Your post can only lead me to the conclusion that you believe almost anything you read, as long as it doesn't have a credible source, and isn't from the mainstream media. Therefore, I am not surprised that you advocate a violent overthrow of the government, as things must look very, very bad by your perception. You might want to get your facts straight before advocating a violent overthrow based on conclusions formed thereof.

I don't even know where to begin with your assertions. I have already posted about depleted uranium, which you consider to be 'massive sources of radiation'. Riding in a DU covered tank has one fifth the radiation of a jet airplane. For nutrasweet, it's true that phenylalanine converts to methanol in the body, which converts to formaldehyde, formic acid, and eventually carbon dioxide and water. However, all fruit, most vegetables, wine, and beer also do this. A 12 ounce glass of tomato juice produces several times the amount of methanol as the equivalent amount of diet coke.....What gave you the idea that flouride, in the minute amounts we put into our water, is dangerous? Too much flouride would actually mottle your teeth. Are your teeth mottled? I don't want to go anymore off topic, I apologize, but if you're truly so disgusted with our system of government, and think it's corrupt based on these sources, you should investigate a bit further.

You might also want to read the book Dr Zhivago before you take up arms. It might be a fictional novel, but it clearly and accurately illustrates the effect on society when governments are overthrown. It's a sobering book, and might just make you realize that things aren't so bad the way they are now.

Editted to add: No, opposing Bush is not antiAmerican. Advocating a violent overthrow of American government is.

FINAL WARNING:

This topic is to debate:

_________________________

If you want to debate the overthrow of the American government start your own thread (or maybe your own forum ).

I will be forced to close this thread if it wanders too far from the topic again.

deleted by me as it was off topic as jamie said.

I repeat (since unabomber posted at the same time as me and continued to take it off topic)

OFFICIAL FINAL WARNING.

deleted off topic post and started new thread.

I'm not quite sure what your point is, Danya. But if it is that you've seen enough in the past few years to justify overthrowing our government, then I beg to differ with you. Differ with you most vigorously.

Allow me to briefly explain how I cane by this particular thread for disscussion. In the Hannity website, where I am one of a growing number of democrats and liberals (I am mostly centrist) jousting with the conservatives there, I posted a thread on the word HATE. I said it is a negative word, a destructive word and an emotion that results mostly in turmoil. I wondered why the people there could not debate with great eruptions of hate against ideas, against people and things.
I was so amazed by the number of people that responded by defending hate and hateful speech. And of course I was accused of every crime under the sun.
Americans, in the last few years, since the Nixon era, have largely forgotten how to communicate thoughtfully. This website being a happy exception. We have forgotten how to think, how to listen, how to respond and in general, deal with people who hold differing philosophies. Thats really too bad. But what is worse, for the most part, talk radio, of which I was a part of for over twenty years, has taken on a tone that maintains the barriers that have been set up between people and prevents us from correcting what must be corrected. And thats too bad.

True, very true.

I whole-heartedly oppose Bush.
I don't hate America, however. I believe the citizens of any nation have the power to be a very benevolent -or malevolent- force.

Thats a pretty obvious question. Opposing Bush cant be anti-American because Bush is not America. Bush is a person, America is a country. Feel however you want to about anyone, as long as you're not talking aout the country, you're not anti-american. Thats my opinion neway,

Did anyone consider disliking (hating) Clinton anti-American?

Think about this; when the Dixie Chicks made their statement about being ashamed to be from the same state as Bush, many people found that un-American. I thought it was stupid, but not un-American.

Toby Keith, another country star, has been reveling in a song written after 9/11 titled Angry American. In it Toby sings the following:

Justice will be served
And the battle will rage
This big dog will fight
When you rattle his cage
And you’ll be sorry that you messed with
The U.S. of A.
`Cause we`ll put a boot in your *** NOTICE: THIS WORD IS AGAINST THE RULES. FAILURE TO REMOVE IT WILL RESULT IN A STRIKE. ***
It`s the American way

Hey Uncle Sam
Put your name at the top of his list
And the Statue of Liberty
Started shakin’ her fist
And the eagle will fly
Man, it’s gonna be hell
When you hear Mother Freedom
Start ringin’ her bell
And it feels like the whole wide world is raining down on you
Brought to you Courtesy of the Red White and Blue

These lyrics concern me, especially the ones I've placed in bold, however this song seems to be very, VERY popular and many people consider Toby to be pro-America.

What if Toby performed this song on foreign soil? This would alienate the citizenry of many of our allies.

More to my point, what if Toby was on stage in England during the Clinton/Lewinsky scandal and opined his shame of Clinton? Would that be considered - un-American?

Were all those people who opposed Clinton's policies and called for his impeachment - anti-American?

I think not.

How does Toby Keith's song help to make your case? You highlight the strongest pro-American lines and then express concern that some consider them.....pro-American.

Then you make a twisted attempt to put him on a foreign stage, denigrating Clinton. Did he ever do so? Did he even express that opinion anywhere? On what basis do you put forth that hypothetical, that he's also a country singer?

Weak, very very weak.

I beg to differ, Passion51. I do not consider the lines I highlighted – pro-American. Sending a message to other countries, especially those who have never provoked the USA, that placing a boot up their yahoo is THE AMERICAN WAY does not sit well with me. I consider that mentality downright scary. Don’t confuse that with being willing to use force, because I am not a pacifist either.

My scenario is hypothetical. It was used to place the issue in perspective. Instead of opposing the example why not consider it and provide your position.

What if Toby was on stage in England during the Clinton/Lewinsky scandal and opined his shame of Clinton? Would that be considered - un-American?

Were all those people who opposed Clinton's policies and called for his impeachment - anti-American?

Passion51 Posted on May 26 2003, 09:07 AM



I think this statement was unnecessary.

I apologize for the 'weak' comment. But I do think the hypothetical is weak.

Among other reasons is this. The vast majority of the invective towards Bush is a result of his policies. This is from the very people who rant against him, just ask them. Clinton, on the other hand was quite a different story. He was, and is, reviled because of his lack of morals, character, and integrity. In many ways, the problems with his policies were secondary.

The Clinton and Bush scenarios are worlds apart and really offer no grounds for the type of comparison you're trying to make.

some people hate bush because they feel he lies, cheats and steals, many of the reasons people like rush and co. bashed clinton all through the 90's. yet none were ever called "anti-american" or "un-patriotic" but the dixie chicks say they are ashamed to be from the same state as bush, and they basicly end up blacklisted from all clear channel stations. tim robbins and susan sarandon speak out against his policies and people want to blacklist them. (some have actually started un-official blacklists: http://www.probush.com/traitor.htm (these people call anyone that doesn't agree with bush a traitor)and http://www.boycott-hollywood.net/boycott_list.htm (you may have a bit a trouble with this one, it doesn't seem to want to load)

now, I don't recall democrats calling rush and company anti/un-american, and trying to detroy their livlihoods. i didn't hear any calls to boycott heston, or rush or what have you. and I seem to remember that republicans loathed clinton even before the whole lewinski affair, and attacked him and his policies every chance they got. they didn't just dislike him cause he was "immoral" and what not, as you seem to imply passion.

I consider the attempted destruction of the first amendment as hating america, which as is shown above, can happen even if you worship shrubya like a god. so yeah passion, your right the shrub and clinton situations are worlds apart, when conservatives attack and bashed clinton they didn't get their livlihood threatened as many liberals are having done now. blacklisting is about as unamerican as you can get, more so then publicly speaking out against bush's policy (which by the way is protected under the first amendment. and yes the "blacklisters" (for lack of better term) have a right to decide not to do business with people that hold veiws contrary to their own. but calling them traitors is IMO bordering on libel(written slander) and if said aloud, slander.)

Naah, they just label it "Hate radio". The First Amendment is only under attack when government limits speech (i.e. McCain/Feingold). If I choose not to listen to the Dixie Chicks, or Lawrence Welk it does not constitute an attack on the 1st. Just because speech is free does not mean you are guaranteed freedom from the consequences of your speech.

Whenever I see Carrot Top I immediately reach for the remote.

Actually I hear a little talk by Democrats about reviving the Fairness Doctrine, which could be used to attack the livelihoods of Rush,et al. Now this would be government infringement on free speech.

Banning the Dixie Chicks is certainly an infrigment on free speech. It's a concerted effort by one group of people (e.g. Clear Channel) to limit another groups' (e.g. Dixie Chicks) ability to express themselves because of their political views. The Consitution does give you right to free speech, it does not give you the right to limit the free speech of others.

Since Clear Channel is not a government entity and is a private corporation, they can decide what not to play on their stations as they please. It is perfectly legal and well within their rights to ban the Dixie Chicks. There is no infringement on free speech what so ever on Clear Channel's part. They are not limiting anyone's speech. They made a decision to not play Dixie Chicks' songs. The Dixie Chicks are allowed to say and sing whatever they please. If a giant, soulless corporation chooses not to play their songs, then that is perfectly fine.

The Constitution limits the control GOVERNMENT has over speech.

Do you (collective you) believe our Constitutional right to free speech means people are required to listen to that speech? I don't.

Being boycotted for our words by private industry and US citizenry doesn’t equal censorship. Our right to free speech doesn’t outweigh our freedom to associate.

Radio stations have a right not to associate with the Dixie Chicks. This is neither un-American nor unconstitutional.

The 'black-list' lament is nothing more than the latest liberal whine about the fact that their beliefs are in the minority in this country.

Pay close attention......most Americans don't agree with your views and they are voting with their pocketbook. Learn to live with that, or stick to what you were getting paid to do in the first place.

I suppose you're right that it's not specifically prohibited, however it's borderline. It's like a group of people being disruptive at a political rally or Commencement speech: they're trying to shout someone down, and deny them their right to free speech. That's not free speech, it's harassment. Seeing as Clear Channel simply isn't playing their songs, it's not quite the same, but it's close.

It's only 'close' to the minority who support their positions in the first place.

What's even 'closer' is the lack of conservative professors in colleges and universities. But that is changing. Why? Because the majority has had enough and they are speaking with their pocketbooks. Again.

Far too many institutions of higher learning have crossed the line with their anti-American teaching and support. From communist sympathizers on the faculty to anti-American speeches at commencement, the left has gone too far. The time for change has arrived and it won't be pretty. But it will be for the better of this nation and all those who love and support it.

The DeGenova's and their like will be looking for other employment soon. Not soon enough if you ask me.

Conservatives will never have a majority in colleges and universities. The pay is too low. Conservatives like money way too much. They seek jobs for the "sake of their pocketbooks." By the way, what's with this "crossed the line" and "gone too far" bit? You sound like G.I. Joe. And since when has the left gone too far. Last time I looked, the right had control of the White House, the House of Representatives, the Senate, the Supreme Court, and the majority of governorships. How can the left go too far when they have no real power to speak of? And what, praytell, was taken too far? Communist sympathizers and anti-American speeches (perhaps you mean to say anti-Bush or anti-war speeches)? I'm not sure, but I think the First Amendment allows such behavior. I don't know, something about free speech and right to assemble...its in there somewhere. Wait...do you mean to say the left has taken their First Amendment rights too far? Considering that they are rights and not privilidges, they cannot be taken too far. A privilidge such as driving a car, for example, can be taken too far, i.e. speeding, drinking & driving and the like. A right goes on and on and on and on. They are infinite. There is no taking them too far because there is nowhere to take them to.

Nu Marx,

Great post. You make an excellent point about rights vs. privleges.

I too get tired of all the sanctimonious, self appointed, Patriot Police telling everyone else what they can or can't say without having a mob organize some retribution over even the smallest off hand remark. Or what lines are now too far or what speech should suddenly be considered treason or how one idiotic politician or another deserves everyone's respect for no other reason but his job title.

Nobody says you have no right to express your beliefs and opinions. Just be prepared to accept the backlash that goes along with it. No whining about 'black-lists'. No resurrecting images of McCarthyism.

Crossing the line means simply that the silent majority has decided to no longer remain silent. Crossing the line came with the anti-war, anti-Bush, anti-American rhetoric that spewed forth. At that point it became clear that the very security of our nation was in danger of being undermined.

The liberal notion of internationalism is wrongheaded and unacceptable to the vast majority of Americans. As is its relativism. So too the shame and blame they have been laying on for years.

The question is now: Is that really freedom of speech as guaranteed to us in the constitution? That isn't freedom of speech, it's hypocrisy. We are guaranteed freedom of speech, but are persecuted if the government believes it to be outside f their moral boundaries.

As long as it's in context of the TOPIC FOR DEBATE...

One thing I find interesting on this thread is that Bush supporters here and elsewhere do tend to be able to see a distinction between Americans who are anti-Bush, and Americans who are anti-American. There are disagreements over precisely where one ends and the other starts, but conceptually there is no difficulty in recognising that they are two different phenomena, even if they overlap somewhat.

However, one thing I have noticed in the American media as a whole, in discussion websites, and in face-to-face conversations (mostly pointed up in a March vacation to the North East USA), is a general assumption that any criticism of Bush or his current policies, particularly in regard to the War on Terror, is synonymous with anti-Americanism. It's as if one doesn't have to listen to any point being made by someone if you've mentally consigned them to the bin marked 'anti-American'.

By way of illustration, take Blair and Chirac. Blair agreed with Bush in large part over Iraq, and has been embraced as a pro-American. Yet he has frequently disagreed with Bush's policies on Kyoto, the ICC, the role of the UN, transatlantic trade spats like steel tariffs, has markedly different views on the Arab-Israeli conflict (there is a do facto British arms embargo against Israel, which, while not official policy, is just as effective as if it were), and others ideas.

Meanwhile, Chirac, who was equally cooperative in the immediate aftermath of 9-11 (some French troops went to Afghanistan, and there were and continue to be French arrests of a-Q suspects and related undesirables), and who shares Blair's distaste for many other areas of Bush policy on trade, international treaties, etc, was utterly villified in the US media and by US government representatives themselves (the Old Europe speech springs to mind, although Rumsfeld forgot that Britain as a unit is actually older than France or Germany), because official French policy was to postpone peaceful attempts at Iraqi disarmament for at least six months. (Despite the shady stories that have since been unearthed linking France and Germany to Saddam's regime, Chirac never ruled out military intervention; he just had a longer term opinion of what constituted a last resort.)

As a side-issue, I found it fascinating that one of the nationally-syndicated talk radio hosts (not Limbaugh - the one that immediately follows him) was one day complaining about some liberal activists who had been attempting to organise a boycott of his website. He compared this activity - attempting to harm the livelihoods of someone with whom one disagrees - with the painting of yellow stars on the shop-fronts of Jewish-owned businesses by early European Nazis, and condemned it as anti-American, Anti-Jewish (even though he wasn't himself Jewish!) Nazi oppression of the worst kind.

Yet, a few days laters, when the Dixie Chicks story came to light, this same protector of the freedom to say unpalatable things was in the front of the queue, exhorting his listeners to throw their DC CDs onto the bonfire (of course, the Nazis burned books and records they didn't like), arguing that no true American would allow them to continue to make a livelihood in the USA, accusing them of anti-American treachery that typifies the "liberal media", justifying his actions with the same "they have the right to say it, and I have the right to act accordingly" argument that has been used here once or twice already on this subject.

By the way, I don't presume to ascribe the clear hypocrisy of this one talk show host to anybody else that might use the same argument. I was simply reminded of him by it.

is hate really the correct word or more of i hope something bad happens to him, just joking.

but i dont think hate is a correct word, and if its anti-american to hate some political figure, its funny it comes along now.

to the topic, my main beefs agianst bush is his pre-planned news meetings, and when he was holding the kuran and called it "a good book", i have no idea where he was going with that, but i did not like it. not for the reasons of being anti-muslim, but i should have recorded it for the laugh factor. i dont think that is hate, or anti-american, more that it is american, like this website, remember, if you want to make it illegal for people to protest, make sure nothing ever puts you in the pants of one someday.

One thing to consider about this:
Unless Bush is america (which he isn't) how can hating him be un-american?

A prime example of the Patriot Police I was talking about. As often as it's spelled out you still revert to this:
Crossing the line came with the anti-war, anti-Bush, anti-American rhetoric that spewed forth.

The line you are talking about is not static and not up to one group or another to move. These are not the so called silent majority speaking. They are just cowardly people who have lost all sense of reason and common sense because of the fear and hate mongering Bush has decided to lead us with while we've just been traumatized by a national tragedy and are easily led.

It's unfortunate that this is his legacy. Good thing he will eventually be gone and even his supporters will have to accept that fact that Bush and America are not one and the same.

In the not to distant future there will be a change of guard and if the next leader is not a Republican maybe these Patriot Police will actually hold on to their convictions and blindly support him regardless of how insane or unwise his policies seem. That way we can finally get some peace.

I still hope the rest of us are able to see the difference and continue to make sure even a President of our own party is scrutinized and questioned whenever necessary.

I look down our street and see the American flags flying. Our house is the only one that has the sign, "Another Family For Peace" posted in our yard. We have sewn yellow ribbons on that sign to signify that we want very much to see the troops back from overseas, too. Not to ridicule, not to spit on, not to call baby killers. Just back for their families, to go about the business of everyday living.

There have been attempts made to remove our yard sign. We have been able to reinforce it. No one has taken the time to come up to our doorstep and argue with us on our position. For that I am relieved. I hate confrontation.

It's annoying to know that the pro-war people think we are unpatriotic.
It turns my stomach to hear the commentators go on about how our politics are suspect, how actors and actresses who speak out cannot possibly know what they are talking about, to have Mr. Bush treated like a sacred cow during the period of hostilities. Even the night show comedians have been tiptoeing around, warned by their producers not to be too politically incorrect. Lay off the Bush jokes.

But it's not a hardship so far to oppose Mr. Bush and his war. Not where we live. Even when a letter to the editor says it's doubletalk to say we're against the war but not against the troops. When he talks about the way he was spat upon and called a baby killer when he returned from active duty in Korea. He is reliving his own experience.

Is it altogether possible that we for the most part are more respectful of others than our predecessors? It would be nice to think so.

I don't hate Bush. But I think he has taken us down the wrong road....

WHAT'S SO WRONG ABOUT DEMONSTRATING FOR PEACE INSTEAD OF WAR? WHAT'S SO WRONG, SO UNPATRIOTIC, ABOUT NOT WANTING OUR COUNTRY TO BE THE AGGRESSOR?

Nothing, and thank God there are some people like you. However, all have to realize, as you understand PE, that you have just as much as a right to be a protester and not be called unpatriotic as I have to support the war and not be called a war monger, some people don't quite understand that.

CP

Oops - I should point out that I should have said ''any FOREIGN criticism or Bush tends to be'' ascribed to anti-Americanism, whether or not it is valid criticism.

The rest of my post doesn't make much sense without the word 'FOREIGN' in there. Sorry for any confusion.

Hating George Bush isn't un-american. All it means is that you have different beleifs and views on situations than he. This isn't called treason, it's called diversity. And anyway, Bush is the president of a democracy. And the only way to have a democracy is to have the people share their beliefs, ideas, and criticisms. So, in a sense, hating Bush could actually be considered more american than it is un-american.

Treason is NORMALLY, by those in their right minds, considered to be any act that in any way harms the populus of america or those running the government. "Hating/disagreeing" with bush does NOT harm anybody, the country was founded on the idea that people can disagree, one must not love the leader to love the country.

Now if you were to threaten to harm somebody due to their stance on any of Bush's policy, that could get you investigated for possiblity of commiting a treasonous act.

Grand Puba, unless you have a psych degree, I would avoid statements like this.

While "hating" our leader is not un-American, it's not really helpful. I think we need to separate the issues from the personality of Bush the Second.

To define a person's patriotism on the basis of what s/he thinks about the President is not only simplistic, it is intellectually lazy. Some people who are likable personally may be ineffective, even dangerous, while others who may be total dirtbags may run a Presidency smoothly with relatively few mistakes. Presidents who are caught in lies earn my dislike in any case.

When you hear someone state a simplistic notion like: Republican=good, Democrat=bad or vice versa, you can probably guess that this person is not bothering to use a lot of gray matter. And I think that this type of thinking is more unpatriotic than whether we hate or love the President.

It's our continuing interest in the issues and our participation in the processes of democracy that make us positively American, whether we oppose or support the current administration.

(Edited for clarity)

Very true, but hating and giving criticism can lead to a better government by refining it through input from people besides Bush. it only really hurts us if Bush and his administration receive it in a bad way and don't listen to it.



Note to Puba: I said that hating him isn't treason.