So freedom of speech just so long as they agree with you. Lovely.
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.
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.
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.
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 ?
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.
A question Der Trihs Do you really hate America.
If so, why?
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.
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.
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.
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 -[ul][li]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.[/ul] [/li]
Regards,
Shodan
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.
Shodan’s predictions -[ul][li]As the elections approach, any Republican within shouting distance of the nomination will have at least one active Pit thread going.[/li]As will any Democrat
[li]Every speaker at the Republican National Convention will be Pitted. [/li]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.
[li]Whoever the Democrats pick will get at least 80% support on the SDMB. [/li]Perhaps true, I’ll grant you.
[li]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.[/li]As well they should. The 2008 election will be as much a referendum on Bush as it will the nominee.
[li]No thread discussing the Democratic platform will last longer than two pages before returning to near-exclusive Bush-bashing. [/li]Platforms are quaint reminders of a day when people actually took stock in platforms. There will be few threads on platforms.
[li]If the Republican wins, there will be a mininum of five threads a week accusing Republicans of voter fraud.[/li]I hope not. Some states are tightening up their control over the black boxes.
[li]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.[/li]Name one manufacturer of election equipment that has proclaimed his goal of delivering the vote to a Democrat.
[/ul]
Patriotism does not consist of blindly following elected leaders. True love of country requires more. Senator Carl Schurz said it best:
Now that’s some good stuff! 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. 
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.}
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.
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.
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.
The Clinton administration is not blameless in this, and I’m wondering why you would think they are.
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.
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.
Fortunately most of those people are Der Trihs.
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.
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.
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 say “calling him”; I say “pointing out that he is”. I guess it depends on what your definition of the word is, is.
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.
Where the hell have I ever said that the Clintons were blameless for anything?
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! 
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.)
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.
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.
Or positions. I’m hoping that (once again) the Dems will run a campaign based entirely on “I’m not Bush”.
Like that’s gonna convince any of the Usual Suspects.
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