<.< >.>
Never mind, Mr. President. puts down phone.
I wasn’t sure. My apologies. Next time I will not be so concerned with erring on the side of politeness.
I’m not sure which position you are referring to, but I’ll cover the two main ones. Either of them might very well be incorrect, but I don’t see how they are any less supportable as the opposite positions.
To recap, my positions have been:
-
that it is inappropriate for an American to criticize America, or the President, (see #2) while abroad.
-
that, especially in other countries, Bush and America are tightly related (so that criticizing the former is similar to crtiticiziing the latter).
Let’s start with #2. Do you know for a fact that this statement is wrong? If so, please show me the empirical proof. If you can do that I will retract my statement and be of the same opinion as you.
But if you can’t do that, can we agree that it is an unknown; that neither of us knows how strongly or weakly Bush and America are linked in the minds of foreign crowds? And that I might be right. Or that you might be right?
Now #1. Do you know the net effect that American celebrities bad-mouthing America (I’ll use “America” alone to make this part of the argument cleaner) has on the minds of a foreign audience? I think the point that was made by LeftHandofDorkness (which you have made very well again) is an excellent one. I think it’s probably true and puts considerable weight on one side of the argument.
But how about the other side? How many people in an audience of say, 1,000 Venezuelans, do you think would be of the opinion that Bush being a terrorist means that America is a terrorist nation? Or that Bush being “evil” menas America is “evil”?
1? 10? 300? 800? To be so sure that I am so wrong, you should have that answer, right? Or, at least. a pretty good “feel” for what the number is.
So we have to decide between taking two courses of action. Course A says speak out against America all you want when overseas. It will do the country, as it will demonstrate the freedom that our citizens have.
Course B says says that do not speak out against America when overseas (again, I leave Bush out of this for now to make this portion of the argument cleaner), as doing so will only inflame any America hatred that might be there.
The respective real-world strengths of both A and B or unknown, and possibly unknowable. So how can you be so sure that one is sooo correct and the sooo wrong?
An unspoken assumption I’ve been making, and one that I think you have been making as well, is that we are judging these things with the desired outcome in mind of improving America’s image in the world.
Which is both stupid and dishonest. If your criticism is one of people hearing negative messages about America than your distinction about ‘overseas’ is mere backpedaling. Either that or you’re too stupid to realize that people in other countries have TV and newspapers.
Still no cite. I’ve provided one that says that exact opposite, that Bush and America are seen as tightly linked to the degree that Americans support Bush. The fact that you have not, can not, and will not present a cite shows that you are lying in order to bait people.
Already done. I see you ignored my cite and are now baiting people by pretending it wasn’t cited. Besides, this is yet another instance of intellectual dishonesty. One doesn’t have to disprove your uncited and irrationally self-contradictory position. You have to prove it. But you can’t, and won’t.
And now you toss some bait out to Miller. Even though it was already done, you have not retracted your statement or changed your opinion.
Cleaner? You mean more dishonest. At issue is badmouthing Bush. It’s already been cited that the global view of America as a nation depends on the degree to which we support Bush. Your conflation in the face of contrary evidence is just yet more dishonest baiting.
Point of fact: the point made first by FinnAgain that you were foolish enough to call ‘dishonest’ even though the post in this thread clearly exists and can be cited. You hung your lying charge of dishonesty on the fact that you claimed it ‘wasn’t as good’ as LHoD’s statment; yet another backpedaling instance of dishonesty and baiting.
More idiocy. If they didn’t already thought that Bush was a terrorist, or that America was a terrorist nation, would a washed up singer convince them?
Again, more dishonest, not cleaner. Having provided no proof, at all, for your claim and indeed in the face of contrary evidence that you’ve lied and said would make you change your mind, you still maintain that talking about Bush equals talking about America.
And it’s still dishonest baiting on your part. Explain why speaking about Bush overseas is any different, functionally, than speaking about Bush in America and having it broadcast around the world. You can’t, can you? It’s just dishonest baiting and backpedaling designed to allow you to slander people and leave yourself an out, isn’t it?
Who’d a thunk it?
Jeez, we could like at cites, and polls, and actually learn something before making shit up and baiting people.
Novel concept, no?
Again, we can look at cites, or argue with massive intellectual dishonesty.
[
](http://pewglobal.org/reports/display.php?PageID=801)
[
](http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0120-03.htm)
[
](http://www.globalpolicy.org/ngos/advocacy/protest/iraq/2004/1016poll.htm)
But, no, it’s impossible to know whose opinion is baseless and whose is based on facts. Impossible I tell you. Ayieeeeee!
And more:
[
](http://pewglobal.org/commentary/display.php?AnalysisID=77)
Heck, here’s one from Fox News:
[
](http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,135545,00.html)
[
](http://www.voanews.com/english/archive/2005-07/2005-07-28-voa65.cfm)
Etc, etc, etc.
Thought occurs to me - i’m not an American. Magellan, have you been hiding your criticism of Bush from me?
This is what I was refering, although I saw it as one single position, not two seperate ones: Criticizing Bush out of the country damages the image of the United States in the eyes of the world, and should therefore be avoided."
Do I have any evidence? Well, there’s the fact that every non-American who has participated in this thread says that they tend to view America more favorably when Americans criticize Bush than when they keep silent. Obviously, the SDMB is a skewed sample group to poll from, but it is more evidence than you’ve provided for your position.
Actually, I’d really rather that you didn’t use “America” here, because it does not make the argument any clearer: in fact, it changes it completely. The whole point of dispute here is that going over seas and telling people that George Bush eats babies is manifestly not the same thing as criticizing America. This is precisely what got both FinnAgain and tomndebb on your case in this thread. Harry Belafonte did not criticize America. He did not say that America was evil, or terrorist, or hateful. He said George Bush was all of these things. Bringing up “America haters” is a red-herring, and (although I’ll grant that you don’t intend it to be so) is fundamentally a dishonest debate tactic.
Sure, I could be wrong, but the thing here is that you’re the one making the extra-ordinary claim: that bad mouthing George Bush abroad makes people hate America more. You’re the one calling for a certain behavior to be curtailed. Voluntarily curtailed, to be sure, but if you’re going to argue that a certain behavior has negative repurcussions, the onus is on you to demonstrate that those repurcussions exsist. If you can’t, and you’ve admitted as such, why should your concerns be taken seriously?
Again, I don’t have much more evidence than you do. But I do feel that my argument makes rational sense, and yours simply does not. For example: a complaint I frequently hear, when the subject of Islamic terrorism comes up, is that moderate Muslims aren’t doing enough to speak up against radical Muslims. Do you feel this is true? Do you think that decent, hard-working, peace-loving Muslims ought to stand up for their religion when it is hijacked by violent maniacs? If you hear a moderate cleric denounce Al Qaeda, does that make you think, “Hey, not all these Muslims are that bad, after all,” or does it make you think, “Man, Islam really is a threat to Western civilization, and something needs to be done to stop it!” During the cold war, when you heard a Russian ex-pat speak out against the tyrannies and abuses of the Soviet government, did it make you think that all Russians were evil, or did it help you understand that Russians were just people, same as anybody, and shouldn’t be held personally responsible for the actions of their government?
In short, the position you’re advocating is simply irrational. Hearing an American criticize the American government, and concluding from that that “All Americans are evil” is not a rational conclusion. Sure, there are going to be some people in any audience that are going to react like that, because there are crazy people everywhere. But the thing is, if some hears Harry Belafonte call Bush evil, and concludes from that that “All Americans are evil,” they’re going to come to that conclusion no matter what he said. If he said, “George Bush is a great guy and a wonderful president,” they’d think the same thing. If nobody said anything about George Bush, they’d think the same thing. It’s pointless to try to self-edit based on the reactions of irrational people to what you’re saying, because there’s no way to guess what the reaction of an irrational person is going to be. That’s why we call them irrational.
Well, that’s exactly the point, isn’t it? If the correct action is sooo unknowable, where do you get off criticizing Harry Belafonte for his remarks?
Naturally.
Incidentally, you still haven’t addressed the fact that criticizing Bush even in a purely domestic setting is eventually going to be heard over-seas, if it’s done in any sort of a public format. Protests will be reported on, speeches will be re-broadcast, articles will be re-printed. Anything that our media picks up is going to be picked up by the international media, as well. It is essentially impossible to publically criticize the president anywhere without ultimatly doing so in front of an international audience. Does this not, in effect, make your position, “Do not publically criticize the president, ever”? If not, can you explain why not?
Foghorn? 
Just curious, but what’s your take on the polls that I’ve cited?
Whoops, gotta be careful there, he doesn’t exactly understand litotes and thinks it’s dishonest.
For what it is worth, I am a republican that thinks magellan’s position is unsupportable and I like and respect FinnAgain who appears to be fairly liberal but more importantly big on calling BS, BS.
So it is not Reps vs. Dems. It is Drinking the Cool-Aid Bush supporters vs. any and all Anti-Bush people. There are several of us Republicans who see Bush as a very bad president, who has seriously injured our world standing.
In case you don’t believe I am a republican, (joke) I think Reagan was a good president who improved our world standing.
Jim
Ok. I already amended my post with a further one above. I think it just seems to me that the more strident and visible Pitters tend to be strongly Reps or Dems, so I apologise to all of you who aren’t…uhm, insane irrational morons? You know who you are 
Way Cool, you might be surprised by how many Republicans don’t like Bush. We are generally the old line moderate/fiscal Republicans.
I keep praying for an honest and rational Republican on the next ticket or a Moderate Dem with a cleaner personal life the Bill Clinton. (Fairly good President, apparently no self control and bad taste in woman, (not a shot at Hillary but all the fuglies he cheated with)).
Jim
Miller, In an attempt to shorten the length of this post I’ve snipped out portions of your points and equstions that I was addressing. I am hesitant to do this, as I think it sometimes results in not being fair to the poster being replied to. I speak from personal experience, though not with you. If you feel my edits have changed the impression of your positions in any way, please know that it was not intentional correct as you see fit. That said:
You’re missing the question. The question was whether you agreed with this statement: “that, especially in other countries, Bush and America are tightly related (so that criticizing the former is similar to crtiticiziing the latter).”
Regardless, your answer seems to indicate that you do agree with it. (But I’m not sure that is your intent.) Your answer indicates that there is link, AND that it is a negative one. That as the tendency to equate Bush and Amerca goes up, foreign estimation of American goes down. And as that tendency goes down, their estimation of America goes up. But that question alone goes to correlation and direction: that you agree that there IS a relationship, but it is negative. The strength of the relationship is still undetermined, but we agree that there is one.
Now given the reality of the relationship, the question is what to do about it. Should Americans abroad curb their tongues and show loyalty? Or should they advertise the free speech that thrives in this country by exercising it? I see the practical benefit of the latter, more so with the links provided. But I sense that there is a price to be paid for throwing Bush to the wolves. As you might have gleaned from my interaction with you in the past, that while I am no fan of Bush, I am pretty much a traditionalist (as I see it) and I think in that we owe our President our support. If we don’t support him, how or why should we expect others to. And as his Presidency has reminded us, the world’s support of him is important.
I’m simply breaking it down into its components to be able to focus on them better. I think it is helpful (cleaner) to separate out the two components of the dual position I’ve taken. One goes to speaking ill of America overseas. The other goes to the degree to which Bush is synonymous with America in the ears of foreigners. Which is the problematic statement? Or is it both. I am aiding my detractors here as a problem with either one of them goes to undermine my original statement, in which they are linked.
But, okay, let’s do as you wish and put that aside that for now. IF there is a strong link in the minds of foreigners, and I think I’ve shown that we agree that there is one (it’s strength still being undetermined), then my readiness to join the two is of no consequence. It certainly doesn’t merit critiicism, as it would be correct.
But even if it is correct that there is a strong link, that still leaves the (I think) larger issue of whether it is apprpriate for an American to criticize America—either directly or through Bush—while abroad.
I think it makes rational sense to argue either side of it. I can easily argue that, as you and other have pointed out, criticizing the President—even the U.S. directly—may be the wise course of action. As it makes sense that if Bush is the thing they hate, then separatiing him from the idea of America will remove America from the line of fire of the hate. I can also argue that if a celebrity goes to another country and bad-mouths the President that, people in the crowds that hear him will join in with his despicable crowd—in bandwagon effect, if you will. I don’t think you can deny that celebrities have the power to do this more than an ordinary citizen. Advertising agencies pay them millions to endorse products because they do.
Analogies are notoriously poor aids in debates like these, but these are particulalry apt and give me great pause. Although I don’t think you mean to equate the degree evil inherent in Muslim fundamentalism or the Soviet Union with the misdeeds of Bush. At least I hope you don’t. I know others would make that leap.
I disagree. See a couple paragraphs above. Incorrect, possibly, but not irrational.
I think you are being unintentionally unfair to my argument. I do not believe—even if I am right about everything—that Bush being evil (which I don’t think he is) will get people to think that all Americans are evil. That would be insulting to the intellect of people around the globe. My fear is that they will start to view America, as a counrtry, as being evil, i.e., the government. As a kid I never thought of the Russian people as evil, just the Russian system and its leaders. That was without even hearing an ex-pat or kowing what one was.
Really it boils down to this: Is it wiser to cut off Bush and let people hate him? Or to try to temper the hatred and show that most of it is unfounded or the result of gross over-reaction? Barring so gross malfeasance or criminal or unethical behavior, I feel more comfortable supporting The President. I say that not because he is Bush, but in spite of him being Bush. I would have the same opinion of Clinton or any other President. I feel that once the person is in office they are my President and deserve my support. I will hound them on policy and decisions they make, but I will not seek to undermine the person or the office.
Because he is seeking to undermine the President in the eyes of the world. I believe that it is better for America for the President to be strong and honorable in the eyes of the world instead of being perceived as evil or a terrorist. I think Bellafonte’s opinions are also unfair and asinine. Someone who beleives that Bush is a terrorist has a very poor grasp of the concept of terrorism.
Absolutely not. I actually probably agree with you completely that it is healthy for people around the world to be aware that people in the U.S. can speak their minds. I don’t even mind the kind of stupidity Bellafonte uttered. In fact, the more asinine it is the more I want it out in the open, because then it can be confronted and argued against. That is not the case when an American elebrity takes to the soapbox in another country and attempts to fan the flames of hate for EITHER the President or the country (leaving the relationship between the two aside).
Why do you hate Venezuela?
Because they have some of the best looking women and it is to far to go to for a weekend.
Ah, much like in the thread where you don’t like being called a homophobe, but refuse to come up with a better term for us to use to describe you, you choose a “humorous” answer.
No really. Why do you hate Venezuela?
DMC: Why, because Venezuala isn’t as enlightened as Americans and we have a burden to tell them how to think, what policies to support, and what values to hold.
Miller, surely you see the level of dishonesty and baiting inherent in his response to you? I admire your desire to try to bash sense into his head, but it seems doubtful that you can when his desire is to argue dishonesty and piss people off, and not debate with any intellectual honesty.
One would almost think that numerous cites haven’t been provided breaking down exactly what the strength of that relationship is. Funny, that.
Welcome to the heart of intellectual dishonesty: even if you don’t support him, you should support him.
Behold yet more intellectual dishonesty. As if other people can’t make up their minds about Bush and support/oppose him without knowing what the American citizenry feels.
And a better question is, how or why should we expect others to, anyways? If they don’t agree with his policies, isn’t it the height of intellectual dishonesty to demand that they support them anyways?
To someone who isn’t Janus-faced, the contradiction is evident.
Again, intellectual dishonesty so thick you can cut it with a knife. If people don’t agree with his agenda then it is wrong for them to support it. The world’s support for him is “important” to getting his agenda through, not in a vacuum. And if they don’t support his agenda, it’s “important” for them **not ** to support him.
If only we had cites. If only!
Notice two things, first the “while abroad” qualifier, as any elaboration will later be dodged. Notice also “an American”, later on in this very post backpedaling will be engaged in yet again and it will be transformed, via the alchemy of dishonesty, into “celebreties”.
Magey wants to talk out of both sides of his mouth, have his cake and eat it too, slander any American who would criticize Bush and try to bait as many people as possible.
Translation: We have a [del]white man’s[/del] American’s burden to educate the rest of the world and tell then how to view Bush. They are not as capable of making up their minds as us Americans, and they need us to show them the way. Heavens forbid they make up their minds based on their values and the evidence available. And, as we all know, people all over the world really enjoy not just being told what to do, but how to think.
Careful Miller, this right here is some palpably devious bait as I was reminded of by magey posting the link to his conduct in a previous thread. Magey will now claim that he wouldn’t support Bush if unethical or criminal behavior went down, but even cites showing that Bush has condoned torture have been met with rote denials and a refusual to even read newspaper articles to confirm that any such thing had been done. Faced with the intellectually honest option of reading about Bush’s previously threatened veto of anything which would investigate or limit torture, he instead chose the dishonest and dishonorable tactic of questioning whether any such thing had been done while steadfastly refusing to read any articles.
It’s just more backpedaling and doubletalk.
Notice the continuing doubletalk and dishonesty? One should support Bush, except when it comes to actually supporting their policies and decisions. So, support your president… except when you don’t. And then, of course, we’ve got the wonderful conflation of the person with the office itself. Has anybody notable, ever said that the office of the Prisdent itself should be abolished? Or is this yet more dishonesty designed to muddy the waters?
Doubletalk 101: You should support the president, except if you oppose him based on his policies, but if you oppose him based on his policies you’re undermining him in the eyes of the world/. So you should support the president, except if you oppose him based on his policies…
Wonderful baiting. No matter what anybody does, Magey can find fault with it. Except for, wonder of wonders, rote “support” for Bush.
And of course, the rest of the world can’t make up their minds without hearing from washed up American celebrities. Certainly nobody even had an opinion of Bush before Belafonte spoke, and those who have rational opinions based on Bush’s policies have obviously been heavily swayed by the tally-me-banana-guy.
Notice, by the way, the deliberate intellectual dishonesty inherent in his act of ignoring Zoe’s cite.
Take good note of the massive dishonesty here; he totally dodged the question. He didn’t answer why there would be a distinction between dissent in one geographical region and dissent in another. Completely and totally dodged the question. I doubt he’s going to have the honor to answer the question, either. He likes doubletalk, and wants to limit dissent while throwing up a patently obvious smokescreen and arguing that it’s really not all dissent he wants limited… just that which ‘undermines’ Bush. It’s dubious that we’ll ever get any intellectual honesty out of him and an elaboration on why “overseas dissent” is different than dissent uttered stateside that is then broadcast to the rest of the world.
Notice also the doubletalk and dishonesty and how the suggestion that it was innaprropriate “for an American to criticize America—either directly or through Bush—while abroad.” has now morphed into “a celebrity”.
It’s the easy-bait oven.
He gets to tacitly imply that Americans should not criticize Bush (the “while abroad” piece is just another bit of doubletalk baiting), and then backpedal and claim that he’s just talking about celebrities. Intellectual honesty and consistency are evidently too much to ask.
By the way Miller, I don’t mean to imply that your sense of judgement is off or that you haven’t flashed to any patterns by now. I suppose I was venting more than anything else. Just wanted to clear that up.
I’ve shared with you my sole beef with Venezuela. It’s the only one I can come up with, humorous or not.
And my answer to you in the other thread (I went and checked what you were talking about) was intended to convey humility, not humor. In readiing it just now, I guess you could get a smile out of it, as well. This was understood by someone who explained it to you in the post directly following yours. And then I clarified it for you as well a little later. Sorry you didn’t understand the post at that first opportunity. Or the second. Or the third. Hopefully this fourth time will be the ticket.