NationStates Jolt Archive

Here is a truly fine piece of bull if ever there was one (http://www.raidersnewsupdate.com/hughes.htm). Its about how so-called "anti-americanism" is effecting the impressive youth :roll: A claim that I personally find to be quite pathetic, if not outright stupid.

After 9-11 I noticed how Bush&Co are fond of using the "anti-american" label for anyone who opposses their view. One that has created quite a following among the conservative-extremists. :(

Its a strategy that Herr Hitler used himself quite proficiently. I believe it was in '37 or '39 when on his order two expositions were held. One that promoted "real german art", I know its laughable, and another that provided examples of "anti-german art". It should as come as no surprise that the later drew the largest crowd; people taking in their favorite artwork one last time before its destruction.

The author of the article also calls for " real Americans to rise up and speak up". It, of course, should as come as no surprise how "the real American" is defined; of west-european origin (WHITE SKIN ONLY), a 'good' catholic, straight, and always voting republican.

Anyways, the article made me laugh because it really couldn't be more pathetic, but it also scares me that loonies like that run loose and actually are allowed to vote. I suspect the later is something to be most scared about. :(

the person who wrote that story probably made it up on the fly as some sort of stick to beat liberals over the head with. i doubt the professor actually said that-

the person who wrote that story probably made it up on the fly as some sort of stick to beat liberals over the head with. i doubt the professor actually said that-

Why not? Its the truth. And isn't that what one is suppossed to teach? Or maybe teaching lies is common in the Land of Free Speech? :shock:

We're not anti-American. We're anti-capitalist and anti-ignorance.

We're not anti-American. We're anti-capitalist and anti-ignorance.

I know but try to tell them...

Here is a truly fine piece of bull if ever there was one (http://www.raidersnewsupdate.com/hughes.htm). Its about how so-called "anti-americanism" is effecting the impressive youth :roll: A claim that I personally find to be quite pathetic, if not outright stupid.

After 9-11 I noticed how Bush&Co are fond of using the "anti-american" label for anyone who opposses their view. One that has created quite a following among the conservative-extremists. :(

Its a strategy that Herr Hitler used himself quite proficiently. I believe it was in '37 or '39 when on his order two expositions were held. One that promoted "real german art", I know its laughable, and another that provided examples of "anti-german art". It should as come as no surprise that the later drew the largest crowd; people taking in their favorite artwork one last time before its destruction.

The author of the article also calls for " real Americans to rise up and speak up". It, of course, should as come as no surprise how "the real American" is defined; of west-european origin (WHITE SKIN ONLY), a 'good' catholic, straight, and always voting republican.

Anyways, the article made me laugh because it really couldn't be more pathetic, but it also scares me that loonies like that run loose and actually are allowed to vote. I suspect the later is something to be most scared about. :(

the two are un realated, this is an artical about the overwhelming liberal bias in our major educational institutions and it's right.

btw... most Catholics fall into the classic minority trade and end up block voting for the demicrats. becasue of abortion that's slowly changing but still, the majority of Catholics voted for gore in the last election.

We're not anti-American. We're anti-capitalist and anti-ignorance.

wouldn't the anti-ignorence stance be to have members of variying political view on your teaching staff and not just stack it far to the left becasue of your personal political views?

the two are un realated, this is an artical about the overwhelming liberal bias in our major educational institutions and it's right.

Which is no excuse for the conservative to go around accusing the liberal of being "anti-american". If they want to refute the arguments of the liberal they should stick to strong counter arguments, and nor seek refuge in petty name-calling. The later only shows the weakness of the case they are trying to make, whatever case that may be.

btw... most Catholics fall into the classic minority trade and end up block voting for the demicrats. becasue of abortion that's slowly changing but still, the majority of Catholics voted for gore in the last election.

Thanks for filling me in :)

Ignorance is stereotypically conservative, while its opposite, cynicism is associated with liberals. Conservatives ignore social inequality and the like while liberals complain about it.

the person who wrote that story probably made it up on the fly as some sort of stick to beat liberals over the head with. i doubt the professor actually said that-

Why not? Its the truth. And isn't that what one is suppossed to teach? Or maybe teaching lies is common in the Land of Free Speech? :shock:

That the Ten commandments are as dangerous as a bomb that could kill several hundred people? I doubt it-

They had those Commandments up there for years - it never affected my civil liberties- and i'm not even Christian.

"Anti-Americanism" is often little more than a slur used by conservatives to avoid havng to engage in rational debate and argument over the merits of a given issue. Clearly anti-Americanism exists, but the extent to which it does is often exaggerated to suit those having to defend US policies and values. Furthermore the term successfully entrenches a current brand of ideology by implying that the values implicitly being defended are somehow values which belong to the US rather than simply ones which they have adopted. It is also interesting to note that the Republican party seemed to have largely succeeded in distorting and realligning these values so that they are more in accordance with their own political objectives. When do you ever hear a Republican be called "anti-American", it happens to Democrats all the time.

"Anti-Americanism" is often little more than a slur used by conservatives to avoid havng to engage in rational debate and argument over the merits of a given issue. Clearly anti-Americanism exists, but the extent to which it does is often exaggerated to suit those having to defend US policies and values. Furthermore the term successfully entrenches a current brand of ideology by implying that the values implicitly being defended are somehow values which belong to the US rather than simply ones which they have adopted. It is also interesting to note that the Republican party seemed to have largely succeeded in distorting and realligning these values so that they are more in accordance with their own political objectives. When do you ever hear a Republican be called "anti-American", it happens to Democrats all the time.

yoiu wouldn't call the firm policy on looking back at any of the accomplishments of our white forfathers and dissmissing them as racist, sexist and built on the backs of other races just a little anti-American

"Anti-Americanism" is often little more than a slur used by conservatives to avoid havng to engage in rational debate and argument over the merits of a given issue. Clearly anti-Americanism exists, but the extent to which it does is often exaggerated to suit those having to defend US policies and values. Furthermore the term successfully entrenches a current brand of ideology by implying that the values implicitly being defended are somehow values which belong to the US rather than simply ones which they have adopted. It is also interesting to note that the Republican party seemed to have largely succeeded in distorting and realligning these values so that they are more in accordance with their own political objectives. When do you ever hear a Republican be called "anti-American", it happens to Democrats all the time.

yoiu wouldn't call the firm policy on looking back at any of the accomplishments of our white forfathers and dissmissing them as racist, sexist and built on the backs of other races just a little anti-American

Actually I would. This does not contradict anything I have said.

Who is it a "firm policy" of?

the person who wrote that story probably made it up on the fly as some sort of stick to beat liberals over the head with. i doubt the professor actually said that-

Why not? Its the truth. And isn't that what one is suppossed to teach? Or maybe teaching lies is common in the Land of Free Speech? :shock:

That the Ten commandments are as dangerous as a bomb that could kill several hundred people? I doubt it-

They had those Commandments up there for years - it never affected my civil liberties- and i'm not even Christian.

It is about seperation of State and Religion. And even though having the T.C. there will not kill anyone it still has no place in a state institution. I hope I do not have to remind you how detrimental religion based goverments are for the people they are suppossed to serve. I suspect it is exactly for this very reason that State and Religion were seperated by the founding fathers. And having the T.C. there sends out a message. The following: State and Religion are not seperated in the US.

Again, even though this does not kill people, it still is an assault on both the constitution and it promotes the potentialy dangerous message that the State's religion is christian. Potentialy dangerous because the non-christian american may end up feeling discriminated and get the impression that this is condoned, maybe even approved, by the goverment, hence internal unrest might result of this.

Another way to put it: how would you feel if rules that pertain specifically to the muslim religion were one day hanging on the door of the courtroom? I don't know about you, but as for me, I would feel rather intimidated by this.

Hmmmmmmm... well needless to say its published by bible beaters. It's not there fault that they have been brainwashed by the church. :roll: Any way the public education syestem really should not be biased in either way. It should be objective and fairly open minded to things. In fact we should probably ban politics from public schools, except colleges. It really seems to get in the way of education itself. I would know I have a horribly biased left-winger for a teacher and I'm lucky if I learn any thing from that class. Still, labeling conservitives as ignorant is just as bad as calling libs Anti americans, there just pro european :roll: . BTW, Capitlisim kicks ass.

It is about seperation of State and Religion. And even though having the T.C. there will not kill anyone it still has no place in a state institution. I hope I do not have to remind you how detrimental religion based goverments are for the people they are suppossed to serve. I suspect it is exactly for this very reason that State and Religion were seperated by the founding fathers. And having the T.C. there sends out a message. The following: State and Religion are not seperated in the US.

Again, even though this does not kill people, it still is an assault on both the constitution and it promotes the potentialy dangerous message that the State's religion is christian. Potentialy dangerous because the non-christian american may end up feeling discriminated and get the impression that this is condoned, maybe even approved, by the goverment, hence internal unrest might result of this.
Actually, having the TC in itself wasn't unconstitutional, I think its the fact that he was unwilling to put any other monuments/statues in the courthouse in the same kind of grandeur that the TC was put in which was unconstitutional.

the person who wrote that story probably made it up on the fly as some sort of stick to beat liberals over the head with. i doubt the professor actually said that-

Why not? Its the truth. And isn't that what one is suppossed to teach? Or maybe teaching lies is common in the Land of Free Speech? :shock:

That the Ten commandments are as dangerous as a bomb that could kill several hundred people? I doubt it-

They had those Commandments up there for years - it never affected my civil liberties- and i'm not even Christian.

It is about seperation of State and Religion. And even though having the T.C. there will not kill anyone it still has no place in a state institution. I hope I do not have to remind you how detrimental religion based goverments are for the people they are suppossed to serve. I suspect it is exactly for this very reason that State and Religion were seperated by the founding fathers. And having the T.C. there sends out a message. The following: State and Religion are not seperated in the US.

Again, even though this does not kill people, it still is an assault on both the constitution and it promotes the potentialy dangerous message that the State's religion is christian. Potentialy dangerous because the non-christian american may end up feeling discriminated and get the impression that this is condoned, maybe even approved, by the goverment, hence internal unrest might result of this.

I know how bad governments based on religioun are- however just because theres the Ten Commandmentss outside doesn't mean the court makes its decisions based on religion-and that's all that matters. You can't erase America's past -which has like it or not, been mostly christian.

I would have an objection if it was being put in there now but since its part of the history of that court -let it be!

I'm a die-hard liberal and I'm most definitely not "anti-american." I love this country, that's why I care what goes on in the government.

We're not anti-American. We're anti-capitalist and anti-ignorance.

How can you claim to be anti-Capitalist and anti-ignorant? To go against Capitalism is pretty ignorant. How can you kill that which has been fine tuned through the centuries to do nothing but survive? You just can't do it. Now if you wanted to go against Communism, I can understand that.

Silly people.

I'm not a very big fan of all-out capitalism, because I know those at the top will just screw those at the bottom, and also work to ensure that no one else gets rich. the natural flow is toward monopoly in capitalism. However, capitalism, if it is properly controlled to make sure that everyone is doing at least 'ok' can be made to work pretty well. Capitalism with strong government regulation to ensure that all citizens are treated fairly is so far the best system we can come up with. Communism is great on paper, but in practice it just does not work, simple as that.

Government regulation is wrong in most cases.

Case in point: Bell Telephone. It was great and it was cheap. Government decided it was a monopoly, broke it up into Baby Bells, and the prices went up for service. Government said the anti-trust suit would help the people.

A monopoly isn't always bad. In fact, if you would consider Microsoft, it can be sufferable. Microsoft did manage to bring the cost down for its products every year. Government steps in again, and things just go nuts.

The beauty of Capitalism is that it regulates itself - if you don't believe me, just picture what would happen if your Krispy Kreme suddenly cost more than it already does. The proof is in the dough.

Notice that the article cites David Horowitz as a credible source. Horowitz is, of course, a venom-spewing right-wing racist ideologue. Really. I wouldn't even call him a conservative, because that would be an insult to conservatives everywhere. (If you know me, you'll know that when I'm doing conservatives a favor, something is going on). Horowitz is a paranoid fascist, who is convinced that there are Marxist conspiracies everywhere in America, and that the Communists are about to take over.
This is only one strike against the article. There are several more. I'm sure you all noticed them, so I won't repeat. (That, and it's about midnight here and I've had a helluva day).

-Mentho

Communism is great on paper, but in practice it just does not work, simple as that.

I would not even give it that. Any system that is based on equal outcome does not look good on paper to me. In practice it has no chance of working anyways.

Government regulation is wrong in most cases.

Case in point: Bell Telephone. It was great and it was cheap. Government decided it was a monopoly, broke it up into Baby Bells, and the prices went up for service. Government said the anti-trust suit would help the people.

A monopoly isn't always bad. In fact, if you would consider Microsoft, it can be sufferable. Microsoft did manage to bring the cost down for its products every year. Government steps in again, and things just go nuts.

The beauty of Capitalism is that it regulates itself - if you don't believe me, just picture what would happen if your Krispy Kreme suddenly cost more than it already does. The proof is in the dough.

how about this... the energy industry. as soon as it is deregulated in California, everything goes nuts. Thankfully, my town has public power, so we don't have to worry about it. Capitalism does not regulate itself. that is bull. that is what the opponants of the child labor laws said. that is what the opponants of the food and drug act said. that is what standard oil said. when corporations are left to themselves, they screw people over to make money. they don't care who it hurts. it's the government's job to care about the hard-working guy at the bottom who might get fired in the event of a merger.
Krispy Kreme? I don't eat donuts very much, but central donuts (a local donut shop) are better, though they might go out of business soon.

How can you claim to be anti-Capitalist and anti-ignorant? To go against Capitalism is pretty ignorant. How can you kill that which has been fine tuned through the centuries to do nothing but survive? You just can't do it. Now if you wanted to go against Communism, I can understand that.

Silly people.

<Applause>

Though I don't believe in unrestricted capitalism- certain services such as utilities, education, defence and public transport may have to be run at a loss in order to protect the interests of the people and as such should be run by the government. If they can be run at a profit (and I would argue that any money put into education is not a loss but an investment) so much the better. Governments should also act as a saftey net to aid those who do not have the ability to prosper due to lack of education, opportunity or physical and mental shortcomings.

Callisdrun, you can't use California as an example. Your state has elected two actors to be governors. It's also the state that is the residence of Michael Jackson. And gay marriage mania. And a large chunk of its original population came from gold miners.

And Capitalism can regulate itself. People will eventually get fed up with paying huge prices and find another business, a cheaper business. I'll get back to this.

Yaaay, definition time, yaaaay!

Lets go to Dictionary.com and look up Anti-American.

Opposed or hostile to the government, official policies, or people of the United States.

So before you liberals complain about being called anti-American, know what it means. That's right, the simple "I hate Bush" makes you anti-American. MUAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!! Don't you just love definitions?

Yaaay, definition time, yaaaay!

Lets go to Dictionary.com and look up Anti-American.

Opposed or hostile to the government, official policies, or people of the United States.

So before you liberals complain about being called anti-American, know what it means. That's right, the simple "I hate Bush" makes you anti-American. MUAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!! Don't you just love definitions?

Ah, so the founding fathers of the country were also anti-Americans? Bit of a conundrum, don't you think?

Seeing as how they aren't alive to give us their opinion on the government, it's policies, or the American people, we'll never know. But, by definition, they very well could be.

[quote="Akilliam"]Government regulation is wrong in most cases.


A monopoly isn't always bad. In fact, if you would consider Microsoft, it can be sufferable. Microsoft did manage to bring the cost down for its products every year. Government steps in again, and things just go nuts.

Microsoft?? You use that as a *good* example? No offence, but what have you been smoking? The fact that Microsoft can get away with making such ridiculously bad products is testament to the fact that unrestrained capitalism does not regulate itself. Trust me, I used to have Windows ME before it finally fried my hardrive.

Yaaay, definition time, yaaaay!

Lets go to Dictionary.com and look up Anti-American.

Opposed or hostile to the government, official policies, or people of the United States.

So before you liberals complain about being called anti-American, know what it means. That's right, the simple "I hate Bush" makes you anti-American. MUAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!! Don't you just love definitions?

So that would mean all the right-wingers who hated Clinton were every bit as anti-american. :D Boy do I love hypocrisy.

And yes, I can in fact use California as an example. Keep in mind that both actors elected are conservatives, so I don't see how that's relevant.
In some industries, people can't just "find a business." Not when one business controls all, or nearly all, the hardware necessary. Luckily, my hometown, do to its always having had public power, did not get screwed by the energy corporations. And what does Jackson living here have to do with anything? How is it our fault that that... thing chose to live here?
Do you think the meat-packing industry would have cleaned up its act had the government not done anything? Of course they wouldn't have, it would have cut into their profit margin. Do you think any manufacturer, operating purely from a capitalistic sense, would choose to stay in the United States if it could simply close down their shops here and relocate to cambodia or somewhere else where labor is a fraction of the cost because the government there doesn't care how the people live? Of course they wouldn't.
Also, in capitalism, every company's true long-term goal is to dominate the market. Taken to the extreme, that means total monopoly. That means that the consumer can't choose another business to buy from, because there would be no other business. If Microsoft, say, could come to dominate the software industry in every respect, total contol, then they could simply release basically the same product with no real improvement because they'd be the the only ones making operating systems. The consumer would have a choice, but that choice would be between having a microsoft product, or not having that type of product at all. For capitalism to work, there must be competition, the government must ensure that competition continues. At the same time, the government must also make sure that business is not screwing its workers.
The reason communism does not work on a large scale is because it allows people to get away with being lazy and getting something for nothing. In capitalism, you must put something into the system (work) to get something out (money, and hence goods and services). The government, however, should always keep a watchful eye, as corporations will do anything, no matter how immoral, to increase profit.
Capitalism does not, will not, and has never regulated itself. Just ask a child laborer in Bangladesh, or look at the horrible institution of child labor that existed in the late 19th century in our own United States before the government stepped in to stop it. Or the complete lack of safety standards that existed before the government imposed them. Or the 12 hour factory work day. How is this self-regulation?
Capitalism works, but it only works for everyone as long as the government is not afraid to get mean about making clear what is, and what is not acceptable in the name of pursuing profit. Still, it's the best we've been able to come up with so far.

Yaaay, definition time, yaaaay!

Lets go to Dictionary.com and look up Anti-American.

Opposed or hostile to the government, official policies, or people of the United States.

So before you liberals complain about being called anti-American, know what it means. That's right, the simple "I hate Bush" makes you anti-American. MUAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!! Don't you just love definitions?

A word has usually two meanings. The connotative and denotative meaning. The denotative has a meaning that is NOT in the dictionary.

I take it you got the point. :roll: