Doesn’t our way include personal liberty and choice?
Doesn’t choice include both the options of keeping it to only Americans, and screaming with a bullhorn on the Eifel tower about how America is sure starting to suck?
Isn’t it fair, for instance, when an American backpacker walks into a hostel somewhere in Europe, for her to feel as if she can say “I’m an American” with pride, rather than assuming (mostly correctly) that the people listening to her will automatially assume she’s ‘one of those Americans’?
Is it so wrong to want to be respected?
Are rational discourse and apologies for the actions of your country not perfectly civilized routes to international relations?
I’m kinda shocked here my friend.
You serious ?
If an American citizen decided, for whatever reason, that they’d be better off in a country that wasn’t dominated by the religious right and/or Bush’s agenda, they’re a pussy?
What if they honestly think that another country would be better?
How on earth does this happen? It becomes an asset? Through what strange alchemy does this become an asset?
Even those who do not fight, can still vote.
Please don’t be so quick to write off your countrymen, even if they’re acting out of fear and/or a desire to better their lives.
Except that persons desiring to leave the USA and become citizens of another country are, pretty much by definition, wishing to become NO LONGER OUR COUNTRYMEN.
The point is not redoing the argument. This issue is not surfacing to re-debate the Alaska drillign question. It’s here as an example – which you requested – of your politics being radical, not simply liberal.
This is something you do frequently: when confronted with a loss, you simply sidestep, changing the subject and ploughing on, never conceding your first loss. Although others did, you never agreed that Kerry lied. When confronted, you tried to change the argument to, “Wel, Bush lied WORSE,” as though we would all forget that the original point under discussion was simply, “Did Kerry lie?”
Here, again, you employ the same tactic. Your response suggests I am ready to re-argue Alaska drilling. Alaska drilling is not at issue here. Your political views – radical or simply liberal – are the topic.
The claim that Alaskans cannot own their own land, and that Brazilians can’t own their own land, is a radical one. It certainly suggests a rather loose view of property rights. That’s RADICAL. That’s YOU.
Not really. At least not you personally. My problem is with your constant revisionism, backpeddling, evasiveness, obstinancy and combativeness. Okay, maybe I do have a problem with Stoid. You’ve been harping incessantly (across several days and several threads) on how nobody has demonstrated your radical politics. I got tired of reading your bullshit, so I went and found the proof you asked for. And it didn’t really take me that long to find that stuff; I had a pretty damned good idea of where to look for it.
Infantalize? I won’t even pretend that I know what that means. Sounds like one of Bush’s malapropisms. You been borrowing his dictionary again? More on the point tho’, didn’t you admit that your feminism is of the same mold as Gloria Steinem? Here’s news for ya - she’s considered a radical by pret’ near everyone, except those, ya know, even further to the left.
Well, now, Unc, if Ms. Stienem is a centrist, she would, of course, not be considered a radical by anyone to the left of her position. She might well be considered a radical by anyone to the right of her position, i.e., yourself. So your statement is entirely correct. Meaningless, vacuous, but nonetheless correct.
How about those who choose to move to another country but not renounce citizenship?
And, honestly, even if they decide to switch citizenship, don’t they deserve the same sort of respect that otehrs get for not swithing citizenship?
I mean, honestly, for four years now I’ve been told “Love it or leave it!”
And now that people are saying “Well, I used to love it, but I think that what America really means to me has been lost. So I’m going to leave.”
People pounce on it and yell “Cowards! Good riddance!”
This is simple memetic combat, and I am not falling for it.
P.S. If any of my friends who I grew up with chose to gain citizenship in another country, they would still, in a very real sense, be my countrymen. Things aren’t always cut and dry. And sometimes, being an American means more than whicher nation-state you pay taxes to.
Exactly. So the threads have been pulled. Several sentences have been pointed to as irrefutable proof that my politics are so incredibly radical that the Democratic Party would be destroyed if they were in line with mine. I really don’t think Unca’s “proof” constitutes anything of the sort. He does, you do, but you guys started with that belief to begin with. The other hundreds and thousands of political posts I’ve made that show where my politics lie don’t count. A couple of sentences do. I’m sure you feel all better now.
In any case, I’m not going re-argue those threads. They are there to be read and enjoyed by whomever would like to relive the magic.
As for Kerry’s lies, I believe we were talking about Social Security, the lie you insisted upon, the lie I said was not one. I gave you my answer on that, go check again.
I guess if by “everyone” you mean your bowling league.
Unclebeer, if you don’t understand the words, if you don’t understand the philiosphies, the history, the players…the politics how can you possibly presume to argue them?
Horseshit. Steinem is well to the left of the majority of Americans. That is what makes her a radical; not her relative distance from any single individual. Just like any other scale, you need a datum from which to measure. If you keep moving the datum, your scale is meaningless.
Don’t believe me? How 'bout just as we used Stoid’s own words above to conclusively demonstrate that her politics are “radical,” we look at Steinem’s?
To be scrupulously fair, “infantalize” is not yet recognized as a word by lexicographic authorities. Of course, at one point in time, “Ms” was only recognized as a abbreviation for manuscript, before Stoid and her unholy army of radical harpies intimidated liberal academic wussies into acceptance.
But let me spread the healing balm. I am a centrist on feminist issues. I support equal rights in every regard, but still am of the opinion that “Women’s Studies” is a crock, and proof for sure that male academics haven’t got hair one.
The term “infantalize” is generally used in the context of a debate on pornography. Its the contention of Ms. MacKinnon and Dworkin that all pornography that uses images of women should be held to be discriminatory and abusive, as it degrades all women as a class. Hence, women are legally entitled as a class to demand that pornography be illegal.
The counter argument says that this “infantilizes” women, i.e., it places them in the same category as infants, who must be protected even from their own decisions (a woman making a gazillion bucks appearing in porno movies is a victim, poor dear, poor dear). Those who oppose “infantilizing” contend that a woman has full rights to decisions, which would include purchasing and enjoying porn, or producing and selling porn, according to her choice.
As a centrist, I largely agree with this view, and regard Ms. Dworkin as batshit crazy. Ms. Dworkin is most assuredly a radical, Ms. Steinem most assuredly is not.
You make it very difficult to understand the words, when you start making them up. And I quit the bowling league several years ago. It was taking up too much time that I felt could be better spent subjugating women.
Snort. If this is your position, how can you possibly presume to argue against conservatism? Let’s add duplicity to the list of issues I have with you.
Now, would you care to actually address something substantive? You can start with this statement of yours.
When you’re done with that, you can explain how you have come to believe the abolishment of property rights isn’t a radical view. Then we’ll move on to “The Environment, above all else.” Only a radical environmentalist would make such absolute statements. More rational people believe a cost/benefit analysis might be fruitful and only then can the proper tradeoffs be made.
Perhaps there is. But I guarantee that if there is, it does not involve getting on our knees and begging not to be “blown up” by Osama bin laden. I’ll tell it to Travis County, TX and I’ll shout it into the Pit of the World Trade Center. Loyal Americans do not prostrate themselves before terrorists.
A citizen is still my countryman, even if he lives abroad.
No, honestly, he does not. At that point he is not my countryman, and has no voice in how we run this this country.
It depends on what the meaning of “it” is. (How Clintonesque!)
I certainly would never tell someone, “Love this leader, this party, this politician, or leave the country.” But I would tell someone who rejected our basic notions of self-governance and sought to impose his will undemocratically upon the country to love the SYSTEM of government here, or leave it.
If someone chooses to renounce their American citizenship, you are free to consider them in whatever fashion you like. They are not my countrymen, however.
No, that would make her a lefty. And that’s about all it would do.
Perhaps your confusion derives from a lack of familiarity with leftist political terminology, Unc. Please be advised I offer this in all sincerity, it is not my intention to suggest ignorance on your part, indeed, I imply that you are grateful and pleased to expand your knowledge by any opportunity offered.
To persons of many stripes, “radical” simply means “extremist”. But this is not its “true” meaning (granting that “true” meaning shifts according to common acceptance). “Radical” in classic terms means “to the root”: implying that root causes of injustice needs be confronted and “rooted out”, that the causes of injustice are fundamental and cannot be tinkered with and fixed. A “liberal”, according to a “radical”, cannot succeed because he does not recognize the fundamental injustices that are at bottom: the system cannot be fixed, it must be obliterated.
I have some sympathy with the radical position, but deny their remedy. The system is of little consequence, change the people, and the system no longer matters. Capitalism will work fine so long as the people are caring, conscientious, and good hearted. For that matter, so would just about any political or economic system. Change the hearts and minds of the people, and the revolution is accomplished. Fail to do so, and no change in political structure has any meaning.
And let’s not forget that Steinem’s brand of feminism was inspired by the Redstockings. YOu can read a bit about the beliefs of the Redstocking’s here: http://www.afn.org/~redstock/aboutRS.html
Unclebeer, I have already said twice that I am not going to reargue those threads. You have asserted X, and produced these threads as proof. I have asserted Y and offer the totality of my contributions to these boards as proof.
Anyone who is interested has all the evidence they need to decide what is true.
Thanks, elucidator. But really, I think I understand just fine. And what I understand is that Stoid is using the word as it is more commonly understood: “Departing markedly from the usual or customary; extreme.”
Even if she’s using it as you imply, in a (supposedly)classic leftist sense, we have her own words stating her pride in “holding the most radical view possible.” Seems a rather difficult thing to explain away. Hyperbole would serve best at that task, I suppose, but there’s still her apparent wish to eliminate property rights. Surely you, with your tacit acceptance of capitalism, would agree that abolition of property rights in the name of environmentalism is “extreme, departs markedly from the customary.”