Just what part of this statement is 'mudslinging'? For that matter, what part is untrue?

What conservative values and principles are not in tune the principles this nation was founded on?

On what basis then does a liberal base a claim that conservative views are un-American?

I think you are starting to come around Passion. Of course core conservative values are not un-American because they are intended to strengthen our nation.

On the other hand, of course core liberal values are not un-American because they are also heartfelt values about what makes America great. And many of thee values as expressed the the political parties and supporting intellectuals on both sides coincide with each other.

Neither philosophy is designed to destroy the American polity, society, or culture.

Some policies are seen as unAmerican by people.
I would rather us not go overboard in creating a new era of McCarthyism in fighting the war on terror. This does not make me unconcerned about security, but I value my individual protection from interference by the government. Sure creating a police state that only has to decide an individual is a terrorist threat to go over their life and property with a fine tooth comb and detain them indefinitely without access to due process rights (stopping to catch my run-on sentence breath) sure this would give us a better chance to stop terrorists. But this approach is not conducive to American liberty. It also goes against the Jeffersonian (Locke) concept that government is a necessary evil that should be kept on a short leash and a slim diet (money and power).

I hope you are not inferring that liberals tend to be un-American more than conservatives do.

The right can lead to a religious fundamentalist state and to fascism.

The left can lead to communist totalitarian.

Both paths if taken to the extreme are un-American.

I never said anywhere that this was "mudslinging". I never said it wasn't true. What I said was, the generalization that you made, that only conservative values reflect the thinking of the founders of this nation, naturally then assumes (at least in the reader's mind) that nothing of liberal values reflect the thinking of the founding fathers, and therefore must be "un-American". This is simply not true, as demontrated in one of my earlier posts:

If it was not your intent to imply that "liberals" have contributed nothing to the fabric of this nation, then, my apologies. That's not the way it came out, however. What came out, in my mind anyway, was that you were asserting that half the populations views were completely un-American.

If there are indeed liberal values that reflect, and are in tune with, with the principals this nation was founded on (like the right to question your government's actions) then on what basis does a conservative claim that these views are un-American?

My original reply was in relation to ConservPat's assertion that "Everyone has their own definition of Anti-Americanism, so why try to generalize a whole ideology's beliefs?"

He seemed to be saying (and again, I may be wrong in my understanding of his post) that liberals and conservatives alike throw around the un-american label, based on all sorts of reasons. That it's done as much on the "left" as on the "right".

My argument to that, was to show that his assertion was just not true, that liberals don't use "un-american" or "traitor" as a perjorative to denigrate half the population. But that some conservatives do so, and that they do it on a fairly regular basis, for little else than the fact that liberals (or moderates, for that matter) do not agree with them. Then in the very next post, JL made my point for me.

If my assessment is not correct, I'm certainly willing to be educated, but there has been nothing in this thread so far that has convinced me otherwise.

[quote=NiteGuy,Nov 8 2003, 10:06 AM]
I never said anywhere that this was "mudslinging". I never said it wasn't true. What I said was, the generalization that you made, that only conservative values reflect the thinking of the founders of this nation, naturally then assumes (at least in the reader's mind) that nothing of liberal values reflect the thinking of the founding fathers, and therefore must be "un-American".

It looks like what you're saying is that regardless of the truth, you see all liberals as having never contributed anything to the society in which we now live, because those values are, each and every one, diamtrically opposed to "American values"?[/QUOTE]
If it was not your intent to imply that "liberals" have contributed nothing to the fabric of this nation, then, my apologies. That's not the way it came out, however. What came out, in my mind anyway, was that you were asserting that half the populations views were completely un-American.

[/quote]
It's clear you're reading more into a very precise statement I made than was ever intended. Even now, after apologizing. But, apology accepted. I was responding to your use of my words to make your point that liberals were unjustly being labeled un-American. Conservative values are American. That doesn't make liberal values un-Ameircan.

And for the record, I reserve my call of anti-American for those who undermine the safety and security of our country by their words and actions. When we're at war, the enemy pays close to attention to the 'noise' coming from America. It serves to encourage them at times. And that is giving aid and comfort to them, no matter how unintentional it might be.

And for the record I feel that that 'noise' is very American and it is part of our duty as citizens. There have been critical voices about American wars throughout our history (Federalists threatened secession during the War of 1812, Abe Lincoln and his spot resolutions in the Mexican-American War, the Civil War should be self-evident but the IRish riots of 1863 in NYC City come to mind on top of the Civil War part of that, Eugene Debs was thrown in jail for speaking against WWI, isolationists fought very strongly against our entering WWII, and Americans began to vocally criticize the Vietnam campaign.)

It is very American to criticize government policy in times of war and our foes should realize by now that our freedom of speech does not keep us from committing in overseas actions. But people of conscience should always speak their mind when they believe a war waged on behalf of them is wrong. Also, when you believe the country is right for said war, then speak loudly in support. But to call the critics un-American is a name-calling tactic and not a tactic of persuasion.

What's "Un-American" or "Anti-American" mean? It's a charge that gets tossed around liberally by conservatives these days... usually when someone disagrees with Bush Administration foreign policy.


Beladonna posted;



By this measure, I am anti American. I am opposed to the government of the United States and to some degree, the people of the United States as well since I hold them responsible for their government.

With regards to the use of these phrases by certain elements of the American population against their opponents, I think the reason for this is obvious. Its a smoke screen.
Its just a way of deflecting arguements when you can't answer them with logic or facts.



Campbejm wrote;



Then what is the point of voting?

Is it just the term un/anti-American or traitor that is bothersome? Does the term “racist” bother anyone? What if the congressional leaders said you were against women’s rights because you wanted to ban partial birth abortion or civil rights because you don’t believe people should be hired based on the color of their skin?

Are these a lesser offense?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Article III of the US Constitution states: Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.

I do not believe that disagreeing with an administration’s policy is providing aid and comfort. I do believe that trying to undermine an administration’s policy for political gain COULD provide aid and comfort and that COULD be treasonous.

How many here believe that Jane Fonda committed treason when she visited Hanoi?

Here is an excerpt from snopes:

When American POWs finally began to return home (some of them having been held captive for up to nine years) and describe the tortures they had endured at the hands of the North Vietnamese, Jane Fonda quickly told the country that they should "not hail the POWs as heroes, because they are hypocrites and liars." Fonda said the idea that the POWs she had met in Vietnam had been tortured was "laughable," claiming: "These were not men who had been tortured. These were not men who had been starved. These were not men who had been brainwashed." The POWs who said they had been tortured were "exaggerating, probably for their own self-interest," she asserted. She told audiences that "Never in the history of the United States have POWs come home looking like football players. These football players are no more heroes than Custer was. They're military careerists and professional killers" who are "trying to make themselves look self-righteous, but they are war criminals according to law."

http://www.snopes.com/military/fonda.htm

Jane Fonda Broadcast from Hanoi, August 22 1972

Look at her words closely. She went after the soldiers who were sent to that country under an administration’s policy. If this country learned anything from the Vietnam it was “don’t blame the soldiers”.

Now we go after the administration. Our leaders plot strategies under the guise of bipartisan intelligence committees. Long time senators accuse President Bush of sending troops to war for "trumped up reasons” even though these same Senators were privy to the most of the same information the administration had and made statements supporting the intelligence the administration used to base their decision. Senators oppose a bill that provides money that will speed up the reconstruction process in Iraq and could bring our soldiers home faster.

I agree with you wholeheartedly Eeyore when you said, “It is very American to criticize government policy in times of war”.

But, are these examples I’ve provided consider criticizing or undermining an administration’s policy for political gain? Could their actions provide aid to the enemy? Is the enemy comforted by the opposition to this war?

Are their actions un/anti-American? I don’t know. I do know it makes me question where their loyalties lie. Are their motives in the best interest of America? Or are their motives in the best interest of their party?

Actually the Intelligence Committee is a bipartisan effort, and is in fact, headed up by a Republican. If you are referring to the memo that was leaked the other day, note that it said that they were getting plenty of cooperation from the various departments so far, and the "strategies" listed were in case they stopped getting co-operation, or if the Committee head refuses to go to places in the investigation that the Democrats deem important to look at. Isn't planning ahead for problems you may encounter just smart business?

Yes, a lot of representatives voted for the war based on the intelligence they saw from the administration. Since then however, some of that evidence has been discredited. The CIA is saying that they were pressured to provide positive assertions of certain weapons programs, most notably the African Uranium claims. If new evidence like this comes to light, are people (even government representatives and senators) not alowed to change their mind?

And from all I've read on the subject of the $87 Billion bill for the continued war effort and reconstruction effort, most of the debate was not on whether or not to send money over to support the troops, but in the "rebuilding" funds.

The biggest debates there were whether or not to make it a grant or a repayable loan. And, in some of the ways this money was to be spent.

Rebuild marshlands at $100 Million? I saw a story on MSNBC a day or so ago, that says this is already happening. They (Iraqis) blew up a dam in the southern area, and flooded some of the former marshland areas again. Animals and such are already beginning to return.

Or how about $13 Million for sombody to sit with a map of the country and develop a "zip-code" system? Or $500 million to build prisons, at a cost of almost $50,000 per cell, when we do it in this country (with Union labor!) for abour $20,000 a cell. (The administration still got $300 million for this).

What in any of these actions is an "aid" to the enemy? What is disloyal about discussing whether the money should be a loan or not? What's un-American about making sure that the government spends our money wisely? And since a lot of these money requsts were questioned on both sides of the isle, how is this a "party" issue?

Jane Fonda's actions in Vietnam were certainly the most egregious and extreme examples of un-American behavior. It hurt the morale of the POW's, soldiers and was certainly a propaganda coup for the North Vietnamese.

I do however doubt that Jane Fonda cost one soldier his life or prolonged the war by one day.

Far more ordinary private citizens have visited countries the United States is in conflict with than celbrities, but when a celebrity does it (Fonda, Sean Penn) that's when it becomes newsworthy.

Un-American attitudes do exist. Burning a flag or otherwise using it in a disrespectful manner is an easy example of this. However, since 9/11, the concept of being anti-American seems to be an outgrowth of the stark language by President Bush when he declared "you're either with us or the terrorists."

I don't like "either/or" scenarios and I suspect I'm not alone in this. Nobody on this board is qualified to challenge my patriotism or commitment to the principles this nation is founded upon. My respect for the opinion of the other person ends when it intrudes into areas they can't possibly possess an informed perspective of.

To the extent that questioning authority, demanding answers from elected officials and holding people accountable for their words and deeds, I suspect I have been and will continue to be "un-American." Being a good citizen and realizing that the temporary occupant of The White House is not a lord, god, master or anything other than a elected politician is not heresy. Political affiliations have nothing to do with the fact that we elect ordinary people to be our leaders. It is not a right prescribed by birth, blood or social status.

Which means I can continue to regard George W. Bush as a complete tool and there's not a single thing un-American in doing so.

I think it would not be a stretch to call Jane Fonda "un-american" or "anti-american" and in fact deserved the death penalty for what she has done, though of course some of the story atributed to her (www.snopes.com) is false, she did in fact, give aid and comfort to the enemy, and therefore, is a traitor, by definition. I think this is one area we can all agree on it "un-american" behavior.

Dontreadonme wrote, “Right wingers use the term un-American, or traitors in the same fashion that left wingers use the terms bigots and racist. There truth or accuracy in the majority of instances. Both sides sling mud at the other and hope something will stick.
In the end it seems to just get both sides dirty.”

Response: In my opinion, the term anti-American is used by American conservatives because they use dyadic thinking processes, which results in: a high tolerance for inequality; the desire to formulate dogmatic cognitive constructs; and intolerance of ambiguity (1). This results in more bias in conservative narrative (2). Many studies on the psychology of fascism written after WWII also support the behavioral outcomes mentioned above. T. W. Adorno wrote, “The Authoritarian Personality (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1950).” You can find a F-scale test here (3).

As for “left wingers” use of the terms bigots and racist, depends on the context of the statement. What can be said is the social sciences are highly complex, it is understandable that issues that require complexity would be difficult to understand, and in many cases be completely invisible to a Conservative.

(1) http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2003/07/268673.shtml
(2) http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?p...5¬Found=true
(3) http://www.anesi.com/fscale.htm

Pretty outdated source wouldn't you say? A modern conservative is nothing like the way it was in Truman's day. Do you have any modern sources with which you would like to insult conservatives?

For fun, you all should search the term 'unamerican' in this forum. Our numbers show liberals have used the term more here. Go figure.

Are you counting "classic liberals" a.k.a. libertarians in that figure?

I counted only liberals vs. conservatives. Everyone else I left out. Please note that I've not mentioned context. In fairness, a number of the liberals who used it were often responding to allegations implying they were un-american (but the accuser never actually used the word). Perhaps, it has become/is becoming one of those 'take-back' words?

Jaime wrote, “Pretty outdated source wouldn't you say? A modern conservative is nothing like the way it was in Truman's day. Do you have any modern sources with which you would like to insult conservatives?”

RESPONSE: Jaime, the source (1) and (2) are from August, 2003. I do not have any sources more recent than 3 months ago. Source (3) is from the 1950s. I used source (3) to show over 50 years of studies. Please read the sources before making unfounded comments.

I read them. Please don't make such assumptions.

You were unclear on which souce came from where. It appeared as if your first three points came from the 1950's source.

It was not obvious how you were tying in your last three links. Please, use the quote feature. I'm guessing your numbering system was supposed to be some sort of footnoting, but that doesn't really come across clearly. The quote feature works much better.

I'm not picking on you or anything, but your initial post was very hard to understand.

In my opinion, the term anti-American is used by American conservatives because they use dyadic thinking processes, which results in: a high tolerance for inequality; the desire to formulate dogmatic cognitive constructs; and intolerance of ambiguity



This dyadic (pairs) thinking is support by the writings of elite Conservatives writers for Conservative newspapers also show more bias than liberal newspapers.




''Fifty years ago, the Authoritarian Personality studies attempted to "construct an instrument that would yield an estimate of fascist receptivity at the personality level." '
http://www.anesi.com/fscale.htm

As for “left wingers” use of the terms bigots and racist, depends on the context of the statement. What can be said is the social sciences are highly complex, it is understandable that issues that require complexity would be difficult to understand, and in many cases be completely invisible to a Conservative.

What a ridiculous statement...

Plenty of people who were not Republicans have fought and died for this country. Some are doing it right now in Iraq. Also is it un-American to have more than one political party?

I would say that anti-American defines anyone who has an unreasoned hatred of not only the United States government, but anything American. They are bigots in the same league as anglophobes, francophobes ect. This can also apply to Americans who engage in self-loathing.

I would say that un-American defines someone who subscribes to some ideology that differs with everything we consider American or hold dear in our "civic religion." This would apply to people on the fringes of both the left and the right who want to see the Republic destroyed and replaced by fascism, theocracy, monarchy, totalitarian communism, ect, regardless of whether they admit it or not. These people are not necessarily anti-American, their ideology just runs counter to everything the United States was founded on. The United States was the first modern Republic and has never had any other form of government, so I don't think you can seperate "America" from secular Republic.

At any rate, I think both labels are used far too often.

Yeah, not much proof behind this, nothing more than a blanket statement.

Again..more blanket statements, care to back this up with evidence.

Yeah, both conservative newspapers
Okay, so the context matters when liberals use the term racist, but context is not an issue when "right-wingers" call someone anti-American, come on. On another note let's call a spade a spade please, all conservatives aren't right-wingers, just as I have specifically used the word liberal [not leftist] I ask that you folks call conservatives conservatives, and not right-wingers when they are't one

CP

Conservpat wrote, “Yeah, not much proof behind this, nothing more than a blanket statement.” And, “Again..more blanket statements, care to back this up with evidence.”

RESPONSE: Conservpat, the “proof” or basis for my statements can be found in the URL addresses I provided. My first source is from American Psychological Association's Psychological Bulletin, and my second source is from Harvard University.

Conservpat wrote, “Yeah, both conservative newspapers.”

RESPONSE: Yes, the two largest conservative newspapers of the United States, Washington Post and the Wall Street Journal were used. May I add, the Wall Street Journal is the only conservative newspaper that is nationally available to the general public newspaper-outlets. Indeed, the Washington Post and the Wall Street Journal are the most quoted newspapers in other conservative writings. For example, the National Review, the outlet for the top conservative college journalists, and TownHall.com, the premier website of conservative thinking, both quote most often from the these two conservative newspapers. In other words, conservative intellectuals would agree that the Washington Post and the Wall Street Journal are the daily newspapers of choice and the most quoted newspapers.

Conservpat, your statements seem to support the claims from the American Psychological Association’s (APA) study. You stated that “not much proof behind this, nothing more than a blanket statement,” after the source information was provided, confirms the APA prediction about conservatives “need for cognitive closure.” You achieved this cognitive closure by ignoring the sources giving in my post, and then stating my post does not have “much proof.” Thank you for your participation, Conservpat.

Alrighty. My whole point was that I don't care where the info comes from. I say this simply because to say that "all conservatives are..." is ridiculous, because it is a broad generalization of millions of people, which is both unrealistic and completely ridiculous. I could pull dozens of mindless writings in which liberals are generalized and ridiculed but I understand that that would do absolutely nothing because once anybody starts out saying "all liberals/conservatives are..." the following writing will be non-sense.
No, thank you.

Edited to add: Also, you missed my statement about liberals using "bigot" or "racist", care to respond

CP

If I can interrupt this tete-a-tete between Conservpat and oneofshibumi, I'd like to point out that this is the first time that I've ever seen The Washington Post described as a "conservative" newspaper.

The newspaper of Woodward and Bernstein? The newspaper that was owned by Katherine Graham and run by Ben Bradlee? That Washington Post?

I think one could make the case that the rival Washington Times is far more of a reliable voice of conservative thought than the Washington Post.

Carry on...

Good catch, Nighttimer.

The cited sources said the Washington Times, not the Post. The Washington Post is definitely amongst the leading "liberal outlets" that we always rail against...

For the record, debate is not un-American. Questioning authority is not un-American. Supporting the enemies of America IS un-American.

Some Conservatives are fast and loose with the term "un-American" just as some liberals overuse the terms "bigot" and "racist". I don't think we can (or should) generalize based on the statements of a few.

So if the President decides that some country is our enemy based on flimsy evidence and overhyped inaccurate intelligence and I disagree and want to debate it, am I American or UnAmerican?

I'm confused now.

amlord said


amf said



Didn't Amlord just say debate is not un-american.

To disagree with policy is not the same as supporting the enemy.

OK, so how exactly should we make that distinction? I dare say many here have felt that they were engaging in debate, and then had someone say or try to imply that they were supporting the enemy.

But the debate is about whether to engage a so-called "enemy". Doesn't that support the enemy? To some conservative pundits, it certainly does.

Hence my confusion. Wouldn't want Ann Coulter to call me "treasonous" or some such twaddle.

Example of disagreeing with policy:

Bush: I am going to attack Iraq because the intelligence I was given says they have WMD.

Me: Mr President I don't agree with your course of action, have you checked to make sure this intelligence is accurate? It might not be wise to declare war so soon.

Example of Un-American:

Bush: I am going to attack Iraq because the intelligence I was given says they have WMD.

Me: Oh yeah, Well me and some friends are going to go over to Iraq and show Sadam support by being human shields.

From what I understand, that all depends on why you don't support the war or Bush. Just to clear the air, I'm not denying that conservatives call liberals anti-American, but let's be realistic, they aren't the only ones, although it seems they do it the most.

CP

When liberal ideas are challenged here and labeled 'anti-American that doesn't necessarily mean anyone is claiming the individual poster is anti-American. What is being pointed out is the anti-American nature of that position.

My guess is that virtually every American on this site is a loyal American. However, some of the ideas they put forth are very much anti-American. Pointing that out to them seems to raise hackles, so maybe the message is getting through.

Anti-American is a horrible adjective for a position that is contrary to the status quo. Americans are innovators and have been known throughout history for questioning authority. Americans have fought for the right to think and say what they want to, and the most un-American action would be to stand down while someone else makes a decision for you that you don't agree with. To question authority is to live under democracy, to be forced to accept someone else's opinion as fact is despotism.

It's pretty clear you're missing the point by a good ways here. I find this post particularly strange. Perhaps you see it, perhaps you don't - I don't know you. But you are doing nothing to dispel the very strategy we are discussing - more, you are perpetuating it.

Anti-American ideas? According to whom? You? Riiiiiiiiiiiiight.

I don't think you are an idiot, but some of the ideas you put forth are idiotic. Does that raise your hackles?

I don't think you are a racist, but some of the ideas you put forth are racist.

(the preceding sentences were for explanatory purposes only)

Let's get to the rub here. You say you are not implying that some members here are anti-american, only that their ideas are, and you, as an authority on what is and isn't American, are duty-bound to point it out. Just doing your patriotic duty, huh? Do a search on your own post history, Passion51. You have indeed called members here anti-american.

Lest you think I am getting my "hackles up," I assure you I am not. This kind of stuff inspires many chuckles, but not much else.

I've been known to miss a point or two in my time quarkie, so if I specifically said an individual poster here was anti-American then I stand corrected.

As to your comments about racism and such, I take no offense. Matter of fact, if I stated a racist position or belief I'd hope someone would point it out. Oftentimes we say, do or think something and don't really understand its impact. When posters here apply labels etc., I don't take umbrage. My guess is they are criticizing the position, no matter how they specifically word it. Most of us don't know enough about each other to do otherwise.

It seems to me that people here are trying to help Patriotic Americans paint themselves into a corner by giving a pure definition without realizing that people know what's patriotic and what's not when they hear it.

People who support American Soldiers in times of war and out of war are patriotic.
People who do not, are not.

If you say nasty things with ugly intentions about America, that's un-American. Disagreeing isn't the same. Everybody disagrees with people on how the country should be run, not everybody goes around bad mouthing the country because they don't like the current administration. Conservatives didn't walk around saying America is going to hell and calling the US impirial when Clinton carried out any number of his wars, nor when he sexually harrased several of his subordinates. Conservatives know that because we don't like an administration we can still love America.

Patriotic Americans don't go around calling other Americans disgusting, loud, rude and interupting...nor do they hate the fact that we put ketchup on our fries, little Kate Hudson. Cultural differences from Europeans (especially the french) are what make us different and in my opinion better than the rest of the world. If I shouldn't infringe upon the french's rights to be french, don't infringe on my right to be American the way I see America.

Patriotic Americans don't hope that American Troops will lie dead by the thousands in the Iraqi Desserts despite what the lead singer of Fleetwood Mac would have you believe.

Patriotic Americans don't denounce the President in times of war, nor the times building up to war while on foreign soil, pandering to a stage audience to sell records...Dixie Chicks.

Patriotic Americans don't make up stories about how we're going to lose up to 100,000 troops in order to stir up controversey while our troops need our support... Mike Farrel.

Patriotic Americans don't go siding up with Foreign entities for which carry aggressive hostilities for Americans and promise to chop our soldiers heads off. They don't show up in that country next to it's disgusting murdering officials and pretend that everything is okay on camera all the while within close proximity to a mass grave of innocent tortured people, Sean Penn.

Patriotic Americans don't side up with french and Iraqi governments when we're trying to depose a murderous, torturing, sexual deviate of a dictator from power, Not In Our Name.

Patriotic Americans don't sit in private rooms as elected officials dreaming up ways to make a budget crisis last longer so that they can tax the public heavier next year....California Democratic Legislature.
http://www.thedesertsun.com/news/stories20...723004819.shtml

Patriotic Americans don't use a bi partisan National Security Comitee founded on the principles of safety for America as a vehicle for oppossing President Bush in their already lost 2004 election.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,102258,00.html

These are just a few examples of modern un-American behavior and you'll note that they are all examples perpetrated by Democrats and or Liberals. Not Conservatives.

JL has done a really great job of illustrating how we came to the point in our history that we had a Joe McCarthy and a commitee on Un-American activities, how the Nazis came to power and stayed in power, despite being a minority goverment. It was the fear of appearing un-patriotic. It is how this totally misnamed "patriot act" came into being, the fear of being "un-american" It is the thought that somehow the things like denouncing the president in times of war is wrong, when in fact, it is precisley the most patriotic thing to do, and in the best interest of our troops. There is no reason in the world for us to be in Vietnam or Iraq, and steady criticism of the president will hopefully make him lose his job and put someone in that is a little smarter and a lot more thoughtful. And in fact, this is the cornerstone of our republic, and is totally AMERICAN , not un-american- critisizing our own goverment, whatever the timing or place, is the unique baliwick of a free and open society, and exemplifies that society, it does not detract from it, or make one un-patriotic. Only something truly traitorous, like selling locations of troop movements or weapons to the enemy is anti--or un-american.

Yes, that's the ticket CruisingRam. Denouncing the President in times of war is the most patriotic thing any American can do . I'm not surpirsed that you thought that, I am surprised that you said it though.

I'll tell you what, you asked me what patriotic was and was not and I told you. Just because your concept of patriotism comes from bizarro-universe doesn't make me crazy. Perhaps another idea of patriotic would be Lincoln's assasination. After all wasn't that done by somebody who denounced the president in time of war. Or lee Harvey Oswald was perhaps one of the greatest patriots ever, he too questioned the president in war time.

BTW, HUAC had nothing to do with McCarthy, he wasn't even a house member. He was a Senatorand not even elected until something like 8 years after HUAC was started. Plus, just for the record McCarthy might have used very strong tactics but history leaves out the fact that he was right about most all of the people he prosecuted within Democratic Presidential Administrations. He never named names until interupted over 80 times by Democratic Senators that forced him to name names in public after he suggested that he only name names behind close doors because he was certain that some of the accused would not be able to be convicted. So to clear all of this up please reckognize that McCarthy proved to a Senate commission and later was proved right by the Pumpkin Papers and especially the Venona tapes (not to mention that Soviets later came out to express thanks and patriotic themes to some of the people the Liberals still call innocent) that Roosevelt's and Truman's administrations were infested with communists handing secrets to the enemy (USSR), who by the way was the world's worst human rights violater ever, period.

Also, there is plenty of reason to be in Iraq, not the least of which was to depose a murderer, torturer, molsester and crook. Then to carry out our war on terror in Iraq so as not to hold these events in the middle of the US.

As a last note I have a question. Will any of this steady criticism come from bi-partisan Commissions that are supposed to handling the security of the US?

edited for spelling.

johnlocke



How in the world did we go from disagreeing with the president and assassinations. Maybe I am wrong but I don't think disagreeing and assassinations is the same thing. Some one help me out. Am I just imagining this or did I actually hear someone use such a illogical example.

The same way we came to the conclusion that Sean Penn advocating a dictator who slaughtered and tortured innocent people and disagreeing with the president in a wartime setting was patriotic.

Now I get it. If you disagree(no matter who you are) with the president I am an assassin and probably will want to assassinate him. How could I be so thick-headed and stupid. Of course that is what I am. And thanks for pointing that out to me. If I didn't have you looking out for me,I would be lost.

So now to show my gratitude I will help you. Logic would seem then, that if you agree with Bush and disagree with Clinton then you are a Ann Coulter,Rush Limbaugh sympathizer. Please, no thanks for the applause.

Popeye,

You're welcome. Holloywood hedgemony and Liberal capitulation with the enemy in time of crisis and war is nothing new and disguising any hatred for America as "the real patriotism" is nothing new. Care to tell me why my version of patriotism is wrong? I hardly believe that any good American would consider denouncing the President because we're at war, patriotic. in fact I'm willing to bet that you weren't (under your guidelines) half as patriotic when Bill Clinton waged wars (in a cowardly way) as you are now.