Does The Left Honestly Support Our Troops?

Re: Does The Left Honestly Support Our Troops?

naeco wrote:

"Many on the Left angrily accuse the Right of disparaging their patriotism. That charge, too, is false. I have never heard a mainstream conservative impugn the patriotism of liberals. But as regards their attitude toward our troops, the patriotism of those on the Left is not the issue. The issue is their honesty." (Dennis Prager)

Hmmm... Does the wacko Ann Coulter qualify as a "Mainstream Conservative"? Of course not. She, like Limbaugh, is an entertainer. Why you folks get so riled up about pundits and gadflies is beyond me. From her book "Treason": "Liberals have a preternatural gift for striking a position on the side of treason. You could be talking about Scrabble and they would instantly leap to the anti-American position. Everyone says liberals love America, too. No they don't. Whenever the nation is under attack, from within or without, liberals side with the enemy." I'd say that pretty much questions the patriotism of those on the left.

But then, that's the point isn't it....

"Of course the people don't want war. But after all, it's the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it's always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it's a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger."
-- Herman Goering at the Nuremberg trials

OH WOW! No one has ever cited this quote before! And , yet again, who is denouncing the pacifists for lack of patriotism? Someone should ressurect a Geobbels quote on the effectiveness of The Big Lie.

0 Replies

dlowan wrote:

goodfielder wrote:
This is quite bizarre, if you don't mind me saying so. If you do, sorry, I'm going to say it anyway.

What does it all mean? For mine it has a bit of the "support your local law enforcement" about it. That too is a meaningless propaganda statement. I always feel like asking "what if I don't?" when I see that. Is something bad going to happen to me?

[quote="Finn d'Abuzz"]No, nothing bad will happen to you. Your local law enforcement will continue to do their jobs. Gratitude and grace are never mandatory.

Goodfielder probably knows that. He is one of the local law enforcement.[/quote
You are a furener, and therefore excused for not realizing that an Intel Analyst is not a Local (or national) Law Enforcement officer.

0 Replies

(Oops need to preview more)

You are a furener, and therefore excused for not realizing that an Intel Analyst is not a Local (or national) Law Enforcement officer.

0 Replies

Which is relevant to your sneer how?

0 Replies

dlowan wrote:

Which is relevant to your sneer how?

Do you really want to continue trading sneers?

Your gratuitous sneer: "Goodfielder probably knows that. He is one of the local law enforcement."

Sort of makes my responsive sneer relevant.

0 Replies

That was no sneer, it was simply a cogent and relevant observation. Given that the sneer is the foundation of your forensic style, however, it is obvious why you would chacterize any response to your posts as sneers.

0 Replies

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:

dlowan wrote:
Which is relevant to your sneer how?

Do you really want to continue trading sneers?

Your gratuitous sneer: "Goodfielder probably knows that. He is one of the local law enforcement."

Sort of makes my responsive sneer relevant.

Lol! Please explain - in full - for my poor dumb mind - exactly what you meant to convey in the interchange I quoted, where, by the way, you ignored the actual point in favour of an attempt to denigrate the person making it. It wasn't a sneer? What was it?

To me you look caught bang to rights.

0 Replies

Sorry I could never pass myself off as an intel analyst - I'd get nailed for misrepresentation on both counts :wink: Not that it's relevant to the discussion but I am a local copper (local in the sense that we only have state/federal police in Australia, no truly localised policing).

0 Replies

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:

blatham wrote:
Quote:
Propaganda: The systematic propagation of a doctrine or cause or of information reflecting the views and interests of those advocating such a doctrine or cause.

It is propaganda, but of a particularly nasty sort.

One could propagandize for charity in community affairs or for cooperative effort in international affairs or for transparency in government. Given an organized effort to propagate agreement with such a cause or doctrine would match the definition above.

What makes this doctrine in question ("support the troops or be a traitor to them and to America") so despicable is its authoritarian and totalitarian coloration, and more particularly so as it seeks to quell dissent on militarism.

Denouncing a position not taken by your opposition --Is that a debate tactic taught in Canadian schools? It comes close to begging the question. Perhaps a true debater can provide us with the name for this technique.

Formal Canadian Logic, Wayne and Shuster Publishing (1976), has it as the "Finnish Finish".

But it is not a misrepresentation of the argument made and its logical consequences. Various formulations arise here and on other threads...one cannot be a 'patriot' if one opposes a war in which one's nation is engaged (see tico's arguments on joefromchicago's thread)...if one speaks against the war one is then therefore against the troops (this thread)...etc

Patriotism = support of troops
Dissent = not supporting the troops
Dissent when the nation's troops are engaged is unpatriotic.
How much distance, if any, sits between 'unpatriotic' and 'traitorous' may be a magnitude variable with tico, baldimo, yourself and others, but it is essentially the same idea.

In any case, it is a totalitarian formulation where it is conceived that the only proper role of the citizenry is full support of the policy initiated by those few who sit in power. Activism, or even mere speech, if counter to the policy, is perceived NOT as an instance of democracy (which is precisely what it is) but as a betrayal and impediment.

And such a totalitarian formulation is most egregious, and deeply dangerous, when that small group in power are militarist-minded and engaged.

0 Replies

Re: Does The Left Honestly Support Our Troops?
Thanks for the warm welcome folks!

Baldimo wrote:

naeco wrote:
"Of course the people don't want war. But after all, it's the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it's always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it's a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger."
-- Herman Goering at the Nuremberg trials

This has got to be the most over used and the most misunderstood quote that I have seen in the last 3 years or so.

We were attacked as a matter of fact or did you forget about 9-11? Because we had a president that was willing to do more then call it a crime and launch few missiles says a lot about his perception of the current world. To say 9-11 was an isolated incident is wrong. We have been attacked several times over the last 15 years and nothing was done about it. Now someone makes a counter move to attacks that have been worsening and all any one can do is complain and quote Nazi's.

Of course I haven't forgotten about 911! But what on earth does Iraq have to do with 911?

David Kay (appointed by Bush to find WMD in Iraq (he failed...) - taken from http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2004/06/16/bush_backs_cheney_on_assertion_linking_hussein_al_qaeda/

''At various times Al Qaeda people came through Baghdad and in some cases resided there," said David Kay, former head of the CIA's Iraq Survey Group, which searched for Iraqi weapons of mass destruction and links to terrorism. ''But we simply did not find any evidence of extensive links with Al Qaeda, or for that matter any real links at all."

Oh yeah, the 911 commission also found no link between al qaeda and 911 ( see http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/07/06/cheney.911/).

So... why this constant conflating of Iraq and 911? Maybe because prominent republicans continue to LIE and make connections between the two...

A cursory check of the internet reveals that Cheney made the link as recently as June of '04. And, I'm embarrassed to say, a republican congressman from MY STATE of North Carolina (Rep. Robin Hayes)
made the same link last month!

"Saddam Hussein and people like him were very much involved in 9/11."

Unbelievable. Maybe another Nazi quote is in order... (you'll love this Baldimo!)

"If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State." - Joseph Goebbels (unknown primary source document)"

0 Replies

Oops, the link above should be http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/07/06/cheney.911/

0 Replies

Re: Does The Left Honestly Support Our Troops?

naeco wrote:

Thanks for the warm welcome folks!

Baldimo wrote:
naeco wrote:
"Of course the people don't want war. But after all, it's the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it's always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it's a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger."
-- Herman Goering at the Nuremberg trials

This has got to be the most over used and the most misunderstood quote that I have seen in the last 3 years or so.

We were attacked as a matter of fact or did you forget about 9-11? Because we had a president that was willing to do more then call it a crime and launch few missiles says a lot about his perception of the current world. To say 9-11 was an isolated incident is wrong. We have been attacked several times over the last 15 years and nothing was done about it. Now someone makes a counter move to attacks that have been worsening and all any one can do is complain and quote Nazi's.

Of course I haven't forgotten about 911! But what on earth does Iraq have to do with 911?

David Kay (appointed by Bush to find WMD in Iraq (he failed...) - taken from http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2004/06/16/bush_backs_cheney_on_assertion_linking_hussein_al_qaeda/

''At various times Al Qaeda people came through Baghdad and in some cases resided there," said David Kay, former head of the CIA's Iraq Survey Group, which searched for Iraqi weapons of mass destruction and links to terrorism. ''But we simply did not find any evidence of extensive links with Al Qaeda, or for that matter any real links at all."

Oh yeah, the 911 commission also found no link between al qaeda and 911 ( see http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/07/06/cheney.911/).

So... why this constant conflating of Iraq and 911? Maybe because prominent republicans continue to LIE and make connections between the two...

A cursory check of the internet reveals that Cheney made the link as recently as June of '04. And, I'm embarrassed to say, a republican congressman from MY STATE of North Carolina (Rep. Robin Hayes)
made the same link last month!

"Saddam Hussein and people like him were very much involved in 9/11."

Unbelievable. Maybe another Nazi quote is in order... (you'll love this Baldimo!)

"If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State." - Joseph Goebbels (unknown primary source document)"

You will notice in my post I didn't say he had a connection to 9-11. I did say he had a connection to terrorism and he had people in his intelligence agency that had meetings with Al Queda. This is true. We stopped his funding of terrorism and places like Israel have been quite for some time now.

0 Replies

naeco...let me join in the welcome to a2k. It's particularly nice to see someone else quoting that earlier german PR chappie regarding techniques, adopted or duplicated by this administration and its supporters, for the manufacture of consent in the American population.

0 Replies

I would like to apologize for losing my temper a few posts back. I wish I had waited a few more minutes before posting my last thread. The only thing I will offer in my defense is that I got caught up in a no-win mud-fight and wound up responding in the same tone used by people I often shake my head over. But that's not really valid, because I need to keep a cooler head.

I need to say to Finn, that my mention of my roots was not meant to imply that specialists in a field have better cognitive reasoning powers, just an aside to the fact that many us who come to these forums have a myriad of experiences that move them in one direction or another. When someone begins a thread asking if the left are honest?, how are you supposed to respond? Is the left honest?, in my opinion yes (not everybody) but also, is the right honest, in my opinion, yes (but again, not everyone).

When I speak with my friends (who hold many differing political views) we can talk with respect and disagree with respect, and every once in a while, one of us looks at an issue in a different light. That's all I ever originally thought would happen when I first joined one of this forums, but I must admit it is easy to loose your footing when everyone is using such provocative language.

I do admit I was angry over the honesty question, but I should never have allowed the conversation to prompt me to respond in the same ugly fashion. I don't think there is anything I hate, well I do hate pedophilia and animal abuse. But I do know that I don't hate Democrats or Republicans. I also know that I love my country and I love my family, and if everyone here is honest, they will admit that they do as well. Even with the warts

0 Replies

Glitterbag,
I too am used to conversing with people who have respect for a differing opinion and are able to discuss differences in a non hostile environment. Like you, I found this not to necessarily be the case on the forum. I think that the majority of those interacting with each other do so in a civilized manner. Then, there are those whose main purpose in life seem to be to argue about everything and anything that other people believe in. They are not many, but I think we all know who they are. I have even found myself caught up in the immature mood that these people portray. I will still trade barbs, but I will not attack posters as I have been attacked. Not easy to do some times. Some posters start a thread with the sole intent of creating a state of confusion and bitter exchange.

Don't take any of this personally and wade in with your hip waders and endeavour to not fall in the creek. IMO, you have added some sense to an otherwise chaotic meeting of the minds.

0 Replies

Intrepid wrote:

glitterbag wrote:
Lash wrote:
Magginkat wrote:
Lash wrote:
[
If that is true, propping one's internet argument up on the body and service of others is gross.

Care to explain that comment genius? Or do you have any idea what you are talking about?

You're so brilliant, I'm sure you can figure it out. I'm timing you.

......GO!

This is silly. Are you claiming to be anti-military or pro-military. Or are you only for the ...... wait, this is starting to make my head hurt. Let me see if I get this right. You are happy we have troops in Iraq but when the mother of a wounded soldier shares some of her views, you feel she is propping up 'an internet argument' on the bodies of others and thereby has behaved in a gross way. You are saying this to a former Air Force person and widow of a Vietnam vet, whose son just returned from Iraq. I think I see.....yes indeed.....people who have served in the Armed Forces or have suffered the loss of a loved one during wartime or have children in harms way should keep their mouth's shut. Where do they get off expressing an opinion? It just confuses the rest of us. I think I am getting a better idea now exactly what it means to support the troops. I think I will run outside and slap another yellow magnet on my neighbor's SUV.

Lash only agrees with what Lash writes.

Let this towering testament to the worse of political bickering come to a deserved death. This squabbling is sometimes fun, educational, cathartic, --it sends us all off Googling, likely increases our reading of current events---lots of positives I'd say. But sometimes it's gross, irritating.... We each have our own gross meter... To have someone --whether they are telling the truth or not--who knows--throw out information like that--my husband died, my son was wounded--and say "So there" for the sake of an internet argument is distasteful to me. I understand it may be fabulous to some people. I only respond for myself.

Of course, no matter what I personally thought of it, I never said-- nor thought --that anyone shouldn't share their opinion.

NOR should they imagine any such claim would restrict others from sharing their opinions.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

That was no sneer, it was simply a cogent and relevant observation. Given that the sneer is the foundation of your forensic style, however, it is obvious why you would chacterize any response to your posts as sneers.

Whatever.

The calories you must burn in being a pretentious snit!

0 Replies

snit (snĭt)
n. Informal.
A state of agitation or irritation.

I hardly feel that i qualify as a state of anything--you really need to improve your language skills if you're going to hang with the big dogs.

You made a snide comment about goodfielder's contribution, suggesting that he had no idea what people in law enforcement feel about the issue. Dlowan simply pointed out that he is a member of law enforcement. To which you replied with a ludicrous accusation that she had sneered. How very pathetic your "contributions" here are.

0 Replies

dlowan wrote:

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:
dlowan wrote:
Which is relevant to your sneer how?

Do you really want to continue trading sneers?

Your gratuitous sneer: "Goodfielder probably knows that. He is one of the local law enforcement."

Sort of makes my responsive sneer relevant.

Lol! Please explain - in full - for my poor dumb mind - exactly what you meant to convey in the interchange I quoted, where, by the way, you ignored the actual point in favour of an attempt to denigrate the person making it. It wasn't a sneer? What was it?

To me you look caught bang to rights.

--- Is there a more smarmy expression?

I'm afraid I shant take your bait. You are hardly a poor dumb mind. You are a disingenuous cohort, and I don't think I shall play your game beyond the first two or three throws.

0 Replies

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:

No, nothing bad will happen to you. Your local law enforcement will continue to do their jobs. Gratitude and grace are never mandatory.

In reply to which, Dlowan wrote:

Goodfielder probably knows that. He is one of the local law enforcement.

In reply to which, You wrote:

You are a furener, and therefore excused for not realizing that an Intel Analyst is not a Local (or national) Law Enforcement officer.

In reply to that, Dlowan wrote:

Which is relevant to your sneer how?

And finally, in a truly ludicrous reply, You wrote:

Do you really want to continue trading sneers?

Your gratuitous sneer: "Goodfielder probably knows that. He is one of the local law enforcement."

Sort of makes my responsive sneer relevant.

And i simply pointed out that she hadn't sneered at anyone, she has simply made the cogent observation that Goodfielder's profession is local law enforcement. In the United States he'd probably be seen as a "state trooper," because, as he has pointed out, there is not a lower local level of law enforcement. You are so bent on smearing those with whom you disagree, though, that you had to try to make her remark out to be a sneer. It is as plain as day that she simply made a relevant observation. But she's sure got you dead to rights when she characterizes your style of response as a sneer.

0 Replies

Does The Left Honestly Support Our Troops?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know