BBS Liberals - Is This You?

The position is that if Gore was president, and he was doing the exact same thing that is happening now, the libs would support it. Conservatives say this because: No libs said a word when Clinton went after Milosevich (sp?), or when Clinton lobbed missles at Baghdad on more than one occasion, or had anything to say about fighting in the no-fly zone, etc. The position concerns when facts are pointed out, and the only thing liberals have to say in defense is "Well, I just don't believe it." That's why they're labeled bush-haters. The fact that people say the things about this war like the prof at Columbia and his "Million Mogadishus" are what raises the calls of libs being anti-American.

 

Please find posts of where *I* have equated criticism of Bush with hatred of America. I know this has been done by many on the right, I will not deny that. But there have been several issues on which Bush was criticized with which I agreed. Regarding Rumsfeld not providing enough troops, I believe I posted agreeing with that.

I also posted the much read article by Joshua Micah Marshall which very strongly criticized the Neocon vision for the Middle East. So if I equated Bush criticism with hatred of America, then I must be an America hater. BJ, you need to differentiate between the right wing posters, we are not all like Trader Jorge.

Nothing about current politics pisses me off more than the hatred of America that is not only growing here, but abroad. Not only do I see it on radio stations like 90.1, or from loonies like Robert Fisk, but I see it from regular conservations with people. We don't even need to talk about the hatred emanating from our campuses these days (a million Mogadishus anyone?).

 

Trader_Jorge, are you trying to say that this administration isn't actively adding to the deficit?


Increasing government spending to create jobs that the private sector is not willing to create on its own is important for getting money back into the hands of people who actively spend it, which boosts the private sector, causing businesses to create even more new jobs. Middle and lower class people tend to spend their money locally, while there's nothing stopping a corporation or wealthy individual from taking his tax savings and investing it in foreign markets that aren't creating jobs for Americans.

There's my criticism of Republican trickle down economics.

 

How ironic. Regarding conservatives who like to post out of context portions of that article and rant and scream, salon, where it originally appeared, published this today:

April 23, 2003 | On April 11, Salon published, as its lead article, a piece by executive editor Gary Kamiya. The headline read: "Liberation Day: Even Those Opposed to the War Should Celebrate a Shining Moment in the History of Freedom -- the Fall of Saddam Hussein." The accompanying photograph showed an Iraqi man kissing an American soldier.

Here is the central argument of the article:

"To stand in solidarity with humanity on those few occasions when it lurches forward is more than an honor, it is mandatory if you have a soul, like keeping faith with those you love. And so, at this moment, as the Mordor shadow of Saddam Hussein, a truly evil man who, like a sociopathic murderous husband, killed everything that he could not control, lifts from the long-suffering people of Iraq, all of us, on the left and the right, Democrats and Republicans, America-lovers and America-haters, Syrians and Kuwaitis and Israelis and Palestinians, owe it to our common humanity to stop, put aside -- not forever -- our doubts and our grief and our future fears, and for one deep moment, celebrate."

Kamiya also wrote of the welter of reactions the fall of Baghdad was likely to engender among those who, like him, had opposed the U.S. invasion of Iraq. In one passage, he talked about the "moral schizophrenia" the war induced, and candidly admitted that its opponents -- including himself -- had at times succumbed to the wish that it might not go well for the U.S. He criticized and explored such feelings, tracing them to the fear, held by many who opposed the war, that an easy American success might ultimately lead to imperialist adventures that would be worse for the United States and the world. In the end, however, he disavowed such feelings.

It's a complex argument. You may or may not agree with it. Either way, it deserves to be considered in its entirety.

But why weigh a complex argument when you can seize a brief passage from the article, wrench it out of context and draw blood by entirely misrepresenting it? For the conservative storm troopers who, it seems, have conquered vast territories of the U.S. media under cover of the wartime flag, that's the whole point -- that's what they live for.

And so last week, the organs of the right-wing press in the U.S. -- from the Washington Times to Newsmax to Rush Limbaugh to Bill O'Reilly -- ripped out a small chunk of Kamiya's article and began circulating it to the faithful. The Washington Times said Kamiya was "cheering the enemy." O'Reilly called him a "fanatic" who had "no place in the public arena" and who should "think about moving to Costa Rica." And the wing nut fedayeen of the right crawled out of their base camps at sites like Free Republic to throw spitballs at Salon e-mail accounts and advertisers.

Of course, the real agenda of conservative media's overbearing pundits -- despite their lip service to the marketplace of ideas -- is to drive everyone who disagrees with them out of the public arena. They're not interested in open debate; their goal is to intimidate and silence. If you dare oppose the war, if you dare even admit any ambivalence about it, then you should be gagged and expatriated. In the current climate of mind control, you can't even admit to having entertained thoughts that are not "appropriate," even if you end up rejecting them.

Salon is not a doctrinaire or party-line publication. We have run antiwar pieces and pro-war pieces; we have lauded the antiwar movement and critiqued it, too. We seek the full, free exchange of ideas that is the hallmark of liberal discourse. And we believe that there is still room for, even hunger for, honesty and nuance in political debate.

O'Reilly's show invited Kamiya on to defend his (wildly misrepresented) prose; but anyone who's watched the show knows that it's a hopelessly rigged game, in which the bullying host gives himself carte blanche to outshout his guests. (Although Newsday's Ellis Henican did a great job defending Kamiya's piece from O'Reilly's constant interruptions, and we thank him for that thankless task.)

Instead, we hereby invite O'Reilly to debate Kamiya, one-on-one, via e-mail. Let the unedited exchange become part of the public record on the Net. Let O'Reilly leave the home-turf advantage of his studios. Let's see how he fares when he can't simply yank the mike from a guest who disagrees with him too articulately.

We also invite the public -- left or right, Salon-lovers or -haters -- to read the article that started it all in its entirety. "Liberation Day" was originally published as subscriber-only content, but given the controversy, we are now making it available for all. We're confident that any reasonable-minded reader will find it a very different experience from the "fanatical" treason it has been identified as by the O'Reillys of the world. But like they say at Fox: We report, you decide.

-- The editors of Salon

So did you read the whole article, or did you cut copy and paste from some right wing hack website? I imagine you probably did the latter. Or is that not.... you?

 

Government created jobs are often useless, wasteful jobs that do little or nothing to create wealth. If the government paid someone to dig a ditch and fill it back up, do you think it would be effective? After all, it's putting money in people's hands.

Money should be put in the hands of people who can do something productive with it, i.e. invest, create jobs, increase productivity, etc.

 

Bravo!

I won't speak to anyone in particular, because there isn't always disagreement on all issues (quite the opposite, sometimes), but what you address here, Batman, has been driving me 'round the bend. It's beyond tiresome to be lumped in with whatever the derogatory term is for Liberals these days, regardless of how complex your beliefs and feelings are on a host of different issues, and be "tarred with the brush" of belonging to some fringe group.

Hell, Nixon... before Watergate, would be vilified by the Republican Party of today as a flaming liberal. And I'm old enough to have voted against him.

 

To answer the original question.

I don't hate America.

I hate this administration and I hate that we've let the wool be pulled over our eyes. I hate that we give billions to Israel but when it comes to funding programs that benefit Americans, the conservatives argue that we don't have money to give to people who should earn their own way. They say this despite a fair number of them being raised on their parent's money and never having actually earned their own way either.

I hate hypocrisy.
I hate liars.
I hate American Idol and all of the other mindless drudge that fills the airwaves.
I hate the moral majority. It's a free country assholes, I don't tell you how to live your life so don't you dare try to impose your so called values on me.
I hate the money we waste imprisoning non-violent drug offenders. I hate the money we waste funding a campaign of disinformation about various illicit drugs while alchohol and cigarettes are still legal.

But I don't hate my country. It's the people that piss me off.

 

How in God's name did you draw this conclusion from my post? Please tell me, I'm eager to get this incredibly valuable insight into your failed logic.

What I pointed out was that Rubin's strategy of retiring debt to put downward pressure on interest rates is a questionable strategy which is coming under fire. Today's rising debt environment (due to budget deficits) has NOT put upward pressure on rates, as Rubin's theory would imply. In fact, the opposite is true -- rates haven't been lower in 40 years.

Additionally, you can not say that the Bush Administration is intentionally "adding to the deficit". The deficit is the result of 270,000,000 economic participants whose behavior influences tax receipts. Are you suggesting we should slash government spending in order to balance the budget? This flies in the face of what you just posted with your Keynesian demand theory. Keynes was WRONG. You are wrong now. Bush's policies have only minor impacts on whether or not we run deficits or surpluses. If you are claiming that the Bush Administration is directly responsible for budget deficits, then I have no choice but to lump you in the same economic amateur grouping as Batman Jones.

 

Wow, one Prof. says something incredibly stupid and now it becomes a growing belief. Where's your proof of people hating America coming from Universities. The only thing I can think of is people in academia being against the war, so again, I can't help but assume that you think being anti-war = anti-america. I don't know about the 90.1 radio station, so you are gonna have to post some examples of what' s being said there. I mean, if you disagree with the opinions of that station, I'm assuming you don't listen to it regularly, so you probably heard like some call in listener say something stupid and now it's what the whole staff of that sation believe. So, all I'm asking is that you prove that there is a growing feeling of hatred towards the states over here instead of attributing some highly publicized statements as part of a growing movement.

 

Mr. Clutch is right that much of what is said on KPFT is ludicrous. But he's wrong to say it as though it makes any point. When I disagree with the right I don't do so by saying Fox News is crap. What purpose would that serve? We all basically know it's crap, as is much of the political stuff on KPFT.

I was wrong to lump Mr. C in with the radical right wing element here. I don't need to go searching for evidence of you equating Bush hating to America bashing. I take you at your word. I'd ask you to do the same in not equating KPFT's rabid dissent with the more thoughtful dissent from most of the left. I responded the way I did because you insinuated that the left just "hates America." That's just stupid and I'm sick of hearing it. Otherwise, for a conservative, I think you're pretty reasonable and I've enjoyed our recent back and forth.

As for T_J and his self-proclaimed expert status on the economy... I didn't read your post, J. Didn't feel I had to. I've seen this 'the president has nothing to do with the economy' hoo hah enough times already. But I glanced at the beginning, in which you intoned that Clinton had no more effect on the economy than any other American. I guess you would also say that how much milk GWB buys, for example, has more effect on the economy than these historic tax cuts, right? Wrong. You would say the tax cuts are good for the economy and I would say they are bad for it. And right there, your premise that the president doesn't impact the economy is out the window. I don't need to read the rest of your tripe to "close the case" on this. Wookie.

 

You 'didn't read it' because you are incapable of such economic thought. You are a THESPIAN. Don't forget that the next time you care to opine on economic matters. I have worked on Wall Street and continue to work in finance. I have a keen understanding of economics and the debt and equity markets. Don't go bear hunting with a stick, rookie.

....and since you won't engage me in meaningful debate on the issue...

CASE CLOSED

 

I listen to 90.1 all day. The Pacifica syndicated news segment certainly does not advocate hatred of America. They are reporting mistrust of Bush and hatred of war. Even when I think they are doing the same spinning that they accuse the "national media" of doing, even then, I'm sorry, I don't hear "hatred of America." You know, Amy Goodman pretty much bashing all national media, and I once heard her tear into President Clinton in an interview. Yes, like a fool, he agreed to an interview with her, thinking she would be intimidated and nice...nope, she had Clinton totally loosing it and trying to intimidate her back for being disrespectful. Funny stuff.

The "Connect the Dots" segment is pretty far out there sometimes, too, but one of those guys was in the Army, and I've yet to hear him show "hatred of America" or the soldiers.

The "Earth 101" segment definitely does not advocate hate in any form. That whole segment is about the healing of racial hate.

Now, I have heard some loonie preach a separatist policy for muslim black-americans...but he largely got slammed by a fury of call-ins.

If you are talking about people who call-in...well, accusing a community station whose charta is to inspire call-ins and discussion of advocating "hatred of America" is equivalent to accusing Clutch of it, when you read something equivalent here.

I honestly believe you are equating "hatred of war" and mistrust of Bush with "hatred of America."

I don't think it is as obvious as you say that americans are talking about hating america. Take that for what's its worth. I'm just one other listener of 90.1 and an army veteran, and I don't "hate Bush" or the US.

 

First off, to be clear, I am a lesbian trapped in a thespian's body.

Second, I've finally given up having a "meaningful debate" with you on any topic. You are singularly incapable of same and have proved it again and again.

Third, don't ever tell me Reagan didn't impact the economy and don't ever tell me you didn't love it. I don't have to read your post to "engage" you on the "meaningful" issue. I did so and you ignored it, just like you do everything else you have no way to respond to.

Done with you, today at least. Off to traffic court.

 

Thanks for the response, BJ. I really did not mean to lump the liberals in here with the views of KPFT and the Columbia professor. I have read many of your posts and IMO you are very fair in your analysis of Bush, and you obviously don't hate the US. All I meant to do is to point out that these extremist views do exist, and are perhaps growing. Although, in the context of a bulletin board like this, I can see how my point is taken as a dumb personal attack on ALL people on that side of the isle.

In the future, I'll make sure to make it clear who I am talking about. I certainly don't equate the views of KPFT or the more extremists nuts with mainstream left wing views. After all, there are nuts like the KKK, Pat Buchanan ("we shouldn't have attacked Nazi Germany" ) , and extremist Christians in the Republican Party, and I certainly don't equate them with all of the right wing.

 

Human desire includes the desire to be right. I'm sure there were plenty of conservatives just DYING for Clinton to fail at every juncture. Does that mean you want others to suffer as a result? Of course not. It is just your ego wanting vindication for your beliefs because it is disappointing when someone else's policies do more to accomplish a goal your own, especially when that someone else is diametrically opposed to you. Swallowing your pride and admitting you were wrong is tough to do no matter what side of the political aisle you are on.

As for this war and the situation in general, the world is WAY too complex just to boil it down to wrong and right. We have no idea how the policies we implement today will effect us or the world 20 years from now. We can conjecture, but we honestly don't know. As a result, there may be specific things (if you believed the war would drag on for years, for example, that was proven incorrect) that can be deemed correct or incorrect, but so much is yet to be determined, I don't think anyone has a reason to gloat at this point.

I will admit that I find the "you must hate America" rhetoric attached to disliking our president a bit disturbing. When I saw the first "Impeach Clinton" bumper sticker on a car only 3 weeks after his inauguration (seriously), I didn't immediately think that that person hated America. I just assumed he/she had an opinion contrary to that of the current administration.

But, like everything else, we all desperately want to be right. Frankly, I think it would be a lot easier if none of us were attached to the need to be right. Given the tremendous amount of subjectivity and lack of understanding of how everything in the universe works, you'd think we'd be a little more open minded than we often seem to be (yours truly included).

 

Rates are low because of Alan Greenspan trying to improve the economy.

 

I hope they throw the book at you. You should be a more responsible citizen than to disrespect the laws of the United States of America. It is people like you that drive my insurance premiums through the roof. It is people like you that take the lives of the innocent. It is people like you, whose reckless disregard for the safety of women and children, encourage people to stay home and not generate economic activity. This in turn leads to joblessness and subsequent homelessness. Don't complain to me the next time I show scorn for the homeless -- just remember it's your fault for speeding.

GAME, SET, MATCH -- Thanks for playing, rookie.

 

Mr. Clutch, it doesn't matter if the jobs are marginally productive. The important part is that people are getting paid who spend that money locally which boosts the economy so Best Buy, Wal Mart, etc can hire more people instead of laying people off. I'm not sure what is so difficult to understand about that.

Employing the unemployed gives you very tangible results. It worked for Argentina after their 10 year experiment in deregulated free market capitalism from 1973-1983 had 40% of their country in poverty and the economy in shambles.

 

I assume sarcasm, but I just cannot tell anymore.