Hate America?

[Flatlander]

Mod Warning:

This discussion needs to get back on track immediately.

Thank you.

-Dan Bowman-
-MT Moderator-

 

[sgtmac_46]

Ee gads! The delusions of granduer!

I'll defer to your expert opinion.

 

[Makalakumu]

I'll defer to your expert opinion.

Well, at least we agree on something!

 

[Bester]

Gents, you may all be enlightened by my earlier suggestion, I think.
Mr. Bowman has put down his mighty boot indicating a desire that we return our discourse to the topicality of this discussion fragment. It would most probably be to our advantace to accomodate the constable, lest we find ourselves hung, drawn and quartered, or worse.

That means, back on topic ye scurvy sea dogs! :lol:

 

[sgtmac_46]

Gents, you may all be enlightened by my earlier suggestion, I think.
Mr. Bowman has put down his mighty boot indicating a desire that we return our discourse to the topicality of this discussion fragment. It would most probably be to our advantace to accomodate the constable, lest we find ourselves hung, drawn and quartered, or worse.

That means, back on topic ye scurvy sea dogs! :lol:

I think this really is the topic, a discussion of the left versus the right. We have embodied that topic of "Does the left really hate America?". Ironic, don't you think?

North and Michael Ward may argue about whether or not they hate America, but it is very clear they hate the America that I love. It would seem that we are all at a philosophical impasse. This is clear by the rhetoric that seems to designed to alter the definition of what is "good" and what is "bad" in America to fit their vision. In fairness, from their perspective i'm sure they believe the same about me.

Is that better for getting back on the topic?

 

[Tgace]

Moderator in training? Or....

 

[andy]

Tgace-sgtmac,
I think you have hit the proverbial nail on the head.
(now that i've typed this I'm waiting for the backlash of private messages)

 

[Bester]

Moderator in training? Or....

Me? A Mod? Right. :rofl:
Too PC a job for me. I like being able to be blunt, and not have to "play nicey nicey". If I can help nudge things along, or help out, hey, I'm there. But, keep the badge. It crimps my style. :lol:

As to the rest, yup.

(ok, back to sharpening my blade, there's gots ta be anuda soapy soke hiding in the weeds somewhere. haha) :wavey:

 

[Makalakumu]

I think this really is the topic, a discussion of the left versus the right. We have embodied that topic of "Does the left really hate America?". Ironic, don't you think?

North and Michael Ward may argue about whether or not they hate America, but it is very clear they hate the America that I love. It would seem that we are all at a philosophical impasse. This is clear by the rhetoric that seems to designed to alter the definition of what is "good" and what is "bad" in America to fit their vision. In fairness, from their perspective i'm sure they believe the same about me.

Is that better for getting back on the topic?

Hate is too strong of a word. I don't hate you or anything you believe in. I disagree with a few things. Sometimes strongly, but not hate. I would be saddened if a future of political debate featured, such and such hates the america that I love. What ever happened to the pluralism in which our country was founded?

 

[sgtmac_46]

Hate is too strong of a word. I don't hate you or anything you believe in. I disagree with a few things. Sometimes strongly, but not hate. I would be saddened if a future of political debate featured, such and such hates the america that I love. What ever happened to the pluralism in which our country was founded?

Pluralism stopped whenever most of America started putting all it's political eggs in to two baskets.

 

[Flatlander]

Pluralism stopped whenever most of America started putting all it's political eggs in to two baskets.

That's a really good point. With only two opposing options, people will end up on either side of the fence. I think you all need more choices. At any rate, I don't believe for one second that anyone on this board hates America. People wouldn't spend their time in here discussing these issues if they did. They'd be busy planning bomb attacks.

 

[michaeledward]

Try my best to avoid him, and then someone quotes him .... Grrr!

When ever a claim is made about something that is "very clear", it should be apparent that the claim is anything but that. The claimant has abandoned discussion and argument, and descended into ad hominem attacks.

 

[Tgace]

Topic expert

 

[andy]

So,
we all are back to the topic.
'hate america'
who rides the fence, who makes a choice? what is clear?
The issues both partys wave?
Or,maybe the two party system should be scrapped; the founding fathers never liked the idea of partys anyway.
maybe that brings it down to the founding of "american" values versus foreign interests?

 

[sgtmac_46]

Try my best to avoid him, and then someone quotes him .... Grrr!

When ever a claim is made about something that is "very clear", it should be apparent that the claim is anything but that. The claimant has abandoned discussion and argument, and descended into ad hominem attacks.

I must have said something pretty close to the mark to get him all riled up like that.

In general, it seems to me on this topic of "Leftist hating America", real dialogue is almost impossible. The main difference between the way the right argue and leftists argue is that conservatives seem to desire a dialogue. A leftist wants to dominate, and if he can't dominate the argument, they'll do their best to shut down all argument. They'll simply label their opponent fascist, stupid, or beneath them, and feign superiority so as to not have to deal with the argument. They can't handle real debate (i.e. the iggy option).

Personally, I love debating someone with opposing views and a semi-intelligent perspective. I'll give north props on that point, I may not always agree with north, but at least north actually engages in dialogue and doesn't pull the typical leftist routine of "I have my fingers in my ears, I can't hear you."

Also, I don't really believe north hates America, as much as north disagrees with my vision of it. Oh well, that's why Baskin Robbins has 31 flavors.

 

[Phoenix44]

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Regarding equating criticizing the president with "hating America," I thought you might like to read this quotation by President Theodore Roosevelt, a progressive Republican:[/font]

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]"The President is merely the most important among a large number of public servants. He should be supported or opposed exactly to the degree which is warranted by his good conduct or bad conduct, his efficiency or inefficiency in rendering loyal, able, and disinterested service to the Nation as a whole. Therefore it is absolutely necessary that there should be full liberty to tell the truth about his acts, and this means that it is exactly necessary to blame him when he does wrong as to praise him when he does right. Any other attitude in an American citizen is both base and servile. To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. Nothing but the truth should be spoken about him or any one else. But it is even more important to tell the truth, pleasant or unpleasant, about him than about any one else." [/font]

 

[Tgace]

If it were indeed the "truth" that was being discussed instead of partisan attacks than I would agree 110%.

 

[Phoenix44]

I'm not sure where you would draw the line between "partisan attacks" and legitimate criticism of the president. For instance, in his article, Haddad said:

"Which party detoured the final impeachment process of a president whose legacy is bemired in the most corrupt, insidious and treacherous presidency in our history?"

I assume he was referring to Clinton, but some of us truly believe that "the most corrupt, insidious and treacherous presidency in our history" is the George W. Bush administration. So is Haddad telling the "truth" and we are making "partisan attacks," or is Haddad making a "partisan attack" and we're telling the truth?

 

[Marginal]

In general, it seems to me on this topic of "Leftist hating America", real dialogue is almost impossible. The main difference between the way the right argue and leftists argue is that conservatives seem to desire a dialogue. A leftist wants to dominate, and if he can't dominate the argument, they'll do their best to shut down all argument.

So calling anyone who disagrees with you a traitor is supposed to be opening a dialogue? Wheeling out the old you hate America chestnut is all about sitting down and opening the old speechhole?

 

[Andrew Green]

If it were indeed the "truth" that was being discussed instead of partisan attacks than I would agree 110%.

When has "truth" ever been a objective thing in politics?