Back peddling? Please explain. I don’t see it. From what position have I backpeddled, and with what statement?
Ah, throw the “bootlicker” in there. Nice. I guess it’s impossible for someone to not be a Bush supporter and believe 1) that Bush and the U.S. are tightly linked, especially overseas. and 2) that an American citizen does not serve this country well by going overseas and shitting on either the country OR the President. (See 1)
Hell, Saddam got 99(90?)% of the vote.
Which has pissed off the terrorists everywhere; way to go Mr. Banana Boat!
Gee, do you like to exaggerate and lie about things just to make your “America is always the good guy” schtick?
Where in the article is there any evidence that Belafonte said even one word that disparaged the U.S.?
Where is any claim that anyone said “America is evil”?
Where is any indication that America was “shit on”?
Must you clowns always so identify with the president that you actually believe that he is beyond criticism? Do you really think that Bush is the same as the U.S.?
Just curious.
There not falsely linked, you acknowledged as much. We evedently disagree on the degree to whcih they are linked. Would you say that it is safe to say that there is a stronger link between the two abroad than here in the U.S.?
:eek:
Send that fucker to Gitmo!
Let’s send ALL the fuckers that embroil themselves in politics to Gitmo!
Embroil their Gonads in Hot Sauce!
That’d teach the UnAmerican BASTARDS.
Funny how suddenly the opinions of foreigners suddenly matter when it’s an excuse to try to shut down criticism against Bush.
Not in 2000 . . . not in 2004 . . . What election, exactly, are you talking about?
Your post has confused me. It seems to show consistency, not backpeddling, as your prior post claimed.
Our job is done.
I don’t know and I don’t care. No matter how closely they are linked, it’s not more important that our right to dissent.
By what stretch of the imagination are the opinions of people abroad more important than our right to disagree publicly with the president? Do you see any value in the right to dissent?
I wish I could be surprised at your lack of comprehension. Sadly, I am not.
People slam Bush. You tacitly accuse them of ‘excusing or applauding shitting on America’.
Then you back away from your silly little “America Haters” meme and claim that, oh, it’s not you trying to stifle dissent, it’s because of how other countries would see us. You aren’t accusing people of being “clowns” who excuse or applaud “shitting on America”. Nopers. Not you. Naw awwwwww.
I thought so too.
It’s possible, and stupid. If America’s populace is vocal in opposing Bush we could hardly be seen to be lockstepping to his agenda, now could we?
Baby steps, baby steps.
Again, possible and more stupid than the last one. It is because of, yes, UnAmerican bootlickers, that dissent is seen as almost criminal. The best thing for us would be for the world to see that our nation does not support Bush, that he does not speak for us. The worst thing would be for them to see us as a nation of spineless bootlickers who can’t even offer up just criticism of our President.
It never fails to amaze me how, almost without fail, when America does something this is bad and needs to be called out, the bootlickers worm their way out of the woodwork to say that criticism of America’s actions equals hatred of America itself and “shitting on” the nation as a whole.
It’s the kind of Rambo-meets-cowboy-diplomacy thinking that sees the world in terms of Goodguys and Badguys and sees criticism of America as saying America is a Badguy. It’s the same bullshit that had toadies suggesting that if people thought that Bush shouldn’t invade Iraq then they must think Sadaam was a great guy and would vote for him for president.
Like I said. Groupthink and Crimestop.
There is a NEGATIVE link: that is, if you as an American go abroad, the worse you speak about Bush, generally the higher your audience’s opinion of Americans will rise.
Speaking negatively about Bush indicates to foreigners that not all Americans support Bush. The sentiment against Bush outside of our country is extremely negative. Belafonte probably did a great deal to improve Venezuelan impressions of the United States by speaking his hyperbole about Bush, far more than Bush has ever done to improve Venezuelan attitudes toward the US.
Daniel
Where the FUCK does this come from?
What did I exaggerate about? Please be specific. What did I lie about? Please be specific. If you cannot point to it, I’ll hope for an apology. Who said America is “the good guy”?
Bush was clearly shit on. You may think those two are not closely related. I do. especially overseas. How you could have read my posts and not gleaned that is baffling.
I never said that Bush is beyond criticism. He obvioulsy is not. There are times when criticism is inappropriate—unless you don’t mind hurting the country or it’s efforts in the process. I know others disagree.
What part of “linked”, “linked—strongly” and “not equivalent” are you having a hard time with?
The same people calling Hugo Chavez a dictator, if they lived in Venezuela, would want to beat the crap out of anyone daring suggest such a thing, and question their loyalty to Venezuela.
Yeah, that would be because I’m mocking Clothahump. I’m deriding him, because I think his argument is stupid. So I exagerate what he’s saying, until it is humorously out of proportion to what he said, so as to create the implication that what he is saying is similarly out of proportion to the actual events. This is what we call satire.
Oh, bullshit. He’s the day-o guy. Anyone who takes him seriously is an idiot, and the only people who are doing that are the most extreme edge of liberal America, and conservatives who don’t have anything better to whine about.
Sir, I resent your accusation, and demand a retraction.
I’m not a fan of it, no, but it doesn’t keep me up at night. Celebrities think a lot of stupid things. It’s fun to point and laugh every now and then, but to get as genuinely outraged as you and Clothahump are? You’re taking this guy way too seriously.
I’m not excusing, I’m apathetic. I don’t care what the fuck Harry Belafonte says, because he doesn’t fucking matter.
Amnesty doesn’t seem to think he’s all that bad. They say the security forces have overreacted to the violence of the protests. That’s definitely a bad road to start down, but I didn’t get any indication he was acting “dictatorially.” It was the CNE that denied the recall election. Bear in mind, the guy hasn’t served his first term. And I remember during the coup that the Bush Administration did not condemn the coup, and was a little embarassed when Chavez came back to power.
Maybe the best way to improve uor image abroad would be to stop harassing smaller countries when we don’t like their political system.
Yes, this is what makes my SDMB membership well worth the price of admission.
I haven’t been this outraged since Natalie Maines of the Dixie Chicks unpatriotically proclaimed her outrage of being ashamed that she was from the same state as George W Bush. :rolleyes:
The fact is, “Dubya” does not engender much respect in a large chunk of America. (If that chunk were just a wee bit bigger, we’d have a different Predident right now).
Calling Dubya a terrorist is an exaggeration. From my understanding, terrorists do not join the Texas National Guard. 
Crimestop: The faculty of stopping short, as though by instinct, at the threshold of any dangerous thought. It includes the power of not grasping analogies, of failing to perceive logical errors, of misunderstanding the simplest arguments if they are inimical to Ingsoc, and of being bored or repelled by any train of thought which is capable of leading in a heretical direction. In short…protective stupidity.
How many times did I quote you? Your “criticism of Bush = shitting on America” meme can, if one is being charitable, be seen as idiotic hyperbole. If one is not being charitiable, it can be seen as UnAmerican bootlicking from someone who will use global opinion, which is already strongly against Bush, to justify cleaving strongly to Bush.
We’ll sure convince those other countries that we don’t support him, why, we’ll do it by supporting him! It’s so crazy it just might work.
Confused, baffled, irrelevant.
A good summation of your posting I’d wager.
Lie.
You simply imply that to criticize Bush means one is shitting on America. As if the rest of the world needs Americans to tell them what Bush is doing and come up with an opinion of our foreign policy.
More backpeddling. This is fun.
Bush isn’t beyond criticism, criticism is just inappropriate.
And again: if the country supports Bush then he is correctly seen as representing the people. If the country does not, then Bush is seen as acting against the will of the people. Bush is seen as ‘linked’ to America precisely because of bootlickers.
I’d wager it’s your halfassed backpeddling.
You know what’s even more stongly linked to America?
Our right to criticize our leadership.