bush, but this guy is worse!!!!" It's the nature of the beast on the SDMB.

Shodan's predictions - As the elections approach, any Republican within shouting distance of the nomination will have at least one active Pit thread going. Every speaker at the Republican National Convention will be Pitted. Whoever the Democrats pick will get at least 80% support on the SDMB. Any thread regarding the 2008 elections on the SDMB lasting more than a page will contain at least two references to how much they hate Bush. No thread discussing the Democratic platform will last longer than two pages before returning to near-exclusive Bush-bashing. If the Republican wins, there will be a mininum of five threads a week accusing Republicans of voter fraud. If the Democrat wins, there will be a maximum of five threads in total discussing voter fraud at all, unless it is to attack Republicans for doing it.

Regards,
Shodan

[Thudlow Boink]

Quite simply, loving one's county does not equal loving (or liking, or approving of) its leader(s).

In fact, many of those who are anti-Bush dislike him precisely because of what we see him doing to our country.

[BobLibDem]

Shodan's predictions - As the elections approach, any Republican within shouting distance of the nomination will have at least one active Pit thread going.
As will any Democrat

Every speaker at the Republican National Convention will be Pitted.
I'll bet you a yard of kielbasa this one isn't going to happen. The audience for conventions is so low that nobody will even know who spoke, save for the keynote speaker and the nominees.

Whoever the Democrats pick will get at least 80% support on the SDMB.
Perhaps true, I'll grant you.

Any thread regarding the 2008 elections on the SDMB lasting more than a page will contain at least two references to how much they hate Bush.
As well they should. The 2008 election will be as much a referendum on Bush as it will the nominee.

No thread discussing the Democratic platform will last longer than two pages before returning to near-exclusive Bush-bashing.
Platforms are quaint reminders of a day when people actually took stock in platforms. There will be few threads on platforms.

If the Republican wins, there will be a mininum of five threads a week accusing Republicans of voter fraud.
I hope not. Some states are tightening up their control over the black boxes.

If the Democrat wins, there will be a maximum of five threads in total discussing voter fraud at all, unless it is to attack Republicans for doing it.
Name one manufacturer of election equipment that has proclaimed his goal of delivering the vote to a Democrat.

[Spoke]

Patriotism does not consist of blindly following elected leaders. True love of country requires more. Senator Carl Schurz (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Schurz) said it best:
The Senator from Wisconsin cannot frighten me by exclaiming, “My country, right or wrong.” In one sense I say so too. My country; and my country is the great American Republic. My country, right or wrong; if right, to be kept right; and if wrong, to be set right.

[Nic2004]

Ford or Bush 1, perhaps not. But for Reagan, I suggest you might not have been looking terribly hard.
Because what people objected to in Clinton was not necessarily policy, but lying and other forms of personal sleaze.

Another problem is that liberals had to abandon their principles in order to defend Clinton. Sexual harassment, for instance - a dreadful thing, and disqualifying a person for public office. Except if it's Clinton.

And the politics of personal destruction was a game played with a great deal of enthusiasm by the Clinton White House. Witness the attacks on Ken Starr.

Another bit of it is the baffled fury of the Left, at people like Rush Limbaugh for actually finding an audience that challenged the mainstream media's stranglehold on public debate. And the continued screaming frustration over the 2000 election, which Democrats believed should be theirs by right, even before the recounts.

The Internet and the SDMB are merely revealing what the harder parts of the hard Left think about every Republican President. It's not going to change - I would expect that, a year or so after the next Republican is elected President, there will be some one of the Usual Suspects or other who will post that "I hated Bush, but this guy is worse!!!!" It's the nature of the beast on the SDMB.

Shodan's predictions - As the elections approach, any Republican within shouting distance of the nomination will have at least one active Pit thread going. Every speaker at the Republican National Convention will be Pitted. Whoever the Democrats pick will get at least 80% support on the SDMB. Any thread regarding the 2008 elections on the SDMB lasting more than a page will contain at least two references to how much they hate Bush. No thread discussing the Democratic platform will last longer than two pages before returning to near-exclusive Bush-bashing. If the Republican wins, there will be a mininum of five threads a week accusing Republicans of voter fraud. If the Democrat wins, there will be a maximum of five threads in total discussing voter fraud at all, unless it is to attack Republicans for doing it.

Regards,
Shodan
:D Now that's some good stuff! :D To the OP: I think the Patriotism is alive and well. I for one love this Country. For all it's wrongs I think it has been a positive force in the direction on humanity on this planet. When the time comes that The United States of America appears on no map or globe, I think history (if not written by an oppressive regime) will show a mostly positive side to our history. It is like family in-fighting; we will fight with each other but turn a united front to those that would do the same to a family member. And Der Trihs is living proof of freedom of speech and tolerance of opposing positions and in so doing is a contradiction to much he holds to be true.
As an aside, I am unsure how our feelings about Britian come across in the mass media but I for one love our family across the big pond. :)

[What Exit?]

Chowder, I bash Bush & Cheney because I am extremely patriotic, even hyper-patriotic. I am a hawk and a veteran. I believe Bush & Cheney have been very bad for the USA, our constitution, our way of life and the entire world. They have made the USA less than it was before. My father is another vet and he is very patriotic. Unlike me, he supports the Patriot act, but he finds Bush dangerous and Cheney corrupt. He finds Gitmo unacceptable to our ideals.

A lot of the US Patriotism is wrapped up in the concept that the USA is the Good Guy (except stuff we can blame on the CIA). This is really got a lot to do with the American Psyche. Most American think we rode the White Charger to save the world in WWI, WWII and the Cold War. Obviously, the WWI part is false, but the other two I still believe we were the Good Guys fighting the Good Fight. This Iraq situation is very hard for almost any American to defend. We do not like having to admit we might be in the wrong. Who does?

I hope this mostly emotional viewpoint will give some insight to how Americans can be Patriotic and still think Bush is a failure that has hurt the country.

Jim {If you betray a Patriot, he will hate the betrayer even more than someone who mistrust the betrayer to start with.}

[Hamlet]

Ford or Bush 1, perhaps not. But for Reagan, I suggest you might not have been looking terribly hard.I disagree. Even after he lied to the American people, after his administration sold weapons to Iran, after he sidestepped Congress to fund the contras, and all the rest, I didn't see the personal venom against Reagan that is so prevelant in the media during Clinton and Dubya. Reagan's missteps were more ascribed to his age and his supposed hands-off managerial style. There was nowhere near the animosity that Clinton or Bush II have seen. Maybe you were paying too much attention to the far leftists, but the media at large was very forgiving of the Great Communicator.

Because what people objected to in Clinton was not necessarily policy, but lying and other forms of personal sleaze.You're right, the attacks on Clinton had little to do with his policies and more to do with calling him a sleaze and morally bankrupt. Kennedy, LBJ, Bush I certainly had problems with honesty, but it wasn't the venom at the person that I saw with Clinton. And I don't recall the calling of Clinton's opponents are unpatriotic.

Another problem is that liberals had to abandon their principles in order to defend Clinton. Sexual harassment, for instance - a dreadful thing, and disqualifying a person for public office. Except if it's Clinton.And Republicans overlooked Reagan and Bush I's actions during Iran/Contra, lipservice to the rule of law, will of the majority, and honesty didn't really matter. Clinton was a sleaze, surely, but I'd rather a guy get a hummer in the White House than give weapons to terrorists and break the law.

And the politics of personal destruction was a game played with a great deal of enthusiasm by the Clinton White House. Witness the attacks on Ken Starr.The Clinton administration is not blameless in this, and I'm wondering why you would think they are.

Another bit of it is the baffled fury of the Left, at people like Rush Limbaugh for actually finding an audience that challenged the mainstream media's stranglehold on public debate.There is no "debate" on Rush. He's, as he'll tell you, an entertainer. And his ascendance to popularity through demonization, namecalling, and attempts to paint all who oppose him as far left fantatics is a good example of the poisoning of rhetoric and questioning of patriotism.

The Internet and the SDMB are merely revealing what the harder parts of the hard Left think about every Republican President. It's not going to change - I would expect that, a year or so after the next Republican is elected President, there will be some one of the Usual Suspects or other who will post that "I hated Bush, but this guy is worse!!!!" It's the nature of the beast on the SDMB.That's the spirit!!! Don't let the fact the SDMB didn't exist during the Reagan, Bush I years stop you from making a silly point, or even sillier predictions. Continue to play your martyrdom for all it is worth.

[msmith537]

Constant GWB bashing, criticism of your Govt. and armed forces, persons on this board who appear to hate the country of their birth....and for no apparent reason.



Fortunately most of those people are Der Trihs.

[El_Kabong]

The answer is, it depends: If he/she is a Democrat, he/she will get a pass from most of the board's posters regardless of any malfeasance, just like Bill Clinton got a pass from from the feminist movement. If he/she is a Republican, you can count on four to eight more years of non-stop president-bashing around here, though it will be less war-centric and geared more toward that particular president's personality and/or the problems he/she may be trying to contend with. America-bashing, however, is likely to continue undiminished, as it has among the collegiate and post-collegiate crowd in this country since the late sixties.

The Internet and the SDMB are merely revealing what the harder parts of the hard Left think about every Republican President. It's not going to change - I would expect that, a year or so after the next Republican is elected President, there will be some one of the Usual Suspects or other who will post that "I hated Bush, but this guy is worse!!!!" It's the nature of the beast on the SDMB.

I would remind both of the above-quoted posters that persons who visit this board can read for themselves. If they, or I, want to know what 'liberals' think, we can in fact ask some actual liberals, since, as you say, they are in abundance around here. I really do not think your characterizations, nor your predictions, are accurate.

Posters such as the two mentioned above seem to believe they can wave away all potential criticisms of the current (as it happens, Republican) administration by continually hoisting straw men, and by claiming that every single criticism is purely done for the sake of partisan maneuvering or through a sourceless, irrational 'Bush-hatred'. I can understand that they think this technique allows them to avoid ever having to present a factual rebuttal, which would take time and effort these posters obviously don't have, but it's a singularly unconvincing debating tactic, and I'm unclear on why they actually believe that it is effective in any way.

Anyway, to address the OP directly, despite the false words that the above posters are trying to cram into the mouths of board members, a sense of patriotism demands that I criticize the administration, if I feel there are things are worth criticising; in fact the ability to register dissent without retribution is one of the most important principles we have. I have in the past found things to criticize about every administration, Republican or Democrat, and while, unlike the mentioned posters I am not clairvoyant, I may very well find things to criticise in future administrations and will do so or not without seeking their, or the government's, permission first.

[RickJay]

I'll admit that Bush is not the brightest star in the sky but he is your elected
president and as such surely he is deserving of your support.
If I can step away from George W. Bush in particular and talk about elected officials in general, I think this is a load of crap. The logical end of that line of thinking is that we could never elect anybody other than the current officeholder or the ruling party, since to do otherwise would be to deny them the "support" they deserve.

Places like that always end up as shitholes. Ask yourself how things have gone in Mexico, where the same party won every election for three generations, as opposeed to countries with healthy opposition to sitting politicians.

It's the DUTY of the citizens of a democracy to speak up and get angry when their elected officials do something they oppose. That's what keeps democracies running smoothly. If there's no opposition then there's no reason for the politician to do the right thing. George Bush isn't a king, he's the employee of the U.S. citizenry. My elected officials (Canadian, but same concept) work for ME, and I expect them to do what I want, and if they don't I'll say so, and if need be I'll cast my vote to fire their asses. They do not deserve my unwavering support no matter what they do.

[Shodan]

I disagree. Even after he lied to the American people, after his administration sold weapons to Iran, after he sidestepped Congress to fund the contras, and all the rest, I didn't see the personal venom against Reagan that is so prevelant in the media during Clinton and Dubya.Like I said, one often sees what one looks for, and doesn't see what one would rather not. Reagan was the cowboy who was going to trigger WWIII, did nothing about AIDS, wasn't a "good Christian because his social policies were so unfair" (to quote Geraldine Ferraro), etc., etc. You're right, the attacks on Clinton had little to do with his policies and more to do with calling him a sleaze and morally bankrupt.You say "calling him"; I say "pointing out that he is". I guess it depends on what your definition of the word is, is. :D
And Republicans overlooked Reagan and Bush I's actions during Iran/Contra, lipservice to the rule of law, will of the majority, and honesty didn't really matter. Clinton was a sleaze, surely, but I'd rather a guy get a hummer in the White House than give weapons to terrorists and break the law.
Right, right - apart from a couple of Congressional investigations (during a period when both houses were controlled by Democrats), both of which found no evidence of criminal wrong-doing by Reagan or Bush, it was ignored.

The Clinton administration is not blameless in this, and I'm wondering why you would think they are. Where the hell have I ever said that the Clintons were blameless for anything?
There is no "debate" on Rush.Well, not on your mind, perhaps. Probably not on the minds of the other liberals, who periodically atttempt to silence with law a voice they would rather not hear. Remember the spasmodic attampts to "flush Rush"? Oh, that's right, I forgot - Air America was going to sweep all before her in a torrent of liberal name-calling and polarization, which entirely explains Rush's success.

Only, oopsie! ;)
Shodan's predictions -
As the elections approach, any Republican within shouting distance of the nomination will have at least one active Pit thread going.
As will any Democrat giggle -

A quick glance at the Pit as of now - Pittings of Republicans - two. Pittings of the Democratic front-runners - zero. (There is one of Kucinich, but it is because his wife is too pretty. Disqualified on a technicality.)

Every speaker at the Republican National Convention will be Pitted.
I'll bet you a yard of kielbasa this one isn't going to happen. The audience for conventions is so low that nobody will even know who spoke, save for the keynote speaker and the nominees.
That's pretty much what happened in 2004. I don't know about kielbasa, but I was talking about the nightly keynote speakers, and I bet it happens again in 2008.
Any thread regarding the 2008 elections on the SDMB lasting more than a page will contain at least two references to how much they hate Bush.
As well they should. The 2008 election will be as much a referendum on Bush as it will the nominee. In your dreams. I reiterate - Bush isn't running. What's the referendum gonna be - "Bush - should he leave office?" Come on.

I will even add to the predictions - there will be at least two posts seriously suggesting that Bush will cancel the elections and become a dictator.
No thread discussing the Democratic platform will last longer than two pages before returning to near-exclusive Bush-bashing.
Platforms are quaint reminders of a day when people actually took stock in platforms. There will be few threads on platforms.
Or positions. I'm hoping that (once again) the Dems will run a campaign based entirely on "I'm not Bush".
If the Republican wins, there will be a mininum of five threads a week accusing Republicans of voter fraud.
I hope not. Some states are tightening up their control over the black boxes.
Like that's gonna convince any of the Usual Suspects.

If the Democrat wins, there will be a maximum of five threads in total discussing voter fraud at all, unless it is to attack Republicans for doing it.
Name one manufacturer of election equipment that has proclaimed his goal of delivering the vote to a Democrat.
Well, I can think of one whose marketing director and director of QA are Democrats. Here's a hint - we are probably thinking of the same guy.

Regards,
Shodan

[Patty O'Furniture]

Shodan's predictions - As the elections approach, any Republican within shouting distance of the nomination will have at least one active Pit thread going. Every speaker at the Republican National Convention will be Pitted. Whoever the Democrats pick will get at least 80% support on the SDMB. Any thread regarding the 2008 elections on the SDMB lasting more than a page will contain at least two references to how much they hate Bush. No thread discussing the Democratic platform will last longer than two pages before returning to near-exclusive Bush-bashing. If the Republican wins, there will be a mininum of five threads a week accusing Republicans of voter fraud. If the Democrat wins, there will be a maximum of five threads in total discussing voter fraud at all, unless it is to attack Republicans for doing it.

Regards,
Shodan

Sylvia Brown, is that you??

[BobLibDem]

In your dreams. I reiterate - Bush isn't running. What's the referendum gonna be - "Bush - should he leave office?" Come on.

Hmmm.... who did the Republicans run against in 1980. And 1984. And 1988. Hint: He was associated with peanuts.

[chowder]

Fortunately most of those people are Der Trihs.
Indeed, and he still hasn't answered my question posed earlier

[tomndebb]

In your dreams. I reiterate - Bush isn't running. What's the referendum gonna be - "Bush - should he leave office?" Come on. Hmmm.... who did the Republicans run against in 1980. And 1984. And 1988. Hint: He was associated with peanuts.To say nothing of the fact that Bush Ii originally ran against Clinton in 2000, spending an inordinate amount of time talking about bringing integrity (such as lying about WoMD, establishing Guantanamo, opposing "nation building" for Afghanistan while championing it for Iraq, replacing an effective administrator in FEMA with a political hack, etc.) back to the White House, despite the fact that Gore had no part in the Lewinsky fiasco or any of the related stories.

[Shodan]

Hmmm.... who did the Republicans run against in 1980. And 1984. And 1988. Hint: He was associated with peanuts.
Err - I'm not following you. To the best of my recollection, Mr. Peanut did indeed run in 1980, and his running mate in 1984. But as far as I can tell, Fritzie Fresh Mondale managed to get clobbered pretty much on his own. I disremember any prominent examples of ol' Fritz pointing with pride to the foreign policy triumphs he and Smiley achieved in, say, Iran or Afghanistan, or the stellar performance of the economy circa 1984 vs. 1979. And I don't remember literally any mention of the beneficiary of Amy's foreign policy experience in 1988 in the campaign of that year - it was more about Willie Horton, and Dukakis popping up from a tank turret like Pop-a-mole and his wife drinking hair spray, or whatever it was.

You might do better with the analogy if you tried to link Mr. "No controlling legal authority" and Internet-inventor in 2000, if you wanted to make any kind of a case for "an echo, not a choice". And I will certainly concede your point if Cheney were to run in 2008. Or if the spouse of a certain unpleasant former Prevaricator-in-chief gets the nod, and the Republicans can talk about cattle futures and subpoena'ed documents again. Other than that, maybe not so much.

Regards,
Shodan

[Polycarp]

Err - I'm not following you. To the best of my recollection, Mr. Peanut did indeed run in 1980, and his running mate in 1984. But as far as I can tell, Fritzie Fresh Mondale managed to get clobbered pretty much on his own. I disremember any prominent examples of ol' Fritz pointing with pride to the foreign policy triumphs he and Smiley achieved in, say, Iran or Afghanistan, or the stellar performance of the economy circa 1984 vs. 1979. And I don't remember literally any mention of the beneficiary of Amy's foreign policy experience in 1988 in the campaign of that year - it was more about Willie Horton, and Dukakis popping up from a tank turret like Pop-a-mole and his wife drinking hair spray, or whatever it was.

You might do better with the analogy if you tried to link Mr. "No controlling legal authority" and Internet-inventor in 2000, if you wanted to make any kind of a case for "an echo, not a choice". And I will certainly concede your point if Cheney were to run in 2008. Or if the spouse of a certain unpleasant former Prevaricator-in-chief gets the nod, and the Republicans can talk about cattle futures and subpoena'ed documents again. Other than that, maybe not so much.

Regards,
Shodan


Bluntly, my friend on the opposite side of the political divide, you can do better than this.

"...foreign policy triumphs he and Smiley achieved in, say, Iran or Afghanistan..."

Well, I'm sure we're all impressed with the foreign policy successes of Shrub (note that this is the first occasion I've used that term in a political debate, and it's in response to your demeaning of Presidents and Vice Presidents of the U.S. who don't stand up to your ideological purity test).

"...about Willie Horton...."

AKA, dirty tricks are fine if it's a Republican playing them. Who was that woman that your Knight in Shining Armor in the White House sent to her execution though she'd repented and begged for a chance to live, anyway? You can add that to the tally of the Murderer-in-Chief.

"...if the spouse of a certain unpleasant former Prevaricator-in-chief gets the nod, and the Republicans can talk about cattle futures and subpoena'ed documents..."

Shades of the New Deal! Are you planning to tell us about "Hillary Clubs" where Mrs. Clinton is secretly encouraging women to disavow their husbands, or something?

You've proven you can be a Republican partisan hack, above.

Now, try proving you can be an American patriot.

Because I know you have it in you, but the above-quoted post surely would not convince anyone else.

[Revtim]

"Patriotism is often an arbitrary veneration of real estate above principles." George Jean Nathan

[Der Trihs]

A question Der Trihs Do you really hate America.

If so, why?Little things like invading countries, torture, mass killing, electing scum like Bush and so on. Do I really have to list all the various evils and stupidities of America ?

[What Exit?]

Little things like invading countries, torture, mass killing, electing scum like Bush and so on. Do I really have to list all the various evils and stupidities of America ?
No, no please don't. Lets just remember that some rational people do not agree on everyone of your points. There is much to condemn for this admin and the entire country giving them a second term. The Democrats failed in this with their terrible choice of a candidate. The Republicans failed earlier when the party made the deal with the devil (Religious Right). No Liberal or Fiscal Republican can be happy with this current admin.

Jim

[DanBlather]

"Rabidly religious"? You really think the USA is "rabidly religious"?Whether or not you call the "rabid" is a judgement call, but the US is one of the most religious devloped countries in the world. As far as I know, only Poland is more religious.

[Shodan]

Bluntly, my friend on the opposite side of the political divide, you can do better than this.

"...foreign policy triumphs he and Smiley achieved in, say, Iran or Afghanistan..."

Well, I'm sure we're all impressed with the foreign policy successes of Shrub ...Well, I'm sure you're not, but since we were discussing the undoubted fact that Bush is not running in 2008 his foreign policy is not particularly relevant to the thread.
"...about Willie Horton...."

AKA, dirty tricks are fine if it's a Republican playing them.
I may have mentioned this before, but it was a Democrat who brought up Willie first. Oddly, no one hereabouts seems to have objected, until Lee Atwater (IIRC) followed suit.

Who was that woman that your Knight in Shining Armor in the White House sent to her execution though she'd repented and begged for a chance to live, anyway? You can add that to the tally of the Murderer-in-Chief.
You mean Karla Faye Tucker, who mentioned that she experienced orgasm when murdering someone with a pick ax? Or are you talking about the one whose death warrant Slick Willie bolted back to Arkansas to sign during his first Presidental campaign?

Funny how selective your outrage gets.

"...if the spouse of a certain unpleasant former Prevaricator-in-chief gets the nod, and the Republicans can talk about cattle futures and subpoena'ed documents..."

Shades of the New Deal! Are you planning to tell us about "Hillary Clubs" where Mrs. Clinton is secretly encouraging women to disavow their husbands, or something? I have no idea what you are talking about. Fortunately, I doubt it matters.

You've proven you can be a Republican partisan hack, above.
Right, and you are a selectively offended liberal hack, everywhere.

Now, try proving you can be an American patriot.

Because I know you have it in you, but the above-quoted post surely would not convince anyone else.Who the hell are you that you think I need to prove my patriotism to you?

Anyone who dares question St. Jimmy gets his patriotism questioned, but Der Trihs and his foul-minded rants against all things American gets a pass.

I suppose in some sense I should be upset, but I've seen a bit too much of it to care all that much.

Regards,
Shodan

[Captain Carrot]

Well, I'm sure you're not, but since we were discussing the undoubted fact that Bush is not running in 2008 his foreign policy is not particularly relevant to the thread.But since you were also talking about history, Bush's foreign policy is perfectly relevant.

Also, it's true that Bush will not be on the ballot in 2008; that doesn't mean that people aren't going to vote based on their distaste for him.

[Shodan]

Actually I was talking about when it might or might not make sense to run against a candidate. BobLibDem made a remark I didn't understand, and I talked a little about how it would make sense to run against Jimmy in 1980, when, after all, he was running, or in 1984, when his running mate was the Democratic nominee. And I don't remember any mention of Jimmy in 1988, which I said.

Then Poly decided to chime in with his apparent belief that it is unpatriotic to criticize a former President, as well as make it clear that, for many Dopers, hatred of Bush wil motivate every political act they will take for the next fifteen years.

Also, it's true that Bush will not be on the ballot in 2008; that doesn't mean that people aren't going to vote based on their distaste for him.
Well, hell, as I also mentioned, no matter who the Democratic nominee is, most Dopers will vote for him no matter who the Republicans run. And, as I also mentioned elsewhere, any Republican is going to be Pitted for running as, well, a Republican. See the current Pit for that, as I described.

But as I also described, Dopers can't post on anything political (or some Dopers on anything) without making it clear that they hate Bush. That is the sum and total of their political thought. Even in elections where Bush isn't running. Which is every election from now on.

Regards.
Shodan

[crowmanyclouds]

... Because what people objected to in Clinton was not necessarily policy, but lying and other forms of personal sleaze. ...So you'll have no trouble coming up with a list that doesn't include,
Trooper Gate (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troopergate),
Mena (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mena%2C_Arkansas#Allegations_regarding_Bill_Clinton) (Clinton allowed Reagans CIA to smuggle coke in and weapons out to aid the contras (really interesting, assuming it's all true, how that wasn't a Reagan scandal (http://www.serendipity.li/cia/c_o_mena.html)),
the "Clinton Body Count" (http://www.snopes.com/politics/clintons/bodycount.asp),
Vince Foster (murdered by Clinton :rolleyes: ),
Ron Brown (murdered by Clinton :rolleyes: ),
or anything else that's not from The Arkansas Project (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arkansas_Project) or The Clinton Chronicles (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinton_Chronicles) (which you can watch here (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3251077391435895140) and here (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8615500044492220653))

Watch this video (http://www.libertyunites.us/video_brock_blows_whistle_on_fake_clinton_scandals_p._terrorism-613.html) too! "Description:This is Mr.{David} Brock himself admitting he and the press completely fabricated the Clinton immorality movement."

CMC fnord!
RE the OP, want to understand American patriotism?
Read Mark Twain, Will Rogers, and H.L. Menken.

[GIGObuster]

Good refresher there crowmanyclouds, It always amazes me to see how “selective” the recollections of the extreme right are regarding their actions of even the recent past. They seem to have the property of forgetting timeliness or to think time will make everyone forget.

One should only remember that the Republicans investigated every deed of the Clinton's only to end with a pitiful result. Then the Republicans never bothered to investigate the current president like that, and not even in a proper way.

When one can see evidence of abuses of power just after a few weeks of hearings by the new congress, you bet one should demand an explanation to the Republicans that controlled congress before for 12 years why it was better to let all those abuses fester.

"Party before country" should never be an element of American Patriotism, even if many current Republicans are acting like if that is the case.

To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. Nothing but the truth should be spoken about him or any one else. But it is even more important to tell the truth, pleasant or unpleasant, about him than about any one else.
- From the former 26th President of the United States, Theodore (Teddy) Roosevelt, Jr. - Republican. (1918)

[Der Trihs]

One should only remember that the Republicans investigated every deed of the Clinton's only to end with a pitiful result. Personally, the Republican's crusade rather improved my opinion of Clinton; I was surprised that they found so little with so much time, effort and ruthlessness.

[RedFury]

Personally, the Republican's crusade rather improved my opinion of Clinton; I was surprised that they found so little with so much time, effort and ruthlessness.

And so many funds they didn't know what to do with. Let's not forget that part either.

CNN/AllPolitics - Storypage, with TIME and Congressional Quarterly Independent probes of Clinton Administration cost nearly $80 million (http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/04/01/counsel.probe.costs/)

Monet well-spent no doubt. Would the Democrats had as much to investigate Bush...and the balls to go along with same of course.

[Zoe]

Starving Artist: ...just like Bill Clinton got a pass from the feminist movement.

What anti-feminist legislation did President Clinton introduce to Congress? What anti-feminist or sexist comments did he make? Have feminists been overly critical of GWB on gender issues?

Shodan: And the politics of personal destruction was a game played with a great deal of enthusiasm by the Clinton White House. Witness the attacks on Ken Starr.

Did you write that backwards intentionally or do you really not see the irony of 200 million dollars spent in a fruitless investigation?

Another bit of it is the baffled fury of the Left, at people like Rush Limbaugh for actually finding an audience that challenged the mainstream media's stranglehold on public debate.

Shodan, do you really believe that Rush Limbaugh represents what you want us to think of as the Republican's challenge to "mainstream media's stranglehold" on public debate? Hell, even I have more respect for Republicans that that!

<snip>

... And the continued screaming frustration over the 2000 election, which Democrats believed should be theirs by right, even before the recounts. (underscoring added)

Cite for the underscored part, please.

The Internet and the SDMB are merely revealing what the harder parts of the hard Left think about every Republican President. It's not going to change - I would expect that, a year or so after the next Republican is elected President, there will be some one of the Usual Suspects or other who will post that "I hated Bush, but this guy is worse!!!!" It's the nature of the beast on the SDMB.

That's pretty much the definition of the "hard Left," isn't it? If they ever hold a favorable opinion of a Republican president, then they weren't really hard Left, right? And it can't be said of them that they changed. I see.

"I hated Bush, but this guy is worse!!!!"

I didn't see that happen with Ford, Reagan, or Bush I after Nixon. I think most of us thought that would be the worst we would see in our lifetimes. We were wrong. Richard Nixon made my flesh crawl, but George W. Bush has done more to destroy the Constitution and our vision of ourselves.

BTW, if you absolutely insist on voting for a Republican Conservative, you might want to consider Fred Thompson.

[Starving Artist]

Posters such as the two mentioned above seem to believe they can wave away all potential criticisms of the current (as it happens, Republican) administration by continually hoisting straw men, and by claiming that every single criticism is purely done for the sake of partisan maneuvering or through a sourceless, irrational 'Bush-hatred'. I can understand that they think this technique allows them to avoid ever having to present a factual rebuttal, which would take time and effort these posters obviously don't have, but it's a singularly unconvincing debating tactic, and I'm unclear on why they actually believe that it is effective in any way.

Your lack of understanding is understandable (say, what??), given the fact that my comments weren't intended as a 'debating tactic' in the first place. Rather, they were intended as exposition to answer questions posed by chowder.

As far as presenting a 'factual rebuttal' goes, what would be the point?

Anyone reading these boards for one day can easily see it that slants sharply left. Now, let's say that in response to that observation you come charging in demanding cites to prove it. I post, oh, I don't know, a few hundred cites of posters making leftie assertions. You then either excuse, support or deny the validity of these cites and offer offsetting cites of posts made by righties. Then I post more cites showing leftie sentiments, and you post more cites to the contrary...etc., etc. ad infinitum!

The problem, as you and others of your ilk are no doubt aware, is that no definitive and/or probative cites exist that will prove or disprove these types of observations, opinions, beliefs, etc. The best one can do is come up with examples, and these examples prove nothing in and of themselves. All they do is obfuscate and/or derail the subject at hand (which I happen to believe is the number one reason for cite demands around here in the first place). Hear something you don't like but don't have the time, persuasiveness or ammo to refute it? No problem...just demand a meaningless cite (i.e., example) and then you'll have some hair to split which will allow you to derail the issue at hand. You want a cite as to the height of the Empire State Building; I'll give you one. But demand a cite as to whether the SDMB leans left, lacks patriotism, derides conservative presidents, etc., and I'll tell you to go fish because no such proof exists that would settle the issue one way or the other.

But then, you already know that, don't you?

[Starving Artist]

What anti-feminist legislation did President Clinton introduce to Congress? What anti-feminist or sexist comments did he make? IMHO, any conservative politician at the time who could be shown to have engaged in the type of womanizing behavior Bill Clinton engaged in (not to mention the eager and willing dishonesty that accompanied it...ala Gennifer Flowers, to name but one) would have been ridden out of town on a rail by the media, members of the feminist movement and the politicians they support. Yet because Billy-boy was thought to be more sympathetic to their concerns than a conservative president would have been, the outrage that one would expect to follow on the heels of these revelations was conspicuous by its absense.

TW, if you absolutely insist on voting for a Republican Conservative, you might want to consider Fred Thompson.You've suggested this to me before as well and I shall indeed do so (consider him, that is :) ).

Having said that, I hope all is well with you, Zoe.

[tomndebb]

Anyone reading these boards for one day can easily see it that slants sharply left."Sharply" Left? Only to those who lean so far to the Right that they need to prop themselves up on their walking sticks to avoid falling on their sides.

"Sharlpy" left would indicate that stoid was a moderate or held majority views on most political and fiscal topics. That is clearly an absurd characterization. Heck, in terms of the topic of this thread, it is not hard to discover actual Conservative and Conservative/Libertarian posters (e.g., Airman Doors and John Mace), who have voiced opposition to the state that Bush has currently brought the country.

[Captain Carrot]

The problem, as you and others of your ilk are no doubt aware, is that no definitive and/or probative cites exist that will prove or disprove these types of observations, opinions, beliefs, etc. The best one can do is come up with examples, and these examples prove nothing in and of themselves. All they do is obfuscate and/or derail the subject at hand (which I happen to believe is the number one reason for cite demands around here in the first place).
Examples don't count because...why, again? Because they hijack the thread? Because they don't prove or disprove anything?

Or maybe just because they show that what you're arguing is so much crap.

[Mehitabel]

<pokes head above burrow, waves timidly to the OP>

Then there are some of us who love our country and keep our heads down; who have a quiet surge of feeling when we watch WWII vets march by or the 343 young firemen carrying flags, one for each fallen 9/11 brother, in the St. Patrick's Day parade; who think often of our ancestors, forsaking the Old World (which was often screwing them over--the Enclosure Acts got a lot of my farming family over here in the 1820s) to come here and within a few generations being able to lead lives that are still the envy of the world; who think nothing of passing by people from six continents on the streets every day; who vote with dislike but not hatred against the other guy; and who don't use words like 'ilk' without thinking of Berke Breathed.

We're often afraid of being yelled at or having endless cites thrown at us by people with too much time on their hands, but we're out here on the boards. Be nice to us and we'll pop our heads out like prairie dogs from time to time in threads like this. I appreciate the OP's question and I'm glad he's asking it.

<slips back into hole>

[chowder]

Little things like invading countries, torture, mass killing, electing scum like Bush and so on. Do I really have to list all the various evils and stupidities of America ?
No you do not, how about this.

List all the good things about America, of which there are many.

List all the various evils and stupidities of yourself, there must be a few :rolleyes:

[BobLibDem]

As Shodan indicated above, Bush is not on the ballot in 2008. Yet Democrats will have a precedent in running against him. I often say party platforms aren't worth a lot, but in this case they illustrate a point.

If you look at the 1984 Republican platform, (http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=25845) Jimmy Carter, although not being on the ballot, appears no fewer than 20 times. Typical are these snippets:
During the Carter-Mondale Administration, no group of Americans was spared from the impact of a failing economy.
...
The tax burden, which had increased steadily during the Carter-Mondale Administration, was at a record high and scheduled to go even higher.
...
The Carter-Mondale Administration, and 28 years of a Congress rigidly controlled by the Democrats and out of touch with the people, brought farmers and ranchers to the hardest times since the Great Depression.


Only once is Mondale mentioned without a Carter- prefix, and that was in raising the spectre of a Mondale-Ferraro tax hike.

Of course, it's hard to break old habits. After running against Carter in 1976, 1980, and 1984, they ran against him in 1988 as well.

The 1988 Republican platform (http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=25846) mentions Carter five times (seven and a half years since his presidency) and Dukakis not at all. Typical snippets:
Now the ideological heirs of Carter and Mondale are trying again to sell the public a false bill of goods. These liberals call America's prosperity an illusion. They fantasize our economy is declining. They claim our future is in the hands of other nations. They aren't operating in the real world.
...
The Carter' "misery index"—the sum of the inflation and unemployment rates—is half of what it was in 1980. Republican economic policies have turned it into a "prosperity index."

So Reagan ran as "I'm not Carter" in 1980 and 1984, while the competent President Bush ran as "I'm not Carter, either" in 1988. All this against a president who didn't lie to start a war, who didn't have an attorney general with a constantly-growing nose, who didn't sanction the use of torture, who didn't cut off scientific research to placate a religious faction, and who is now widely regarded as one of the most moral men to hold the office.

[FRDE]

As Shodan indicated above, Bush is not on the ballot in 2008. Yet Democrats will have a precedent in running against him. I often say party platforms aren't worth a lot, but in this case they illustrate a point.

If you look at the 1984 Republican platform, (http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=25845) Jimmy Carter, although not being on the ballot, appears no fewer than 20 times. Typical are these snippets:


Only once is Mondale mentioned without a Carter- prefix, and that was in raising the spectre of a Mondale-Ferraro tax hike.

Of course, it's hard to break old habits. After running against Carter in 1976, 1980, and 1984, they ran against him in 1988 as well.

The 1988 Republican platform (http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=25846) mentions Carter five times (seven and a half years since his presidency) and Dukakis not at all. Typical snippets:


So Reagan ran as "I'm not Carter" in 1980 and 1984, while the competent President Bush ran as "I'm not Carter, either" in 1988. All this against a president who didn't lie to start a war, who didn't have an attorney general with a constantly-growing nose, who didn't sanction the use of torture, who didn't cut off scientific research to placate a religious faction, and who is now widely regarded as one of the most moral men to hold the office.

While I consider Jimmy Carter a pretty good guy, I hold him responsible for the mess in Iran and the even bigger mess in Afghanistan.

Even in 1979, it was obvious what was going on.

[BobLibDem]

Let's not forget who armed Saddam. (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2003/03/02/IN123519.DTL)

We tend to forget that the Reagan-Bush administration maintained cordial relations with Hussein in the '80s, promoting Iraq's eight-year war against Iran. Twenty-four U.S. firms exported arms and materials to Baghdad. France also sent Hussein 200 AMX medium tanks, Mirage bombers and Gazelle helicopter gunships. As Assistant Secretary of Defense Richard Armitage testified in 1987:

"We cannot stand to see Iraq defeated." The CIA, State Department, the central military command directing Middle East operations, were well aware of Iraq's biological-weapons efforts. Nevertheless, Iraq's applications were seldom denied.


As it turned out, Carter didn't lose any of the hostages. He could have gone in with guns blazing but he took a calm, measured approach.

I'm not sure how Carter is responsible for Afghanistan. During his term, the Soviets invaded and Carter protested. The Soviets eventually got bogged down and left. How is that Carter's fault?

[FRDE]

As it turned out, Carter didn't lose any of the hostages. He could have gone in with guns blazing but he took a calm, measured approach.

I'm not sure how Carter is responsible for Afghanistan. During his term, the Soviets invaded and Carter protested. The Soviets eventually got bogged down and left. How is that Carter's fault?

The Shah fell because of lack of 'moral' support from the USA

SAVAK were pussy cats compared with the Mullahs, and anyone with understanding of the Russian 1917 revolution would have understood that.

With Afghanistan, we and the USA should have actively supported the USSR, you might accuse me of 20/20 hindsight, but I and a few others believed that in 1979.

The Russians knew what they were fighting, we and the USA armed our natural enemies. The Soviets understood that they had met an ideology that was more dangerous than their own - with help it could have been contained, or ideally wiped out.

[BobLibDem]

If you were supporting the USSR in the Afghan war, you were in the distinct minority. Do you think that any other president (let's just say Ford or Reagan) would have handled the situation much differently?

As for the Shah, the US habit of propping up despots can backfire once the despot falls. Maybe the mullahs are worse than SAVAK, but at the time the Iranian people knew only of the brutality of SAVAK.

[What Exit?]

As it turned out, Carter didn't lose any of the hostages. He could have gone in with guns blazing but he took a calm, measured approach.

This had nothing to do with the fact that the military was in terrible shape under Carter and the attempt to go in with guns blazing failed because too many of the Copters in the rescue mission failed to work under the desert conditions?

Are you perhaps rewriting history to meet your own opinion?

Jim

[BobLibDem]

Define "terrible shape" please. Under Ford and Carter, the military necessarily shrunk as a consequence of the end of the Vietnam. But the US successfully fought back all invasion attempts at the time.

[Shodan]

Sharply" Left? Only to those who lean so far to the Right that they need to prop themselves up on their walking sticks to avoid falling on their sides.No, sharply left to anyone who isn't in denial.
As it turned out, Carter didn't lose any of the hostages. He could have gone in with guns blazing but he took a calm, measured approach. 444 days of a "calm, measured approach" that achieved - what, exactly?

But you are correct - none of the hostages died. A couple of people died when Carter did go in with guns, or at least helicopters, blazing, (n the botched military rescue attempt), true, but that doesn't count, does it?
I'm not sure how Carter is responsible for Afghanistan. During his term, the Soviets invaded and Carter protested. The Soviets eventually got bogged down and left. How is that Carter's fault?
The part where they left certainly had nothing to do with anything Carter did, that much is true. It was Reagan's Stinger missiles that allowed the Afghani resistance to shoot down Soviet aircraft that turned much of the balance, along with the renaissance of the American economy (and Star Wars) that aided the general collapse of Soviet Communism that did much of the rest.

But you have the general history right. The Soviets (knowing that Carter would do nothing effective) invaded, Carter protested (and achieved nothing), Reagan was elected (and started support for the muhajadeen), the Soviets subsequently were kicked out, and none of it was achieved because of Carter, whose foreign policy consisted of wearing a sweater and wringing his hands over the US malaise.

But your point is good about running against Mondale and Carter in 1988. I expect this is a function of Bush Sr. being Reagan's running mate in 1980 and 1984. So the Republicans ran against Carter in 1980, because Carter was the Democrat nominee, against Carter's running mate in 1984, because it was Carter's running mate, and then in 1988 because Bush Sr. was Reagan's running mate in 1980 and 1984.

Leaving aside that "platforms don't mean anything". ;)
To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. Nothing but the truth should be spoken about him or any one else. But it is even more important to tell the truth, pleasant or unpleasant, about him than about any one else.

- From the former 26th President of the United States, Theodore (Teddy) Roosevelt, Jr. - Republican. (1918)Ssh - don't tell this to Polycarp - he seems pretty sure it isn't true.

For Democratic Presidents, that is.

Regards,
Shodan

[tomndebb]

List all the various evils and stupidities of yourself, there must be a few :rolleyes:Why would Der Trihs wish to list any of his own "evils" or "stupidities" (assuming he had any) in this thread?

You would not happen to be attempting with your questions to make a direct personal attack on another poster in GD, would you? Were that the case, I am afraid that we would be required to sanction your posts, here.

Back off.
If you feel the need to attack a poster, go start or join a Pit thread on the topic.

[ /Moderating ]

[BobLibDem]

No, sharply left to anyone who isn't in denial.
444 days of a "calm, measured approach" that achieved - what, exactly?

But you are correct - none of the hostages died. A couple of people died when Carter did go in with guns, or at least helicopters, blazing, (n the botched military rescue attempt), true, but that doesn't count, does it?

The part where they left certainly had nothing to do with anything Carter did, that much is true. It was Reagan's Stinger missiles that allowed the Afghani resistance to shoot down Soviet aircraft that turned much of the balance, along with the renaissance of the American economy (and Star Wars) that aided the general collapse of Soviet Communism that did much of the rest.

A surgical rescue mission isn't what I'd call "guns blazing". It was a measured gamble as opposed to a massive invasion. One wonders what Bush would have done in his place.

I noticed that you didn't give specific names as to who Reagan armed in Afghanistan. Does Osama ring a bell?

The notion that Reagan brought about the collapse of the Soviet Union has been thoroughly debunked, so I won't repeat the exercise.

[What Exit?]

Define "terrible shape" please. Under Ford and Carter, the military necessarily shrunk as a consequence of the end of the Vietnam. But the US successfully fought back all invasion attempts at the time.
:D
The military morale was very low, the equipment was in bad shape. But yes, I did overlook the invasion of the 79th Yak Brigade being successfully repulsed.

The rescue attempt was tried and was a dismal failure. That was an attempt at a guns blazing approach. It did not happen only because are equipment was not up to the job.

Jim

[BobLibDem]

The military morale was very low

How do we know this? If so, how much was due to Carter and how much to Nixon and Ford losing the Vietnam war? Perhaps the military morale will slip under President Edwards as a result of Bush's failed war in Iraq.

[What Exit?]

How do we know this? If so, how much was due to Carter and how much to Nixon and Ford losing the Vietnam war? Perhaps the military morale will slip under President Edwards as a result of Bush's failed war in Iraq.
I followed the Carter era, which did have more to do with post Vietnam than his failings. Morale was crap under Carter and increased greatly under Reagan. Reagan pour money into the military, of course morale went up. It went up a lot. Carter had to deal with military budget cuts and the fact America had just "lost its first war". Morale was crap in that time period in the military. I do not recall it being all that great in civilian life either. Perhaps you remember differently?

Jim

[BobLibDem]

If cutting budgets decreases morale, why do Bush I and his defense secretary, Dick Cheney, get a pass? From the Pentagon... (http://www.defenselink.mil/specials/secdef_histories/bios/cheney.htm) The DoD budget faced Cheney with his most immediate and pressing problem when he came to the Pentagon. President Bush had already said publicly that the proposed FY 1990 Defense budget of more than $300 billion had to be cut immediately by $6.3 billion, and soon after Cheney began work the president increased the amount to $10 billion. Cheney recognized the necessity of cutting the budget and downsizing the military establishment, but he favored a cautious approach.
...

In his budget proposal for FY 1993, his last one, Cheney asked for termination of the B-2 program at 20 aircraft, cancellation of the Midgetman, and limitations on advanced cruise missile purchases to those already authorized. When introducing this budget, Cheney complained that Congress had directed Defense to buy weapons it did not want, including the V-22, M-1 tanks, and F-14 and F-16 aircraft, and required it to maintain some unneeded reserve forces. His plan outlined about $50 billion less in budget authority over the next 5 years than the Bush administration had proposed in 1991.


Carter cuts military = low morale. Bush/Cheney cut military not = low morale. Why?

[tomndebb]

No, sharply left to anyone who isn't in denial. Your own overweening bias is on display, here. Name any active posters (aside from stoid) who fits any classic definition (not one invented by Limbaugh or Coulter) of Socialist or Communist. There are clearly enough left-leaning posters that the board displays a bit of a tilt, but as I have already expounded (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=8139057#post8139057) in this earlier thread, the whole "Left/Right" distinctions on this board are overly simplistic characterizations that ignore the genuinely more nuanced perspectives of the actual participants.

You appear (with many of your comments) to be so emotionally invested in defining yourself on the Right wing of society that you would consider Barry Goldwater some sort of commie fellow traveler if he posted, today.

[What Exit?]

If cutting budgets decreases morale, why do Bush I and his defense secretary, Dick Cheney, get a pass? From the Pentagon... (http://www.defenselink.mil/specials/secdef_histories/bios/cheney.htm)

Carter cuts military = low morale. Bush/Cheney cut military not = low morale. Why?
It was not just the budget cuts, it was also, as I know I mentioned, the fact that "America had just lost its first war". There was no message of strong support for the military from Carter either. How good is the morale of the military right now anyway? I have no way to judge. I have been out since 1989.

I do not think I made any claims that you think I made with your first sentence. I would rather you did not try to put words in my mouth. I was speaking from experience and recollection about Carter and the Reagan years.

Jim

[El_Kabong]

Anyone reading these boards for one day can easily see it that slants sharply left. Now, let's say that in response to that observation you come charging in demanding cites to prove it. I post, oh, I don't know, a few hundred cites of posters making leftie assertions. You then either excuse, support or deny the validity of these cites and offer offsetting cites of posts made by righties. Then I post more cites showing leftie sentiments, and you post more cites to the contrary...etc., etc. ad infinitum!

Except no one has asked you for cites to anything in this thread. Indeed, what cites could be demanded for your completely speculative claims as to what unnamed 'liberals' might do in the case of a future Republican administration? Your argument has no real content.

As far as presenting a 'factual rebuttal' goes, what would be the point?

The point, of course, would be to demonstrate that you have some actual knowledge or insight into the motives and behavior of what you define as liberals. Don't worry, though; if you really want to come off as not knowing much of anything about the subject you claim to be expert on, that's entirely up to you.

I said clearly why I think you are a rather ineffective debater: you claim, without any clear justification, to speak for the motives of a group you are not part of, and I simply pointed out that if I really want to know what someone from that group thinks, I can just ask them. Your tedious 'explanations' of that group's motives and beahvior, and your speculations on what some undidentifed people they might do in some undetermined future, I find not very insightful nor accurate.

But then, you already know that, don't you?

[1010011010]

Constant GWB bashing, criticism of your Govt. and armed forces, persons on this board who appear to hate the country of their birth....and for no apparent reason.
Funny. I'd say the apparent reasons for the harsh criticism of the government is patriotism.

It occurs to me that the oath taken by military personnel is to support and defend the Constitution. Not the President. Not the government.

Patriotic support in America is, in my opinion, to the idealized idea of what America should be... and not necessarily so much to whatever it happens to actually be that election cycle.

[El_Kabong]

Oh, and I apologize to all for the hijack. Any further comments I may make will stick strictly to subject of the OP.

[BobLibDem]

I do not think I made any claims that you think I made with your first sentence. I would rather you did not try to put words in my mouth. I was speaking from experience and recollection about Carter and the Reagan years.


I wasn't trying to put words in your mouth. My apologies if that was the impression. I meant that a lot of people give Bush I/Cheney a pass on defense spending while chastising Carter for the same thing. Similarly, it's often said that the military was depressed over the Vietnam war, which Carter had squat to do about it.

[What Exit?]

I wasn't trying to put words in your mouth. My apologies if that was the impression. I meant that a lot of people give Bush I/Cheney a pass on defense spending while chastising Carter for the same thing. Similarly, it's often said that the military was depressed over the Vietnam war, which Carter had squat to do about it.
Ok, I agree on both.

It still does not get us around the fact, that Carter approve a very small scale invasion of Iran to attempt to retrieve the hostages and it only failed to happen as the equipment was not up to the job.

BTW: This failure did wonders for the Army's morale from what vets of the time told me.

Jim

[BobLibDem]

BTW: This failure did wonders for the Army's morale from what vets of the time told me.

I have no reason to doubt this but I don't get it. Carter ordered a mission that could have succeeded. Had he done so, it would have been hailed as a stroke of genius. But too many helicopters broke down to make a go of it. Bad luck? Maybe. Could it be the helicopters weren't up to it? Maybe. But it seems that the army should have used the best available equipment for the job. If they didn't, that's where the blame should lie. Some military types wanted to dislike Carter, so they made an excuse to do so. Whether it was deserved or not, is up to interpretation. They used to say that if Reagan walked in the rain, Carter would catch a cold. Reagan the fair haired could do no wrong, Carter the redheaded half brother could do no right.

[What Exit?]

I have no reason to doubt this but I don't get it. Carter ordered a mission that could have succeeded. Had he done so, it would have been hailed as a stroke of genius. But too many helicopters broke down to make a go of it. Bad luck? Maybe. Could it be the helicopters weren't up to it? Maybe. But it seems that the army should have used the best available equipment for the job. If they didn't, that's where the blame should lie. Some military types wanted to dislike Carter, so they made an excuse to do so. Whether it was deserved or not, is up to interpretation. They used to say that if Reagan walked in the rain, Carter would catch a cold. Reagan the fair haired could do no wrong, Carter the redheaded half brother could do no right.
It is all true and even more so for the Navy then the other services. Reagan arguably reversed 35 years of the Air Force marginalizing the importance of the Navy. So, you will probably find Navy & Marine vets like Reagan even more than Army and Air Force.

It is hard to describe the morale in the late 70s and the change under Reagan. Carter despite a brilliant military career was seen as a dove and a liberal who was not pro-military. There was a common fear that we had lost our edge to the USSR. The army was devastated by the Vietnam adventure.

Then Reagan road in and said he would make our military great again. He would have a 600 ship Navy. He would build a missile shield to protect us from Nuclear War. He basically told the military they were appreciated and vital. He also pushed hard to clean up the military. It was during the Reagan years that drug use in the military dropped as they drummed out or busted any personnel that failed the urine test. By the time I left the military in 1989, the Soviet Union was falling apart quick, our Navy was recognized as more powerful than the rest of the world and people were crediting Reagan with winning the cold war even if you do not accept this as truth. (another and oft repeated debate).

So, yes, Carter could do no right and Reagan looked like the best friend the military had since Teddy.

Jim

[BobLibDem]

Can't argue with that. Perception is everything. Military types love Reagan and loathe Carter, probably beyond what each deserve.

[chowder]

Why would Der Trihs wish to list any of his own "evils" or "stupidities" (assuming he had any) in this thread?

You would not happen to be attempting with your questions to make a direct personal attack on another poster in GD, would you? Were that the case, I am afraid that we would be required to sanction your posts, here.

Back off.
If you feel the need to attack a poster, go start or join a Pit thread on the topic.

[ /Moderating ]
Apologies if I upset you. It's just that Der Trihs so irritates me with his irrational hatered of all things American. Yes, I'll go to the pit if I need to be more vehement towards him.
Hopefully it won't come to that as it would serve no purpose, he's been pitted so many times I doubt I've anything to add.

[Shodan]

Now this is rich.Your own overweening bias is on display, here. Name any active posters (aside from stoid) who fits any classic definition (not one invented by Limbaugh or Coulter) of Socialist or Communist. There are clearly enough left-leaning posters that the board displays a bit of a tilt, but as I have already expounded (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=8139057#post8139057) in this earlier thread, the whole "Left/Right" distinctions on this board are overly simplistic characterizations that ignore the genuinely more nuanced perspectives of the actual participants.
Followed instantly with this-
You appear (with many of your comments) to be so emotionally invested in defining yourself on the Right wing of society that you would consider Barry Goldwater some sort of commie fellow traveler if he posted, today.
I got it - the whole left-right distinction is too simplistic to be usefully applied to you, but not to anyone who isn't on the Left.

The facility with which you folks contradict yourselves is part of the entertainment. Witness the thread's almost instantaneous flip-flop from "those mean Republicans are questioning anyone's patriotism who criticizes a President, which is actually an act of the highest virtue" to questioning my patriotism for criticizing a President he likes. Or your own rather pathetic attempts to define anyone who isn't an actual, card-carrying member of the Socialist Worker's Party as not a member of the left. It is to laugh. I noticed that you didn't give specific names as to who Reagan armed in Afghanistan. Does Osama ring a bell?You realize, perhaps, that Osama left Afghanistan when the Soviets did? (http://www.infoplease.com/spot/osamabinladen.html)
I have no reason to doubt this but I don't get it. Carter ordered a mission that could have succeeded. Had he done so, it would have been hailed as a stroke of genius. But too many helicopters broke down to make a go of it. Bad luck? Maybe. Could it be the helicopters weren't up to it? Maybe. But it seems that the army should have used the best available equipment for the job. If they didn't, that's where the blame should lie.
My understanding is that the military wanted to use more helicopters, but Carter approved the barest minimum. They had no backup therefore, and the mission failed, at least in part because Carter was a timid soul who generally erred on the side of caution. Maybe he was afraid the mission would be attacked by angry rabbits. (http://www.newsoftheodd.com/article1021.html)

Regards,
Shodan

[BobLibDem]

My understanding is that the military wanted to use more helicopters, but Carter approved the barest minimum. They had no backup therefore, and the mission failed, at least in part because Carter was a timid soul who generally erred on the side of caution. Maybe he was afraid the mission would be attacked by angry rabbits. (http://www.newsoftheodd.com/article1021.html)


What would have more chance of entering stealthily- four helicopters or eight? If being undetected wasn't an issue, I'd say the more the better. But if it is, then the number of helicopters isn't as black and white as you might think.

[What Exit?]

What would have more chance of entering stealthily- four helicopters or eight? If being undetected wasn't an issue, I'd say the more the better. But if it is, then the number of helicopters isn't as black and white as you might think.
While I don't agree with much of what Shodan posted, if you want to use 4 copters on a critical mission, have 6-8 ready to fly and ensure they are desert ready. Not that you need 8 to fly in, just that you need to have enough equipment to ensure that 4 can fly in.

Jim

[crowmanyclouds]

... But you have the general history right. The Soviets (knowing that Carter would do nothing effective) invaded, Carter protested (and achieved nothing), Reagan was elected (and started support for the muhajadeen), the Soviets subsequently were kicked out, and none of it was achieved because of Carter, whose foreign policy consisted of wearing a sweater and wringing his hands over the US malaise. ...Tell that to Zbigniew Brzezinski,... January 18, 1998, Brzezinski (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zbigniew_Brzezinski#Afghanistan) was interviewed by the French newspaper, Nouvel Observateur on the topic of Afghanistan. He revealed that CIA support for the mujaheddin started before the Soviet invasion, and was indeed designed to prompt a Soviet invasion, leading them into a bloody conflict on par with America's experience in Vietnam. This was referred to as the "Afghan Trap." Brzezinski viewed the end of the Soviet empire as worth the cost of strengthening militant Islamic groups. Full Text of Interview (http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/BRZ110A.html)

In his 1997 book, The Grand Chessboard, Brzezinski says that assistance to the Afghan resistance was a tactic designed to bog down the Soviet army, while the United States built up a deterrent military force in the Persian Gulf to prevent Soviet political or military penetration further south (see: the Carter Doctrine).

In a footnote in his 2000 book, The Geostrategic Triad, Brzezinski notes:

The full story of the productive U.S.-China cooperation directed against the Soviet Union (especially in regard to Afghanistan), initiated by the Carter Administration and continued under Reagan, still remains to be told. and Robert Gates,... Like (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_war_in_Afghanistan#Initiation_of_the_insurgency) many other anti-communist movements at that time, the rebels quickly garnered support from the United States. As stated by the former director of the CIA and current Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates, in his memoirs "From the Shadows", the American intelligence services began to aid the opposing factions in Afghanistan 6 months before the Soviet deployment. On July 3, 1979, US President Jimmy Carter signed a directive authorizing the CIA to conduct covert propaganda operations against the revolutionary regime.

Carter advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski stated "According to the official version of history, CIA aid to the Mujahadeen began during 1980, that is to say, after the Soviet army invaded Afghanistan, 24 Dec 1979. But the reality, secretly guarded until now, is completely otherwise." Brzezinski himself played a fundamental role in crafting U.S. policy, which, unbeknownst even to the Mujahideen, was part of a larger strategy "to induce a Soviet military intervention." In a 1998 interview with Le Nouvel Observateur, Brzezinski recalled:

"That secret operation was an excellent idea. It had the effect of drawing the Soviets into the Afghan trap..." [...]"The day that the Soviets officially crossed the border, I wrote to President Carter. We now have the opportunity of giving to the Soviet Union its Vietnam War." ...but I'm sure you know more about this little bit of American history than Zbig and Gates, right?

CMC fnord!
Speaking of history if we're gonna talk about Operation Eagle Claw (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Eagle_Claw) maybe we should all read The Holloway Report (http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB63/doc8.pdf)(PDF) - the official DoD Investigation into the incident first?

[XT]

I once had Americans pegged as the most patriot people on the planet, now I'm none to sure.

I don't think this is accurate....though I guess it has to do with your definition of 'patriot' and patriotic.

Constant GWB bashing, criticism of your Govt. and armed forces, persons on this board who appear to hate the country of their birth....and for no apparent reason.

Its our national past time...bashing the government. I think its at the heart of a misunderstanding you have as well. You see, being an America is about being a citizen...and therefore being critical about our government. After all, we (well, those of us who take citizenship seriously) have a stake in things. These folks work for us after all (in theory at least)...so therefore we have both a right and a duty to bitch about them when they fuck up, or do stuff contrary to our wishes. Ironically, we like to bitch when they do what we want them to do at the time as well....we convinently forget this if things don't go the way we wanted them too. :p

Other countries have democracies as well...but the US has the oldest, and ours is a bit different than in other countries as well. Too, we have our own traditions and attitudes. But its not considered unpatriotic (by any but the most idiotic) to criticize the current government, or bash the president...far from it.

Of course, hating the country, as some do, goes a bit beyond the pale...but note that these folks are pretty much the lunitic fringe by and large. All countries have the like.

I'll admit that Bush is not the brightest star in the sky but he is your elected
president and as such surely he is deserving of your support. Maybe he will win another term, maybe not. Who is to say that his successor will be any better or worse than he is.

Two things here. I agree...gods help us, he IS our president. ALL our president, whether we voted for the man or not (I did not). That said, he certainly deserves a measure of our support.

On the other hand however, the man works for US...not the other way around. At least, thats how its supposed to be. So...like any employee, when he fucks up (as he seems to have a true talent to do), its our right, even our duty, to make our displeasure felt...to have our voices heard. True, we SHOULD have made this displeasure felt in the last election...but things were still sufficiently muddled at that time for GW to keep his job. However, note that in the latest Congressional elections, there was a distinct shift in public attitude.

Personally, I think the OFFICE of the Presidency deserves all our respect...while the MAN in that office has to earn the respect. Its not granted.

You may rest assured that whoever succeeds GWB then that person also will make mistakes, will you then turn on him in much the same way

You are quite correct...as I said, its our number one favorite national past time. :p You can pretty much take it to the bank that if a Dem is elected, there will be a large segment of the population that is unhappy (though perhaps not a large segment on this board ;) ), while the same will be true if another Pub is served up.

You were once a God fearing nation but this has also flown out the window from what I can gather by the constant repudiation of an Almighty which I witness on this board.

As others have pointed out, you can't gage the country by this board. That said though, I think many on this board over rate the degree that the country is in the grip of religious frenzy. We are only a religious nation when compared to the much more secular countries in Europe. Compared to most non-European nations, we are quite secular. Polls aside, I think that most people in the US have a veneer of religion on top, but under they are more secular in outlook than seems the case. IMHO, when people take religious polls in the US, they are saying what they THINK they should say...not necessarily what they actually think.

So tell me, are Americans just a fiercely patriotic as they once were or have I got the wrong end of the stick

I believe that, by and large, America's ARE proud of their country and quite patriotic...its just that this patriotism takes a different form than perhaps you believe to be the case. As I said above, not only is it right for us, as citizens, to criticize our government (they work for us after all), but its pretty much our duty to do so.


Wasn't going to weigh in on this question, but decided to throw in my two cents after all...FWIW. Take what I say with a grain of salt...my opinions aren't exactly mainstream either. But...I think the CORE of what I'm saying IS relevent, and its important to understand how American's think...even if its at a subconsious level...about their country and their franchise.

-XT

[Spectre of Pithecanthropus]

chowder, the SDMB is so not indicative of the US majority views. When was the last time you visited? I was there in late 2005 and can assure you that patriotism and being "under God" are alive and well, and in your face. Certainly where I was (LA, TN, and NYC), anyway. Maybe if you went to San Francisco or somewhere you might draw a different opinion, but SF doesn't represent the majority of the country.

LA--is that Louisiana or Los Angeles?

You don't usually get the "under God" in-your-face style of patriotism in the larger cities. I would expect that most of the biggest cities are like San Francisco in this regard.

I do think political leaders should refrain from including prayers in their speeches, and it makes my skin crawl when he ends every speech, "God Bless The USA". And I'm sure he has a large contituency of supporters that he's catering to by saying that, but you sure aren't going to run into a great many of them in the big coastal cities.

Almost as much as his actions, I'm ashamed of Bush for his mediocrity. Look at Nixon. Love him or hate him, he was a very intelligent man, second in his class at Whittier and again second at Duke Law. Bush, on the other hand, just managed to squeak by at Yale, from what I've heard, and actually seems to trade on his doltishness.

[gigi]

It's because I'm religious that I am not patriotic. I have to believe in a world, not in countries, since a country will inevitably come up with an "us and them" and expects its citizens to fall in line and support the attack of other human beings. I don't swell with pride seeing soldiers from the United States assemble to hurt other countries. I am ashamed that anyone feels pride in learning to use a weapon and being willing to kill other humans.

[tomndebb]

I got it - the whole left-right distinction is too simplistic to be usefully applied to you, but not to anyone who isn't on the Left. Actually, if you read for comprehension you would note that I made no comment regarding Right wing posters or conservative posters; I made an observation regarding your posting. You post very little of substance in GD, typically interrupting other discussions to do little more than whine that "Liberals say (or do) thi-i-i-is" or to say little more than "the usual subjects are. . . " followed by some stereotypical tripe that could be picked up from any freeper's page used as an ad hominem attack on some nebulous group of Dopers. I don't look on you so much as actually "Right wing" as simply the rightist counterpart to a couple of the Bush-haters who post just as little substance.

There are several Conservative or Right wing posters on the SDMB, (rather fewer than Liberal or Left wing, but still here). I no more count you among them than I count the reflexive Bush bashers as representative of the Left or Liberal positions. Anyone can hurl invective and it is probably just an accident of birth as to what sort of invective gets hurled.

[DMC]

It is hard to describe the morale in the late 70s and the change under Reagan. Carter despite a brilliant military career was seen as a dove and a liberal who was not pro-military. There was a common fear that we had lost our edge to the USSR. The army was devastated by the Vietnam adventure. I was in the Army for the vast majority of the Carter administration, and don't recall any morale issues relating to the President. In fact, I actually had to go verify that Carter was the President at the time I was in, as there were no memories of "Damn that Carter and his <insert thing he did that would affect the morale of us soldiers>". I was still active when the failed rescue attempt took place, and don't remember any of my fellow soldiers putting that one at Carter's feet. To be honest, unless they're getting a pay raise/pay cut, or are going to war/not going to war, I'd bet that your average soldier could give a damn who the president is. That was at least how things were back then. It just isn't that important to the average 18 year old, who cares far more how big of an ass his CO or Top is than much of anything else.

[What Exit?]

I was in the Army for the vast majority of the Carter administration, and don't recall any morale issues relating to the President. In fact, I actually had to go verify that Carter was the President at the time I was in, as there were no memories of "Damn that Carter and his <insert thing he did that would affect the morale of us soldiers>". I was still active when the failed rescue attempt took place, and don't remember any of my fellow soldiers putting that one at Carter's feet. To be honest, unless they're getting a pay raise/pay cut, or are going to war/not going to war, I'd bet that your average soldier could give a damn who the president is. That was at least how things were back then. It just isn't that important to the average 18 year old, who cares far more how big of an ass his CO or Top is than much of anything else.
Well of course YMdidV. My fellow sailors were overall pretty happy with Reagan as CIC. He did not just talk a good game, he did build the Navy up to unprecedented levels. We grumbled about not get pay raises but appreciated the ships and modern weapons we did get. Sailors re-enlisted to get duty on the Battle Ships. Maybe sailors were better educated then the "average soldier". ;)

Jim

[ElvisL1ves]

Shodan, hasn't it occurred to you yet that the Republican candidate next year, far more so than the Democrat, will be forced to run on the "I'm not Bush" platform you scorn?

To the OP, yes, your concept of patriotism is too shallow, indistinguishable from mere jingoism. ISTM, and to most of us, really, that a deep love of country means you want to make it better, you want to fix its mistakes, you first need to identify them and get people to agree that they're mistakes that need to be fixed. That process does necessarily involve discussing problem areas far more extensively than thngs that are going well and don't need much effort. That should be obvious, and it's all you're seeing from us. Recent problems and mistakes have been getting far more attention than most mainly because they're far more serious and far more work is needed to fix them.

And, on the flip side, ISTM that a belief that your country is already the best it can be, no improvement is possible, any changes could only be for the worse, is simple, depressing, defeatism. It's giving up on ever being able to make any progress. It isn't love of country. It isn't patriotism at all.

[Lust4Life]

Der Trihs: I am not grovelling at all. I like the USA , nothing wrong with that is there?.

Over the years the Yanks have been good friends to us, two world wars ,the cold war and even during the Falklands war (both sides in the conflict American allies) the U.S. supplied us under the table with amongst other things the latest Air to Air missiles and satellite intelligence.

Instead of remaining strictly neutral between two allies they chose to help us against an ally in their own back yard.

Both countries armed forces command and control and intelligence services intermesh very well as do many other things ,stock exchange emergency back up etc.

The fact that many of Britains institutions and general population genuinlly feel a closer affinity with America then even our European partners (before you ask Im pro Europe) and yes actual friendship, it doesnt equate with grovelling.

You help friends where possible not for what you might get out of it but because you recognise each other as two twigs from the same branch.
Or family if you prefer.

[What Exit?]

Over the years the Yanks have been good friends to us, two world wars ,the cold war and even during the Falklands war (both sides in the conflict American allies) the U.S. supplied us under the table with amongst other things the latest Air to Air missiles and satellite intelligence.

Instead of remaining strictly neutral between two allies they chose to help us against an ally in their own back yard.

Both countries armed forces command and control and intelligence services intermesh very well as do many other things ,stock exchange emergency back up etc.

The fact that many of Britains institutions and general population genuinlly feel a closer affinity with America then even our European partners (before you ask Im pro Europe) and yes actual friendship, it doesnt equate with grovelling.

You help friends where possible not for what you might get out of it but because you recognise each other as two twigs from the same branch.
Or family if you prefer.
Well said and among many of us, especially vets, I believe the feeling is mutual. England has been our best ally and best friend for a very long time now.

My understanding is that some of the military support during the Falklands just happened via the Pentagon without official orders from the President. I could be wrong, but this is what I have heard over the years.

On 9/11 no country stood quicker and better by us then the UK. I do feel sorry the British people followed down the rabbit hole known as Iraq. Hopefully this does not adversely affect future relations.

Jim

[RickJay]

On 9/11 no country stood quicker and better by us then the UK.
You have a short and faulty memory.

[What Exit?]

You have a short and faulty memory.
Oh, Canada! Yeah, I guess they were quicker.

I seem to recall Tony Blair was the second most heard voice that day after Rudy Giuliani. I remember hearing him speak before Bush did. Perhaps I am wrong? That is what I am basing it on. The internet was pretty spotty in this area in the morning, I could not get CNN or MSNBC, but I was able to get the BBC. This might have 'coloured' my point of view from the earliest hours.

However, Canada did everything possible, incredibly quick to assist in landing all Aircraft. That was an awesome and incredible job.

Jim

[RickJay]

Oh, Canada! Yeah, I guess they were quicker.

I seem to recall Tony Blair was the second most heard voice that day after Rudy Giuliani.
Talk is cheap. Actually doing something is what matters.

Six more Canadian troops died yesterday in Afghanistan, incidentally, while fighting to protect the USA from further terrorist attacks.

[What Exit?]

Talk is cheap. Actually doing something is what matters.

Six more Canadian troops died yesterday in Afghanistan, incidentally, while fighting to protect the USA from further terrorist attacks.
Well a thank you will ring hollow. If we did not start this second little private war, I think we would have had the man power to properly bring Afghanistan to a good conclusion. But this has been hashed over a thousand times on this board alone.

RickJay if you feel Canada has been a better ally/friend than the UK over the last 100 years, I can see your point, but in many ways I would rate UK 1 and Canada a close 2. I would go to war to defend any of the 3 from an aggressor.

Jim

[Baron Greenback]

Talk is cheap. Actually doing something is what matters.

Six more Canadian troops died yesterday in Afghanistan, incidentally, while fighting to protect the USA from further terrorist attacks.

There are of course several thousand UK troops in Afghanistan doing the same.

[Stoid]

"Sharlpy" left would indicate that stoid was a moderate or held majority views on most political and fiscal topics. That is clearly an absurd characterization. .

It's nice to know I'm not forgotten.

However, for the record, I'd like to make a distinction: my actual views, on most things, are not really so radical (with one or two exceptions I'm sure someone will come up with) - it's really more my expression of those views, I think. Fact is, I've been known to be quite moderate, even a tad to the right, depending on the subject matter. Not so much around here, though.

To the OP: Patriotism is not defined as "love my leader". I love my country, I respect the office of the President of the United States. But I think that Bush does not hold that office rightfully. (Dont' start, different debate, don't have the time or energy) Therefore I have no respect for him. If I were in a public space and met him in a public way, i would show him the absolute minimum respect possible, just because he does happen to hold that office, however he came to it. It is a separate matter that I find the man himself. along with his veep and many others in his administration abhorrent and his policies...gosh, my adjective barrel isn't yielding a word sufficient to express my horror at his "policies". (and may I take this moment to say, regarding Mr. Bush, "Told ya so" - everyone, even my liberal brethren, thought me overly dramatic in my horrified reaction at his taking office. Yeah, well, he lived up to my every expectation, and then some.)

By way of comparison, if I were to have met Richard Nixon or Reagan, two other presidents I had little use for, I would have been very respectful. They were legitimately elected, and Nixon, in spite of his criminal behavior, actually kinda rocked it in some respects. (Reagan might have as well, I just can't remember anything offhand.)

I am, and always have been, deeply patriotic, my RL lefty buds from decades past would roll their eyes sometimes at my old-fashioned, weepy-eyed patriotism. I think my country has made many mistakes and is certainly deeply flawed, but I believe it really is the most amazing and wonderful country on earth. Which is exactly why I find Bush so horrifying: he has stained my country's honor and done damage to its reputation in a way no other (real) president has ever come close to doing. He is disgusting.

[Ogre]

It should be made clear that the current beating the president and his policies are taking are a sign that patriotism is alive and well, and that minority voices who once thought themselves to be voices crying in the wilderness, actually do have influence. The "USA right or wrong rah rah rah" stuff isn't really patriotism to me. It's blind nationalism...which is very ugly.

[What Exit?]

It should be made clear that the current beating the president and his policies are taking are a sign that patriotism is alive and well, and that minority voices who once thought themselves to be voices crying in the wilderness, actually do have influence. The "USA right or wrong rah rah rah" stuff isn't really patriotism to me. It's blind nationalism...which is very ugly.
Brief and to the point, I think you have successfully summarized the entire thread.

Jim

[mawrestler_one25]

I have heard a lot of you say that America is still fiercely religious and very patriotic. Maybe the reason I disagree with that is because I am from MA, but I have seen the country as a whole start to swing to the left over the past couple of years.

Last time I checked bush's approval rating is extremely low and the popularity of the war in Iraq is even lower. I am strongly against patriotism in that it brings more harm then good. The best thing it does is give people a sense of being better than others. The worst thing it does is cause the devastation of another country. Please try and weigh the pros and cons of patriotism.

Two added notes

If you can name three differences between racism and patriotism I would be surprised.

We should also give bush a break and not claim hes evil. He seems like a pretty nice guy and I bet it would be a blast going fishing with him. lol

[XT]

If you can name three differences between racism and patriotism I would be surprised.

I'd be shocked if you could name 3 similarities between racism and patriotism...at least as I understand both terms. In fact, I can't for the life of me think of ONE similarity between American patriotism and racism. Could you illuminate?

-XT

[mawrestler_one25]

I'd be shocked if you could name 3 similarities between racism and patriotism...at least as I understand both terms. In fact, I can't for the life of me think of ONE similarity between American patriotism and racism. Could you illuminate?

-XT


Both are the same idea that you, because of your ethnicity or where you were born are better than someone else.

I think pride in ones heritage and being hateful of another's can be related.

The idea that you are great is correlated to pride correct?

If you have the idea that you are great then you must be better then someone else otherwise you would just be average.

Thus you must be greater then someone else.

This is just my idea though, most people do not agree.

"Image there's no countries, it's easy if you try" - john lennon

[mawrestler_one25]

Sorry forgot to mention that I am talking about all patriotism not just American patriotism.

Actually especially patriotism in the middle east. :eek:

[XT]

Both are the same idea that you, because of your ethnicity or where you were born are better than someone else.

Um...what has this to do with American patriotism? Or any kind of patriotism for that matter? Hell, whats it got to do with racism?? You totally lost me.

I think pride in ones heritage and being hateful of another's can be related.

Maybe you are confused...we are talking about American patriotism vs racism here. Perhaps you weren't aware of the fact that the term 'American' encompasses a LOT of different 'races'. For example, I was born in Mexico. While I take no small amount of pride in my hispanic heritage, customs and traditions, this has little impact on the fact that I'm an American citizen, nor in my patriotism or love of country.

Again, you lost me on this comparison...I don't even see how it relates to racism, though I guess you could stretch the term to encompass ethnic traditions.

The idea that you are great is correlated to pride correct?

No...not correct. And whats this have to do with the question?

If you have the idea that you are great then you must be better then someone else otherwise you would just be average.

You have a truely dizzying intellect...

Thus you must be greater then someone else.

Um...ok.......

This is just my idea though, most people do not agree.

Er...well, you seem to be laboring under the misapprehension that you've actually given a coherent idea. Maybe you could try again because frankly, I completely missed your point.

Just for the record, so there is no mistakes here...we are talking about patriotism vs racism, right?

-XT

[Der Trihs]

Um...what has this to do with American patriotism? Or any kind of patriotism for that matter? Hell, whats it got to do with racism?? You totally lost me.Rather obviously, the belief that Americans are better than everyone else because we are born here is near-identical to the belief that whites are better. And no, the fact that one can immigrate and become American doesn't make much difference, considering how often we take the exact oppisite attitude; that immigrants aren't really American. To most patriots, AFAICT, you are born American ( just as you are born white or bllack or Asian ), or you aren't American.

And that sort of belief is central to patriotism; why else feel loyalty to one country over another, after all ?

For example, I was born in Mexico. While I take no small amount of pride in my hispanic heritage, customs and traditions, this has little impact on the fact that I'm an American citizen, nor in my patriotism or love of country.And there are millions, a majority of Americans I think, who'll never consider you a real American because of that. You'll always be Mexican to them.

[mawrestler_one25]

Well we are confused because I was talking about patriotism in general not just American patriotism. Also I may be mistaken because I never said the word race when talking about patriotism. I was talking about heritage. While America is a melting pot, most people that are Patriots consider themselves AMERICAN first, then wherever there ancestors came from.

When I ask most American patriots what the best country is they reply America. If you are the best then that implies that other countries are worse. (which some of them even say)

Racism is the belief that your race is superior to another's, which implies their race is worse.

The only difference I can see here is that word race. I think if you replace race with country in the sentence above then they can be seen as almost exactly the same.

[Miller]

You have a short and faulty memory.

Yeah, don't forget Poland!

[XT]

Rather obviously, the belief that Americans are better than everyone else because we are born here is near-identical to the belief that whites are better.

Are American's a 'race' Der? And perhaps YOU think 'whites are better'...personally I don't subscribe to this belief! :p And I don't see what it has to do with patriotism.

And no, the fact that one can immigrate and become American doesn't make much difference, considering how often we take the exact oppisite attitude; that immigrants aren't really American.

This isn't the pit, but I'm going to brave the wrath of the mods and just say...fuck you. I'm as much a citizen as you are. Moreso in fact, IMHO.

To most patriots, AFAICT, you are born American ( just as you are born white or bllack or Asian ), or you aren't American.

Horseshit. This is YOUR own prejudice, as the above shows.

And that sort of belief is central to patriotism; why else feel loyalty to one country over another, after all ?

And it has nothing to do with racism, except in your own <deleted> mind.

-XT

[mawrestler_one25]

He clearly did not say that he thought you were less of a citizen. He was just saying that most Americans believe this. (which is true)

He was describing his beliefs of how the vast majority of the country feels, which in no way reflects his personal beliefs.

[Bryan Ekers]

Talk is cheap. Actually doing something is what matters.

Six more Canadian troops died yesterday in Afghanistan, incidentally, while fighting to protect the USA from further terrorist attacks.

The Americans won't notice until we save their ass in World War III.

[XT]

He clearly did not say that he thought you were less of a citizen. He was just saying that most Americans believe this. (which is true)

Lets see a cite then that most American's believe that people who immigrate to this country aren't real citizens (ed) citizens. On the surface, it smells of bullshit...seeing as how nearly every American IN the country is decended from someone who came here from somewhere else.

And I didn't read what he wrote the way you are saying it...though he's welcome to post back clearing things up.

He was describing his beliefs of how the vast majority of the country feels, which in no way reflects his personal beliefs.

I'm sorry, then he needs to not speak for the majority of people who he seems to know little about but instead limit his speach to his own thoughts...or he needs to give some cites proving his case. Feel free to do it for him btw...to show that the majority of American's are A) Some kind of single race, and B) They feel that folk who immigrate to the US aren't 'real' citizens.

Because frankly, I'm calling bullshit.

-XT

[Ogre]

considering how often we take the exact oppisite attitude; that immigrants aren't really American. To most patriots, AFAICT, you are born American ( just as you are born white or bllack or Asian ), or you aren't American.Cite?

[Der Trihs]

Are American's a 'race' Der? And perhaps YOU think 'whites are better'...personally I don't subscribe to this belief! :p And I don't see what it has to do with patriotism.I never even implied that I believe any such thing. I was simply pointing out that there's little difference between thinking you are better because you are an American, and between thinking you are better because you're white. Or black, or whatever.

This isn't the pit, but I'm going to brave the wrath of the mods and just say...fuck you. I'm as much a citizen as you are. Moreso in fact, IMHO. :rolleyes: And I never said otherwise. There are millions of Americans who disagree.

Horseshit. This is YOUR own prejudice, as the above shows.If you weren't completely misreading or distorting what I said, you might have a point; as it is, you don't.

And it has nothing to do with racism, except in your own <deleted> mind.Except for being near identical.

Cite?Offhand, WWII comes to mind, when many Japanese Americans were put into camps because it was assumed they were loyal to Japan. That attitude continues today; I see people claim on a regular basis that the Mexicans/Chinese/Arabs whatever who have moved here are all loyal to their birth nations and are just waiting to betray us to them.

[Thudlow Boink]

When I ask most American patriots what the best country is they reply America. If you are the best then that implies that other countries are worse.Try asking a proud parent sometime who the best kid is. Or ask a kid who the best mommy in the whole wide world is.

[mawrestler_one25]

Try asking a proud parent sometime who the best kid is. Or ask a kid who the best mommy in the whole wide world is.


Relevance?

[XT]

I never even implied that I believe any such thing. I was simply pointing out that there's little difference between thinking you are better because you are an American, and between thinking you are better because you're white. Or black, or whatever.

Of course you implied it. You projected your own prejudices on others by proxy...i.e. you decided what YOU think others think. And to me, such projection says something in and of itself. YMMV.

Leaving that aside, there is a big difference between believing one is better because one is an American (of any race or creed), and out and out racism (i.e. I'm better than you because I'm brown and you are white). We would call someone fixated on their supposed superiority as an American nationalistic...while someone fixated on their superiority through the fiction of race a racist. That you don't see the distinction again says something about you...if indeed you really don't see the distinction. :dubious:

And I never said otherwise. There are millions of Americans who disagree.

If you didn't say it for yourself then you are again projecting your own obvious prejudice on others...and I still resent the implications that I'm somehow not a 'real' citizen. As I'm not as angry anymore, I will withdraw the knee jerk 'fuck you'...I'm sorry about that at least.

You need to dig up a cite though that the majority of American's feel this way...or even that a large minority feel this way. Otherwise you need to rephrase your statement to reflect that this is your biased opinion only.

If you weren't completely misreading or distorting what I said, you might have a point; as it is, you don't.

:p

Except for being near identical.

Sure...a horse is just like an elephant too. Except for all the differences. Except in the mind of someone who see's a horse and an elephant as similar of course.

Offhand, WWII comes to mind, when many Japanese Americans were put into camps because it was assumed they were loyal to Japan.

This is the best example you could come up with?? An event that took place over 6 decades ago?? Wow. Does the term 'you are reaching' come to mind? Probably not considering.

You are going to need to do better in the cite department than this I'm afraid...though I doubt you will, as be both know that except for some loony websites out there the data isn't going to support your claim. Don't we?

That attitude continues today;

And yet, you offer nothing to back up your wild ass claim. Imagine that...

I see people claim on a regular basis that the Mexicans/Chinese/Arabs whatever who have moved here are all loyal to their birth nations and are just waiting to betray us to them.

And I see fringe loons claiming that the world is flat, or some other such non-sense, from time to time. I however recognize them for what they are...fringe loons. Not mainstream opinion. Do you have any evidence that the majority (or even a large minority) of American's believe as you claim? Or are you to be counted in the category of fringe folken who make wild claims with no basis? Feel free to cite some reputable sources backing up your claim.

Just as an aside, you are the first person to ever claim that THIS mexican wasn't a real citizen, wasn't a loyal citizen, or was still loyal to mexico...or some other such non-sense. You get the implication? Or does it float past you?

-XT

[tomndebb]

This isn't the pit, but I'm going to brave the wrath of the mods and just say...fuck you..As I'm not as angry anymore, I will withdraw the knee jerk 'fuck you'...I'm sorry about that at least.As you noted, this is not the Pit. Apology noted, but Do Not do this again.

[ /Moderating ]

[tomndebb]

If you weren't completely misreading or distorting what I said, you might have a point; as it is, you don't.Actually, it appears that he read your statements quite correctly and his point is valid.

You are the one who invented a definition of patriotism that required one to believe that one's countery was better than another country. There are words that cover that sitruation and it is true that some people might extend their personal version of patriotism to the point of chauvinsim, but that is not actually part of the definition of patriotism and you distort the discussion when you equate them.

It is quite possible to have a deep love of country without possessing a belief that either you or the country are superior to others either beacuse of or coincidental to that association.

[chowder]

I wish I hadn't started this thread. I should have guessed that Der Trihs would be along to put his oar in at some point and completely cock things up ::smack::

OK I believe Americans, whether immigrants or not, are still just as patriotic as they were, nothing has changed.

You are entitled to GWB bash just as I am to Blair bash, it's called freedom of speech.

[GomiBoy]

I wish I hadn't started this thread.
I'm glad you did... sometimes we need to take our feelings out, dust them off, and confirm what we're doing and why. These sorts of debates are one way of doing that (no matter who drives by with some foolish knee-jerk reaction).

OK I believe Americans, whether immigrants or not, are still just as patriotic as they were, nothing has changed.
There is anecdotal evidence that (at least some) immigrants to America are even more patriotic to America than the native-born. Not all, obviously, but a significant portion of them. Link here (http://americanindividualist.blogspot.com/2006/06/immigrants-lesson-in-patriotism_29.html). Also here (http://www.ailf.org/ipc/policy_reports_2003_pr001_soldier.asp) and here (http://www.bbk.ac.uk/polsoc/staff/academic/eric-kaufmann/samuel-huntington-review). Only the lunatic fringe of the radical Right thinks immigrants should go home - we're a nation of immigrants!

You are entitled to GWB bash just as I am to Blair bash, it's called freedom of speech.
Remember, it's not just our right to bash GWB if we want to; it is the duty of every citizen to call out what they see as errors in government. It's why we have the 1st Amendment in the first place (even though it's kinda cool for getting all the pron, too :)).

Now about that farking Tony Blair... I have a serious bone to pick. :p

[SteveG1]

Nobody deserves MY unending and unquestioning support. They have to earn it. I give them SOME slack at the beginning and will tolerate SOME errors as part of a learning process. However, that must end eventually. Sonner or later, I expect to see positive results.

Further. This is still Amurrica. Amurricans have a right and duty to question what is going on. Our first loyalty is to the country, and NOT to one individual whether he is president or not. Sometimes it is patriotic and just good sense to put a leash on a leader. He is certainly not the brightest candle, and if he had been willing to listen to his betters or at least learn from his mistakes instead of stubbornly repeating them, if he had at least pretended to take notice of reasonable concerns instead of trying to be the tough guy he never really was, then I might cut some slack. If he was a blooming idiot with a good heart, I might cut him some slack. He blew all his "political capital". Patriotism means doing what is best for your country. It is not doing what is best for GW or his party.

We are a republic, not a big ass personality cult.

[mawrestler_one25]

Not to be a dick but America may be the only country where it's literate people spell its name Amurrica. lol

[SteveG1]

Not to be a dick but America may be the only country where it's literate people spell its name Amurrica. lol
lol, it was my way of ridiculing the superpatriots out there "in the real USA" who hate any opposing opinions. Gee silly me.

[mawrestler_one25]

lol, it was my way of ridiculing the superpatriots out there "in the real USA" who hate any opposing opinions. Gee silly me.


oh lol my bad

[XT]

Not to be a dick but America may be the only country where it's literate people spell its name Amurrica. lol

But at least we aren't (all) humor impaired. ;)

-XT

[marshmallow]

A lesson in reading comprehension:

When a person wishes to communicate his feelings on a subject he will often include words like "I believe" or "I think" or "I agree with X [and here is what he said]."

When a person wishes to explain what people beside himself think he will say something like "Some people think" or "Many people say X." When a person uses language like this it doesn't mean he actually agrees with what the other people say. This can be for a variety of reasons, depending on the subject. It is improper form to assume the speakers agrees, particularly when you know things about his background that would imply otherwise. It is wise to ask for clarification if you become confused.

As for Der Trihs, well, I think he's on thin ice on this one. The type of patriots he is referring to don't exactly write scholarly articles. Furthermore, I seriously doubt they would be the majority of the country, or even a large fraction.

[XT]

As you noted, this is not the Pit. Apology noted, but Do Not do this again.

As you also noted, I already apologized. However, your warning is noted as well Tom...and FWIW I think it was fairly given. I allowed my temper to get the best of me...and I'll at least TRY not to have it happen again.

-XT