I hate America am I cool now guys?: Philosophy Forums

Calendar

Quick Links open

New Posts Member List

Help

Philosophy Forums » Community / Off Topic » I hate America am I cool now guys? » I hate America am I cool now guys?

I hate America am I cool now guys?
swim back over the atlantic if you don't like it.

Page: 1 2 3

I hate America am I cool now guys?

swstephe
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 20, 2006
Location: borneo island
Total Topics: 22
Total Posts: 1491

Posted 04/27/08 - 08:57 AM:	#51
cortes wrote: Anyone who yearns for the '60s and quotes Noam Chomsky fits the pattern I've seen pretty closely. I think I got a picture of you now. Remember, though, if you get caught with pot over there its the death penalty. Don't smoke pot, don't smoke or even drink, (its a dry country anyway). Sure you got the right portion of the 60's? The beginning was quite different than the end. cortes wrote: Chomsky is the classic example of someone who gets famous by broadcasting to the world that his freedom of speech is being supressed by his enemies. For the longest time, I didn't even know he was political. I grew up on military bases and they don't carry his political works in the libraries. I only knew of his linguistic theories. Was there an embedded political message? I also read a lot of Mario Pei. cortes wrote: The first question we ought to ask is what is the nature of people who describe themselves as America-haters? And there are plenty. Then we can ask are there others who are less forthright about admitting that they hate America. Would, say, someone who roots for America to be defeated in war be fairly termed an America-hater even he avoids so labeling himself? And there are plenty of those too. In college, I was interested in military strategy and a member of the "war gamers" club. If we ever failed to send a member of our club to the inter-club council, we were immediately shut down by the "stop the war machine" club -- whose members might be much closer to what you imagine people from the (latter) 60's look like. I grew up on military bases, so I belonged to a fairly close group of people. It is something that is hard to convey to people who grew up in civilian environments, (I still remember the heavy environment after a training accident -- the tension as people waited for the news of what happened -- the widow and children packing up for the move home, the memorials and long serious talks as their friends deal with the tragedy. I still remember wearing those bracelets for POW's in Vietnam -- they weren't "support the troops", they were the names of people we knew and the date that they had last been heard from. I still remembered the names when I finally visited "The Wall" in Washington DC a few years back, (some were never found). So I analyze America's move strategically. I would wish that America had never entered Iraq as it was plain to see it was a strategic blunder. It is the classic example of overextending your troops beyond adequate resources, without international support, without a clear exit plan or conditions which respected the local populace. It is hard to know who is to really blame -- would a military leader that sends his troops into such a disaster commit treason by refusing orders, or by following orders while realizing the fallacy? Who is the better commander? Historically, when a commander orders troops into a disaster, they either resign or kill themselves. Once they enter, though, I could only hope that it was over as soon as possible. If it were me, I would have left as soon as it was over. I'm a bit confused why it is called a "war". Currently it is an "occupation" by a foreign power. The very justification for the formation of the United States in the first place. Occupations are difficult to maintain even from close proximity, (think of France occupying Spain, or Germany occupying France). Extremely difficult at long distance, unless there is a huge difference in technology, (like India and the Americas). cortes wrote: So Chomsky does raise a legitimate question here: what does the term mean? Is it meaningless? Or is it a useful label? What is America? A state? A culture? A people? A place? To repeat my observation, what I have noticed is that those who call themselves America-Haters and those who root for America to be defeated in war want America to be more like Europe. It is not simply random criticisms of American policy. And those who say they love America tend to prefer that America be less like Europe. (As for the claim that the term "anti-American" is drawn from totalitarianism, the concept of treason is as old as civilization.) Which war -- the "war on terror", is just like the "war on drugs", the "war on poverty", the "war on communism". None of those wars can ever be won. They can only be fought or lost. Is it just rhetoric to justify harsher controls? Does anyone seriously believe there are winning conditions? So the real choice is between fighting and quitting. I don't consider it "losing", but choosing the right fights. The current fighting is a complete waste of human lives and valuable resources. Is the "prize" worth the cost? If so, why not make the real "prize" public? cortes wrote: This is at leat not as absurd a claim but it is still factually incorrect. In fact, the truth is more opposite. What distinguishes America from Europe is that America is less totalitarian. America-Lovers generally love this fact. They want lower taxes, less regulation, more freedom, etc. What they tend to "transfer" to the state is the "authority" to make war to preserve this and other benefits of being American. Interestingly, this was the original concept of the US Constitution, that the Federal Government should be primarily concerned with foreign matters and that the states should handle domestic matters. That is not the European model, though, and that is not what America-haters want. But transferring authority to the state is making America more totalitarian, not less. America has lower taxes, but it taxes its citizens and even alien residents no matter where they go. They get spied on and regulated in economic monopolies. America is a bit funny. It is the technologically and economically advanced, but culturally and socially backwards. A good example, (although trivial), is that America helped develop the metric system, but is the last country to refuse to adopt its standard use. So, if I wish America would finally take economic advantage of adopting exportable standards is actually wishing America would follow through on adopting an American invention, not being more like Europe, (and reject its reliance on British Imperial system). America was slower than Europe to make slavery illegal or be tolerant of atheists and homosexuals, (many of my teachers in Europe were gay Americans escaping to a more tolerant society). cortes wrote: BTW, the most fascist presidents in American history have been Democrats most notably Woodrow Wilson and FDR. Noam Chomsky, (and I), would agree with you. He refers to "Wilsonian politics", (that America has a noble duty to police the rest of the world), very negatively. Clinton was doing a lot of bad things to other countries -- the bombing of Iraq and Kosovo. In another thread, I explored whether to be neutral by not voting for Republican or Democrat out of principle, or to vote for the enemy of the worst of the two. cortes wrote: It is true that Americans have made an official sport of hating the French. But why is this? Because from the French Revolution forward the French have come to symbolize that which is most unAmerican. If America-Haters love Europe it is France and French intellecutalism that is almost always at the center of their love. (But note too that hating the French is an Anglo tradition stretching back to the time when England and France were rival powers.) I bring up France because it commits the fallacy of confusing a people with a particular political competitiveness. The biggest fallacy is to assume that everyone is the same throughout the country. People in New York are different than people in California. There are reasons to not like one or the other groups of people, (for Americans), and I've found it the same in every country no matter how small. I lived for a while in Singapore -- a very tiny city-state -- but even there you could see a vast difference, (and reasons for "hating"), one particular aspect.
_____________________ A software developer is someone who, when you tell them to "go to hell", they are more worried about the "goto".

cortes
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 25, 2005
Total Topics: 36
Total Posts: 1258

Posted 04/27/08 - 09:36 AM:	#52
swstephe wrote: So I analyze America's move strategically. I would wish that America had never entered Iraq as it was plain to see it was a strategic blunder. It is the classic example of overextending your troops beyond adequate resources, without international support, without a clear exit plan or conditions which respected the local populace. It is hard to know who is to really blame -- would a military leader that sends his troops into such a disaster commit treason by refusing orders, or by following orders while realizing the fallacy? Who is the better commander? Historically, when a commander orders troops into a disaster, they either resign or kill themselves. If you are a student of Ameican military history you will immediately recognize the pattern of American victories: Step 1, get butts kicked. Step 2, figure out how to fight, Step 3, win. The problem with Vietnam is that America stopped at step 2. It's really off-topic here to analyze what went wrong in Iraq and what ought to be done there but I'm personally pretty satisfied with the way things are going. The British rule of thumb was that insurgencies took about 10 years to defeat. And while the US military is strained, it is also honed. I'm all for abolishing a few federal departments and programs to move more resources to the military but, again as a military historian, you should recognize that American troops have never been particularly well equiped; by historical standards the US Army has never been better than it is today. swstephe wrote: Once they enter, though, I could only hope that it was over as soon as possible. If it were me, I would have left as soon as it was over. I'm a bit confused why it is called a "war". Currently it is an "occupation" by a foreign power. The very justification for the formation of the United States in the first place. Occupations are difficult to maintain even from close proximity, (think of France occupying Spain, or Germany occupying France). Extremely difficult at long distance, unless there is a huge difference in technology, (like India and the Americas). Among America-lovers there is a divergencce of opinion that I would categorize as follows: 1) Make the world more American. 2) Withdraw from the world and let them go to hell. 3) Fight only those wars/battles overseas that protect American interests. swstephe wrote: Which war -- the "war on terror", is just like the "war on drugs", the "war on poverty", the "war on communism". None of those wars can ever be won. They can only be fought or lost. Is it just rhetoric to justify harsher controls? Does anyone seriously believe there are winning conditions? So the real choice is between fighting and quitting. I don't consider it "losing", but choosing the right fights. The current fighting is a complete waste of human lives and valuable resources. Is the "prize" worth the cost? If so, why not make the real "prize" public? If the war in Iraq accomplishes nothing more than to keep the terrorists busy over there then it is worth it. swstephe wrote: I bring up France because it commits the fallacy of confusing a people with a particular political competitiveness. The biggest fallacy is to assume that everyone is the same throughout the country. People in New York are different than people in California. There are reasons to not like one or the other groups of people, (for Americans), and I've found it the same in every country no matter how small. I lived for a while in Singapore -- a very tiny city-state -- but even there you could see a vast difference, (and reasons for "hating"), one particular aspect. People vary but that doesn't prevent us from noticing commonalities and patterns. Singaporeans are, by and large, kiasu. That doesn't mean each and every one of them are.
_____________________ Copyright (c) 2008 Hernan Cortes, Sociedad de los Conquistadores. cortes@conquistador.org http://www.conquistador.org

Floyd
Cool

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Dec 16, 2003
Total Topics: 31
Total Posts: 1964

Last Blog: Women’s Pay Key to Child Poverty

Posted 04/27/08 - 10:38 AM:	#53
In regards to the debate you all are having, I think we would better understand the so-called anti-Americans and pro-Americans if we applied the principle of charity to their supposed ideas, beliefs and arguments. I think otherwise we run the risk of lumping masses of people and ideas into a single title and then dismissing them all by pointing out the supposed irrationality or falsehood of the viewpoint(s) by judging them without charity. By the way, Cortes, I love that picture you posted! It literally made me laugh out loud.
_____________________ Short and to the point. \| Online Philosophy Club \| Book & Reading Forums \| My Philosophy Articles "Only the descent into the hell of self-knowledge can pave the way to godliness." ~Immanuel Kant

cortes
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 25, 2005
Total Topics: 36
Total Posts: 1258

Posted 04/27/08 - 11:21 AM:	#54
Floyd wrote: In regards to the debate you all are having, I think we would better understand the so-called anti-Americans and pro-Americans if we applied the principle of charity to their supposed ideas, beliefs and arguments. I think otherwise we run the risk of lumping masses of people and ideas into a single title and then dismissing them all by pointing out the supposed irrationality or falsehood of the viewpoint(s) by judging them without charity. I think this is the clearest statement of my claim: cortes wrote: Here is a simple test of my theory: next time you hear an American trying to be cool by saying he hates America or that he wishes America would lose some war, as him if he thinks America should have higher taxes. Ask him if it should offer more welfare programs. Ask him if he thinks Americe needs more gun control and more government oversight of corporations. I'm willing to bet you will get a yes on all points. Does that meet your request?
_____________________ Copyright (c) 2008 Hernan Cortes, Sociedad de los Conquistadores. cortes@conquistador.org http://www.conquistador.org

Tobias
metaphysical exorcist

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Feb 17, 2003
Location: The world has moved on
Total Topics: 52
Total Posts: 4872

2 of 2 people found this post helpful Posted 04/27/08 - 12:45 PM:	#55
So first note the title of this thread, this is a thread about America-Haters, about people who think they are cool because they hate America. Now, all of the sudden, everyone is trying to pretend that nobody really hates America. Then argue with the OP! I argue with you because you hold that every American who likes America to be more like Europe is an America hater. See here: ".... who would prefer a land of equality modeled on Europe. These are the American America-haters." I like to point out that some Americans might prefer there country to be more like Europe and still not hate America. I am sure they too like some things in their country. Even if they want America to be like Europe, why would that constitute hatred of America? Such an overdrawn claim. I know Dutch people who would like to see Holland to be more like they consider the US to be. Are they Holland haters? I also argue with you because you imply people that do not support America in war (again which war, where war?) are America haters. This way you identify being American as being sympathetic to its military might whatever the cause of using it. See here: [Then we can ask are there others who are less forthright about admitting that they hate America. Would, say, someone who roots for America to be defeated in war be fairly termed an America-hater even he avoids so labeling himself? Those two pillars of argument are indeed as Chomsky would have it taken from the lexicon of totalitarianism. A. because you think that there is something uniquely and specially American and if you would like the country to be more like another country or continent, than you are 'unamerican' or an America hater. This identification of people with a unique identity embodied by the state they live in is a fascist spear point. A second fascist spear point is identification of that aforementioned state with its military might. Since you claim that an American should, if he or she is to be considered an American, support the US war effort unconditionally, your rhetoric also matches this qualification. I argue with these points of yours because they leave a fascist taste in my mouth which I don't like, and consider dangerous. The whole point of appealing to International Law is to stop Americans from being American. Otherwise it would be sufficient to appeal to American law. US public law doesn't regulate the behaviour of states toward each other. The US legislator and therefore sovereign will of the US people have sogned such treaties as the treaty against torture, the Declaration of the UN, the Geneva convention. So this argument dear sir is bollocks besides being a total non sequitur. Now you are arguing that there are no American ideals and no European ideals, no "essense" to either, only "social climate". What rubbish. What ever happend to the concept of culture? Not at all. I always thought that the strength of US culture lies in its diversity and its ability to mix different opinions, races and cultures. But by branding some opinions 'un American' you in fact negate you own. Culture changes as did the culture of the US. Otherwise it would be the same culture of the 16th century mostly protestant Europeans that came to live in that place. There are of course broadly defined ideals, but in countries which are modernised and have unrestricted access to information these ideals seem not to be applicable to every person, or even a majority. So no, there is nothing 'essential' about culture. Bad news for fascists but alas. What you consider American other Americans might noy consider American at all. The question is what is the direction that such people wish to move the "social climate"? Is it merely less war? No. What I noted from the start is that people who describe themselves as America-Haters (or who root for America to lose in wars) are generally the same people who want America to be more like Europe, i.e. higher taxes and more regulation...more totalitarian. Maybe they want a different economic regime in adition to less wars. Oooohhhh. This doesn't make them A. America haters per se or B. totalitarian since totalitarianism is not equivalent to social democracy. I have outlined what totalitarianism amounts to above. Suffice to say it should be total, so not only limited to the economic sphere. They are appealing, rather, to the centrality of government in Europe. To its totalitarian ideals. Also having a central government is not totalitarian. It depends on the actions of said government. The under the skin racism is the only trait of Europeans that I can equate with totalitarian thinking and even that is remote, bad as it is. This is your original thesis: The Americans who hate America are the ones who wish America was more like Europe. And so? This means nothing. Some people that hate america might want it to be like "Europe", ill defined as that concept may be. What do you want to say with this? Even if everyone that claims to hate America, though I guess there won't be many that indeed hate America since it is quite inane, feel that the US should be more like Europe, so what? You create a dichotomy and think it is unamerican to want to be like Europe. It is not, just like it is not unEuropean to look at the US and the good things coming out of it and its culture. The annoying thing about being is such arguments is that it easily seems as if I perosnally hate America because I am arguing against those that love it unconditionally. (in general, Cortes doesn't he holds another view) I wonder why people start bitching about other people who bitch about the country they live in. It happens here too. "Huh if you don't like Holland, move somewhere else" It is a caveman attitude and that is why I argue. Come on, some people want to be cool and act as if they hate America. Some people want to be cool and loudly proclaim they love it. What is the big deal here? The only reason people start threats about it is because they feel the other side insulted them or should think differently, but why, both are right as far as I am concerned. Regards Tobi Edited by Tobias on 04/27/08 - 12:58 PM
_____________________ The power of Kant compels you The power of Kant compels you The power of Kant compels you "Ik draag op mijn borsten een sleutel van goud"

cortes
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 25, 2005
Total Topics: 36
Total Posts: 1258

Posted 04/27/08 - 01:19 PM:	#56
Tobias wrote: I argue with you because you hold that every American who likes America to be more like Europe is an America hater. See here: ".... who would prefer a land of equality modeled on Europe. These are the American America-haters." I like to point out that some Americans might prefer there country to be more like Europe and still not hate America. I am sure they too like some things in their country. Even if they want America to be like Europe, why would that constitute hatred of America? Such an overdrawn claim. I know Dutch people who would like to see Holland to be more like they consider the US to be. Are they Holland haters? I also argue with you because you imply people that do not support America in war (again which war, where war?) are America haters. This way you identify being American as being sympathetic to its military might whatever the cause of using it. My claim was in the other direction, see above. However, it does stand to reason that if Amerirca-haters love European higher taxes and welfare that people who love European higher taxes and welfare are more likely to hate America, depending of course on the proporation of each. Tobias wrote: Those two pillars of argument are indeed as Chomsky would have it taken from the lexicon of totalitarianism. A. because you think that there is something uniquely and specially American and if you would like the country to be more like another country or continent, than you are 'unamerican' or an America hater. This identification of people with a unique identity embodied by the state they live in is a fascist spear point. Chomsky is welcome to his opinion but the fact remains that there is an American culture and that some love that culture and others hate it. To call this fascist is to reduce fascism to silliness. Tobias wrote: Not at all. I always thought that the strength of US culture lies in its diversity and its ability to mix different opinions, races and cultures. Suddenly you recognize that there is an Ameican culture? You fascist. Anyone who advocates American diversity and mixture of opinion must be a fascist too. But, no, the American tradition has been generally to welcome foreigners to become American and to minimize government control in general and control of culture and society in particular. Tobias wrote: Culture changes as did the culture of the US. Otherwise it would be the same culture of the 16th century mostly protestant Europeans that came to live in that place. There are of course broadly defined ideals, but in countries which are modernised and have unrestricted access to information these ideals seem not to be applicable to every person, or even a majority. The question, as always, is what to change and what to keep. What America-Lovers generally want to keep, and what America-Haters most wante to destroy, is the American tradition of self-reliance. Tobias wrote: Maybe they want a different economic regime in adition to less wars. Oooohhhh. This doesn't make them A. America haters per se See above. The correlation I claimed, and which nobody has yet contradicted, is that those who describe themselves as America-Haters and those who root for America to lose wars do, as you say, want a "different economic regime", i.e. a more socialist one. Are you trying to dispute this observation? Or are you excusing it? Tobias wrote: or B. totalitarian since totalitarianism is not equivalent to social democracy. I have outlined what totalitarianism amounts to above. Suffice to say it should be total, so not only limited to the economic sphere. What non-economic activity to Americans require more permission from their government to perform than Europeans? You seem to have conceded the case on economics. Tobias wrote: Also having a central government is not totalitarian. It depends on the actions of said government. The under the skin racism is the only trait of Europeans that I can equate with totalitarian thinking and even that is remote, bad as it is. Sadly, no. The essential concept of totalitarianism, as you yourself correctly described, is state control of society. Not racism. Racism could be directed by the state but more often it is simply an artifact of culture. As I said, America is less totalitarian than Europe. Tobias wrote: This is your original thesis: cortes wrote: The Americans who hate America are the ones who wish America was more like Europe. And so? This means nothing. Again, you seem to be accepting my claim and only arguing about the implications of it. Can we at least agree that the above statement is true?
_____________________ Copyright (c) 2008 Hernan Cortes, Sociedad de los Conquistadores. cortes@conquistador.org http://www.conquistador.org

cortes
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 25, 2005
Total Topics: 36
Total Posts: 1258

Posted 04/27/08 - 01:46 PM:	#57
For the benefit of those who are not familiar with that European contribution to politics, totalitarianism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Totalitarianism
_____________________ Copyright (c) 2008 Hernan Cortes, Sociedad de los Conquistadores. cortes@conquistador.org http://www.conquistador.org

Kiyarasabel
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 28, 2008
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 1

Posted 04/28/08 - 05:53 PM:	#58
Ahem I hate the current regime of the United States Government, however I do love what my country is supposed to stand for. There are many asshats controlling the media, a total of six corporations control everything we see on TV, the radio or in movies. They pacify some by selling them their protest, even while promoting those who are fully brainwashed into believing the regimes bullshit. Those of us who endeavor to speak out against them and take ACTION are condemned as terrorists and whackjobs, this is not the country that our forefathers committed treason for. This is not what america is supposed to be. Those of us who are aware are the ones branded unpatriotic, the ones of us who actually know the definition of the word.

cortes
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 25, 2005
Total Topics: 36
Total Posts: 1258

Posted 04/28/08 - 06:30 PM:	#59
Kiyarasabel wrote: Ahem I hate the current regime of the United States Government, however I do love what my country is supposed to stand for. At the risk of encouraging fascism, what would you suggest America is "supposed to stand for"? And, just out of curiosity, do you agree or disagre with these statements: 1) America should raise taxes. 2) America should have universal health insurance or publicly funded health care. 3) Americe needs more gun control 4) America needs more regulatory oversight of corporations. Be honest, please.
_____________________ Copyright (c) 2008 Hernan Cortes, Sociedad de los Conquistadores. cortes@conquistador.org http://www.conquistador.org

swstephe
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 20, 2006
Location: borneo island
Total Topics: 22
Total Posts: 1491

Posted 04/28/08 - 08:18 PM:	#60
cortes wrote: If you are a student of Ameican military history you will immediately recognize the pattern of American victories: Step 1, get butts kicked. Step 2, figure out how to fight, Step 3, win. The problem with Vietnam is that America stopped at step 2. It's really off-topic here to analyze what went wrong in Iraq and what ought to be done there but I'm personally pretty satisfied with the way things are going. The British rule of thumb was that insurgencies took about 10 years to defeat. And while the US military is strained, it is also honed. I'm all for abolishing a few federal departments and programs to move more resources to the military but, again as a military historian, you should recognize that American troops have never been particularly well equiped; by historical standards the US Army has never been better than it is today. That strategy is a gambler's fallacy. Expecting or depending that a "law of averages" or some kind of pattern or system will work better than a real analysis of resources, commitment and the fact that the enemy is studying the same book. If an ally/player made, (in my opinion), a foolish move, I would warn them. If the player thought I "hated" them or wanted them to lose by not encouraging them or questioning their moves -- I think I would find that pretty juvenile. I'm trying to get them to rethink their methods and priorities for our mutual gains. Its not about winning or losing, but picking your fights. cortes wrote: Among America-lovers there is a divergencce of opinion that I would categorize as follows: 1) Make the world more American. 2) Withdraw from the world and let them go to hell. 3) Fight only those wars/battles overseas that protect American interests. If the war in Iraq accomplishes nothing more than to keep the terrorists busy over there then it is worth it. Had to read that a couple of times. My head exploded and I couldn't find all the pieces. To put it in perspective, what if I said we should put Chicago under martial law to "keep the Mafia busy"? That demonstrates a extremely oversimplified view of the problem. I would guess that Osama bin Laden must be counted clearly in the America-lover's club, (maybe not explicitly to close friends). After all the money the CIA gave him, they validate his organization's threat and turn public opinion in his favor. The war succeeded in getting previously neutral or lazy people to join him or give him money. I remember the reports from Indonesia of hundreds of people signing up, (or just swearing to fight), against the Americans after the invasion of Iraq, (most of it was symbolic as a lot of those people couldn't afford the trip). I would guess he doesn't want America to lose the war just yet. It is much more useful to keep the public resentment building up and draining the resources of their enemy -- all the while knowing that America also follows a pattern of getting tired of war relatively quickly. I am guessing that very few people came up with this idea independently. I think it is just an absurdity that the government spews out and people recite out of national pride and a habit of not questioning authority. That's totalitarianism. Remember that old list: the "14 points of fascism" 1. Powerful and Continuing Nationalism - America, love it or leave it. 2. Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights - We can do what we want to them because they hate America. 3. Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause - People who hate America are aiding the "terrorists". 4. Supremacy of the Military - People who love America support the troops, people who hate America want us to lose, so don't bring the troops home, (and deny them benefits, extend their tours of duty, don't give them adequate armor, etc, etc). 5. Rampant Sexism - People who hate America are "sissies" for not wanting to fight. 6. Controlled Mass Media - People who hate America are in control of the media, (despite the media refusing to report too much bad news). 7. Obsession with National Security - Defeating terrorism is the reason that justifies everything else. 8. Religion and Government are Intertwined - How much of America's current policy is motivated by Evangelical eschatology, (uncritically protecting Israel from its local enemies, for example). 9. Corporate Power is Protected - Protecting "American interests" overseas, which usually weighs heavily on big American corporations and international resource control. 10. Labor Power is Suppressed - the economic downturn in America is only temporary, we are at war, so stop whining and accept whatever wages you get. 11. Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts - Why are all the "smart" people America haters? Why are the arts so left-wing? Must be a conspiracy. 12. Obsession with Crime and Punishment - Wiretapping, torture, incarceration without charges is a regrettable necessity in our war on terror. We will restore American constitutional rights when the war is over. 13. Rampant Cronyism and Corruption - Halliburton is legitimate recipient of no-bid contracts and oil rights due to the war in Iraq. The relationship with the administration is purely coincidental. Only an America-hater would question the administration's motives in a time of war. 14. Fraudulent Elections - It is anti-American to question election results or the election process -- unless a left-wing liberal nut gets into the White House!
_____________________ A software developer is someone who, when you tell them to "go to hell", they are more worried about the "goto".

cortes
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 25, 2005
Total Topics: 36
Total Posts: 1258

Posted 04/28/08 - 09:41 PM:	#61
swstephe wrote: The war succeeded in getting previously neutral or lazy people to join him or give him money....I would guess that Osama bin Laden must be counted clearly in the America-lover's club, (maybe not explicitly to close friends). You remind me of the "experts" after 9/11 who claimed that whatever Bush proposed to do was just what sly Bin Laden wanted him to do. swstephe wrote: Remember that old list: the "14 points of fascism" If you really want to understand fascism, here is a great book (much better than comrade Chomsky): http://www.amazon.com/Liberal-Fascism-American-Mu...
_____________________ Copyright (c) 2008 Hernan Cortes, Sociedad de los Conquistadores. cortes@conquistador.org http://www.conquistador.org

Page: 1 2 3

You don't have permission to post.

Please login or register.