what happened to patriiotic dissent?

It is still your patriotic right to dissent. However, you probably would see less of these articles if better dissents could be brought forward by the other side.

Cycloptichorn

I am amazed by the people who are proudly wearing the "Tea Bagger" label.

I am a political neutral, so I just listen. People who I nver thought would be involved are stepping up for this cause.

Your really don't know the difference between this and patriotic dissent?

you should be able to say anything you want about anyone who is in the service of the public (and that includes out and out lies if they're entertaining)

Arlen Specter...serving the goals of al-Qaeda!

You are talking from a separate orifice here. I recall that when Murtha, the first Vietnam vet and a decorated one was elected to congress, he enjoyed bipartisan support among the GOP and Dems. When he began noticing that the Iraq war was bogus and poorly run he spoke up to the president and was immediately branded a traitor and a turncoat. His fall from the GOP grace was so well orchestrated in the media ya think that hed murderd his kids. IT was all crap and GOP hype.
SO when any DEM came out against the Iraq adventure (And some GOPs like Collen Powell) The GOP attack media went after them ruthlessly and with no quarter given SO MM, Try to cough up some accuracy in your vitriol, cause you are dead wrong about the way DEMS were treated.

The GOP comes with a media attack regiment of well paid shills like the two idiots Beck and Limbaugh.

patriotic dissent is boring

here's a patriotic dessert

But don't you think the "only serve[s] the goals of al-Quaeda" nonsense is, itself, unfounded fear-mongering?

You are assuming an equal right of reply. Ever noticed how some subjects have a big kafuffle at their start but no-one reports how they ended ?

not assuming anything, just say what you want about them, they put themselves out there

i remember hearing something once about a kitchen and some heat

Patriotic dissent is one thing. Idiotic dissent is something entirely different.

Too many people (on both sides of the aisle) simply oppose the other party on general principle, instead of learning about the issues.

it's the best

Impeach Obama now, he engages in nefarious sexual activities with small forest creatures

The first thing I thought of was how various places do not get alternate points of view. The American South in previous years, the Arab world and Jews/Christians today...there are many examples where people have said whatever they want and all it does is promote ignorance.

On some occassions, because we have laws to prevent lies, we are taken to a full debate on a matter that otherwise would have been abandoned as the press went for new headlines.

Leave me out of this, we are only good friends.

I agree with half of what John Brennan said: Unfounded fear-mongering does serve the goals of Al-Quaeda.

Al-Quaeda deals in terrorism: " The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons." (American Heritage Dictionary.) Unfounded fear-mongering assists Al-Quaeda in intimidating and coercing American society and government for its ideological and political reasons. In this sense, the Republican party's fearmongering after the pants-on-fire plot did serve the goals of Al-Quaeda.

The other part of the sentence is wrong though: Politically motivated criticism isn't serving the goals of Al-Quaeda. It's how democracy works.

PS: For those who prefer to work from original sources, here is John Brennan's Op-Ed accusing "Some critics" of unsubstantiated fear-mongering:

Opposing view: We need no lectures"

And here is the USA Today editorial to which Brennan objects:

Our view on war on terror: National security team fails to inspire confidence

We are all literate grownups here. So why don't we just read the sources and make up our own minds?

I was under the impression you were from Canadaland. Why no maple leaf?

T
K
O

Dissent A: This war is costly, founded on poor intelligence, and many innocent people are dying.

Dissent B: We don't want to pay taxes in a Marxist government run by by a secret-Muslim who wasn't even born in America.

Sure. We can pretend like both deserve the same response.

T
K
O

That wouldn't make much sense, but deliberately selecting reasonable liberal tone and crazy conservative tone doesn't make much sense either.

There were liberals calling Bush fascist etc and foaming at the mouth too, and there are conservatives now who have reasonable opposition to the liberal agenda (just different preferences in role of government) but if you use selection bias it's easy to pretend that the two sides deserve different responses.

But honestly, that doesn't really matter. The argument is inherently a low blow. When the Bush administration pulled the guilt by association logical fallacy of saying that political dissent aided al-Qaeda it was coarse fear-mongering but it was also just a plain logical fallacy (just like the ones where conservatives said that al-Qaeda preferred Democratic candidates), and this is the same bullshit logic of guilt by association. It doesn't really matter if they deserve it more or something, it's still a stupid logical fallacy being used as an argument and it's still stupid fear-mongering about al-Qaeda to try to blunt domestic political dissent.

It might not seem fair for me to select these, but frankly, these ARE the examples being put forward by each group.

To put it to question: What specific dissent MM feels is being labeled as unpatriotic, and who is saying this?


Yes, and it is my opinion that these were not the liberals getting the "patriotic dissenter" title by other liberals. Perhaps you observed it differently.


Yes, and these people are not being treated like the "reasonable" liberals were in the Bush years. In my opinion, conservatives who wish to make constructive criticisms are met with a much greater respect than the dems ever were in the Bush years. Again, you may have seen it otherwise.


It's not the "sides" that deserve anything, it's the arguments that deserve different responses.

I'm not saying that an extremely crazy liberal dissenter deserves better audience than a conservative one, I'm saying that the specifics of the arguments is what warrants a difference.

It was apparently unpatriotic to not support the war in the Bush years. I'm not saying that it's unpatriotic to refuse support to an Obama policy or decision.

Here again, with more examples...

A) Liberal crazy - Bush was behind 9/11
B) Liberal sane - I don't support the war in Iraq
C) Conservative crazy - Obama is a Marxist/secret-Muslim
D) Conservative sane - I don't support the health care reform bill

Now, in the Bush years, did you really see that much of a difference between how A, and B were addressed? Because, I see a clear difference in how C & D are addressed currently. The GOP was more likely to equate A and B, in order to ignore B altogether. Obama I think is trying very hard to separate C and D, so that D can bring ideas forward and help.

I get however that this is not just the Dems and GOP leaders, but also citizens like us and how we respond. To that, I am less impressed by the capacity of the Dems. It feels like vengeance for being ignored for 8 years sometimes. That's not what I want.



This also annoyed/offended me.
K
O