PDA

View Full Version : How is someone 'Un-American'?


Astor
10-30-2008, 01:35 PM
Ok, so i've been following American Politics and news broadcasts for some time now, and I've noticed more and more that certain outlets, or people like to throw around the term 'Un-American'.

Now, as a Brit, it's pretty hard to understand - what defines this? And what makes one 'Un-American'? Or is it just a political insult used by those who wish to disparage another's patriotism and beliefs?

This concept of 'Un-American'ness is very strange to many outside of the US, and I'm seeking some input from anyone, Americans or not (maybe fellow foreigners also have similar questions).

I'd like to ask that people keep thoughts and opinions regarding the ongoing elections out of this discussion - i'm not interested in hearing accusations against the respective candidates here.

*Move this to the political discussion if it is felt that it will be better answered there - I didn't think it was necessarily a political topic.

El Sitherino
10-30-2008, 01:44 PM
Onion-American.
http://www.mcpeepants.com/pics/willienelson1.gif

The Doctor
10-30-2008, 02:05 PM
Un-American is a term generally used to discredit someone (ie a political figure) who doesn't agree with you or your standing/policy/platform. In my experience, it's used far more often by the Right than the Left. It's typically a fairly low and desperate attack on someone else's character.

mimartin
10-30-2008, 02:14 PM
The use of the term un-American today is an ad hominem attack and nothing more.

At one time in American history the term was used to battle things like real un-American ideas coming from organization such as the Ku Klux Klan, but today it is over used to battle anyone that disagrees with the status quo.

Jae Onasi
10-30-2008, 03:20 PM
I think it's used more often by the Right than the Left, and is used to imply that anything that smacks of socialism/Communism and not capitalism is "un-American". I've seen it used by the Left very rarely to accuse the Right as being "un-American" as the equivalent of 'completely insensitive to basic needs of fellow Americans' because ultra-conservatives won't support things like universal healthcare.

GarfieldJL
10-30-2008, 05:45 PM
I think it's used more often by the Right than the Left, and is used to imply that anything that smacks of socialism/Communism and not capitalism is "un-American". I've seen it used by the Left very rarely to accuse the Right as being "un-American" as the equivalent of 'completely insensitive to basic needs of fellow Americans' because ultra-conservatives won't support things like universal healthcare.

You are correct that the Right uses it more often than the left. It isn't just used to imply things regarding socialism/Communism though, it also has to do with specific media outlets praising or being sympathetic to terrorists.

Sometimes the charge is overused, though it's not like the left is a hapless victim in this. They tend to accuse conservatives of being sexist and racist.

It's kinda like two siblings fighting and calling each other names. :xp:

Yar-El
10-30-2008, 06:09 PM
Ok, so i've been following American Politics and news broadcasts for some time now, and I've noticed more and more that certain outlets, or people like to throw around the term 'Un-American'.

Now, as a Brit, it's pretty hard to understand - what defines this? And what makes one 'Un-American'? Or is it just a political insult used by those who wish to disparage another's patriotism and beliefs?

This concept of 'Un-American'ness is very strange to many outside of the US, and I'm seeking some input from anyone, Americans or not (maybe fellow foreigners also have similar questions). I call someone Un-American when he or she takes action that is in contradiction to the founding laws and fathers. Laws that prevent The Freedom of Speech, The Right to Bear Arms, The Freedom of Religion, and so forth. Some other anti-American faculties include not standing up to speak out, not challanging authority, not picking up a gun in a World War crisis, not using diplomacy, and many others.

U. S. founding fathers commited treason to establish a nation that allows choices and extended freedoms. People physically died for other people's ability to be free. Un-American behavior is an action that spits and dismisses the foundations our country stands for.

Jae Onasi
10-30-2008, 06:31 PM
Reminder to everyone--Astor requested issues about the ongoing campaign and elections are not part of the discussion here. Those comments will be considered off-topic and deleted.

mimartin
10-30-2008, 06:34 PM
Un-American behavior is an action that spits and dismisses the foundations our country stands for.Which foundations our country stands for? Freedom of Speech?

Yar-El
10-30-2008, 06:56 PM
Which foundations our country stands for? Freedom of Speech? The foundations that were settled when we created the Bill of Rights and Consitution.

mimartin
10-30-2008, 07:21 PM
The foundations that were settled when we created the Bill of Rights and Consitution.

Yet, one of these is the Freedom of Speech. American men and women have fought and died to guarantee that right. Are we not spiting and dismissing the foundations our country stands for when we call someone un-American for speaking their mind. Under your definition, doesn’t that mean that anyone that uses the term un-American when talking about someone stating their opinion is in fact un-American? :D

EnderWiggin
10-30-2008, 09:05 PM
Under your definition, doesn’t that mean that anyone that uses the term un-American when talking about someone stating their opinion is in fact un-American? :D
A brilliant paradox ;)

_EW_

Sabretooth
10-31-2008, 01:39 AM
Un-American is a term of US political discourse which is sometimes applied to people or institutions in the United States in an attempt to deny the targets the identity of American. It implies a substantial deviation from US norms and may extend to internal subversion, espionage or treason.

The most famous use is in the title of the House Un-American Activities Committee which was started to combat Nazi and Ku Klux Klan (KKK) activity in the US during World War II and which later investigated the activities of Communists and purported Communists in the US. By 1959, however, former President Harry S. Truman had denounced the House Un-American Activities Committee as the "most un-American thing in the country today.[1]"

The use and meaning of the term is by no means uniform in the US. Due in part to these historical associations with political abuses and jingoism, the attitudes of Americans toward the pejorative use of "Un-American" are often critical or suspicious. Moreover, Americans may vary widely in what they believe to be un-American.

>.>
<.<

Arcesious
10-31-2008, 02:22 AM
I find this sad:

George Bush Senior:
"No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God."

Source: http://www.positiveatheism.org/writ/ghwbush.htm

Apparently my inclination to science, reason, peace, and understanding makes me unamerican... :rolleyes:

Yar-El
10-31-2008, 10:56 AM
This is the answer to Arcesiou's reply. Above. ^

Some people are aware of this pieces of U. S. history.
The MayFlower Compact (http://www.ushistory.org/documents/mayflower.htm)

The United States is a Christian-European Ancestrial Country. We want to create imigration laws; thus, protecting our European and African American roots. European Americans and African Americans must now work together to take back our country from illegal invaders. Asian Americans are the only other group that have come here legally and have assimulated. This is a subject and argument for another time. Atheists are in contradiction to our founding fathers; however, they are also protected by our founding laws.

jawathehutt
10-31-2008, 11:05 AM
According to the people in the young republicans club of my school I'm un-American because I agree with most of John Lockes ideas.

Yar-El
10-31-2008, 11:19 AM
According to the people in the young republicans club of my school I'm un-American because I agree with most of John Lockes ideas.

John locke (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Locke#Constitution_of_Carolina)
John Locke was a major investor in the English slave-trade through the Royal Africa Company, as well as through his participation in drafting the Fundamental Constitution of the Carolinas while Shaftesbury's secretary, which established a feudal aristocracy and gave a master absolute power over his slaves. They may be upset about his involvement in slavery. John Locke would be unpatriotic in current day America. Some of our founding fathers also had slaves; however, the Consitition and Bill of Rights made people realize that all men are created equal. This didn't happen right of way. It took several decades to start getting things straight. Was he Un-American? There were alot of controversial things going on at the time; thus, you would have to measure him up to his place in history. He was an English Exile.

Jae Onasi
10-31-2008, 01:30 PM
I find this sad:

George Bush Senior:
"No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God."

Source: http://www.positiveatheism.org/writ/ghwbush.htm

Apparently my inclination to science, reason, peace, and understanding makes me unamerican... :rolleyes:

I would recommend seeing if you can find the text of the original speech and get the whole context, and make your decision from there. Atheist sites aren't immune to spinning something any more than any other group.

Doomie
10-31-2008, 01:34 PM
This is the answer to Arcesiou's reply. Above. ^

Some people are aware of this pieces of U. S. history.
The MayFlower Compact (http://www.ushistory.org/documents/mayflower.htm)

... Atheists are in contradiction to our founding fathers; however, they are also protected by our founding laws.

The founding fathers did not come to America on the Mayflower, which arrived there in 1621, well before the declaration of independance was signed in 1776. At least some of them may have been religious (I don't know), but they nonetheless founded the United States as a secular nation. Thus, atheists are not in agreeance nor disagreeance with the founding fathers, who were apparently of the opinion that it doesn't matter what anyone believes.

In other words, a person's views on god(s) bears no relevancy to their American status.

Rake
10-31-2008, 01:50 PM
Atheists are in contradiction to our founding fathers.

If you are implying that Athiests are contradicting the founding fathers, because the fathers were christian, then you are mistaken.

http://www.postfun.com/pfp/worbois.html (where article can be found, I had an antivirus scam pop-up, so I warn you, visit at your own risk)

John Adams:

Also Adams:
The doctrine of the divinity of Jesus is made a convenient cover for absurdity.
Adams signed the Treaty of Tripoli. Article 11 states:
The Government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion.

Thomas Jefferson:

I have examined all the known superstitions of the world, and I do not find in our particular superstition of Christianity one redeeming feature. They are all alike founded on fables and mythology. Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned. What has been the effect of this coercion? To make one half the world fools and the other half hypocrites; to support roguery and error all over the earth.
SIX HISTORIC AMERICANS,
by John E. Remsburg, letter to William Short
Jefferson again:
Christianity...(has become) the most perverted system that ever shone on man. ...Rogueries, absurdities and untruths were perpetrated upon the teachings of Jesus by a large band of dupes and importers led by Paul, the first great corrupter of the teaching of Jesus.

There are more by Thomas Paine and Madison as well. If you are implying that athiests are in contradiction to the founding fathers' belief in creation, then your point is somewhat valid. However, the founding fathers are not gods that we should model our lives after, they are men who began our nation.

jonathan7
10-31-2008, 01:56 PM
There are more by Thomas Paine

Paine for the record was a deist (along with being a fine example of a human being and an excellent writer (like Voltaire, contrary to the popular belief that they were not atheists)). Regardless, if an individual is an atheist has nothing to do with their loyalties to America, and furthermore, if someone has freedom of religion, calling them un-American for having different religious views to yourself, is in fact in contradiction to the Bill of right.

As for Christianity - it would seem to me that people need to be reminded Jesus did not rule people by force - his message was love, ergo do you see him forcing the pharisee's to believe? As such if you believe him to be the Ruler of the Universe - with all his glory and power didn't force people to believe in him - do you really think he wants you to force yourselves upon people?

That is all I have to say....

mimartin
10-31-2008, 02:13 PM
If the founding fathers were so hung up on Christianity why bother with that entire Separation of Church and State thing? :xp:

Samuel Dravis
10-31-2008, 02:17 PM
In my experience, "unamerican" is universally used by people who have poor arguments against what they're trying to disparage. If someone is a traitor, say he is a traitor. If someone is a liar, say he is a liar, etc. But if someone says that another person is unamerican, I am likely to start ignoring them immediately after because they have nothing to say that's worth my time.

Det. Bart Lasiter
10-31-2008, 02:37 PM
sam are you implying that former senator joseph mccarthy was an ignorant douchebag? because that's pretty unamerican sam >:|

jawathehutt
10-31-2008, 02:40 PM
John locke (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Locke#Constitution_of_Carolina)
They may be upset about his involvement in slavery. John Locke would be unpatriotic in current day America. Some of our founding fathers also had slaves; however, the Consitition and Bill of Rights made people realize that all men are created equal. This didn't happen right of way. It took several decades to start getting things straight. Was he Un-American? There were alot of controversial things going on at the time; thus, you would have to measure him up to his place in history. He was an English Exile.

Haha, assuming the people in that group actually knew who Locke was until I explained his ideas to them is giving that group faarrrr too much credit. If anything, that group should be called the young bill o rileys club, I dont think any of them know a thing about actual politics, for the most part they just call everyone else immoral and insult them.

The Doctor
10-31-2008, 02:50 PM
From where I'm standing, it actually sounds like they've got quite a firm grasp on how modern politics work...

Yar-El
10-31-2008, 03:26 PM
The founding fathers did not come to America on the Mayflower, which arrived there in 1621, well before the declaration of independance was signed in 1776. At least some of them may have been religious (I don't know), but they nonetheless founded the United States as a secular nation. Thus, atheists are not in agreeance nor disagreeance with the founding fathers, who were apparently of the opinion that it doesn't matter what anyone believes.

In other words, a person's views on god(s) bears no relevancy to their American status. Oh yeah. One of our founding fathers did. Hahaha...

Edit --
I have to correct myself. Christopher Columbus discovered the American continent; however, he wasn't involved with establishing the core government. My apology.

True_Avery
10-31-2008, 04:55 PM
Oh yeah. One of our founding fathers did. Hahaha...

Edit --
I have to correct myself. Christopher Columbus discovered the American continent; however, he wasn't involved with establishing the core government. My apology.
Christopher Columbus never laid a foot on American Soil. He landed on some islands in the Gulf and died believing it was India. He raped and killed most of the population in that area, and those that survived were slaves to his crew and many were sent back to Europe.

He was, for the most part, a complete and utter failure.

Yar-El
10-31-2008, 05:51 PM
Christopher Columbus never laid a foot on American Soil. He landed on some islands in the Gulf and died believing it was India. He raped and killed most of the population in that area, and those that survived were slaves to his crew and many were sent back to Europe.

He was, for the most part, a complete and utter failure. You know what? I was brought up thinking Columbus did discover America. Your post sparked my curiosity; thus, I did some fact checking. William Bradford, the Puritans, and other settlers found their way to Plymouth, MA. Columbus's contribution was the discovery of a new world (Bahamas); moreover, his actions brought to light a few unknown factors. (1) The World is bigger and round. (2) There was more land to explore in the Atlantic.

1776 is when we became a nation. I messed up on the land's discovery and when the US was established. Its been a long, long. long time since I have been in school. :D

Rogue Nine
10-31-2008, 06:49 PM
You know what? I was brought up thinking Columbus did discover America. Your post sparked my curiosity; thus, I did some fact checking. William Bradford, the Puritans, and other settlers found their way to Plymouth, MA.
They, however, did not found this country, so your assertion that they did in your signature is erroneous and misleading.

Columbus's contribution was the discovery of a new world (Bahamas); moreover, his actions brought to light a few unknown factors. (1) The World is bigger and round.
Actually, the idea that the world is round had been around long before Columbus. See Eratosthenes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eratosthenes).

1776 is when we became a nation. I messed up on the land's discovery and when the US was established. Its been a long, long. long time since I have been in school. :D
Yeah, I know. Especially since they teach you all this in fourth and fifth grade. :xp:

Yar-El
10-31-2008, 07:10 PM
Yeah, I know. Especially since they teach you all this in fourth and fifth grade. :xp: I was taught about political science and US History; however, I never took a class that fully explained our origins. We covered the Revolutionary War, World War I, World War II, Vietnam, and the events that lead up to 1776. Something must have changed in the educational system. I don't know.

JediMaster12
10-31-2008, 08:19 PM
If the founding fathers were so hung up on Christianity why bother with that entire Separation of Church and State thing? :xp:

Because the Church of England had control of plitics in Britain, if my history is correct, and the foundign fathers didn't want that.

Personally I think the un-American term is about as anal as people get over who is patriotic. It is a waste of time unless someone really is guilty of treason but if it is used like a childish insult then we might just call everyone un-American because we don't like them. Hell I might as well, and actually am unofficially, considered un-American by my mother's family because I refuse to call French Fries Freedom Fries. Please...

mimartin
10-31-2008, 08:25 PM
Hell I might as well, and actually am unofficially, considered un-American by my mother's family because I refuse to call French Fries Freedom Fries. Please... :lol:

Same here, but I don't have reason to say French Fries because I don't eat them. I'm considered un-American by my family because I rolled up to the family reunion with the top off blaring the Dixie Chicks - Not Ready to make Nice out of the speakers. This next year I have a choice of a Obama t-shirt or a Dixie Chicks concert t-shirt. Petty, but I like getting under my families skin. :D

Q
10-31-2008, 08:28 PM
They're behind the times, JM12. France's government isn't nearly as anti-American as it used to be. ;)

JediMaster12
11-03-2008, 02:09 PM
Nah I was using it as an example because my family is like that; uber conservative and assume their way is right and nobody else's. Makes me suffocate at times. Every day for my granpa it is FOX News... :xp: ... and I get the are-you-pagan-remember-your-faith-lecture every other time I have something new that makes much more sense to me.

I don't know. It seems we promote this idea of education but when we use it we are called heathens or un-American. Like I said it is a point of ridiculousness considering that half of what I consider is patriotic is considered un-American.

mimartin: I voted early this year and voted no on Prop 8 and the family is pro Prop 8. And I make friends with Auslims and Arabs, a big no in the family. I guess I do some things to spite the uber conservatives but hey we have a right to. Doesn't make us any less patriotic than they are.

Darth_Yuthura
11-06-2008, 09:49 AM
I can tell you what I think it means to be unAmerican.

I think that being American is quite irrelevant because it only means you're a citizen of the state of America. Any idea that we are the greatest nation in the world, that we are noble, divine, or anything like that tarnishes what it means to be American.

I am an American, myself, but I actually think less of myself because of it. The United States has become the world's only superpower and we are exploiting our dominance to do whatever is in our best interests, even if it harms those outside our state. The Iraq war may have been the result of a few individuals, but it is just a symptom of a larger conflict... we are starting to believe we have the right to do whatever we want. What's worse is that we are going to far as to make justifications for our actions.

What is unAmerican? That's a flawed question. What I would ask is whether being American has influenced us as individuals and how it affects those around us. The answer is that we have become convinced of our own superiority that we believe it is alright for us not to respect the rights of others. This may be stepping over the line, but I think it's more accurate than any belief that we are a great nation... I am ashamed to be an American; so much that I have plans to leave in the near future.

Tommycat
11-06-2008, 10:46 PM
I've thought about this question quite a bit. I have to admit that I have fallen for calling someone unAmerican who probably shouldn't have been.

Of course there IS such a thing as being unAmerican. Strangely enough being ANTI-American is not a qualifier for that. Protesting the government and voicing your grievances is very much American. Being unAmerican is attempting to hush the voices of your opposition. Being unAmerican is working to subvert the values and principles this nation was founded on "that among these are Life Liberty and the persuit of happiness."

In essence I am admitting my fault in being unAmerican at times.

Jae Onasi
11-07-2008, 02:42 AM
I am an American, myself, but I actually think less of myself because of it. The United States has become the world's only superpower and we are exploiting our dominance to do whatever is in our best interests, even if it harms those outside our state.

Why would you think less of yourself? Some gov't leaders may be exploiting US dominance, but it doesn't mean you are. We still live in a free country. We get to vote on law and representatives, worship (or not worship) freely and openly in whatever church/house of worship we want, and speak our minds on important (and not so important) issues. Just because some of our Presidents have gotten the US into situations we're not proud of doesn't mean you have to be ashamed to be an American.

What would make us un-American? Violating a fellow American's rights as listed in the Bill of Rights/Constitution (taking away the 'free speech' rights of a child pornographer would be one of a number of obvious exceptions). Giving high level gov't/military intel to our enemies, or other treasonous acts, would be un-American. Turning on another American and attacking them to aid the enemy would be another un-American act. These are just a few off the top of my head at the moment.

Yar-El
11-07-2008, 02:12 PM
I can tell you what I think it means to be unAmerican.

I think that being American is quite irrelevant because it only means you're a citizen of the state of America. Any idea that we are the greatest nation in the world, that we are noble, divine, or anything like that tarnishes what it means to be American.

I am an American, myself, but I actually think less of myself because of it. The United States has become the world's only superpower and we are exploiting our dominance to do whatever is in our best interests, even if it harms those outside our state. The Iraq war may have been the result of a few individuals, but it is just a symptom of a larger conflict... we are starting to believe we have the right to do whatever we want. What's worse is that we are going to far as to make justifications for our actions.

What is unAmerican? That's a flawed question. What I would ask is whether being American has influenced us as individuals and how it affects those around us. The answer is that we have become convinced of our own superiority that we believe it is alright for us not to respect the rights of others. This may be stepping over the line, but I think it's more accurate than any belief that we are a great nation... I am ashamed to be an American; so much that I have plans to leave in the near future. I would like you to prove everything you have negatively said. I want to hear your proof on - (1) How we do not respect other nations, and I want to know the nations specifically. (2) What do you mean by a larger conflict? Specifics. (3) What do you mean by - ...only means you're a citizen of the state of America...? (4) Examples on how we are exploiting our dominance.

I want to hear Darth_Yuthura's answers only please.

mattig89ch
11-07-2008, 04:06 PM
I would like you to prove everything you have negatively said. I want to hear your proof on - (1) How we do not respect other nations, and I want to know the nations specifically. (2) What do you mean by a larger conflict? Specifics. (3) What do you mean by - ...only means you're a citizen of the state of America...? (4) Examples on how we are exploiting our dominance.

I want to hear Darth_Yuthura's answers only please.

I would like to hear this answered as well.

Darth_Yuthura
11-08-2008, 12:01 AM
The war in Iraq should be proof enough of what I said. Over 100,000 innocent Iraqi citizens have been killed because of our actions in their sovereign state. A nation that had never committed an overt act against the US was invaded. Every death that came about because of that war was because of us, the US.

NEVER would such an act have been allowed if the USSR had still been in existence. On Christmas of 1991, the world as we knew it changed forever. As much as we hated the Soviet Union, they provided the counter balance that we desperately need.

By invading Iraq, we essentially declared that we believed it was within our rights to murder citizens of other states if we could benefit from their suffering. That's not a little harsh, it's a fact that we NEVER address the lives lost on the Iraqi's side of the conflict.

Det. Bart Lasiter
11-08-2008, 12:21 AM
I like to think of it as the US taking over the Soviets' invasion responsibilities.


inafterclose

:tsk:

Darth Avlectus
11-24-2008, 10:16 PM
Ok, so i've been following American Politics and news broadcasts for some time now, and I've noticed more and more that certain outlets, or people like to throw around the term 'Un-American'.

Now, as a Brit, it's pretty hard to understand - what defines this? And what makes one 'Un-American'? Or is it just a political insult used by those who wish to disparage another's patriotism and beliefs?

This concept of 'Un-American'ness is very strange to many outside of the US, and I'm seeking some input from anyone, Americans or not (maybe fellow foreigners also have similar questions).

I'd like to ask that people keep thoughts and opinions regarding the ongoing elections out of this discussion - i'm not interested in hearing accusations against the respective candidates here.

*Move this to the political discussion if it is felt that it will be better answered there - I didn't think it was necessarily a political topic.

THANK YOU--I was getting *SO* sick of political-elect talk.

My own opinions.
1) using America's own freedom of speech to bash it--especially college professors who speak out against our 1st amendment.
Mandating government controls over it.
CENSORSHIP DOES NOT EQUAL DECENCY STANDARDS.
For example, I think moderators like Jae Onasi do a fine job of the decency sort of neatening up after clumbsy posts... like mine (though you remind me of general mother figures, Jae!). Censorship, well, is banning expression because it "offends" a certain group. I don't care how much you despise it, if it's anything short of defamatory, slandering sentiment, you leave it alone.

2) calling any talk you disagree with "hate speech" or implying racism (or taint thereof) to certain actions or inactions. What a cop out. That's like calling "hold" whenever pressed in a fencing match or "time" when losing a match or failing a test in kendo.

3) As someone who is on a level of owner/manager of family business (mom and pop), I see things differently than workers. I RESENT being called fascist.

4) LACK of work ethic. Does nobody get up to change the channel anymore?
Is it so unheard of to go out and clean your yard? Clear snow?
Hate to admit it, but, that is the reason so many illegals are allowed here. I wanted something, I WORKED for it, unlike so many of my friends: spoiled. So many lazy but able bodied adults sitting around. Though I would agree there is business greed largely involved which leads me to my next one. Immigrants (LEGAL citizens) I have less problems with, but still, we could do better.

5) Poisoning the honor of free market/capitalism. "The hyper-greed standards". (paraphrased Granny Smith)
Someone in my own town was thrown in jail for evading taxes by hiring illegals. The whole benefits thing is debatable with me, BUT the unethical business practices are not. Undercutting and running at a loss to kill competition. SHAME! Also, what one says is not what one means or does. Shifting blame to another when the fault and responsibility is ONE's OWN. Taking advantage of uneven play fields to monopolize a market. Short sidedness to make MONEY MONEY MONEY! The free market is not free from honor! The self-sustaining individual able to support him/her own self and family.

6) Attacking and destroying the traditional family. I don't care what anyone says--I have yet to see any credible evidence that the functional family is NOT a building block of our society. I'd like to go more into it, but those issues are a bit touchy and perhaps inappropriate here.

7) OK, saying we "deserved" 9/11, or legitimizing violent behaviors by "racial karmah". Cop outs. The crusades happened long before USA was born. Not everybody descended from slaveholders either--many immigrated (not illegaly migrated) here. (Though I'm sure some slipped through the cracks!)

8) Political correctness stereotyping. Stalin himslef invented the term. It oversimplifies things, paints everyone in a group one stripe all while refusing to recognizing there can be differences WITHIN a group. Assuming just because a so-called "Republican" or "Democrat" is in office that Conservatives and Liberals (respectively) have this unyielding collective agreement with the leader.

If you wish to debate me at length, PM me.

jonathan7
11-24-2008, 10:39 PM
7) OK, saying we "deserved" 9/11, or legitimizing violent behaviors by "racial karmah". Cop outs. The crusades happened long before USA was born. Not everybody descended from slaveholders either--many immigrated (not illegaly migrated) here. (Though I'm sure some slipped through the cracks!)

There is a difference between saying America deserved 9/11 and admitting that (bad) foreign policy created antipathy towards the US.

Darth Avlectus
11-25-2008, 02:29 AM
There is a difference between saying America deserved 9/11 and admitting that (bad) foreign policy created antipathy towards the US.


Good point.

Which leads me to sometihng else I wanted to point out in general: As an independent with conservative values (largely but not completely), I am appaled at the lack of leadership republicans have shown.

I'm not entirely convinced it's the result of boil-over from previous actions. However, I'll let it rest at that since I'm not entirely sure it isn't either.
Say whatever you will about that. I am not saving face for them, nor am I jumping on the prosecution bandwagon.

EDIT--my bad, the rest of that went somewhere else--OR SO I meant. Carry on! :)

El Sitherino
11-25-2008, 01:14 PM
So what I've gathered from this thread is people are unamerican if they: eat onions, hate jesus, talk about election politics, anything involving Stalin, don't talk about election politics, discuss anything involving 9/11 without screaming "USA! USA!", are lazy bums, bums, or minimum wage workers.

http://lucasforums.com/picture.php?albumid=194&pictureid=2338

CommanderQ
11-25-2008, 02:19 PM
Oh boy....I'm not even sure if that's the end of the list of so-called reasons of Un-Americanism... I wonder if this thread accomplished much in the way of finding Un-Americans. Strange....

Astor
11-25-2008, 02:28 PM
I wonder if this thread accomplished much in the way of finding Un-Americans.

That wasn't my intent. I was simply trying to find out exactly what is defined as 'un-american' - as a foreigner, i'm often confused by the statement - it's not clearly defined.

jonathan7
11-25-2008, 02:33 PM
That wasn't my intent. I was simply trying to find out exactly what is defined as 'un-american' - as a foreigner, i'm often confused by the statement - it's not clearly defined.

Heres the answer;

In my experience, "unamerican" is universally used by people who have poor arguments against what they're trying to disparage. If someone is a traitor, say he is a traitor. If someone is a liar, say he is a liar, etc. But if someone says that another person is unamerican, I am likely to start ignoring them immediately after because they have nothing to say that's worth my time.

CommanderQ
11-25-2008, 02:34 PM
Oh, sorry about the misunderstanding there I meant no offense if any was taken, but some of the reasons given aren't always the best definitions, a bum is not American, a person who speaks about the election politics isn't American. Some of these ideas aren't exactly Un-American, lest it is confusing...

What do you think it is to be Un-American, from your point-of-view?

JediMaster12
11-26-2008, 02:22 PM
Sam Dravis said it best but lately I think it is nothing more than blustering over who is more patriotic. Over the idiocies that have occurred the last 8 years and my opposition to the insisting on what is American, I might as well be called un-American.

Heck as far as my family is concerned I am toeing the line on Americanism since there are some ideas of theirs that I outright oppose.

It's all a matter of view but frankly it is ridiculous.

CommanderQ
11-26-2008, 02:37 PM
The idea of un-Americanism is rather ridiculous, isn't it. I myself think America is more an ideal then it is state-of-mind, there really isn't a point where someone is Un-American, I wouldn't know where to draw the line. But when people start saying what is and isn't American, then we border towards McCarthyism {I think that's how it's spelled}. We all know that that sort of -ism isn't very American-like. It's all very confusing...

Litofsky
11-26-2008, 03:12 PM
If we are to accurately describe "un-American," we must first describe the word "American," must we not? Here, I do believe that we refer that we use the word "American" as an adjective, that generally is used to describe someone patriotic, one who shares the same view as the speaker, and other such (idiocies?). Now, as to the meaning of "un-American", I'd say that many people would describe someone as "un-American" if they either 1) disagree with their views (and, in their opinion, would lead to something 'bad' happening to America) or 2) they are using it as slander against an opponent in a political race.

At any rate, I do believe that the term "un-American" is an opinion, and is only to be used when someone is losing real things to argue/debate about. Of course, it might depend on the situation, but the general consensus seems to be that calling someone un-American is to attempt draw attention away from a certain point, or some other political stunt, and is generally used by the one losing in a (certain) situation.

My two cents.

vanir
11-29-2008, 12:57 AM
Yeh kind of along the lines Litovsky started on. We have the popular local term of "Un-Australian" in politics.

It means, "I speak for the popular majority."

It is complete and utter farce. In fact you can expect the proponent of such a statement to be inherently incorrect in anything else they've been levelling, straight off.
It is a resort to bullying, a lack of intellectual grounds.

Darth333
11-29-2008, 01:14 AM
I'm not American but I guess the same applies everywhere...I just call it "low level populism".

Being able to criticize a political system or orientations is essential to any democracy IMHO.

GarfieldJL
11-30-2008, 04:14 PM
I'm not American but I guess the same applies everywhere...I just call it "low level populism".

Being able to criticize a political system or orientations is essential to any democracy IMHO.

Uh there are some things which you can legitimately say that they are UnAmerican and/or borderline treasonous.

Selling military equipment to a country where in our laws it is illegal to sell stuff like that to especially when they are supplying and training people whom go on to attack our troups is a good example.

Specifically I'm bringing up General Electric which so happens to be the Parent Company of NBC and MSNBC.

jrrtoken
11-30-2008, 06:41 PM
Uh there are some things which you can legitimately say that they are UnAmerican and/or borderline treasonous.

Selling military equipment to a country where in our laws it is illegal to sell stuff like that to especially when they are supplying and training people whom go on to attack our troups is a good example.

Specifically I'm bringing up General Electric which so happens to be the Parent Company of NBC and MSNBC.That's more or less an action rather than speech. What about saying something that could be deemed "un-American" by some? For example, speaking out against the current administration in a time of war. Would that be considered un-American?

GarfieldJL
11-30-2008, 07:27 PM
That's more or less an action rather than speech. What about saying something that could be deemed "un-American" by some? For example, speaking out against the current administration in a time of war. Would that be considered un-American?

Depends, I don't mind people disagreeing with the Bush Administration, but you can do that without accusing him of being the one to fly the planes into the World Trade Center. Stuff like that is just to attempt to try to give aid and comfort to the enemy.

If you want to disagree with them fine, but people can be civil about it.

jonathan7
11-30-2008, 09:14 PM
Selling military equipment to a country where in our laws it is illegal to sell stuff like that to especially when they are supplying and training people whom go on to attack our troups is a good example.

Ever seen Lord of War?

Depends, I don't mind people disagreeing with the Bush Administration, but you can do that without accusing him of being the one to fly the planes into the World Trade Center.

I haven't heard anyone accuse Bush of flying the planes into the WTC - wouldn't that mean he was dead?

EnderWiggin
11-30-2008, 10:22 PM
I haven't heard anyone accuse Bush of flying the planes into the WTC - wouldn't that mean he was dead?

:lol:

_EW_

True_Avery
12-01-2008, 12:11 AM
Uh there are some things which you can legitimately say that they are UnAmerican and/or borderline treasonous.

Selling military equipment to a country where in our laws it is illegal to sell stuff like that to especially when they are supplying and training people whom go on to attack our troups is a good example.

Specifically I'm bringing up General Electric which so happens to be the Parent Company of NBC and MSNBC.
If I recall, we aren't at war with Iran. And if General Electric cannot do business with them because it supports "terrorism", then why are we still exporting oil from the Middle East and paying them for it.

By your logic, every time you fill your car up you are supporting terrorists. That is just as bad as those WW2 propaganda posters in the US that said that if you didn't carpool you supported Hitler.

Oh, and are you implying that MSNBC supports terrorists? Again, you should probably double check this link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarthyism

Darth Avlectus
12-01-2008, 02:11 AM
I haven't heard anyone accuse Bush of flying the planes into the WTC - wouldn't that mean he was dead?

:lol:

I've heard it, in a more indirect conspiratorial manner from Alex Jones.

Directly...can't say that I have either. Good point. Not to mention how damn STUPID it sounds when you actually consider it.

GarfieldJL
12-01-2008, 02:53 PM
If I recall, we aren't at war with Iran. And if General Electric cannot do business with them because it supports "terrorism", then why are we still exporting oil from the Middle East and paying them for it.

No, it is illegal for companies in the United States to do business with Iran last I checked. We have other countries that we refuse to sell military hardware to, like North Korea.



By your logic, every time you fill your car up you are supporting terrorists. That is just as bad as those WW2 propaganda posters in the US that said that if you didn't carpool you supported Hitler.

While we do import some oil from middle eastern countries our top supplier is actually Canada.

Anyways, I'm not saying that at all, people should try to conserve and get more fuel efficient vehicles but some people can't afford hybrids or the hybrid doesn't have the power needed to do the job required (particularly with farms).


Oh, and are you implying that MSNBC supports terrorists? Again, you should probably double check this link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarthyism

I've basically said that MSNBC is made up of a bunch of left wing kooks that are a sham. I'd sooner trust Rush Limbaugh to be fair and balanced on something than anyone on MSNBC, in other words MSNBC is so bad that they have absolutely no credibility in my mind.

Btw, I know quite well what McCarthyism is, and I'm rather insulted that you'd compare me with McCarthy.

jrrtoken
12-01-2008, 05:15 PM
No, it is illegal for companies in the United States to do business with Iran last I checked. We have other countries that we refuse to sell military hardware to, like North Korea.Says who? Have they been deemed possible combatants by the government?

If you ever go to a comic book store, try to find the Friendly Dictators Trading Cards (http://home.iprimus.com.au/korob/fdtcards/Cards_Index.html). They might be fairly uncommon today, but I have my deck. Look 'em over, and you'll find some surprising former American allies.
I've basically said that MSNBC is made up of a bunch of left wing kooks that are a sham. I'd sooner trust Rush Limbaugh to be fair and balanced on something than anyone on MSNBC, in other words MSNBC is so bad that they have absolutely no credibility in my mind.lolwut? Are you saying that you'd rather listen to a conservative radio guru who fancies Oxycontin than a supposed liberal TV network?
Btw, I know quite well what McCarthyism is, and I'm rather insulted that you'd compare me with McCarthy.Well my friend, you sound very much like him. From what we have heard from you it this thread, you seem to believe that any liberal is somehow automatically anti-American. Perhaps I'm just mistaken, but the term "left-wing kooks" is awfully pejorative in my point of view.

True_Avery
12-01-2008, 05:33 PM
I've basically said that MSNBC is made up of a bunch of left wing kooks that are a sham.
Fair enough.

By the way, an eagle needs 2 wings to fly. Cut one off or favor one, and it falls out of the sky. Take that as you'd like.

I'd sooner trust Rush Limbaugh to be fair and balanced on something than anyone on MSNBC, in other words MSNBC is so bad that they have absolutely no credibility in my mind.
Still, I got the feeling that by putting MSNBC into the ring with GE that you were insinuating that MSNBC is supporting terrorism and the killing of our troops. If so, I would have to call BS on the grounds of 1) no proof shown thus far and 2) finding excuses to call your enemies terrorists is as bad as McCarthy's finger pointing of communists.

Frankly, anyone that uses the terms "left-wing" "right-wing" "liberal" "conservative" "terrorists" "communist" "socialist" in a way that seems to insinuate that they are some kind of enemy destroys their own credibility and the credibility of anything they would like to pull up to prove their point. If people want to label people to make them easier to hate and point out in a gun fight, then go ahead. Don't expect me to do anything more then smile and treat your opinion like that of a 4 year old however.

I'm sure you view me as nothing more than a left-wing, socialist traitor to your country and frankly I'm fine with that. Whatever makes life easier I guess.

I guess I could comment further on McCarthyism, but I can't manage to reply to it without being very insulting so I'll just leave it at that.

GarfieldJL
12-01-2008, 05:33 PM
Says who? Have they been deemed possible combatants by the government?


Says Federal Law: IRAN SANCTIONS (http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d0858.pdf), this is just an example there are others.


If you ever go to a comic book store, try to find the Friendly Dictators Trading Cards (http://home.iprimus.com.au/korob/fdtcards/Cards_Index.html). They might be fairly uncommon today, but I have my deck. Look 'em over, and you'll find some surprising former American allies.


I'm well aware of the fact our country hasn't always chosen the best allies (putting it mildly). I fail to see what the heck this has to do with selling military equipment to a country that is supplying IEDs to attack our troops with.


lolwut? Are you saying that you'd rather listen to a conservative radio guru who fancies Oxycontin than a supposed liberal TV network?

That's about right, because at least when he gives opinions he's extremely honest about it, whereas the Liberal News Networks report their ideaology as news.


Well my friend, you sound very much like him. From what we have heard from you it this thread, you seem to believe that any liberal is somehow automatically anti-American.

I actually have liberal friends, I don't mind people having a difference in opinion with me and having a civil discussion. I do mind being treated like I'm either stupid or a hate-monger because I don't agree with them.


Perhaps I'm just mistaken, but the term "left-wing kooks" is awfully pejorative in my point of view.

A supposed objective journalist falling flat on his face to worship their 'messiah' Barack Obama would be a good example of being a left wing kook.

If they want to give their opinion fine, I don't care, I do mind when they report their opinion as news.

Another example of a left wing kook would be Michael Moore.

jrrtoken
12-01-2008, 05:46 PM
That's about right, because at least when he gives opinions he's extremely honest about it, whereas the Liberal and Conservative News Networks report their ideaology as news.You see? Both sides, both conservative and liberal news stations both report their news with biased filler. If you would accuse MSNBC as having a liberal bias, then you can also accuse Fox News as having a conservative bias.

But to the point: Would a liberal or a conservative be considered un-American if he/she has different views than the current government?

True_Avery
12-01-2008, 05:48 PM
That's about right, because at least when he gives opinions he's extremely honest about it, whereas the Liberal News Networks report their ideaology as news.
I thought Fox News and Friends did the same thing. Seems you are simply favoring a wing to me.

I actually have liberal friends, I don't mind people having a difference in opinion with me and having a civil discussion. I do mind being treated like I'm either stupid or a hate-monger because I don't agree with them.
The good old "I have a friend" defense. I'm sure they love it when you call them left-wing kooks and socialists as well.

But I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. We're often much more subtle about our opinions in reality than we are online.

A supposed objective journalist falling flat on his face to worship their 'messiah' Barack Obama would be a good example of being a left wing kook.
I'm loving the "I'm a good friend of left-wings" lines right above the "left wing kook" lines. It just makes Kavars that much more worth reading on a daily basis.

If they want to give their opinion fine, I don't care, I do mind when they report their opinion [b]as news.
Yet you complain and report posts when we call you on posting blogs and Fox News.

Hm. Fascinating.

Another example of a left wing kook would be Michael Moore.
I'd personally put him in his own little category. Both the left and right tend to look down on Moore, and his main crowd seem to be select groups of "liberals" and "conservatives".

GarfieldJL
12-01-2008, 05:59 PM
You see? Both sides, both conservative and liberal news stations both report their news with biased filler.


At least the conservative station which there is only 1 compared to at least 5 liberal ones is honest about when it gives an opinion. The liberal media stations seem to think their opinions are the gospel truth and anyone that doesn't agree with them is evil.


If you would accuse MSNBC as having a liberal bias, then you can also accuse Fox News as having a conservative bias.


You could argue that but the despite what certain studies show, their own data shows them to be bald-faced liars.

http://www.journalism.org/node/13436

Looks to me Fox News was a lot better at election coverage. I really don't care what their analysis says, I am just looking at the numbers.



But to the point: Would a liberal or a conservative be considered un-American if he/she has different views than the current government?

If they are being completely dishonest I'd say they are unamerican and the liberal media has been so blatently dishonest this year, Sean Hannity is right, "Journalism died in this country in 2008."

True_Avery
12-01-2008, 06:08 PM
At least the conservative station which there is only 1 compared to at least 5 liberal ones is honest about when it gives an opinion. The liberal media stations seem to think their opinions are the gospel truth and anyone that doesn't agree with them is evil.
Isn't that what you are doing right now? Preaching your opinion as gospel and telling us they are evil?

I've listened to Rush and Savage. They are far from being below finger pointing and hate speech. You are just favoring those on your side of the Black White board and ignoring the blatant bias that your own media outlets and talk show hosts have.

You have already admitted they are conservative talk shows. Why don't you also admit they are biased towards their own cause and will exaggerate and twist words like anyone that wants to make people believe their opinion? What makes your talk show hosts so much more credible than the others?

The liberals call you "evil". Well the conservatives call the liberals un-american traitors.

Oh hey, that is a great segway back to the point of this thread.

If they are being completely dishonest I'd say they are unamerican and the liberal media has been so blatently dishonest this year, Sean Hannity is right, "Journalism died in this country in 2008."
Wow, we lasted till 2008? That is impressive.

Personally its always been mostly dead anyway.
http://www.wickedsunshine.com/Projects/Republution/Images/Poster_WhenYouRideAloneYouRideWithHitler.jpg

GarfieldJL
12-01-2008, 08:38 PM
Isn't that what you are doing right now? Preaching your opinion as gospel and telling us they are evil?


I haven't said all liberals are evil, seriously that's just plain stupid.


I've listened to Rush and Savage. They are far from being below finger pointing and hate speech. You are just favoring those on your side of the Black White board and ignoring the blatant bias that your own media outlets and talk show hosts have.

Yeah I heard about some of the "hate" speech, I haven't listened to Savage but Rush I have listened to and I've noticed a lot of the charges of hate speech directed towards minorities was literally made up by the people bashing him.

Rush has never cheered when someone fell and broke their hip, the left wing nuts did when it happened to Nancy Reagan! The so called "hate speech" on the right is usually nothing compared to what the far left does on a regular basis.


You have already admitted they are conservative talk shows. Why don't you also admit they are biased towards their own cause and will exaggerate and twist words like anyone that wants to make people believe their opinion? What makes your talk show hosts so much more credible than the others?


Difference between talk show and evening news, the evening news is supposed to try to be as objective as possible. Rush is honest about his opinions, the evening news on MSNBC tries to report their opinions as though it was what actually happened when it wasn't. That's why Rush is more trustworthy than MSNBC.


The liberals call you "evil". Well the conservatives call the liberals un-american traitors.

I haven't called liberals in general that, I've been rather specific when referring to the media or specific individuals and normally I'm just saying they are not only biased but they are flat out dishonest. This year the mainstream media betrayed the American people to further their ideaology, pure and simple. They deliberately didn't dig into Obama's past while coming up with phony stories concerning McCain. Or did a hit job on Hillary Clinton, I really can't stand her, but the media calling her daughter a very derogatory word which I will not repeat is simply unacceptable.


http://www.wickedsunshine.com/Projects/Republution/Images/Poster_WhenYouRideAloneYouRideWithHitler.jpg

Look when we were fighting in World War II we had to ration things here at home to further the war effort.

jrrtoken
12-01-2008, 09:25 PM
I haven't said all liberals are evil, seriously that's just plain stupid.Well, you're not very convincing, since most of the ideals that you have posted here have liberals being the scapegoat for all of America's problems.
Yeah I heard about some of the "hate" speech, I haven't listened to Savage but Rush I have listened to and I've noticed a lot of the charges of hate speech directed towards minorities was literally made up by the people bashing him.I suppose that this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rush_limbaugh#Michael_J._Fox_incident) isn't a lie as well.
Rush has never cheered when someone fell and broke their hip, the left wing nuts did when it happened to Nancy Reagan! The so called "hate speech" on the right is usually nothing compared to what the far left does on a regular basis.There you go again, with the liberal bashing. How about this: Enough of the "liberal wacko, nutjob, etc." stuff. It's quite insulting and rather low-brow.
Look when we were fighting in World War II we had to ration things here at home to further the war effort.I suppose that includes using racial caricatures to poke fun at dictators.

GarfieldJL
12-02-2008, 10:44 AM
Well, you're not very convincing, since most of the ideals that you have posted here have liberals being the scapegoat for all of America's problems.

I haven't said that liberals cause all of America's problems either, I have my problem with some conservatives, the problem is that the far left tends to be treated as though they are the accepted norm.


I suppose that this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rush_limbaugh#Michael_J._Fox_incident) isn't a lie as well.

That was rather insensitive of him, in all honesty Micheal J Fox's Parkinsons occurred at an unusually young age putting it mildly. And while I disagree with some of what Rush apparently said based on the information you've provided I do feel I need to point out that pro-ponents of embryonic stem-cell research have been outright dishonest with the general public about how effective it can be.

For instance, they claim it will cure things that it can never possibly cure because the problem is a genetic abnormality.
Furthermore, they haven't been honest about the fact that the same results can be achieved with adult stem celms which doesn't have that same ethical issues that embryonic stem cell research carries with it.

Also to be completely honest Rush may have had a point concerning Michael J. Fox, there are a lot of drugs out now that can surpress the symptoms that Mr. Fox demonstrates and he is quite frankly a lot younger and probably doesn't have the sensitivity to medications that my grandfather had before he died.

Calling someone a whiner and wishing someone ill are two different things.


Rush has never cheered when someone fell and broke their hip, the left wing nuts did when it happened to Nancy Reagan! The so called "hate speech" on the right is usually nothing compared to what the far left does on a regular basis. There you go again, with the liberal bashing. How about this: Enough of the "liberal wacko, nutjob, etc." stuff. It's quite insulting and rather low-brow.


Actually it looks more like Rush was accusing of Michael J. Fox of semi-faking the severity of his Parkinsons. It wasn't hate speech, a lack of understanding on the part of Mr. Limbaugh, yes. However, someone falling and breaking their hip is pretty well understood, wishing someone had been hurt worse than they were and cheering when they fell and hurt themselves because of that fall is far worse.


I suppose that includes using racial caricatures to poke fun at dictators.

The term German refers to a specific Nationality, it is not a race. Very few countries can make the claim that their Nationality is also a race and Germany isn't one of them.

ET Warrior
12-02-2008, 12:11 PM
wishing someone had been hurt worse than they were and cheering when they fell and hurt themselves because of that fall is far worse.you keep saying this, but who was actually 'cheering' about Nancy Reagan? I didn't invite you to my 'Suck it, Nancy' party so how do you know there was cheering going on?

The term German refers to a specific Nationality, it is not a race. Very few countries can make the claim that their Nationality is also a race and Germany isn't one of them.Of course, because hurtful stereotypes are A-ok as long as they're not racially motivated.

jrrtoken
12-02-2008, 12:59 PM
The term German refers to a specific Nationality, it is not a race. Very few countries can make the claim that their Nationality is also a race and Germany isn't one of them.I wasn't referring to the German racial caricatures, but more or less the Japanese ones. That propaganda made them look utterly inhuman. And yes, you still haven't specified whether propaganda of any sort is acceptable if it is by America, "the good guys".

vanir
12-02-2008, 02:54 PM
The term German refers to a specific Nationality, it is not a race. Very few countries can make the claim that their Nationality is also a race and Germany isn't one of them.
I just wanted to toss in a personal, somewhat academic impression in here, though I've no intention of derailing the discussion itself.

"Race" was an ideal largely levelled by (commonly British) anthropologists of the 18-19th century as an academic term. It was based upon the erroneous belief that regional cultural groups held physical, skeletal and intellectual differences measureable by a scientific means (such as skull dimensions). It was complete hogwash, for one (due to common ancestry and complex evolutionary diversity), and secondly, by its blatant intentions to support colonialism led directly to other unfounded assertions like the Eugenics movement and its cousin, Nazism. Quite simply the entire proceedings were determined by dedicated anthropologists around the 1930's to be no more than "scientific racism."

By the 1930's disciplines such as anthropology had become far more accessible to those without noble lineage, in part due to sweeping changes in world politics and thus economic control. During impartial tests it was discovered there were as many variations within even isolated regional communities as there were outside the group, one of the early, strictly scientific allusions to common ancestry (which was backed by archaeological evidence and linguistics studies, prior to modern DNA research that ultimately confirmed and revolutionised suspicions).

At that time, for example new ethics among anthropologists were evolved so as to prevent the use of such studies and statistical data for political purposes in the future. One can peruse the American Anthropological Society website for more details regarding these (I know, yanks are actually good for something peaceful, well done).

So, firstly there are no races. No such thing, sorry. All the terms Mongoloid, Aboriginal, Inuit, etc. were thoroughly based in colonial interests of the 19th century and racism.
There are certainly regional cultures, and regional physical variations in terms of medical immunities and so on. But these are never tied to genetic lineage upon an ancestral scale, a point which is quite proved.

Well then, if there are no races, what then are these differences to be more correctly termed? Cultural and regional communities (and/or situational medical themes).

With this new insight, indeed certain cultural groupings formerly termed, incorrectly "races" do exist, but the differences may be hardly genetic at any given instance.

And Germanic is indeed one of the contemporaries.

GarfieldJL
12-02-2008, 06:23 PM
you keep saying this, but who was actually 'cheering' about Nancy Reagan? I didn't invite you to my 'Suck it, Nancy' party so how do you know there was cheering going on?


Huffington Post had people posting that up cheering about it, and saying stuff about they hoped Nancy would be hurt worse.

To my knowledge they ended up taking it down after it ended up being brought up on the O'Reilly Factor. Mr. O wasn't happy putting it mildly and he brought up a pattern of incidents and quite frankly humiliated them.


Of course, because hurtful stereotypes are A-ok as long as they're not racially motivated.

You have to understand that we were at war at the time and stuff like that can and does happen. To be frank, tempers were extremely high after Pearl Harbor, and while we saw the propaganda stuff during that war, we don't see things like that about the Japanese today. To be perfectly blunt they had propaganda stuff that bashed Americans.

jrrtoken
12-02-2008, 06:27 PM
You have to understand that we were at war at the time and stuff like that can and does happen. To be frank, tempers were extremely high after Pearl Harbor, and while we saw the propaganda stuff during that war, we don't see things like that about the Japanese today. To be perfectly blunt they had propaganda stuff that bashed Americans.Yeah, but they weren't the ones who put its own citizens in de facto prison camps. I suppose it would be perfectly fine these days to do the same thing with suspected terrorists who are American citizens.

True_Avery
12-02-2008, 08:16 PM
Yeah, but they weren't the ones who put its own citizens in de facto prison camps. I suppose it would be perfectly fine these days to do the same thing with suspected terrorists who are American citizens.
Rape of Nanking.

Japan abused its own people and the Chinese heavily during World War 2. We may have put our own people in camps, but they held a Genocide.

I know where you are coming from, but there were hardly any innocent bystanders in World War 2.

ET Warrior
12-02-2008, 08:31 PM
Huffington Post had people posting that up cheering about it, and saying stuff about they hoped Nancy would be hurt worse.I see, so an article written by a person that is insensitive about Nancy Reagan hurting herself and suddenly it's some kind of group liberal conspiracy of hate? Makes sense to me.

jrrtoken
12-02-2008, 08:41 PM
Rape of Nanking.I was actually referring to the Japanese internment camps in the US. I suppose I didn't clarify enough. >_<

True_Avery
12-02-2008, 08:42 PM
I see, so an article written by a person that is insensitive about Nancy Reagan hurting herself and suddenly it's some kind of group liberal conspiracy of hate? Makes sense to me.
And when Rush calls J Fox out for apparently "faking" the symptoms of a fatal condition, its just his misunderstood opinion that by no means represents the conservative party.

Great how fervent partisanship works, huh?

GarfieldJL
12-03-2008, 11:19 AM
I see, so an article written by a person that is insensitive about Nancy Reagan hurting herself and suddenly it's some kind of group liberal conspiracy of hate? Makes sense to me.

It was beyond insensitive it was cheering about the fact she got hurt and disappointed she didn't get hurt worse. Quit trying to downplay it.



And when Rush calls J Fox out for apparently "faking" the symptoms of a fatal condition, its just his misunderstood opinion that by no means represents the conservative party.

Great how fervent partisanship works, huh?

That song and dance may work on some people, but not on me because my grandfather had Parkinsons disease, and it wasn't what killed him. Seriously, Parkinsons takes time to progress quite frankly due to J. Fox's age Rush may have been right about about the guy not taking his meds at the time.

Fact is, that someone like Michael J. Fox could get enough care that Parkinsons probably won't be what kills him. It doesn't mess with vital organs, it messes with voluntary muscle movements, he may need a nurse or caretakers looking after him.

I was actually referring to the Japanese internment camps in the US. I suppose I didn't clarify enough. >_<

Last I checked, those internment camps weren't slave labor camps, nor were they death camps and those people were released after the war. It isn't even remotely equivalent to what the Japanese did nor is it remotely equivalent to what the Germans or Russians did during World War II. While the detainment of Japanese Americans was wrong, and I'm not going to argue that point, you cannot even remotely compare the US to the attrocities committed by the Axis powers nor the attrocities that the Soviet Union committed.

I'm sure any Concentration Camp survivor would be extremely offended by your comments.

mur'phon
12-03-2008, 11:44 AM
Last I checked, those internment camps weren't slave labor camps, nor were they death camps and those people were released after the war. It isn't even remotely equivalent to what the Japanese did nor is it remotely equivalent to what the Germans or Russians did during World War II. While the detainment of Japanese Americans was wrong, and I'm not going to argue that point, you cannot even remotely compare the US to the attrocities committed by the Axis powers nor the attrocities that the Soviet Union committed.

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but you are essentially saying that it's okay because others did worse?

GarfieldJL
12-03-2008, 11:49 AM
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but you are essentially saying that it's okay because others did worse?

That isn't what I'm saying at all, I'm not saying it was okay, however I'm getting sick of the blatent attempts to paint the United States as the cause of all problems in the world.

However, making it equivalent to what the Axis Powers did is demonizing this country and making it sound like what the Germans did during WW II wasn't that bad is beyond the pale.

Astor
12-03-2008, 12:01 PM
However, making it equivalent to what the Axis Powers did is demonizing this country and making it sound like what the Germans did during WW II wasn't that bad is beyond the pale.

And where has anybody actually said that?

CommanderQ
12-03-2008, 01:34 PM
I'm not sure anyone has said anything that drastic as of yet. The internment camps were indeed very shameful of the government to do, but it seemed to be the only choice at the time to contain the threat of spies. The people were not treated correctly, however, therefore ending with a project with bad intentions. The internment camps were indeed cruel, but no where near as cruel as places like Dachau or Aushwitz, or any other death camp of the Axis powers.

mimartin
12-03-2008, 01:51 PM
The internment camps were indeed very shameful of the government to do, but it seemed to be the only choice at the time to contain the threat of spies.
Really? Where were the Internment Camps for German Americans?

CommanderQ
12-03-2008, 01:57 PM
Actually, they had those I think, though the base of the internment camps were for Japanese Americans, which increased the problem by focusing more on them then any other ethnic group. It was bad, yes, a mistake on FDR's choice there.

True_Avery
12-03-2008, 05:37 PM
That isn't what I'm saying at all, I'm not saying it was okay, however I'm getting sick of the blatent attempts to paint the United States as the cause of all problems in the world.
Sort of ironic coming from someone who has, for the past month, tried to paint the "left-wing wackos", "liberal socialists", and "mainstream liberal media" as a problem that will undermine the stability of the United states government and turn us into Russia or WW2 Germany.

That song and dance may work on some people, but not on me because my grandfather had Parkinsons disease, and it wasn't what killed him. Seriously, Parkinsons takes time to progress quite frankly due to J. Fox's age Rush may have been right about about the guy not taking his meds at the time.

Fact is, that someone like Michael J. Fox could get enough care that Parkinsons probably won't be what kills him. It doesn't mess with vital organs, it messes with voluntary muscle movements, he may need a nurse or caretakers looking after him.
That is not the point. Maybe he did forget his meds, but I'd think someone from a background in that type of disease would understand how utterly tasteless it is to say "Oh, that guy is either making up his illness or faking symptoms to get attention."

It might be J Fox, but what if someone went up to your grandfather and pointed out to you that he's probably faking his illness, or jerking voluntarily to get attention? You'd probably punch him in the face, even if it was the first time the guy had ever seen your grandfather.

Maybe your grandfather -had- forgot his meds that particular day. Maybe he was having an genuine attack. Regardless, its tasteless to point out that kind of stuff even if you are ignorant of the details.

It would be like seeing a bald, pale woman on the street and saying "She's probably putting on a cancer act because she wants attention." Does she have cancer? Maybe. If so, then that was an entirely tasteless thing to say, especially if said in a way that she can hear you. What if she didn't have cancer? Then you just decided to be blatantly ignorant of details and make an accusation that insults anyone with the actual sickness.

Is that as bad as cheering when someone breaks their hip? I'm going to say no, but its close. At least for Rush. Savage, on the other hand, is a conservative talk show host who has told a gay man with Aids to die on national television, claimed that mental retardation is a show, and has told students protesting on a hunger strike to, quote, "starve to death".

Tasteless? Yes. As bad as cheering at a woman getting hurt? Yes.

Does Savage represent the entire conservative party? No. Does he represent what I think of you? No. He's a guy who has a voice and has decided to use it.

So, I'd appreciate if you would drop the name calling just because a few people with a voice decided to speak their minds. Those "left-wing wackos" do not represent the liberal party any more than Savage represents the conservative party.

If you must speak down on them, then just the person in general. But don't clump them up into labels like "left" and "right" wing to make it easier to throw the mud. Many people have different beliefs and opinions, even if they are in a so called "party", and deciding an entire group in general is whats wrong in the world is just a shot to the foot of your credibility, and the credibility of your arguments.

ET Warrior
12-03-2008, 06:23 PM
It was beyond insensitive it was cheering about the fact she got hurt and disappointed she didn't get hurt worse. Quit trying to downplay it.I was not attempting to downplay anything, but since you seemed to miss the point, I will rephrase.

So an article written by a person that is unbelievably terrible and quite possibly the most horrific thing ever written by mortals about Nancy Reagan hurting herself and suddenly it's some kind of group liberal conspiracy of hate?

The emphasis is on the point that I'm really trying to make here.

GarfieldJL
12-03-2008, 11:19 PM
So an article written by a person that is unbelievably terrible and quite possibly the most horrific thing ever written by mortals about Nancy Reagan hurting herself and suddenly it's some kind of group liberal conspiracy of hate?

It was a "respected" Left Wing site that only took it down after Bill O'Reilly utterly humiliated them on National Television by bringing it to the attention of the general public.

I'm not saying all liberals are like that, some would be generally appalled, but it seems that the ones actually running the Democrat Party are heavily tied to the mental cases on the left.

I have no problem with differences in opinion, but there is a level of hate seen from the "respected" members of the left that you'd never see from the "respected" people on the right. Least not without the media going crazy.

True_Avery
12-03-2008, 11:35 PM
It was a "respected" Left Wing site that only took it down after Bill O'Reilly utterly humiliated them on National Television by bringing it to the attention of the general public.
Define respected in this context.

So far you've given us one new website. While I agree that what they said was completely tasteless, I've yet to see how it links to some liberal hive mind of hate.

If you'd like, I could grab some particularly tasteless things Savage and Bill'o have said, unless they aren't considered "respected" members of the conservative party. If they are not, then I'll try not to bring them up again in this context.

GarfieldJL
12-03-2008, 11:50 PM
Define respected in this context.

So far you've given us one new website. While I agree that what they said was completely tasteless, I've yet to see how it links to some liberal hive mind of hate.

If you'd like, I could grab some particularly tasteless things Savage and Bill'o have said, unless they aren't considered "respected" members of the conservative party. If they are not, then I'll try not to bring them up again in this context.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huffington_Post

I really have to go but this is what wikipedia has to say on them.

ET Warrior
12-04-2008, 12:43 AM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huffington_Post

I really have to go but this is what wikipedia has to say on them.
Wow, that was actually pretty helpful. From the wiki page:

"Negative comments about the then-86-year-old former first lady were posted in the public comment section of the website by members of the public."

So the negativity had nothing to do with any of the actual editors of the blog, but were asinine comments from random *******s, and THAT is the proof that the liberal party is a bunch of hate mongers. Your credibility in this particular argument is approaching zero unless you can prove that conservative blogs never have extremely hateful comments (you can't, because I've read them before).

True_Avery
12-04-2008, 01:47 AM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huffington_Post

I really have to go but this is what wikipedia has to say on them.
From the citations in case you didn't bother to even READ the source you posted:

http://www.billoreilly.com/newslettercolumn?pid=22771
http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2008/02/bill_oreilly_arianna_huffingto.html

As for Nancy Reagan, it was a far different story. On the crazy left Huffington Post, the following hateful comments were posted about the former first lady:

* "Like her evil husband, she has lived far too long. Here's hoping the hag suffers for several weeks, then croaks in the tub."
* "The old bat will probably steal everything in the hospital room."
* "I feel no pity for the b---- who took delight in watching thousands die of a horrible disease and watching the poor having to eat out of dumpsters because of her husband's political beliefs."

There are dozens of other vile comments available for your reading pleasure on the Huffington Post. Apparently, Arianna Huffington, the woman who runs the site, has no problem with publishing hate speech. Ms. Huffington has the power to remove this trash immediately, but she chooses not to.
They were COMMENTS on the website. And here you had me going that this was published! Wow, I gave you the benefit of the doubt but here you go losing all the trust I had in you.


Here is a story for you Garfield.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6BRmU9g1S9Y
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CowWSNO6v30&feature=related
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/02/20/bill-oreilly-i-dont-w_n_87616.html
http://www.alternet.org/blogs/mediaculture/77542/bill_o%E2%80%99reilly_apologizes_for_michelle_obam a_%22lynching%22_comment,_hell_reports_frost/
http://www.236.com/tag/Michelle+Obama+Lynching+Party.+Bill+O%27Reilly+Mic helle+Obama+Lynching+Party
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Bill_O%27Reilly#.22Lynching_party.22_ comment

Bill O'Reilly talks of LYNCHING Michelle Obama.

Was this comments posted on his page? No. It is directly from his mouth.

How about Savage?

He was fired from MSNBC for telling a gay man he should die of AIDS on national television.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/...st-fired_x.htm

He called Autism an "Act" and Autistic kids "brats"
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/n...,7335653.story

He told an Islamic caller “take your religion and shove it up your behind” because “I’m sick of you.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/17/ar...syahoo&emc=rss

Said that college students on a hunger strike for immigration laws should "starve to death"
http://mediamatters.org/items/200707060009

Oh, here is something you'll find fascinating!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6BRmU9g1S9Y

-N*****s should be lynched anyways.
-keep the white house white f*** you obama and the b**** michelle n***** obama
-good going Bill to hell with that n*****
That video has racist comments under it. So, I propose we ask YouTube to shut down for being a white supremacy website that is for the lynching of african americans.

Right?

<Every insult towards the left and basically every post in this thread>
Your credibility and the credibility of anything you post from now on is Zero unless you can prove to me that there are no tasteless remarks about "liberals", "leftists", "socialists", etc on any conservative site anywhere.

Thank you for debunking your own argument, and good day sir.

GarfieldJL
12-04-2008, 04:19 PM
Uh I'm getting nothing but broken links from your sources, and for the record I've seen O'Reilly go after the far right, but they aren't respected at all (at least Republicans don't want anything to do with them).

However, the far-left is part of the backbone of the Democrat party and the Presidential Candidates for the Dems, associated with them directly.

If McCain had associated himself with nutcases calling for the death of Barack's wife, the press would have had a field day. However, Obama associated with Huffington Post and the press was completely silent.

Furthermore I really don't care where the comments were nor do I care who posted those comments on Huffington Post, the staff there knew about them and refused to remove those comments until Bill O'Reilly blasted them for it.

Det. Bart Lasiter
12-04-2008, 04:24 PM
If McCain had associated himself with nutcases calling for the death of Barack's wifeYou mean the people at his rallies? Oh wait, they only specifically said they wanted Obama dead not his wife iirc.

GarfieldJL
12-04-2008, 04:28 PM
You mean the people at his rallies? Oh wait, they only specifically said they wanted Obama dead not his wife iirc.

That would be a good point, if it were true. That story was debunked by the United States Secret Service. (If it were true there would have been people arrested at the event).

Another interesting tidbit was that members of the press were giving press passes to "Code Pink" at the Republican National Convention to sneak them in.

The Doctor
12-04-2008, 04:34 PM
... so you'll deny just about anything, no matter how true it is, won't you Garfield?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yIxRKjcbbBY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SEm5zb1lwxo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KX-G6mxLuWQ&feature=related

GarfieldJL
12-04-2008, 05:01 PM
... so you'll deny just about anything, no matter how true it is, won't you Garfield?

Actually it wasn't true, they all reported on it, but it turned out to be bogus. I'll check to see if we're talking about two different incidents.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yIxRKjcbbBY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SEm5zb1lwxo


I'm going to say this right now, if Democracy Now and Keith Oberman are your star witnesses, then your case is in trouble.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KX-G6mxLuWQ&feature=related

Okay something from Fox News now we have something to work with but you are misrepresenting a few of the facts, the woman making those comments was a Democrat and a Hillary supporter. Furthermore Fox News tends to be LIVE, and therefore it wasn't something that could be editted out on a tape.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lLCCoD87l5E&NR=1

Also here is another article of interest: Newsbusters (http://newsbusters.org/blogs/matthew-sheffield/2008/10/16/secret-service-no-one-shouted-kill-him-about-obama)

jrrtoken
12-04-2008, 05:11 PM
I'm going to say this right now, if Democracy Now and Keith Oberman are your star witnesses, then your case is in trouble.Then find it on Fox News and watch it, then you'll accept it as the truth, won't you?
Also here is another article of interest: Newsbusters (http://newsbusters.org/blogs/matthew-sheffield/2008/10/16/secret-service-no-one-shouted-kill-him-about-obama)Then that agent obviously sucks. It's caught on record that someone shouted out "Kill Him", so please don't go where I think you're going, that MSNBC edited the tape.

The Doctor
12-04-2008, 05:15 PM
Then find it on Fox News and watch it, then you'll accept it as the truth, won't you?
Of course. Fox is the beacon of truth in an otherwise corrupt and biased mainstream media. Right? RIGHT????

GarfieldJL
12-04-2008, 05:18 PM
Then find it on Fox News and watch it, then you'll accept it as the truth, won't you?

Well Fox News had that story, but they retracted it after the Secret Service pointed out that it wasn't what happened.


Then that agent obviously sucks. It's caught on record that someone shouted out "Kill Him", so please don't go where I think you're going, that MSNBC edited the tape.

Wouldn't go quite that far, but an interesting sidenote is that MSNBC was the one to hand out Press passes to "Code Pink".

Of course. Fox is the beacon of truth in an otherwise corrupt and biased mainstream media. Right? RIGHT????

Keith Oberman is a well known partisan hack that ended up getting in trouble for apologizing to viewers that Republicans had a memorial to 9/11 victims during their convention. MSNBC had him be the anchor for the Republican Convention, they have absolutely no credibility.

jrrtoken
12-04-2008, 05:21 PM
Well Fox News had that story, but they retracted it after the Secret Service pointed out that it wasn't what happened.Then can you please explain why we all heard "Kill him!" on that tape? Was it a coincidental compression artifact that just happened to sound like the words "kill" and "him" during a Republican rally?
Wouldn't go quite that far, but an interesting sidenote is that MSNBC was the one to hand out Press passes to "Code Pink".That has absolutely nothing to do with the current subject.

The Doctor
12-04-2008, 05:37 PM
Actually, it was more akin to "Kill them both", referring to both Democratic candidates.

GarfieldJL
12-04-2008, 06:37 PM
Then can you please explain why we all heard "Kill him!" on that tape? Was it a coincidental compression artifact that just happened to sound like the words "kill" and "him" during a Republican rally?


There are several possibilities, however you're ignoring two key facts.

1. The Secret Service dismissed it saying that wasn't what happened, and I'll believe the Secret Service over MSNBC.

2. We're potentially looking at someone in a crowd even if it was true, someone in a crowd isn't the same thing as a group receiving stuff from the Democrat Presidential candidates, and considered respected by the Democrats.

The "Code Pink" stuff has relevance because one of the sources given was from MSNBC, and considering the fact MSNBC tried to actively sabotage the Republican Convention, it doesn't look like they are a trustworthy source.

Actually, it was more akin to "Kill them both", referring to both Democratic candidates.

Again the Secret Service dismissed it, and considering they take threats to candidates extremely seriously I'm going to take the Secret Service's side.

Furthermore, Huffington Post letting people take shots at Nancy Reagan (and they were courted by the Democrat Presidential Candidates) is not equivalent to some bozo allegedly yelling something in a crowd.

So here we have the comparison between groups that the Democrats knowingly associate with and we're comparing it to what some person in a crowd allegedy shouted while they happened to be at a rally for the Republican Presidential Candidate or VP Candidate. What's next, accusations of Racism because Republicans dared to criticize the "annointed one?"

You would have an equivalent if the Republicans were courting groups that call for the torching of abortion clinics or something like that, but the Republicans don't court those groups (and the mainstream media would pounce all over the Republicans if they did).

The Doctor
12-04-2008, 06:45 PM
Ah, so it's ok for Republican supporters to threaten Democrat candidates, but if a number of Democrat supporters post on a blog mocking a Republican former First Lady, it's a crime against the party, and something that can be used in a debate. I get it.

You're right about one thing, though: the two cannot be compared. :dozey:

And you simply cannot deny that there were Republicans shouting death threats at McCain's concession speech because I watched the damned thing live, and I heard it with my own ears. If you're willing to take the Secret Service's word over that of your own senses, simply so you can justify your arguments in your own mind, that's your business. But no one else buys it. You're just plain wrong on this one. It's just that easy.

GarfieldJL
12-04-2008, 07:23 PM
Ah, so it's ok for Republican supporters to threaten Democrat candidates, but if a number of Democrat supporters post on a blog mocking a Republican former First Lady, it's a crime against the party, and something that can be used in a debate. I get it.

Uh, if there was a Democrat supporter calling for McCain to have been assassinated at a rally Obama was at and Obama didn't here the guy in a crowd, I wouldn't blame the Democrat Party, it's just some nut that needs to be arrested.


You're right about one thing, though: the two cannot be compared. :dozey:


Was that sarcasm, or are you agreeing with me?


And you simply cannot deny that there were Republicans shouting death threats at McCain's concession speech because I watched the damned thing live, and I heard it with my own ears. If you're willing to take the Secret Service's word over that of your own senses, simply so you can justify your arguments in your own mind, that's your business. But no one else buys it. You're just plain wrong on this one. It's just that easy.

Were you actually attending the event though, remember we just saw it on TV. I'm not calling you a liar, but I am saying the secret service had trained individuals go over the tapes (training neither of us have) and determined there wasn't a death threat or anything remotely of the sort.

Det. Bart Lasiter
12-04-2008, 07:27 PM
Were you actually attending the event though, remember we just saw it on TV. I'm not calling you a liar, but I am saying the secret service had trained individuals go over the tapes (training neither of us have) and determined there wasn't a death threat or anything remotely of the sort.actually i have a doctorate in not being deaf and a masters in staring at a tv without sticking things in my ears.

The Doctor
12-04-2008, 07:32 PM
Uh, if there was a Democrat supporter calling for McCain to have been assassinated at a rally Obama was at and Obama didn't here the guy in a crowd, I wouldn't blame the Democrat Party, it's just some nut that needs to be arrested.
Oh, but when people laugh at an old lady for falling down the stairs, the Democrats are behind it. That's not an ignorant double standard at all.

Was that sarcasm, or are you agreeing with me?
Best. Question. Ever.

Were you actually attending the event though, remember we just saw it on TV. I'm not calling you a liar, but I am saying the secret service had trained individuals go over the tapes (training neither of us have) and determined there wasn't a death threat or anything remotely of the sort.

Nothing I could say to this can top what jmac has just said. I refer you to him for a reply to this one.

GarfieldJL
12-04-2008, 07:49 PM
Oh, but when people laugh at an old lady for falling down the stairs, the Democrats are behind it. That's not an ignorant double standard at all.

No when it is people bashing her, cheering about the fact she got hurt, etc., and when it was reported at that site (which the Democrat Party considers respectible), they refused to take it down. That makes it partially the direct responsibility of the Huffington Post.

In the case you're talking about we have the Secret Service saying that the story is bogus. Republicans saying that if the story is true (which there is some debate as to whether or not its true) then the comments were out of line. We're not talking about some group that McCain supported, we're talking about at most a single individual, and do you know how hard it is to hear a single individual in a sea of a few hundred or a few thousand? Especially when that crowd is all saying something.



Best. Question. Ever.


Actually, it's more of I'm not always good at realizing when someone is being sarcastic, and my response would vary depending one whether or not it was.


Nothing I could say to this can top what jmac has just said. I refer you to him for a reply to this one. :xp:

I have eyes, and ears too, but there are at least two problems with your microphone argument:

Don't indicate which direction the sound came from.
They don't always accurately pick up what was said, especially in a crowd.


In fairness, the 2nd one isn't that common, but believe me with McCain's luck concerning microphones, and I did actually attend one of his rallies, it would be completely plausible. He had two microphones give out at that rally, which he cracked a joke about the microphones being courtesy of the Democrats.

The Secret Service investigated this, they have training, experience, etc. that you do not have. Any threat, towards a Presidential Candidate is taken extremely seriously by them, if they say there was nothing there, odds are there was nothing there.

Det. Bart Lasiter
12-04-2008, 08:02 PM
No when it is people bashing her, cheering about the fact she got hurt, etc., and when it was reported at that site (which the Democrat Party considers respectible), they refused to take it down. That makes it partially the direct responsibility of the Huffington Post.actually she took down the comments about nancy reagan as soon as they were reported.

mimartin
12-04-2008, 08:06 PM
Nothing I could say to this can top what jmac has just said. I refer you to him for a reply to this one.Well you could say, that the Secret Service are trained to determine if what someone says is a viable death threat or just some racist making an *** of themselves. I believe the Secret Service made the right decision about the remarks.

But you’re correct jmac said it best.

GarfieldJL
12-04-2008, 08:07 PM
actually she took down the comments about nancy reagan as soon as they were reported.

No she didn't because Bill O'Reilly had a field day with the story and then it was taken down. It had already been reported, it wasn't taken down till after Mr. O'Reilly called them on it.

Det. Bart Lasiter
12-04-2008, 08:46 PM
No she didn't because Bill O'Reilly had a field day with the story and then it was taken down. It had already been reported, it wasn't taken down till after Mr. O'Reilly called them on it.hey, you take everything you read in the blogs you link to at face value, so i think i'm allowed at least one lapse in judgment when it comes to believing ariana huffington when she said it was removed as soon as it was reported.

True_Avery
12-04-2008, 09:05 PM
I'll post this again considering you decided to ignore it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6BRmU9g1S9Y

-N*****s should be lynched anyways.
-keep the white house white f*** you obama and the b**** michelle n***** obama
-good going Bill to hell with that n*****
That video has racist comments under it. So, I propose we ask YouTube to shut down for being a white supremacy website that is for the lynching of african americans.

Right?

<Every insult towards the left and basically every post in this thread>
Your credibility and the credibility of anything you post from now on is Zero unless you can prove to me that there are no tasteless remarks about "liberals", "leftists", "socialists", etc on any conservative site anywhere.

Ugh, why am I feeding a troll.

CommanderQ
12-04-2008, 09:17 PM
Well, trolls are not meant to be fed, problem solved, but from what I've been reading here...the situation involving the "liberals" the "leftists" and the "socialists," is not heading in the best direction in Garfield's case. Everything is very much biased, therefore the extreme racist remarks on the videos and the numerous field days that the liberal media has had. Don't you think? There is a point-of-view to be seen with every word posted here or every video viewed.

Also, is youtube designed to shut down videos like the rascist one? Cuz' they should shut down alot of things from what I've seen...

Jae Onasi
12-05-2008, 03:47 AM
No when it is people bashing her, cheering about the fact she got hurt, etc., and when it was reported at that site (which the Democrat Party considers respectible), they refused to take it down. That makes it partially the direct responsibility of the Huffington Post.
No, it's still the responsibility of the person who posted it, and I'm sure Huffington has a waiver about that. Unless you're going to tell me that we're now absolving people of personal responsibility.
Has it occurred to you that it wasn't a refusal to take it down, but rather they just hadn't read the blog comments at that point? I don't read my blog comments every day, and I'm sure Huffington is busy with other things. Once O'Reilly pointed it out, the comments got deleted. Sure, they should have come down before that, but assuming it's intentional on her part rather than oversight is unfair.

Were the comments tasteless? Yes. Were the comments about Michael J. Fox tasteless? Yes. No one should have been laughing at Reagan's injury--that was just beyond the pale, and utterly heartless. However, I have plenty of very liberal friends and relatives who were just as appalled by those comments as my conservative friends/relatives. Extrapolating all Reagan-hate comments to all liberals is incorrect. With that kind of logic, all conservatives would be accused of being loony homophobes because the Westboro baptist people happen to vote Republican.

Likewise, no one should have been accusing Fox of intentionally withholding his meds so his disease looked worse, and that was just beyond tacky. Many of my patients with neuro problems have good days and bad days when the disease is better or worse and it's entirely unpredictable. He could have done everything absolutely correctly with his meds and still had a bad day.

I don't even want to dignify Savage's outrageous statements with an answer otherwise to say that he's not a conservative, he's a hate-monger who tries to use the conservative tenets to advance his vitriol and verbal poison.

GarfieldJL
12-05-2008, 10:19 AM
No, it's still the responsibility of the person who posted it, and I'm sure Huffington has a waiver about that. Unless you're going to tell me that we're now absolving people of personal responsibility.

I'm not absolving that individual of being responsible for their actions, but I'm also not going to absolve Huffington Post of chosing to support such behavior.


Has it occurred to you that it wasn't a refusal to take it down, but rather they just hadn't read the blog comments at that point? I don't read my blog comments every day, and I'm sure Huffington is busy with other things. Once O'Reilly pointed it out, the comments got deleted. Sure, they should have come down before that, but assuming it's intentional on her part rather than oversight is unfair.

If this was the only incident then you would have a point, but Bill O'Reilly had a whole list of these incidents, including one where someone was bashing Tony Snow whom had just died of cancer and celebrating the fact the man was dead.


Were the comments tasteless? Yes. Were the comments about Michael J. Fox tasteless? Yes. No one should have been laughing at Reagan's injury--that was just beyond the pale, and utterly heartless.


I'm not sure where Rush was coming from on his Michael J. Fox remarks, I do know there have been instances where Rush has been taken out of context or misquoted. If that's not the case I hope Rush appologized, I understand where they could have been made over stem-cell research which is an extremely touchy subject where people can easily take offense one way or the other, but I don't condone what was said if he actually said that.


However, I have plenty of very liberal friends and relatives who were just as appalled by those comments as my conservative friends/relatives. Extrapolating all Reagan-hate comments to all liberals is incorrect.

I'm saying far-left liberals that happen to be respected within the Democrat Party Leadership. I'm not referring to all liberals, I know there were quite a few liberals that were outraged, I'm not talking about them, I'm talking about the far-left nuts which I imagine you and your friends are not.


With that kind of logic, all conservatives would be accused of being loony homophobes because the Westboro baptist people happen to vote Republican.

I'll have to look up who they are, but the term homophobe has been thrown around way too much lately. Especially to criticize people that are against gay marriage, seriously they can come up with a new legal term that gives gay people the ability to form civil unions with the same rights as a married couple and just don't call it marriage.


Likewise, no one should have been accusing Fox of intentionally withholding his meds so his disease looked worse, and that was just beyond tacky. Many of my patients with neuro problems have good days and bad days when the disease is better or worse and it's entirely unpredictable. He could have done everything absolutely correctly with his meds and still had a bad day.


You raise a valid point in that regard.


I don't even want to dignify Savage's outrageous statements with an answer otherwise to say that he's not a conservative, he's a hate-monger who tries to use the conservative tenets to advance his vitriol and verbal poison.

Agreed, Savage is nuts, crazy, three-fries short of a happymeal, certifiably wacko.

That video has racist comments under it. So, I propose we ask YouTube to shut down for being a white supremacy website that is for the lynching of african americans.

Uh huh, and MSNBC is a valid source especially when it comes to Bill O'Reilly? Their hatred of Bill O'Reilly is well known.

Bill was referring to the rush to condemn Michelle Obama and that he wasn't going to join in on it without actually seeing some evidence. That is hardly being racist. The comments below the video should be reported and I imagine Youtube will do something about it.

Astor
12-05-2008, 10:34 AM
Uh huh, and MSNBC is a valid source especially when it comes to Bill O'Reilly? Their hatred of Bill O'Reilly is well known.

Conversely, O'Reilly's hatred of anyone who doesn't agree with him is well known.

GarfieldJL
12-05-2008, 04:49 PM
Conversely, O'Reilly's hatred of anyone who doesn't agree with him is well known.

He doesn't hate people that disagree with him, he has people on the Factor that disagree with him all the time, and he's had civil conversations. He just hates it when people try to give him the run around reverting to talking points instead of actually answering a question.

Though it was entertaining watching him go after Barney Frank. :D

Adavardes
12-05-2008, 05:51 PM
He doesn't hate people that disagree with him, he has people on the Factor that disagree with him all the time, and he's had civil conversations.

So you'll eat up whatever that man says, simply because of his monumentally conservative bias, validate a news station that is so exceptionally dominated by conservatives, it's not even funny, and then ignore anyone else. Clearly, this is a matter of what you want to hear, not what the truth really is.

GarfieldJL
12-05-2008, 05:55 PM
So you'll eat up whatever that man says, simply because of his monumentally conservative bias, and then ignore anyone else. Clearly, this is a matter of what you want to hear, not what the truth really is.

I've watched the man enough to be able to figure out most of his disagreements on the air aren't personal. The only group I think he hates quite frankly would probably be MSNBC, and in that case the feeling is apparently mutual.

He has liberals on all the time, they debate stuff sometimes the discussions get heated, but at the end of the day there doesn't tend to be any hard feelings.

True_Avery
12-06-2008, 01:30 AM
Uh huh, and MSNBC is a valid source especially when it comes to Bill O'Reilly? Their hatred of Bill O'Reilly is well known.
http://musingsandmutterings.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/02/red_herring2.gif

THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH MSNBC

The comment UNDER THE VIDEO have racist comments. My point is, if we are going to base an entire website and its admins on what its members post, then every site that has racist, etc comments should be treated the same way you've treated huffington post. If Youtube, Yahoo, Blogs, etc have a comment that is insensitive, it is entirely the fault of the admin for not being on 24/7 and reading every comment in every article they have ever posted and moderate, or else Bill will put them on his show and people like demand for the sites closure.

So, I'll say it AGAIN:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6BRmU9g1S9Y

-N*****s should be lynched anyways.
-keep the white house white f*** you obama and the b**** michelle n***** obama
-good going Bill to hell with that n*****
That video has racist comments under it. So, I propose we ask YouTube to shut down for being a white supremacy website that is for the lynching of african americans.

Right?