Exploring Anti-Americanism

POSTED BY: Khyron
UPDATED: Monday, April 30, 2007 03:01
VIEWED: 18266
PAGE 9 of 23

PREV PAGE 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 NEXT PAGE

CAUSAL

Friday, April 27, 2007 1:10 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Causal,

Some people call that type of person FredG was talking about Bush's 'base'. It's not like they don't exist. If anything, they have elements even crazier than that. So, yes, there is a part of politics that does resemble what FredG was describing, and yes, they are ultra-conservative, AND - they even vote republican ! Imagine.

But to be fair, it isn't as though the Democratic party or the liberal ideologues don't have their lunatic fringe as well. I doubt the people who fire bomb SUVs voted for Bush. I would imagine they'd be more of the Democratic bent. And I think the rabid environmentalists (mind you, the real nutters) are every bit as whacky in their own way as the some of the more extreme conservatives. My issue comes in when we make the kinds of moves in our thinking such that conservative=bad or democrat=bad, unequivocally and with no room for compromise. People criticize Bush for seeing things in to black-and-white a way, and I think they're right. But it's no less simplistic to say, "Conservatives are responsible for all the evil in America, and Democrats are all righteous paragons of peace, liberty, and justice." That can't be right, either.

________________________________________________________________________
- Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets
- Captain, FFF.net Grammar Police

Vote for Firefly! http://richlabonte.net/tvvote/index.html

SIGNYM

Friday, April 27, 2007 1:13 AM

Quote:
The only nation to use an atomic weapon yes, the only nation to use a WMD no. By our current definition the British, French and Germans did in WW1, and Iraq did more recently.

I know that the British, French and Germans used mustard gas and chlorine on WWI troops, I wasn't aware that they used it on civilians. But you're right, Iraq used WMD on civilians. So we share the history books with Iraq, only we were more effective. I'm not sure that puts us in good compmany, and I'm sure it enters others' thinking about how many we're willing to sacrifice.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

CAUSAL

Friday, April 27, 2007 1:17 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Causal,

And yet, there is a 'base' Bush panders to, even he apparently thinks they share those characterstics (on the whole).

OK, this is the second time you've posted this, and the second time that you haven't just come right out and made your point. Are there conservatives who are ideologically extreme? You betcha. But the same is true of the left: there are extreme-left liberal ideologues who are not the norm for their party. I fail to see how the fact that some people on the right are extreme in their view would validate something like the statement that America's bad reputation is fully and wholly the fault of America's conservatives. I consider myself socially conservative, and abhor the Bush administration. But oh yes, everything's my fault: I'm a social conservative.

________________________________________________________________________
- Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets
- Captain, FFF.net Grammar Police

Vote for Firefly! http://richlabonte.net/tvvote/index.html

RUE

Friday, April 27, 2007 1:19 AM

And I wanted to address the 'categorization' thing. Because categories are arrived at through the human form of 'fuzzy logic' they are fuzzy. But without categories language would be impossible. The word 'bird' could never exist - each and every thing would have its own name. The issue is to make meaningful generalizations rather than throw out the whole notion of generalizing. So a 'bible-thumping conservative' category might include a bunch of war-hawks, a few rapturites, a portion of homophobes, and so on. It doesn't mean everyone matches on every descriptor.

RUE

Friday, April 27, 2007 1:23 AM

Oh hi Causal,

I thought we were cross-posting so I wanted to make sure to get your response. That's why I posted twice.

"I fail to see how the fact that some people on the right are extreme in their view would validate something like the statement that America's bad reputation is fully and wholly the fault of America's conservatives."

Wellll .... Given that US conservatives have driven policy over the past 6 years, I think a lot of people rightly think that these policies can be laid at the feet of conservatives.

If you don't like being in that category (the kind of category Bush courted), perhaps you, and like-minded people, need to carve out a separate identity to distinguish yourselves from the politicos who have given conservatives such a bad name over that last few years.

SERGEANTX

Friday, April 27, 2007 1:30 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Causal:
I consider myself socially conservative, and abhor the Bush administration.

That's the thing, it's not about liberals or conservatives. There's plenty of virtue in both camps (at least as far as voters go), but those who lust for power only use those ideologies as a means to an end. The neo-cons hoodwinked conservatives, through fear and sleight of hand, into supporting their grandiose plans. To be fair, they fooled the liberals just as effectively, basically cowing them into submission from 9/11 on. Only recently have a few of them begun to re-grow their nerve.

The fact that more and more 'real' conservatives are coming out against Bush is promising. Maybe soon we'll wake up from this national nightmare.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

CAUSAL

Friday, April 27, 2007 1:34 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
And I wanted to address the 'categorization' thing. Because categories are arrived at through the human form of 'fuzzy logic' they are fuzzy. But without categories language would be impossible. The word 'bird' could never exist - each and every thing would have its own name. The issue is to make meaningful generalizations rather than throw out the whole notion of generalizing. So a 'bible-thumping conservative' category might include a bunch of war-hawks, a few rapturites, a portion of homophobes, and so on. It doesn't mean everyone matches on every descriptor.

Huh. I think you should take some philosophy courses! That's pretty good thinking.

The trouble I have, I guess, is that "conservative" as a generic descriptor covers roughly half of America. Then there are the various sorts of extreme-right conservatives who advocate the creation of religious government and so forth. But often the term "conservative" is used to cover both. So I get lumped into the conversion-by-the-sword, kill-'em-all conservatives and just don't want to be in that category at all.

By the by, Bush may claim to be conservative. But he doesn't act like one. He's increased government, increased spending (even deficit spent) engaged in military adventurism (to the point of initiating unprovoked agressive wars). Those aren't part of the type of social conservatism that I'm familiar with. I think something popped lose in his brain after 9/11. I'm just embarassed to be in the same ideological category as him, because he doesn't represent us very well at all.

________________________________________________________________________
- Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets
- Captain, FFF.net Grammar Police

Vote for Firefly! http://richlabonte.net/tvvote/index.html

RUE

Friday, April 27, 2007 1:42 AM

Just my little (very little) political humor -

neo-cons - they put the con in conservative !

CAUSAL

Friday, April 27, 2007 1:48 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
Quote:
Originally posted by Causal:
I consider myself socially conservative, and abhor the Bush administration.

That's the thing, it's not about liberals or conservatives. There's plenty of virtue in both camps (at least as far as voters go), but those who lust for power only use those ideologies as a means to an end.

Thanks for saying, in an extremely concise fashion, what I've been trying to say this whole time. Socially liberal, socially conservative, there's really not a ton of difference between us. There are some ideological differences which are exploited by the politicos as a means of gaining power. There are really only a few issues that I truly and deeply disagree with when it comes to political ideology. But the political parties capitalize those differences, inflate them to epic proportion, and ride them straight into power. To my way of thinking it's not the liberals or conservatives who are dangerous, it's the ones who'll exploit ideological differences by turning one half of the country against the other half just to insure another few years of personal power. Frightening when you stop and think about it.

Quote:
The neo-cons hoodwinked conservatives, through fear and sleight of hand, into supporting their grandiose plans.

They did at that. I sure bought into it. Remember when George W. promised to be a uniter, not a divider. Pffft. That happened. Most divisive president I can remember.

Quote:
To be fair, they fooled the liberals just as effectively, basically cowing them into submission from 9/11 on. Only recently have a few of them begun to re-grow their nerve.

I used to get mad about the timetable provisions in the war funding bill, thinking it was just shameless politicization of the war. But then I realized that that is what the congress is supposed to do: make laws on behalf of the people. And most people think we should get the hell out of Iraq. Of course, there's no real way to win this war, as far as I can tell (and believe me, as a veteran of the war, no one is more unhappy about that than me--it feels like a personal failure), so I can see at least some merit in the let's-just-get-the-hell-out-of-there argument. On the other hand, of course, we'd be leaving behind basically the same sort of milieu that Al Qaida emerged from, which is not a comforting thought.

Quote:
The fact that more and more 'real' conservatives are coming out against Bush is promising. Maybe soon we'll wake up from this national nightmare.

Amen.

________________________________________________________________________
- Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets
- Captain, FFF.net Grammar Police

Vote for Firefly! http://richlabonte.net/tvvote/index.html

RUE

Friday, April 27, 2007 1:54 AM

Even though it's a little off-topic, I did want to comment on the two-party system. I still think it's because you can't vote the government out during its term.

But given that it is mostly a two-party system, you can't jettison the extremes b/c they, in effect, define the party. So if you are to take middle of the road environmentalism to its extreme you'd have the span of the democratic party. If you are to take middle of the road pro-business profit-seeking to its extreme you'd have the span of the repubican party. The extremes do buttress the moderate stance and can't be hived-off.

PREV PAGE 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 NEXT PAGE