I was a long time Bush-supporter, even before Sept. 11’th, but I agree fully that you have a right to criticize the president or any branch of the government freely, barring any IMMEDIATE security risk, such as a reporter releasing classified information that they some how managed to obtain.
War is too important to leave to the generals.
And the issues which you would probably discuss most passionately would be the same ones where I might tend to agree with you.
Such as the naming of American citizens as “unlawful combatants” to deny them lawyers on the basis of a 1950 Supreme Court judgement from the same court that said it was okay to lock up an ethnicity of people to satisfy a security risk (Japanese internment camps).
But, holy crap!
I’m a conservative!
Perhaps I should re-read the thread more carefully, but I cannot find anyone actually defending those who attack dissenters with the “Un-American” tactic as anything less than somebody who must resort to a pathetic ad-hominen attack.
Well, as far as the HUAAC reference is concerned, that’s what I get for reading the first post and immediately going for the “post reply” button. Sorry, ** EL-KABONG**, your idea first.
Non-the-less, impugning a political opponent’s patriotism is as old as the Republic. Some efforts were notably well organized as well as just shoddy. Classic was the “bloody shirt” campaign that in the years following the Civil War proclaimed that every bullet fired at a Union soldier was shot by a Democrat. We have the same sort of thing going on in the local Congressional election. The incumbent has seen fit to announce that unlike his opponent he has never even driven a Mercedes, let alone owned one. As far as I know no one has asked if he has driven a late model Chrysler. The incumbent senator is being attacked (by former Medical Corps officer) as having been a jet piolet during Vietnam but without combat missions. The “I’m more patriotic than you are” implication is pretty clear. I’m sure we will see a batch more political candidates wrapping them selves in the flag and reciting the Pledge (post 1954 version) before this thing is over.
I’m a long time republican. over the years I’ve become much more socially liberal, but I’m still a pretty strong fiscal conservative. hell, I have a picture on my desk of myself standing next to George W(from before he was pres). That said, the attitude that the OP is referencing is one of the many things that are currently pushing me out of the republican party. I voted for Bush last time, but I honestly don’t see how I could live with myself if I voted for him again. The entire party(and George seems to be leading the cause) seems to completely reject the idea of internal dissent. I’ve never voted for a democrat in my life, but with this and the constantly increasing influence of the Religious Right, I’m seriously considering it.
I’m a fiscal conservative too. I want taxes dramatically lowered as they are an unnecessary burden that provides me with no benefits.
Part of living in a free society is the right to say what you please, and this includes calling 'em like we see 'em. If we see some people making an un-American argument, why should we pull our punches? It just doesn’t make sense. Failing to call a commie liberal un-American is almost unpatriotic in and of itself, and fails to inform the public not only of where the opponents of liberty stand, but who, we, their allies are. By the simple act of labeling the people who oppose our freedoms to do what is best for us, we accomplish a lot in preserving those freedoms. Those people who might not have known the difference, now know. Not everyone has the time to study all the facts, and this is a basic summarization for the benefit of the public at large. If we don’t tell them who the good guys and bad guys are, how will they know? I realize that this sounds simplistic, but it isn’t rocket science. There are opponents of the powerful friends of liberty out there, and if we let them go unchecked, they will gain strength and succeed in duping the uninformed public into believing that their view of liberty (a false view of liberty I might add) is more beneficial to the public at large. Simply put, that isn’t so. It would hurt our basic freedoms as Americans for the public to be duped into accepting something un-American instead of the kind of freedom we enjoy. We have a duty to point this out as a big fact. Extremism in the name of liberty is no vice. – Barry Goldwater
Question for you, taggert. Is a liberal communist automatically considered “un-American”? If so, why? I’m curious what generalized ideas you’re applying here. Forgive me for saying so, but I see shades of McCarthyism in your words above. Very “us vs. them,” except who “them” represents is poorly-defined.
Using labels like “un-American” or “unpatriotic” is often more of a political tool than any sort of statement of fact. The reason the use of labels like these is inappropriate, and often dishonest, in the discourse of ideas is that they are often inaccurate. Whether or not they are accurate, they are always distractions from the truly important issues.
I think taggart is quoting Barry Goldwater at his worst during the McCarthy era. I seem to recall that Mr. Goldwater subsequently recanted his affirmation of such notions, presumably when he came to his senses.
Either taggart is being sarcastic, or his is slightly clueless.
Here it is! Proof that Tom Daschle is a commie liberal unamerican! I declare immediately that he is an enemy combatant and should be thrown into prison forthwith! Then the noble and god-fearing Grand Olde Party shall take its rightful place again in a Senate infested with pinko liberalism! And any of you who somehow feel this picture has been doctored, psah! You’re all lousy atheists, the lot of you!
You really need to admit that this tactic is not limited to the “conservative crazies”. In fact, I think that the Republican party has some catching up to do on that front.
How many times do those on the left try to silence dissent by decrying those they disagree with as “racist”, “sexist”, “homophobic”, “mean-spirited”, or just “crazy”.
I do agree that it would be better for all if this practice ended.
You really need to admit that this tactic is not limited to the “conservative crazies”. In fact, I think that the Republican party has some catching up to do on that front.
How many times do those on the left try to silence dissent by decrying those they disagree with as “racist”, “sexist”, “homophobic”, “mean-spirited”, or just “crazy”.
I do agree that it would be better for all if this practice ended.
The difference, dear Apache, is that the Republicans are racist, sexist, homophobic, and mean-spirited. Calling them that is just reporting the truth.
On the other hand, calling people un-American when they criticize the President, the Administration, or the Government is hypocritical and reflects a deep misunderstanding of what it means to be American.
You may want to inform Tammy Bruce, the former L.A. Chapter president for NOW. Unless she has changed her gender preference, I believe she is still a lesbian.
:rolleyes:
And Ms. Bruce’s sexual orientation has relevance here how, exactly? Are you, perhaps, offering her as a Republican who is not sexist, racist, or homophobic? (I don’t know who she is, to be honest.)
Sure, there are Republicans who are not racist, sexist, or homophobic. But there are lots of Republican who are, and I should not be surprised if many of them are the same ones calling people like myself and other evil ikky liberals “un-American” for questioning the appropriateness of the positions our President, his Adminstration, and the Government generally have taken of late.
Calling a spade a spade is not suppressing speech. Calling a spade a dildo is, when talking about dildos is illegal or at least highly disfavored.
So is taggert Barry Goldwater in RL?
