I strongly oppose the idea of flag-burning bans, too. Am I some sort of poster-boy now? 
Nitpick 1: I think you mean Lord Invader (and the Penetrators).
Nitpick 2: He is often credited with writing “Zombie Jamboree” but there’s no evidence he did. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord_Invader (Perhaps he was merely the first Calypsonian to perform it in the U.S.)
Hah, I’ll see your nitpick and raise it.
Lord Invader was a Pretender.
Not all? How about not any?
Of course he’s got the right to say whatever he wants. Nobody is proposing that we stop him from having free speech. Nobody’s viewpoint is being stifled. All this conservative wants to do is use my rights of free speech to point out what a fucking moron Belafonte is for saying what he did.
You can even check my feet. They’re from LLBean. Slip on mocs that are comfy yet acceptable for work. No jackboots here. 
Within the designated “free speech zone,” of course.
No problem, no problem.
I can forgive you anything just for bringing that website to my attention!
“Not any”? You really don’t think this talk that people shouldn’t criticise the president isn’t an attempt to stifle opposing viewpoints? Or are these people who say that not “true” conservatives/Republicans?
Crotalus
Damned good for you !!!
On TV (maybe 20 years ago), a WW2 veteran who was at Omaha Beach on D-Day was being interviewed. He was asked his opinion about the proposed flag-burning amendment and said he was vehemently against it. Why? It represents the mentality and philosophy of the country they were fighting!
Wow - what a powerful statement. If there were a “smilie” for feeling humble this would be a great place to use it.
Anyway, I’ll admit a good majority of the SDMB members (including myself) are liberals. We do respect the opinions of the conservatives though.
However, when someone starts a thread (such as this one) with an obvious attitude that they are looking for a fight, well that’s just what they’ll get.
That seemed oddly worded, to me. It’s just “bad form”? That tends to imply “dishonourable, but sadly acceptable” behaviour. I don’t understand why this is - why exactly is it so bad to badmouth your leader? No matter how good they are (or popular) there’s always going to be a percentage of the population who disagree with him/her. Being able to make known such opposition outside of the US sends the message “Hey, look at us! We’re so committed to our ideals that we are prepared to let others badmouth us! Do your countries offer such rights, and respect to individual opinion?”
Until, of course, that guy starts dating your friend, who you’ve never told anything bad about to, and gets royally jerked around by them. If no Americans were allowed to badmouth America, then other countries would be quite happy to work with them - until the apperently presentable companies or the government screw them over economically, for example. This idea seems rather like finding a pit in the road, and instead of putting up a notice warning motorists, disguising it so they won’t know it’s there. People will still fall in. And they’ll be pissed they weren’t warned.
I for am glad of that, if that was ever the case. I do not stand by my leader just because they are my leader - they are my representative, whether I voted for them or not, and as such I require that they represent me - and when they do not, i’m annoyed. Granted, it’s likely that they will not always represent my views - there are millions of others for them to consider - but I will never support someone just because they’re “my” person. They do a good job, good for them. I’ll sing their praises to the sky. They do a bad job? Whether it be to another british person, an american, or a martian, i’ll complain about that person. They want my loyalty? Earn my loyalty.
:smack:
That will be all.
I prefer to think we respect the right of conservatives to have opinions, and express them. That does not mean we are obliged to take them seriously.
:: Paging Mr. Libby ::
:: Mr. Libby, please pick up the white phone in the Hudson Institute main lobby ::
:: Paging Mr. Libby ::
Belafonte: Enemy of the State.
Dear god. How do people become so polarized that real life is indistinguishable from parody?
“Bush is the greatest terrorist” is laughable coming from an angsty, black-clad, facially-pierced teenager arguing with his parents, much less a grown man with an audience.
To meet that with characterizations of Chavez as a brutal dictator whose dearest ambition is the annihilation of the United States is comic ignorance.
To crititicize Chavez as “authoritarian” while simultaneously calling for your own government to jail people who publicly make disparaging remarks about its leadership – sublime idiocy.
For extra giggles, it’s worth mentioning that the Rev. Peterson works for Project 21, the “Conservative Black grassroots organization” that raised eyebrows last year when a scheduled spokesman got stuck in traffic and was replaced by the (white) director, who said that he’d have preferred to get another black man to stand in, but none could be reached in time. I swear, real life is written by the best satirist going.
It shouldn’t be necessary to reply to this kind of claim, but, when Clinton was first elected – long before Monica – heck, before he’d even served a day in office yet – Conservatives I know said, to me personally, that Clinton was evil and would destroy American small business.
Much worse things were published.
Much worse things yet were said when he was being grilled over the Lewinsky issue.
Yet, he was still technically President.
Does the right having demonstrated no sense of pride in our country any more PREVIOUSLY excuse the left doing so NOW?
What’s that? Your guys saying bad things about Clinton, even before he’s acted, deosn’t mean you have no pride in the country? Well, that can’t be, because logically then the OP would be totally bogus.
Sailboat
Touche. A strong point, well made.
Main Entry: sat·ire
Pronunciation: 'sa-"tIr
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle French or Latin; Middle French, from Latin satura, satira, perhaps from (lanx) satura dish of mixed ingredients, from feminine of satur well-fed; akin to Latin satis enough – more at SAD
1 : a literary work holding up human vices and follies to ridicule or scorn
2 : trenchant wit, irony, or sarcasm used to expose and discredit vice or folly
Nope, you missed both times. That is what I call stupidity.
Clothahump, the problem here is not whether Harry Belafonte made an ass of himself, or what degree of democracy or dictatorship prevails in Venezuela. It’s that you saw fit to condemn him on the grounds that in engaging in hyperbolic condemnation of George W. Bush, he was being against America.
My father was among those who fought against the theory that allegiance to one’s country equals allegiance to its leader. The political philosophy that espouses that theory is called by its German name, the Fuehrerprinzip. Much as I’m flirting with Godwin’s Law by saying so, I’d ask you to define what degree of opposition to Mr. Bush (or any incumbent President, like Mr. Clinton in 1993-2000) you feel is acceptable, and under what grounds you draw that line.
The fact that one has the freedom to do something does not directly equate to the idea that one has a license to do it. There are certain things that should be taken into account, such as common sense and self-control. Belafonte said what he did with absolutely no thought given to the repercussions of the act. It was an arrogant, stupid act on his part. What is really saddening is how many people think it was perfectly okay, because they don’t bother to look beyond the moment and see the results. Hey, he’s bashing Bush, so by definition, it’s okay.
A lot of people like to quote the bible, so here’s something that I think applies here:
- Apostle Peter to churches in the Mediterranean
Here’s another quote that applies:
Walter Lippmann in The Public Philosophy
Yes, old Day-O Harry had the right to say what he did. I’m just sorry that he didn’t engage his brain before putting his mouth in gear.
Did such a time really ever exist? During WWII, there was a joke going around about a GI who refused to shoot a German soldier (or Japanese soldier depending upon who was telling the joke) who yelled, “To Hell with Roosevelt!” because he couldn’t kill a fellow Republican.
I disagree with the vast majority of Bush’s policies. If I were to walk into Canada and began discussing politics with a citizen of the country, I am not suddenly going to start praising and kissing W’s ass just because I’m no longer in the U.S. I will continue to criticize and find fault with Bush’s leadership just as I do here. I won’t change my political opinions just because I’ve crossed a border.
Actually, it fits definition 2. It was sarcastic, and used with the intent of discrediting the foolishness of getting worked up about this.
Unless you’re insisting on the “trenchant” bit. Personally, I think it’s a poor definition that requires valuating qualifier like that.
Is there no poor satire? Mad magazine contains some very poor satire.
Saying that satire must necessarily be trenchant is like defining soup as “Delicious liquid food largely consisting of a meat or vegetable broth, which may contain small solid pieces.” If it doesn’t suit your tastes, it’s still soup.
Pardon me if your post was intended to be “wit.”
Sometimes these things are hard to make out when you think the other person is a douchebag. <–Warning: Joke. May not actually be funny in some states. Some restrictions apply.