Campaign slogans are always vapid and meaningless. "Country First?" Oh, so that's why you've decided to call 3/4 of the USA UnAmerican? May I humbly suggest if you are putting Country first that you don't root for the country to lose things like Olympic bids or Nobel Prizes.
While I have the utmost contempt for the "unamerican" slanders, this is ridiculous. Hosting the Olympics is not necessarily a good thing for a city and the Nobel Prize has no bearing at all on this country.
My point is that rooting against Americans in international competition is hardly evidence of putting Country First. In fact it is evidence of putting partisan politics ahead of the country. Otherwise they would have said something when SLC got the '02 Olympics (a far bigger money drain than the Summer Games). How is the President of the US winning a Nobel Prize anything other than a positive thing for America? The US's finish in the World Cup has no bearing either, but if a someone were rooting for the US to fail and smugly laughing when they did so, I'd have a hard time saying that they support the US. You are talking about people who think Patriotism is defined by the size of your flag pin. It's absurd that they can pirhouette so completely solely because of the party affiliation of the man leading the effort. And there are many many other examples of Republicans failing to put their country first just in the last few months. Perry nattering about seceding. Congressmen Voting en masse against the bailout, then bragging about the benefits they brought their state or district. Palin saying half the country isn't real America. Voting against allowing prosecution of gang rape solely because Al Franken proposed it.
Is the Obama admin currently using these wiretap methods? If not, I don't see the hypocrisy here. There's nothing inconsistent about: 1. We think the wiretapping is wrong. 2. Exposing the details of what has already been done would be harmful to national security. They may very well believe the government shouldn't have done it, but publicizing the details would be problematic in other ways, creating a bigger problem. On the flipside, if they are still conducting these operations, that would be hypocritical given their stance on them during the campaign.
The Nobel prize is a personal award, not a national award. And the awarding of it to Barack Obama clearly demonstrated once and for all what purely partisan exercise the awarding of the Nobel "Peace" Prize has become. With regards to the Olympics, based on previous discussions that you and I have had on this topic, I can say for certain that you are knowingly misrepresenting the facts on this issue. Nobody wanted "The City of Chicago" to lose that award, except a number of people in Chicago who thought it would drain financial resources that would be better used elsewhere. What interest would they have in that? However, there were a lot of people on the right who were happy to see the discrediting of the myth that Obama is this highly persuasive and extremely compelling figure. Clearly that was BS from the very start. As you have heard me suggest a number of times, I cannot believe all of you guys actually believed this joker. What a phony he is. Barack Obama is an empty suit. The sad thing is, that was obvious well before the election. How could the people who voted for this man have been so naive and gullible? Hopefully, many of the people who voted for him will wake up and smell the coffee before the next election.
I have seen nothing to indicate that they have stopped. Nothing. No publicized program cancellation, no executive orders, nothing. Everything else you wrote has already been hashed out before in this thread and, to summarize, I still disagree entirely.
Really?!?! The Nobel Peace Prize is partisan? You do realize it is an international award that has no bearing on left or right, even more that the left and right are night and day different from the way they are in Europe or anywhere else in the world. An Olympic Gold medal in the 100 meter dash is a personal award, but the nation from which the athlete who won emerged shares in the triumph as one of their own is the best in the world. It really should have been the same for the Nobel prize that Obama won, but I guess it is just to be shared by those who voted for him, not those who put party over country. Video from a conference of the Americans for Prosperity, a conservative group that applauded once it was announced that Chicago was out. If 'Nobody wanted "The City of Chicago" to lose that award,' then why were all these conservatives applauding? <object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/ifpnK6Uwyqw&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/ifpnK6Uwyqw&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object> Yes, hopefully some of us will "wake up and smell the coffee before the next election," but I argue that it is the republicans who are asleep and in need of caffeination.
I'm surprised you don't recall these quotes. I did post them the last time we discussed the Olympics: Headlines reading "Chicago loses! Chicago loses! Cheers erupt at Weekly Standard headquarters" do not indicate that "Nobody wanted "The City of Chicago" to lose that award." Otherwise they wouldn't have expressly cheered that Chicago lost. The headline would've read "Obama loses!" Why are you knowingly misrepresenting our discussion? Did you think I'd forget it in a month? Limbaugh did not mention being happy because Chicago couldn't afford it. He was happy that Chicago lost because in his mind this meant a blow to Obama's domestic agenda. This makes no sense. Obama didn't create the Olympic bid. Again, the US winning the Atlanta Olympics didn't seem to indicate the country accepted HW's agenda. SLC got the Oympics just before the country voted against the Dems -- how did winning the bid help Clinton/Gore's agenda? And I disagree with your assertion wrt to the Nobel Prize. I do not think it indicates that the Nobel Prize is partisan. It indicates that the Nobel Prize Committee doesn't care what the wingnut printing presses say about them. I think there's a lot more signs of partisanship in the purely visceral and personal vitriol that was flung at Obama following the vote, including demands that he should return it.
You are delusional if you think Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, and the Americans for Prosperity conference were applauding because they were happy that Chicago would not lose money on hosting the Olympics. The statement above is either dishonest (as in, you are lying) or is a testament to your dementia. Which is it?
What reason would any person in this country have for wanting a city to lose money or lose their Olympic bid? Of course, there is no reason. Honestly, what is the point of this assertion? That conservative are anti-American? Good luck pushing that one. This is nonsense. The conservatives were chortling over the eyebrow raising smack-down of Barack Obama by the IOC. For anyone who has their brain turned on, at least this explanation actually makes sense.
Right, they were cheering because, in their minds, Obama had failed to bring Chicago the Olympics. They were cheering for party (anything that muddies up Obama's name is good) over country (like it or not, the Olympics is a source of pride for most countries). Thank you for admitting it.
so, this isn't considered a personal insult? if you're going to whine about personal attacks on this board, you should drop this crap.
In this case (and in many other examples), conservatives were for party above country. I wouldn't call that "anti-American," but it is pretty sh1tty behavior for someone who purports to be a patriot.
A personal attack is directed at a person, or a poster if you will. It is a PERSONAL attack. Making assertions about large groups of people is not a personal attack.
