RIGHT WING HYSTERIA/LEFT WING HYSTERIA

I am a very large Wabbit indeed.


You don't know from headache.......




























yet.

Re: RIGHT WING HYSTERIA/LEFT WING HYSTERIA


I am considered by many to be Right wing (or at least well past the fringes of it...heck, you've read my posts) however I do not believe that all Muslims are terrorists. Secondly, I do not believe that those who do not support George Bush and the administration are in some way condoning terrorism. Misguided or lacking in sound judgement perhaps but not condoning of deadly deeds. There have been very limited pockets of persons who out and out voice support of terrorism; however, it never crossed my mind that it was only being done by persons opposed to President Bush. I think there are other elements to the thinking of those who truly support terrorist acts and one of those is being anti-American no matter who is leading the country. Keep in mind Bin Laden had a burr towards the U.S.A. for a while including under Clinton and probably a long while prior to that.

As to the Left Wing hysteria, what I mostly see is just a major difficulty giving in to the fact that at the present time, the Democrats are not in power in either house or in The white House. There are admittedly quite a few who claim the President is a killer and that the nation is going to Hell in a hurry (if not also in a hand basket); but on the left wing side there seem to be many voices and ideas about what may be allegedly wrong with the country and it is rare indeed when any individual seems to grab all the ideas you have listed and blend them into one solid list as their own.

I know that all of you are full aware of my standing on most issues. I seriously doubt that I am capable of hiding my feelings or emotions on most sensitive subjects. That aside. From my view point what has happened is that we have turned the left wingers and right wingers to the fringes of radicals and fanatics. It seems that nobody stands middle ground anymore.
Some one asked on this thread that if you weren't left wing or right wing, were you a philosopher. My standard views are usually right down the center. I may be registered as a democrat(which my wife tells me I'm not allowed to say in public or around her father), but I usually vote towards the republican side. I however, do not, nor will I ever vote a straight ticket. To me, that is for the person who refuses to rationally evaluate comments made by both sides.
Are there issues that democrats have made that I agree with? Most definitely. Republicans? For sure. Do I agree with everything that Bush has said? Not hardly. Clinton? Oh heck no.
Some of the media have taken issues and thrown them to the far left or far right. I think this has been done for ratings. It is easy for the media to give a little blip of a speech and focus on that. They will normally take it and distort the speech.
I have never been a fan of the phrase "taken out of context," but too often this is what has been done. If nothing else, this deployment has taught me how to be even more critical of messages that I hear and read.
Overall, I feel that I am middle of the road political. I have some issues that I to strongly believe in that are left wing views(but only slight) and others that are right wing views. Our political environment of late has destroyed the middle of the road politics. Often referred to as "Independents." I think that is the ultimate curse word in politics. People still tend to view independents as people who are not knowledgeable in political matters. I think that is because the independents do not and will not side with one particular party.
I don't know if I have answered your original question in detail, but this is my point of view.

Set,
This whole culture of divisiveness is good for business. You wouldn't want to see poor Ann Coulter or poor Al Franken jobless, would you ?
That would be un-Amurkin.

LTX, does that mean George W is unamerican? didn't he say, "I'm a uniter, not a divider?"

It means you can't really take the president's words at face value. "Little Boots" isn't half as scary as his fan club though.

BTW He also said "peeance freeance", and I'm still trying to figure out what the hell that meant.

An explication of this pile of horseshit should begin with the knowing reference, with aforethought and malice, to an esteemed, long term member, who is known to all here as a male. Using the name Emily, in this case, is against TOS.

Further, it is likely known by many that this most recent incarnation of Chrissee/Harper/bluesgirl/ and others has a habit of making sexually insulting remarks and accusations, and does so on a very frequent basis.

This example: "I said you can't get offa your knees when it comes to the military."

is the most recent of those remarks, again, against TOS.

I don't think members of A2K should be fodder for confused mental cases' sexual titillation.

I'm just sayin....

To the topic, and I'm glad Set started it-- I, of course, am considered right wing, and don't think all Muslims are terrorists--or that dissenters are synonymous with anti-patriots.

I agree Lash (someone mark the date!), both about the violation of TOS, and that this is a good topic. By the way, I've reported the idiot's comments to the moderators.

maybe it was the gift of tongues.
(i mean no offense to Christians, it's directed at the prez only)

Americans are not warmly supported by people all around the world

This may be the result of gunboat diplomacy during the last few centuries.
Instead of showing the world their friendlier and softer side, they have recently decided to rattle their sabres louder than ever.

Most Americans are good human beings; it is the administration that creates ill will everywhere. Too bad.

Although i see your comments as in the main reasonable, "gun boat diplomacy" was an invention of the English, and, in particular, of Lord Palmerston. Certainly, the United States ripped off the Mexicans big time--but, it is not until the Spanish War in 1898 that the United States began to prosecute what Roosevelt and Lodge referred to as "the forward policy." Even then, the majority of the American public remained isolationist until well into the 20th century, and that is a point of view on international relations which remains quite popular.

Therefore, a contention that: "gunboat diplomacy during the last few centuries."--is an accurate description of American foreign policy is nothing more than an absurdity. The United States has only existed for a little more than two centuries as it is.

As i mentioned, the rest of your post is reasonable enough--but it is hardly to the point of the thread.

.............a contention that: "gunboat diplomacy during the last few centuries."--is an accurate description of American foreign policy is nothing more than an absurdity.
........................
This is an archive of 163 US interventions. I think there are more. The marines landed in any country that 'deserved' it.

So much for making friends and influencing people.

http://adbusters.org/media/flash/hope_and_memory/flash.html

darn, the thread's been cleaned up, just when it started to get hysterical. ;-)

The point, which you are either unwilling or unable to see, in your rush to heap contumely on the United States, is that your use of the expression "the last few centuries" is hyperbole.

[quote="Answers-dot-com]few (fyū) pronunciation
adj., few·er, few·est.

1. Amounting to or consisting of a small number: one of my few bad habits.
2. Being more than one but indefinitely small in number: bowled a few strings.[/quote]

Therefore, a few centuries is at least two and perhaps three or four centuries. The United States only came into being in 1783. That's two hundred twenty-two years ago (almost, the Treaty of Paris was signed in late December, 1783)--in case you're a little slow with math. More to the point, the Constitution was not ratified until 1789. It was not until the 1790's that Congress began to build a navy (all previous naval vessels had been purchased, donated or seized as prizes). You simply have no case that this has been going on for a few centuries[/i].

The link you have posted is a link to an adbusters page, and i'm not going to sit around and wait for it to load. Maybe when your hysteria over the evil which is the United States subsides sufficiently, you can return and post a valid link to your list. When you will have done so, we can see if you have any basis to claim that the United States has been using gunboat diplomacy for two hundred or more years. Good luck . . .

By the way, this is a subject on which i rather suspect i am far better informed than are you. However, the United States did not get warmed up and into the imperial hegemony business until the Mexican War at the earliest--and i am well enough informed to point out that the "few centuries" part of your contention is horsie poop . . .

What is your point here?

Canada has fought right next to America in many of these conflicts. Canada still has troops in Afganistan and Kosovo among others.

Are you suggesting that ONLY AMERICIANS are "war mongers"?

Detano Inipo also ignores that people who were lynched during and after the War of 1812. He/she ignores "le Vieux Brulot" who lynched French-Canadians and burned their farms in Lower Canada in 1837. He ignores the people killed by the militia and lynched in Upper Canada in 1836 and 1837. He ignores the "First Nations" peoples killed by the Northwest Mounted Police, and he ignores the Metis killed in 1871 and in the 1880's. Altogether, a very selective point of view.

Just for a little perspective here, none of this anti-American rant is germane to the topic of the thread.

Maybe, maybe not.

Just seems a little "Left Wing Hysteria" from our neighbors to the north.

I'm sitting in Canada right now, and have visited frequently in the last several years. I rather think it is less a case of left-wing hysteria in the case of most Canadians than it is a matter of living next door to the elephants. I do agree that the rant we've seen here does verge on hysteria. However, for most Canadians, it's just a matter of living next door to the elephant.

(A reporter once asked Pierre Trudeau what it is like to live next to the United States. He replied that it's much like living next door to an elephant--you go about your ordinary business, but you don't make a lot of noise.)