Considering the context, that’s the most beautiful thing I’ve ever read.
Gosh, if Belafonte said it, it must be true. Harry said it; I believe it; that settles it.
I’d concede that the statement that W is “the greatest tyrant in the world” is perhaps a bit over the top; despite his wealth of advisors, the President could really be doing a substantially better job in the tyranny department. I’m not suggesting he should try, but the fact remains that in comparison to other tyrants past and present, der Shrub doesn’t come across as particularly focused. It’s hard to convey a properly tyrannical image when no one seriously believes you’re formulating your own ideas anyway. But it’s probably best not to call attention to the deficit, lest he try to overcompensate for his inadequacy in that regard.
The article linked to in the OP has some interesting features in it; I note that reporter Ian James seemingly couldn’t even be bothered to check up on basic facts about Belafonte (psst… hey, Ian? Little tip they may have neglected to pass on to you in journalism school: when you identify a singer by making reference to their most popular song, it’s generally customary to use the actual name of that song).
On the other hand, the article does quote Belafonte as stating that being able to criticize is “the greatest truth of a democracy.” So, as long as threads like these continue to appear, we can rest easy in the knowledge that a Belafonte-led *junta * isn’t secretly controlling the United States government.
Hey, Belafonte! “Turn Around” sucked!
(just testing)
Yuk, yuk. A little pat, don’t you think? At least you didn’t stoop to the depth Fear Itself did.
I think there has been confusion. The “people” slamming Bush I was referring to was Belafonte. Read my first post. The “excusers” I was referring to were some of those in this thread who had posted before me. They are not the same “groups”, which you imply above.
I maintain that I have not backpeddled. If you still think so, feel free to point it out.
Gee. Did you happen to read your own post to which I responded in deliberately parallel structure.
You talked about “America is evil” when no one, particularly Mr. Belafonte said anything similar.
You talked about America being “shit on” when neither Mr. Belafonte nor anyone else in the group provided a single word of censure or condemnation of the United States.
So you clearly exaggerated your claims in a way that was pretty dishonest.
The phrase “America is always the good guy” was placed in ironic quotation marks and identified as a schtick. Clearly there was no claim that you had actually said it, although your absolute horror that Mr. Belafonte might actually criticize Mr. Bush (whom you seem to mistakenly believe is the U.S.) seems to support the notion which I inferred from your post that that is your belief.
If a single individual who did not criticize this country comes under as much censure as you are ladling out, then I think you are taking this stuff way too personally and you appear to be lacking any sense of proportion.
Keep lobbing me softballs, I’ll keep swatting 'em.
Oh, this is some of the best backpeddling I’ve ever seen. Belafonte is “people?”
Who are we talking to now, Cybil?
And I suppose that when you said
You were saying that Belafonte was “you clowns”.
He’s people. He’s you. He’s clowns.
This is so silly that I have to doubt whether or not you even believe it. Those who posted before you were talking about Belafonte slamming Bush. You then said that “[those] people” were the ones who were excusing and applauding America being shit on.
I have already done so. Maintain all you like.
I take it you feel tomndebb is incapable of backing up his own accusations.
You really shouldn’t try that whole “drawing conclusions from events” thing.
You don’t seem to be good at it.
The Daily Show had a good line:
“Today it’s Harry Belafonte, Tomorrow Ben Vereen. Can Al Jarreau be far behind?”
First, “America is Evil” was in quotes, as to indicate a meme (or schtick, as you say). If you read the post again, I think you would agree that it was not intended to imply words actually spoken by Belafonte or anyone else in particular.
Have you not read where I repeatedly have opined that IN MY OPINION the President and the country are strongly linked. You may disagrre completely, but it doesn’t mean that I’ve exaggerated. I see that you moved back from your charge of lying. Is there an apology I’m not seeing? Or do you not do that sort of thing?
Show me where I said that the Mr. Bush is the U.S. I’ve pointed to specific instances where I’ve said that is NOT the case. Why do you continue to ignore them and focus in the non-existent?
Me? I make one post in support of the OP and look at the vitriol that has been unleashed. A notable American calling the President a terrorist overseas is all fine and dandy. But a poster on a debate board who opines that such notables shold curb their tongue when speaking about the President because it reflects the U.S. unleashes the hounds.
I may be alone in this, but I think that’s pretty fucked up.
Well, I am glad we agree on this point.
On the other hand, you asserted that people were applauding America being shit on. Since no one was shitting on America and no one was applauding anyone shitting on America, that statement is doubly false. (Some posters have extended their views to make some disparaging comments abiut the country, but those were separate from the actions of Mr. Belafonte and his group.)
You have been the recipient of a fair amount of venom because you charged in here like the OP making wild accusations and hurling invective. The reason that I wrote most of my post in parallel to yours was to demonstrate how silly that approach is. Apparently I did not do it well.
FinnAgain, I’ll go through this once for you, nice and slow.
This thread is about Bellafonte, while in Venazuela, speaking ill of Bush.
I responded to a post that was handwaving the sentiment of the OP. I volunteered that I support the sentiment of the OP. Then added:
Ther word “you” refers to dopers in this thread. I’m asking if you (plural) are advocates of notable Americans going overseas and shitting on America. I understand that you see this as conflation. I would expect that you’d be able to see that I think the two are strongly linked, as I’ve stated more then once.
You then accuse me of backpeddlng. I ask you how you see that. Your first answer I found unclear. Yor second one seemed to show my consistency. I point this out, yet you continue with the same unsubstantiated claim.
You haven’t.
The disagrrement arises because of what you see as conflation—me unfairly conjoining the country and the President. I see the two entities—rightly or wrongly—as being tightly linked, so the percieved “falsity” of the statement is based on its premise, not on its veracity. I would expect posters to acknowledge our different views on the premise and allow my statements to stand on upon it. Attacking the premise itself is fine, as some have done. But to claim that my statement is factually false, as you have done here, because you disagree with my premise is clumsy, if not unfair.
You do something very slowly? No! Get outa town!
Again, you are backpeddling. Since, as Tom and others have already called your attention to your prevarication, you can only be willfully ignorant at this stage of the game.
Nobody, not anybody, was ‘shitting on’ America. Not Belafonte, not the posters in this thread. You set up a neat little strawman and then charged at it full steam. You were also not humbly ‘asking’ as you now backpeddle to. Your ‘question’ was an accusation.
Why should I care what you think? You are entitled to your own opinions, not your own facts. And one of the marks of someone who has had their head handed to them is that they retreat (or backpeddle) to saying “Well, it’s just my opinion.”
The two are not strongly linked, expect by the actions of people like you. If people see an America which is pathologically unable to criticize Bush, they’ll think he does speak for America.
An inability to comprehend on your part is not a failure to elucidate on my part.
I have, in fact, pointed out a few instances of your backpeddling. The clearest one, even for you, should be when you say that Bush isn’t beyond criticism, just that he shouldn’t be criticized.
I’d just like to chime in and say I’m foreign, and I am perfectly capable of distinguishing between George W. Bush and America, nor are the two tightly linked in my mind.
But thanks for telling us how we really think, maggie
Also, a few people have being saying Bellafonte is “just an entertainer”, but is that accurate? Hasn’t he been involved in the civil rights movement for a very long time?
Which you STILL have failed to show.
I never siad the posters in this thread were. And I do not know why you find it so difficult to comprehend, but I DO see what Bellafonte did as shitting on America. Not directly, as the President and the U.S. are not equivalent, as I’ve said repeatedly. But I do think they are strongly linked. If you would pay attention to what’s been written—repeatedly—you would have comprhended that by now.
Oh, so now it’s a strawman. Please point it out oh wise one. And STILL you haven’t shown how I’ve backpeddled. This is your last chance.
And where did I say or imply that I was “humbly” doing anything. You are being dishonest, trying to skew my statements in order to attack them. Consider yourself caught, Scarecrow.
Uhhh, because we are on a debate board? But I can see your more interested in attempting to be cute (and failing miserably) than you are in attempting to understand someone else’s position and refutiing it honestly. Oh well.
Oh, how original.
You may see it that way. I see it as realizing that people can honestly disagree on things. But, hey, that’s just my opinion.
Possibly. Now you’re catching on.
You finally make a valid point. One which an earlier poster made. I think it is a good point. But, oops, I forgot, you don’t care what I think.
Your usually much more original. This is a bad day for you.
No, in your own mind, maybe, but certainly not “in fact”.
I’m not sure I would consider what you describe as backpeddling, but no matter, I never said he shouldn’t be criticized. You must be referring to my statement that there are times I think it inappropriate, like when a notable American is overseas. That is hardly the same thing. For instance, if Bellafonte or you were here in the U.S. and wanted to rail on Bush about his tax cuts or the Plame leak in the White House or Katrina or his Meyers nomination or his National Guard records or call him a terrorist, etc., knock yourself out.
After this post I’m just going to ignore the rest of your infantile whinging about how I haven’t proven it. You’re either wilfully ignorant, or a liar. Or both.
First you accuse the posters in this thread of supporting or allowing folks ‘shitting on America’, then you backpeddle and claim you were just asking an innocent question. You say Bush isn’t beyond criticism, but then backpeddle and say that it’s irresponsible to criticize Bush. Etc…
And that is, again, a lie and backpeddling. You did not ask some innocent question. And if you really think that people will believe that you did, you’re dumber than I thought.
Jeez, you’re dense. Get this through your skull: I understand that’s what you see it as. But it’s wrong and stupid to see it that way. Can you finally understand that having an opinion doesn’t make it correct?
You are entitled to your own opinions, not your own facts.
Tatoo it on your forehead.
Why is it that someone with a bankrupt argument almost always falls back on “Oh, you just don’t understand what I’m saying?” Is your paucity of logical points somehow justification for believing you?
You are the one who can’t seem to use your head as anything other than a hatrack. Bush and America are only strongly linked to the extent that Bush is seen as acting with the support of the American people. Something, by the way, which your inane and asinine rhetoric helps ensure. But that is certainly not the case in the real world as to any but the wilfully ignorant it is clear that Bush has opposition stateside.
I already did. You are, still, either wilfully ignorant or painfully stupid. Your oh-so-innocent question implied that ‘us clowns’ supported or encouraged ‘shitting on America’. That’s a strawman.
Oooooh! My last chance! Scary!!!
~shrugs~
You’re lying. I have done so, several times. You’re just wilfully ignorant. Not my problem, I’m afraid.
Again, you lie. You have claimed that instead of accusing people, via a question, of supporting and allowing America being shitted on , you were simply asking an innocent question. This is, by the way, another example of you backpeddling. One which I’m sure you’ll wilfully ignore, yet again.
Wrong. I should care about what facts you present or the strength of your arguments. I couldn’t care less what your opinions are, you petulant child.
I’ve already refuted your position, several times. You’re too damn dense or willfully ignorant or just too much of a plain old liar to admit when you’ve been proven wrong. You’re also an arrogant petulant brat. I understand perfectly what your position is, it takes no great mental exercise, I’ll tell you that much. And it’s a painfully stupid position, to boot.
Well then you wilfully ignorant intellectually dishonest shill, why haven’t you gotten it into your noggin by now? I’m beginning to think that it takes a harpoon and high explosives to get anything into your skull.
Fallacy of Equivocation.
People can honestly disagree on some things. On others, you’re just pulling things out of your ass and trying to get us to believe them. Like you’re doing here.
Just how stupid are you? My point is that by the actions of fools like you, people get the idea that all/most Americans support Bush. You are trying to create a self fulfilling prophecy. But, again, you’re just pulling things out of your ass. The world’s citizens are not unaware of the fact that not all Americans support Bush. Your ignorant ‘opinions’ don’t change that fact, spunky.
Good gods, what a fool you are. I already made that point in post 34. You were just too stupid to comprehend it. And you are evidently also too dense to realize that I was the first poster to make that point in this thread.
I’ll cry you a river sweetheart.
The fact remains, I’ve proved it many times. You’re either stupid or dishonest or willfully ignorant or a combination of the three. Your denial is patently absurd and even though I’ve already stated, several times, with quotes, exactly what your backpeddling is you still dishonestly refuse to admit it.
Just how stupid are you? Do you think that your stupidity is somehow going to infect other people? You say that Bush is not beyond criticism, but that it’s irresponsible to criticize him… and then claim that it’s not a fact that you were caught backpeddling? Are you dumb enough to believe that yourself?
Saying “He’s not beyond criticism… just don’t criticize him anywhere other than America.” is saying that he’s beyond criticism in a very large range of circumstances. That’s what us thinking folks like to call “backpeddling”.
More backpeddling. Your quote was not about anything overseas, but about anything that could “[hurt] the country or it’s efforts in the process.” As your point was based on the fallacious belief that non-Americans are too stupid to tell the difference between Bush and 260 milliion Americans obviously any story which reaches them through the international press would be just as good as any other. Your absurd backpeddling to “overseas” is irrelevant as overseas audiences would hear the soundbytes no matter where they’re spoken.
Riiiiiiiight. Your original slander about people encouraging or allowing people to ‘shit on America’ mentioned nothing about foreign or domestic statements. This is simply more backpeddling.
And seeing as how you’re a dishonest shill, I’m done with you. Let someone else bang their head against your Wall o’ Dumb.
Well said. My question is, why do it while rubbing shoulders with a tin pot dictator?
Would you please provide a cite for this claim, as nobody else really has? How is he a dictator?
Just the first two nights of the war in Iraq – Operation Shock and Awe – the coalition of the Willing used 800,000 pounds of explosives in a city of 4,000,000 people.
Tell me why that doesn’t qualify as an act of terrorism under the definition.
Neo-cons shit on America. That’s where Bush’s links are.
Well said Zoe.