[B]A major phenomenon that arose following 911 was the idea that to oppose the policies of thje Bush administration was akin to treason. That only those people who "Hate" America, also hate Bush.
This is a real off the wall attitude. Teddy Roosevelt once said, "Patriotism is love of country, not love of the country's leaders." He said it was our duty to speak out if we disagree. Nowever now, there is a large percentage of citizens, I believe led by people such as Limbaugh and Hannity, who believe that liberalism is the worst sin in the world and opposing the President is treason. Baloney!

I'm with your sentiment, but you must, please, pose a question for us to debate.
Thank you.

I think the subtitle posed one, Quarkhead: "Is opposing Bush anti-American?"

I'd say of course not. The problem is so would everyone else here, and if everyone is on the same side that doesn't leave much to debate.

"Only people who hate America also hate Bush." That proposition is obviously false. But if we soften it a little we might get a true statement out of it, like so: "Many (and maybe even most) people who hate America also hate Bush." The converse is not necessarily true. I'm 100% pro-America but only lukewarm about Bush at best.

But if you think Limbaugh and Hannity believe "opposing the President is treason," you don't understand what they're saying. Maybe because you've never really listened to them? Maybe you only heard what you expected them to say instead of what they really did say. Both gentlemen are intelligent and very capable of nuanced thought.

QH, he did pose a question, in the thread title.

There are three problems with your assessment Newscaster. First, you don't understand how conservatives tend to view things compared to how liberals/Leftists view things. These are, of course, generalizations. Conservatives are most concerned about actual results. Intentions are far less of an issue. Thus, when someone comes out in opposition to a policy, and the opposition itself serves to hurt America or make it easier for others to hurt America, then conservatives are going to consider that behavior "anti-American." Results are more important than intentions. Liberals place a higher value on intentions (especially their own.)

Second, the simple fact is that a tremendous number of the anti-war folks ARE anti-American. You can go back through their writings, speeches, and other actions and prove it. These are the "fellow travellers", and they all claim to not be anti-American as well. After a while, the rest of us get fed up with the *** NOTICE: THIS WORD IS AGAINST THE RULES. FAILURE TO REMOVE IT WILL RESULT IN A STRIKE. ***, and don't have the time to sort the "legitimate" opposition from those who are anti-American.

The third problem is that there are those who are anti-Bush, period. In their blind zeal to attack Bush, belittle Bush ("chimp", "shrub", "moron"), etc, they end up attacking policies and compromising structures that the rest of us think are valid means of protecting America. So, we end up back at Point 1. Attack the policy simply because its Bush's policy, compromise American security, and voila', you've entered the realm of being "anti-American." Results, or probable results are what matter, not intentions. A great number of Americans have determined that we are in a fight for our survival. Keep majoring in minors, fiddling whilst Rome burns, etc, and few are inclined to give the benefit of the doubt. The perception, which is constantly upheld (carrier landing brouhaha anyone?) is that some folks just aren't serious about national security. If they spend too much time insisting on being a distraction, looking to the past, etc, then they're either going to be written off as dangerous fools, or dangerous enemies. Since so many oppose Bush are constantly reminding everyone of how smart they are (and "dumb" he is), that doesn't leave much room for dangerous fool, does it?

I don't agree with Bush on more than a few things, but the difference in tone between the way I state my disagreements and the tone of others is profound.

That's a very idiosyncratic definition of the main difference, to say the least. Can you cite any dictionary, or any philosophical/political work, that would put that distinction ahead of any other? Can you find any liberal who would agree? I've argued before that methods matter, but that's not the same as intent. Liberals care just as much about results as you do; they just differ on how to get those results.



Could you define "tremendous number" please, or explain what it is about someone's writings - other than disagreement with Bush, or you - that proves they're anti-American? Maybe then we can assess the validity of your claim. According to most people's definitions and interpretations, no more than a tiny fraction of anti-war people are "fellow travelers" as you'd have us believe.



"Kill them all, and let God sort them out"? How macho. How worthless.



That means they oppose your vision of America, not America itself. BTW, was everyone who made jokes about "slick Willie" anti-American too? Would that include you, by any chance?



Yes, it is a profound difference, but not in your favor. I can only think of one or two people here who work as hard to alienate rather than understand those with different views. Please do take the time to "sort the legitimate opposition from those who are anti-American". It's what we're all here for...right?

Heck no.

This is a lame statement made in the absence of reason and facts.

I quit listening to all the conservative radio talk show hosts (Hannity, Rush, Savage, et al) exactly for this reason.

When I listen to them, I like to hear about the importance of morality within our leaders, the importance of less government in our lives, the importance of principle over politics, individual accountability and responsibility, and most things associated with a conservative agenda.

But many of Bush's decisions have been, in my opinion, flat out wrong. And 2 1/2 years into his term, he has nothing to show for it. Hell, their still blaming Clinton.

Because I question these policies, I get attacked by these talking heads and the people who listen to them with this kind of rhetoric. That is an absurd statement made my weak-minded individuals in my opinion.

Well, here's a news flash: I don't need listeners and advertising revenue. They do.

I can't think of anything MORE American than opposing the leadership. This nation is founded upon the principle of questioning those in power. During the 90s, I had to listen to anti-Clinton statements all the time. He seemed as though he were the most despised man in the country, and this was in a time of (mostly) peace and (somewhat) prosperity. But I never called any anti-Clintonite un-American. I knew then as I know now that the winds of power shift and I would be the one making comments going against the President at some point in the future. I am very anti-Bush and believe that his administration is driving the country into a deep hole both economically and internationally. And I have to say that anyone who thinks I hate America for this view doesn't understand America nor the beauty of it.

I think the difference is in how we have faced the confusion, grief and fear that hit all of us on 9/11. Like Bikerdad said; some were only interested in results. The why or who or where doesn't matter. Strike back and show your strength, kill or be killed. However, they also show great weakness. Their fear overcomes their ability to appreciate and retain all the things that make this country great in the first place. They are willing to sacrifice whatever it takes for the knowledge that something, anything, is being done in the name of security and retribution.

Some of us felt that lashing out and sacrificing innocent people for revenge, changing our history of striking first in war, and giving up our freedom only gave us too much in common with the enemy and left us more vulnerable at home. We believed we could not be safe without the shared intelligence, cooperation and combined strength of allies.

When we spoke of using common sense and wanting proof they spoke of mushroom clouds and mandatory Small Pox vaccines. When we spoke of war instigating more terror attacks they spoke of it being true but only in the short term (whatever that means and as if that were somehow acceptable).

They rally around a simple man with big ideas that would radically change this country to match the vision of PNAC, Big Brother, and one shared Christian based morality. We rally around our Constitution and Declaration of Independence which is based on abstract yet essential things that they can't grasp like rights, values, and yes...intentions.

One side wants America to become a global empire based on military strength to compensate for their fear, greed or both. The other side wants to repair our broken reputation and respect that was lost in a just a few short years.

Luckily, the authors of the Constitution planned for men with big ideas and sweeping changes that would damage the fabric of this country to pursue their own personal agenda. This is why the position of the President is only temporary and his power meant to be balanced with the judicial and legislative branches of government. The President is not meant to serve as a God, King, or Dictator. He is simply a powerful ,yet temporary, civil servant who swears to uphold the US Constitution.

In the war on terror they want Bush to have the benefit of the doubt. We expect truth and accountability, not only because it's his duty, but because it's a far more reliable way to ensure our security. It's entirely possible to love your country and not your president, especially when they have such conflicting 'intentions'.

Bikerdad, your tone is profound. At least in it's similarity to every other Bush apologist...full of blind faith, divisive rhetoric, and righteous indignation over every insult and criticizm great or small.

I don't believe those opposed to our current policies hate America. For the most part anyway. There are some who use that opposition as cover for their hatred and desire to bring us down, but they are few in number.

The problem lies in the naivete of those who don't see how our appeasement of terrorists prior to 9/11 has hurtled us to where we are today. There is no doubt, none at all, that had we continued on that course it was only a matter of time before we fell victim to a nuclear attack by a terrorist group or rogue nation.

You cannot appease terrorists, you can only capitulate to them. You cannot negotiate with them, only surrender. OR, have the will and determination to take them on and bring them to their knees. There is no middle ground here, either you win and survive or lose and die. There is no co-existence. None. The enemy will not have that. The Muslim world has no desire to live 'with' an Israel, they want to eliminate them. The Muslim fanatics don't want to live in a world populated by other religions, they want to be the one and only religion.

Those who work so hard against us today may not hate America, but they are in grave danger of losing America if they have their way.

Yes, we're all quite capable of playing the psychiatrist, but what's to stop anybody from claiming opposition is just a cover for hatred without substantiating their claims? All such claims I have seen have been unfounded and wildly speculative. It seems to be nothing more than a tool for assassination of character.Because we didn't launch some myopic "war on terror" before September 11 we were appeasing terrorists? Heaven forbid we wake up during our response and acknowledge we could use some changes in foreign policy. The war on terror is a band-aid not adequate to stop the bleeding.Perhaps those working "so hard against us" are working to stop America from becoming something radically different from the ideology it once embodied. Perhaps not everybody is ready to set aside the pursuit of liberty and justice for the short sighted pursuit of American interests only.

Something to think about.

America stands before a dilemma.

Sitting from afar and watching events unfold, its easy to lose track of that, but still... when all is said and done, what America faces today, other nations have faced before. The British faced the IRA for decades, and they never backed down. The death toll continued to rise as sectarian violence and tit for tat killings filled in the media picture between the bombings.
Thatcher refused to negotiate. They blew her government up. She still refused, more than ever. But what good did it do in the end? The violence continued. The situation in Northern Ireland was just as bad, if not worse when she left office as it was the day she entered it. All her hard stance, soldiers on the street and mass arrests of IRA terrorists did nothing to stop the killing.

Why should it be any different for America? Does any one really believe that George Bush can succeed on a global scale where Margret Thatcher failed in a single tiny province?

I certainly don't.

Everything that I see today has a chilling sense of deja vu around it, almost as if we are witnessing every mistake made in history being repeated in the space of a single presidential term of office.

So is opposing Bush anti-American?

I hope not. I don't want to hate Americans. They've been our friends for so long and looked after us when we needed their. It would be a tragedy of grand historic proportions if all our shared values and history counted for nothing.

If the "anti-war" crowd is the "anti-Bush" crowd, so be it.

Believe it or not, liberals are concerned about results. We're in this big, expensive, bloody war, ostensibly to eliminate terrorism and make the world safe for democracy. These are the the things we have not accomplished:

1) finding Osama bin Laden and his dialysis machine (as one contributor reminded us)
2) laying our hands on those WMDs of UN Resolution 1441
3) finding any remains of Uday, Qusay or Saddam Hussein
4) keeping the Taliban out of "liberated" Afghanistan

Right now the country is on ORANGE ALERT. Are we any safer than we were when this war on terrorism was started? The truth is, we don't know. But it seems there is no end to the number of young men who are willing to become explosive fodder for the war on the "Great Satan." And they consider themselves heroes.

One result is that a heck of a lot of "incompetence" (if that's what it is) on all levels of government has been revealed. Good. Now we have fewer excuses for screw-ups, right?

There are those who hate America who have joined the Bush critics and anti-war demonstrators. It can't be helped. But there are those of us who truly love our country and feel it is our duty to speak up when our country departs from its principles.

You make a point that should be overwhelmingly obvious, but is ignored.

I said from the start of this invasion that we should have been taking on the active sponsors of terrorism and the suppliers of weapons.

We, as a people of 300 million, cannot police a world of 6 billion. We can however, force a country to clean up it's own terrorist activities. In other words. "deputize" countries to do the right thing.

But we didn't do that. We instead invaded a two bit dictator that had as much to do with international terrorism as Barney the Purple dinosaur. In doing so, we've alienated all the countries that might have helped.

Had we went to Iran, Saudi Arabia, or Syria and told them, "Clean up your house now or we'll do it for you" (basically, Bush's doctrine), I couldn't be more supportive of Bush.

But he did not do that. He put the burden of cleaning up the world on us, and we are destined for failure.

I have thought about it. And I think we are engaged in actions in pursuit of both liberty and justice, which are certainly in America's interest. I don't see any conflict. or your point.

Here, again, is the conflict but I don't think you will be able to grasp it if you have already tried.

the interests of the United States... liberty and justice? Heh.
The civilians? Yes, I'm sure most of them are actually pro to these things, and many are just plain misled.
The government is concerned with nothing beyond money.
Overtaking Iraq, with it's massive oil drilling opportunities, is a great way to make money.
Don't give me the schpeel about a tyrrannical government in Iraq. Who put Hussein in power? Who TRAINED him? Who gave him weapons? It's the United States which is to blame.

How does this answer the debate question? You appear as if you are merely trying to inflame the American members here. Please know that is against the rules.

Here is the original question posed for debate:

Hey, we got the oil. we are all happy. It is great living in a tyrannical country. Maybe we should nuke Hiroshima again , just for kicks.

I wonder what would happen if Japan had a strong military and was a world superpower? Nevermind my 86 year old Philipino father-in-law has already told me about the treatment of the Philipino people under the Japanese, which included having his wife and oldest daughter (a mere five years old) savagely raped.

Our current policies are aimed at maintaining our liberty and helping others to achieve it also, while insuring that those who threaten our security are brought to justice.

Try again.

It's OT I know... but that is nothing to make light of.


Has it occured to you that people who oppose Bush feel that current policy is an ineffective way to do this? I know you'd like to dismiss that position as naive but if a person believes that their own beliefs (I really should phrase that better) are right and true as Americans, then how can you call them anti-American?

Ultimatejoe, I suggest you refrain from your practice of misquoting and putting words into others' mouths. You do that quite a bit and it is either lazy, at best, or underhanded. In either case it serves no constructive purpose.

I never called anyone anti-American. I pointed out to ABS that I saw no inconsistency between our policy and American ideals of liberty and justice.

Did I misquote you? Well here is a little snippet where you call people who do not share your views naive:



If you read more closely you will find that I never said you called anyone un-American; but you have made your distaste for opposing schools of thoughts quite clear. Do not admonish my posting style again.

You can't ask that of anyone here. Although, I would agree that this thread is not the place to address people's posting styles. We had a thread going regarding debating tactics once, perhaps you all could revisit this issue there.

And now back to the debate

QUOTE

Is opposing Bush Anti-American?

Opposing Bush doesn't make one anti-American. It’s whom we align ourselves with and some of the positions we stake a claim on that might make us appear anti-American.

Statements like, "Peace is not patriotic. Peace is subversive, because peace anticipates a very different world than the one in which we live--a world where the U.S. would have no place." "The only true heroes are those who find ways that help defeat the U.S. military. I personally would like to see a million Mogadishus." Nicholas De Genova, THAT’S anti-American, in my opinion.

Aligning ourselves with the ideology of the Peace Movement might be considered anti-American.

For instance, did you know that International ANSWER and United for Peace and Justice are the same organization and are a front for a Marxist-Leninist party with ties to the Communist regime in North Korea?

http://www.workers.org/ Check out the link to ANSWER.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadA...cle.asp?ID=6878

http://www.laweekly.com/ink/02/50/news-corn.php

Did you know that Not in Our Name has a tie to the Revolutionary Communist Party?

http://rwor.org/home-e.htm

Protesters who hold signs that read:

We Support Our Troops When They Kill Their Officers

Bush, Blair, Sharon, Hitler – Killers of Nations

Defeat US Imperialism – Defend Afghanistan and Iraq – For Class War Against Imperialist War

Bush is the Disease – Death is the Cure



Those things are anti-American in my opinion.

You assume too much. It sounds to me as though your assertions about these organizations being linked to Communism is understood by all to be a bad thing. Do you believe that our number one enemy is still the Reds? I hope not.

First, there is no assuming on my part. These organizations (ANSWER and Not In Our Name) are run by self-declared communists and socialists. To do more research, perform a google search by:

1. not in our name revolutionary communist party.
2. ANSWER Workers World Party

There are an abundance of articles covering this issue. People have a right to know whom they are supporting so they can make educated decisions.

Second, in my opinion, communism is a bad thing. To state it more clearly, in my opinion communism IS anti-American. I also firmly believe that if polled, the majority would agree.

If you disagree with my opinion, please share your experiences and provide us with evidence (a working model) to the contrary. Perhaps you can enlighten us as to how

1 a : a theory advocating elimination of private property b : a system in which goods are owned in common and are available to all as needed

2 capitalized a : a doctrine based on revolutionary Marxian socialism and Marxism-Leninism that was the official ideology of the U.S.S.R. b : a totalitarian system of government in which a single authoritarian party controls state-owned means of production c : a final stage of society in Marxist theory in which the state has withered away and economic goods are distributed equitably

is a good thing.

Third, I understand we no longer live in the Cold War era. Our most dangerous enemy at the moment has no political affiliation. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t be aware of the political posturing going on around us.

By organizing some of these peace protests under the name ANSWER and Not In Our Name, and bringing in celebrities like Susan Sarandon and Martin Sheen many people gave accreditation to the Revolutionary Communist Party, USA and Workers World Party……and they may not have realized it.

Hey, America is whatever the public wants it to be; that's why you have elections is it not? If for some reason one day everyone wants a socialist government (they can exist in a democracy) then the people have every right to vote in that fashion.

I would also be curious to see where you get the gumption to suggest that ANSWER and NOT IN OUR NAME support any sort of Totalitarianism. This is NOT an aspect of communism, but of Stalinism.

I never suggested ANSWER and Not In Our Name supported totalitarianism.

I simply made you aware (if you weren't already) that they are fronts for communist and socialist organizations. I also gave MY opinion that communism is anti-American.

I am more than willing to explore the benefits of communism in countries that are not totalitarian. Do you have any examples?

Thank you, beladonna. I did not know the leanings of ANSWER and NOT IN MY NAME. While I have had chances to become involved with both organizations, for some reason I didn't.

I am not interested in changing the ideology upon which our country was founded. But I believe there was no way the Founders could anticipate the clout of major corporations or the way television exposure can destroy a person's opportunity to be elected to office. A government that more accurately represented its citizens would be a very good thing.

Democracy is like other systems of government in that it's good when it works. I believe it still can work.

But I also believe that this war is not helping our democracy, nor is it making our form of democracy attractive to the other nations of the world.

Unfortunately, it is well nigh impossible for many of us to separate George W. Bush from his war. We are, first and foremost, against the war. We can at least agree on this in our networking. It certainly doesn't mean we agree on everything.

America stands for many things, not just the capitalism to which communism is in opposition. To say that communism is anti-American is to ignore most of what being American is really about. I don't think communism is practical, in fact I don't even think it's moral, but Americans don't have a monopoly on either practicality or morality. It would be more accurate to say communism is anti-human.

A. I do oppose Bush.
B. I am anti-American.
C. I am not anti-American because of Bush, but rather because of the past century of atrocities comitted by a country I once loved...

As for the comment "Communism is Anti-Human"(Platypus), that's innaccurate. Currently, the nations calling themselves Communist are, in fact, Totalitarian. Read Mao Tsu-teng's "Little Red Book" and Marx's "Communist Theory". Look at the difference in their ideas.

Ryu Ko: I think, at one point, liberty and justice were the prime ideas of the United States. I think most of our presidents were relatively benevolent. I think Bush Jr. is really the only exception.

As for the comment on Japan massacreing and murdering Tagalogs, there was also the Koreans, Manchurians, Vietnamese, Khamers, and Laotians.

But, then again, the U.S. has done the same things, throughout history.
So has China, and Russia, and Britain, and Germany, and most of the world.
Power corrupts, totally and absolutely.
A few examples of atrocities by these various nations.
1899: The United States, in the Philipine-American War, loses 48 men in a skirmish. They then order that every Tagalog ages 10 and up be rounded up and killed.
1931: The Empire of Japan conquers Manchuria. A game is introduced by the emperor (modernly nicknamed "Ichiban" for the Taira warmonger of 914) in which babies are thrown into the air, and caught on bayonets.
1974: The Khamer Rouge massacres 2.5 million Khamer civilians, roughly 45% of Cambodia's current population.
1943: German troops murder some 5 million Jews in this year alone.
1968: Nearly 2 million Vietnamese civilians perish in U.S. chemical strikes during the Gulf of Tonkin conflict.
Anyone interested in more historical horror, PM me. I dont want to go any further off topic.

Sacred Wind, I appreciate that you don't want to want to take the thread of topic, but members are not encouraged to debate via PM. The Private messenger is good for getting to know one another, but if you want to debate the historical horrors of the United States, I would suggest starting a new thread with a clear question to debate regarding that topic.

What would be a good forum for that..? Casual Discussion?

I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance of the laws of our country.
Thomas Jefferson, 1816
and,
As the father of the Constitution, President James Madison, wrote, "There is an evil which ought to be guarded against in the indefinite accumulation of property from the capacity of holding it in perpetuity by... corporations. The power of all corporations ought to be limited in this respect. The growing wealth acquired by them never fails to be a source of abuses." (from: http://www.bluecorncomics.com/corp.htm about halfway down)

corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money powers of the country will endeavor to prolong it's reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until the wealth is aggregated in the hands of a few, and the Republic is destroyed. -Abraham Lincoln

even the first republican was opposed to coporations! george washington also said something on corporations in his farewell address, but I am having trouble finding it.

TJ also had this to say about banks:
If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all property until their children wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered." Thomas Jefferson

it becomes clear the framers opposed corporations, and realized they would use the mass amount of wealth to influence the government (jefferson and madison even proposed an 11th admendment to the constitution that would "ban commercial monopolies.")

also, belladonna: that definition is flawed and contridictary. it says communism is "a system in which goods are owned in common and are available to all as needed", but then says "a totalitarian system of government in which a single authoritarian party controls state-owned means of production" which is it? I(considering everything else in it goes against the "totalarian system" I say the first one) Read the COMMUNIST MANIFESTO sometime. communism has nothing to do with totalarianism. (just as capitalism doesn't)

had leo trotsky gained control of the United soviets socialist republic, history would have been much different. instead stalin hijacked the ideaology of marx, lenin and engels because many soviets at the time were communists. this is obvious once you read the CM. (for further reaading on stalins hijacking: http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0614-04.htm)

so are you saying you think it is a good think children have to sleep in alleys and can't eat, that mentally unstable people can't get help, that prices of goods go up but wages stay the same, that people die because they can't get healthcare. I could go on, but this is getting long already.

one last point to belladonna:

bull hockey! you said

you say they're a front for an organization that has ties to a totalarian regime, which means they support them.

And who hijacked Maoism? It is too bad these countries pursuing the communist utopia always get hijacked. Could it be that when you deprive individuals of private property rights you put too much power in the hands of too few? Communism is not only an unworkable idea, it is an evil one. One of the chief functions of any government should be to protect private property rights.

Back on topic, opposing Bush is not anti-American. Freedom of speech is the very essence of America. There is a fringe element of Bush opposers who are anti-American. We can live with them.

Again you are tying hatred of Bush with hatred of America. They are not the same thing.

This topic really took off the last couple days... excuse me for going back a moment.

Yes, we're engaged in a pursuit of liberty and justice, but only as it serves American interest. There is another thread dealing with precisely that, though, and I will leave further discussion of it there.
Don't be so hasty to sneer at Communism alone when democracy too can be hijacked. It's rather hasty to think that after less than 50 years as the dominant nation our "democratic utopia" won't also get hijacked. Thinking back a few posts... how important are you to your government and how important is Big Business?

It was already argued on a topic now closed that opposition of Bush should not be lumped together with opposition of America. People don't simply dislike the man because he's American or Texan or any other unrelated nonsense. The overwhelming majority of those who dislike him do so because of his actions and perceived intentions, which they frequently deem to stand in contrast to classic American ideology.

If there are those who love America and the dreams America was intended to stand for, there is no hatred of the country in opposing a powerful man who they feel stands as a threat to those ideals. Others may not agree with them, but their actions and intentions are in no way anti-American.

I think Hugo was going out of his way to state that all anti-Bush types are not anti-American. But one would have to be naive to believe that there isn't an element in our country that both hates Bush AND wants to see this country turn into a vastly different entity than it is today. They are assuredly fringe, and may not be sizable, but they are vocal. Tune into C-SPAN's coverages of various rallies, or better yet, visit one. Once you wade past the Free Mumia and Save the Sea Turtle crowd, you will find many factions that call for the not quite peaceful overthrow of the republic.

I think it was George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and the rest of thier crew that called for a "not quite peaceful overthrow." Are you suggesting that a peaceful overthrow is somehow superior to a violent overthrow?

Are you advocating a violent overthrow of the government?

Nu Marx,

I would suggest that the Sons of Liberty were the more violent faction, but the majority of the founding fathers were of the mind of Franklin, wishing for the peaceable coexistence with, or as a last resort, disassociation from Britain.

I support the right of protest and dissent of groups such as marxixt-leninists, just as I have the right to counter an ideology that I feel to be repugnant and a danger to a free people.


So, if this answers your question, violence is sometimes an option if a totalitarian, murdering regime is to be displaced, but peaceful means trumps bloodshed if possible.

Briefly:
"To subdue the enemy without fighting is the acme of skill."
--Sun Tzu

If advocating the violent overthrow of the US government is not anti-American, than what is? There are loonies on the left and right that wish to overthrow our government because they can't get their way at the ballot box; that is anti-American.

Despots don't allow free elections.

I'm curious... at what point does the government in power represent a nation or it's people more so than the vision behind such a nation?

Should the American people be expected to support their government regardless of policy or consequence? Perhaps I'm being simply naive, but I would have admired those German citizens who might have sought to overthrow the Fuhrer rather than capitulate in the interests of national leadership.

And while there are marked differences between that government and our own today, shouldn't Americans be prepared to overthrow their government -- peacefully or through violent means -- if that government dances to their own beat, rather than that of the people?

*It should also be noted that Nu Marx has not advocated overthrowing the U.S. government, but rather posed a clearly thought-provoking question. Thought this should be made clear lest any future posts engage in personal attacks or labeling.

--That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. --The Declaration of Independence

while not necessarily advocating full blown overthrow of the government, jefferson did call for armed rebellion against it.



so, does this mean TJ was un-american? or disloyal? hardly, he knew that the only way the government could possibly be kept completely in line is if they had to fear the people rising against them.


no they don't. but, seriously, look at the way our system works. there is a 99% likelyhood that any one outside of the approved "two" parties
will not get into any posistion of major power (the highest so far has been govenor, to the best of my knowledge) also, how can one be positive we still even have free elections? we have rigged elections in other countries, it is possible it could happen here (remember, the german people said "it can't happen here" ANYTHING can happen here or anywhere)

and what about those that don't believe in government at all? they are just supposed to bend over and take it?
I do believe in a violent overthrow of the government, though it is not because I hate america or americans. in fact it is because looking at what the government has done and is doing to americans, and other humans of this planet, makes me sick. they dump mass amounts of toxins into our water (sodium fluoride. all fluoride is bad for you, but especially sodium fl.) they exposed countless citzens to radiation (though I admit at the time they may not have known better, I don't know for sure) they've allowed GMOs(genetically modified organisms) to enter our food supply with first studying the effects. they have allowed drugs(prescription) into the population that have adverse side effects. they allowed a product that when consumed is converted into formeldyahyde (aspartame. especially when exposed to temps above 80f) dumping mass amounts of radiation on others that did nothing to us. I could go on and on and on and on....(and yes, I think the only option left is the 1776 one)

John Fitzgerald Kennedy said "when you make peaceful revolution impossible, you make violent revolution inevitible"

There is no reason to believe elections are often rigged. Sorry you have to have something more than a paranoid feeling it is possible. Similarly everyone of your so called evils done by government, with the exception of the radiation exposure, can be argued was totally correct. The two parties remain in power because that is who we vote for. The fact that I see both parties as too socialist for my tastes does not mean I support a violent overthrow. I did not see Jefferson proposing Adam's be violently overthrown despite strong disagrements he had with the Adam's administration. To propose the violent overthrow of our democratically elected government is anti-American. It proposes exchanging the ballot box for the gun.There are two groups that support armed revolution the lunatical left and the lunatical right. If either side successfully overthrew the US government the other side would be even more discontented. There is no massive discontent in the US that can lead to an armed revolution, maybe a few terrorist acts by murderous discontents, that is all.

I might suggest a difference between anti-American and undemocratic.

The definition for communism came straight from Merriam-Webster. If you believe their definition to be incorrect or to be conflicting, you should contact them.



Was this question directed at me, to someone else or to all debaters?





Yes, I stated they are a front for a Marxist-Leninist party with ties to the Communist regime in North Korea. Actually, I hadn't thought about it specific to them supporting a totalitarian regime, but when you put it that way, I guess you could be right . It is certainly something we should be aware of if we choose to become affiliated with them.

Quite the opposite. To propose the violent overthrow of our "democratically" elected government is all too American. Its not civil, nor peaceful, nor pleasant to think about, but it is most definitely American.