h1

Who Are You Calling “Anti-American”?

October 25, 2008

I’ve had plenty of time to ponder my post on the Bachmann incident (I was initially speechless), so I decided that a follow up post was in order… 

You see, I realized there was something I was missing, and I couldn’t quite put my finger on it.  Something that I was leaving unsaid, more specifically.  I know that her comments revealed that she views her colleagues in Congress through a “pro” and “anti-American” lens (which is in and of itself pretty disturbing, and the underlying reason why her campaign has been suffering lately), but there was a gaping hole in the entire discussion, and I’ve finally figured out what it was:  

For how much the phrase gets tossed around lately, “anti-American” really deserves a cohesive definition that everyone can agree on. 

So, considering my tradition of using the Chamber as a platform for defining things and establishing paradigms, I figured that this might be a good idea going forward.  After all, who knows how often we’ll see the term flung about around here?  I should really have something set in stone.  And in an attempt to set a definition that will be accepted and universal, I think we should first start with defining what “American” is.  That would be logical, right?  It would appear to me that it’s not the “anti-” that should be explored (assuming we can juxtapose “anti-” and “un”).  Everyone knows what that means, after all. 

I argue that, while many may agree that quaint things like apple pie, baseball, Uncle Sam, Mt. Rushmore, etc. are intrinsically “American”, there is still a possibility that not all would agree.   Indeed, the Founding Fathers wouldn’t have seen much significance in any of those things (apple pie recipes from the 14th century?).  My proposal would be to strip away all of the cultural icons, traditions, monuments, and any given individual’s belief in what the American “spirit” is (thanks Alfie), thus leaving just the lowest possible standard of what is unequivocally American:  The U.S. Constitution.   The Chamber position is that, at the end of the day, it’s essentially all we have.  The president takes an oath to “protect and defend” it.  The Supreme Court interprets it.  The Congress can collectively amend it.  One could make a pretty compelling argument that, without recognition of the Constitution, there is no America.  Cities may burn and towns may flood.  The Federal Reserve may be depleted of funds.  Half the U.S. population could be wiped out by some horrible disease.  Great American traditions like World Series could disappear forever.  But as long as the tenets of the Constitution remain intact and can be effectively upheld and executed, America remains.

That said, I shall declare:  From this day forth in the Chamber, anything that doesn’t meet the standards of (or anyone who seeks to undermine) this most American of ideals will be considered as “anti-American”.   Calls that don’t meet this lowest of bars will be deemed to be just hallow, inflammatory, pejorative-laden rhetoric, and will be called out as such.   Even an activity like, say, burning the Flag is subjected to this basic requirement.  

OK, I’ve brought down the proverbial gavel.  I think its time to test the definition.  Let’s use a hypothetical scenario:

Debater A claims that Obama policy X is “socialist” and his views are “anti-American”.  Debater B asks A if there is anything in Policy X that would be considered unconstitutional.  Debater A thinks for a second, and responds “It should be”.  Debater B then points out that if one cannot prove that policy X is unconstitutional, then one must conclude that the Constitution makes room for (what A considers) “socialist” policies and thereby cannot be deemed “anti-American”.

hhmmm…it seems to work.  Perhaps it makes for a clumsy debate the way I’ve phrased it, but I think it is logically sound*.   

Now that we’ve agreed on that, let’s come full circle, and revisit what Bachmann said about the would-be Democratic president and her colleagues in Congress:

“I’m very concerned that he may have anti-American views”

“I wish the American media would take a great look at the views of the people in Congress and find out, are they pro-America, or anti-America. I think the American people would love to see an expose like that.”

And I say to Ms. Bachmann that, when it comes to your fear of your fellow politicians having “anti-American” views, perhaps you might want to “take a great look at” your most favorite-ist person in the whole wide world.  You know, the current president:

*I suppose I should open the thread up to more tests or to point out holes, so have at me.

WordPress.com Political Blogger Alliance

89 comments

  1. Chen, an excellent attempt at establishing a standard for future discussion.

    Could be dangerous though. Is violence in defense of constitutional ideals pro-American or anti-American? Association with Bill Ayers has been called anti-American by a good many. But weren’t the actions of the Weather Underground motivated by their opposition to the Vietnam war and that our participation in said war violated the ideals upon which our constitution was framed? This would make Ayers a patriot, would it not?

    To use a less extreme example, several of our conservative friends in the Chamber feel that Democrats beat up on America. They get enraged when we cry out against Abu Ghraib because they see it as blasphemy against the troops. But isn’t the desire to improve our country and make sure that it lives up to the ideals of our constitution the ultimate act of patriotism … the ultimate pro-American act?

    I think your suggested standard makes it necessary for folks to take a breath before calling someone anti-American. I applaud you for it.


  2. R-

    Ayers’ bombings violate laws which are themselves deemed Constitutional, so no, he was not acting in “pro-American” fashion, regardless of whether the war was Constitutional.


  3. According to Michele Bachmann, if you’re not wearing US flag underwear like she does, you’re anti-American. See?

    Every person in America loves our country, but there are times when we question what our government is doing in our name. We have a right to do this, of course, because our Forefathers wanted us to have the freedom to do so, but when you’re Michele Bachmann and you belong to a party that wants to make America into a Banana Republic and you don’t want anyone pointing it out, you yell, “Anti-American traitor!” to make yourself feel better.

    In other words, Michele, though she thinks she’s the most pro-American American in our country, really is the opposite. Poor thing. She doesn’t even realize this yet!

    She will realize it on election day.


  4. Chen, I did a post on how Glenn Beck is using his radio program now to talk about Americans forming militias in this country, because he and his listeners are scared to death of the Fairness Doctrine. Yep, the WATBs of the right wing are scared shitless of this and are fearing that their rights are going to be taken away.

    THE FINAL CONCLUSION ON THE RIGHT WING:

    They have no problem forming armed militias in America to go against our government and to kill liberals who believe in the opposite of what they do, but to them, Bill Ayers is the scariest guy in the history of the planet.

    Dumbasses.


  5. A good parent disciplines their child if he or she engages in behavior that is detrimental to their emotional & physical well-being. A good parent also praises their child when he or she does something great.

    This is how we are with our country. Most days we are satisfied with our country’s development and then other days we’re not.

    There’s nothing wrong with dissent. It doesn’t mean ‘un-love’ as the wingers thinks it does.

    MOST HYSTERICAL HYPOCRISY EVER:

    The neocons who have been shouting us liberals/Democrats down for years for speaking out against the Bush Regime, will be fine with themselves speaking out against an Obama Administration. See the hypocrisy? These are the same asswipes who told us George Bush is the Commander in Chief and must be respected. Well, Barack will be too so the neocons had better respect him then!

    Bah hahahahahahahaha! It’s going to be fun pointing out their hypocrisies over the next 4 years.


  6. You have gotten lost in the woods of obvious logic CZ. Although your defining points are logical they have nothing to do with how people FEEL.
    Those that find wealth redistribution anti American do so secondary to how the feel and interpret the “spirit” of America. If you believe in the individualism and stoicism,off pulling up bootstraps you go anti.If you believe in a melted potpourri of souls dedicated to unity and compassion you see nothing anti at all. Quite the contrary. Bleeding to give Haiti election or Somalia food that a warlord can’t steal is anti American due to it’s voluntary involvement in something not in our interests. Ousting a dictator is ? Again your acceptance of a given “spirit” dictates what you see as interests. A little Somali boy that eases his hunger secondary to USAID whet and rice perhaps won’t aim a gun or suicide bomb at America. Clearly a Pakistani boy whose parents perish in a Predator attack is open to future violent jihad, but isn’t blowing up a group of terrorists truly in our interests ?
    It’s not logic Chen.


  7. First I apologize for all the misspelling above. @R your comment in my opinion captures what I’m saying. Don’t be afraid it’s ok.
    There isn’t anything unConstitutional about Abu Ghirab just to use your example. Logic has nothing to do with it; however, ideals in an abstract form have everything to do with your spirit and feelings.
    As for the whole Bachmann thing. It’s hard since I think she seems like an idiot. Unpolished,crude and lacking the agility needed to play big league rah rah politics. I don’t really like the rah rah stuff btw just saying.I will say though that there are clearly two camps that each eat this stuff up. It needs better people to push it. Three great examples of recent time.
    RONALD W REAGAN,WILLIAM J CLINTON, & BARACK H OBAMA
    Bachmann is not even in the minor leagues.


  8. Alfie- You’re right. The reason why the “anti-American” label is so hallow is precisely because it is a feeling and is open to interpretation, based on what the wielder believes is the real “spirit” of America or how it should be. I thought I acknowledged that, but perhaps I could have done a better job.

    A few things I wanted to accomplish with this thread-

    1. Let my readers know where I stand (as always)

    2. Establish a point of discussion about the dynamics of who uses the label, why they use it, and what it really means

    2. make a point wrt Bachmann


  9. Bachmann believes her views are the only ones that are pro-American and she believes anyone not supporting her views hates America.

    Wow, that is so anti-American to me. Too bad Bachmann and others like her can’t see the forest through the trees.

    Wearing a US flag pin like Karl Rove does…does not mean he’s the most patriotic person in America! Nope. In fact, if you look at the codes of conduct that go along with the US flag, Rove is actually desecrating it by wearing it. See?


  10. Alfie- I amended my post to better clarify. thanks


  11. At the risk of being an anti-American as condemned by the master advocate Chen, can I point out how dumb Kay and her moronic boilerplates are for all you libs? Consider this statement…

    Every person in America loves our country, but there are times when we question what our government is doing in our name.

    Then consider these jewels from the Obama supporters:

    (1) ‘I don’t regret setting bombs,’ Bill Ayers said. ‘I feel we didn’t do enough.’

    (2) “The government gives them the drugs, builds bigger prisons, passes a three-strike law and then wants us to sing ‘God Bless America.’ No, no, no, God damn America, that’s in the Bible for killing innocent people. God damn America for treating our citizens as less than human. God damn America for as long as she acts like she is God and she is supreme.” Jeremiah Wright – (2003)

    (3) They were targeting those people I referred to as ‘little Eichmanns.’ These were legitimate targets.
    ~ Ward Churchill (2001).

    Ugly, this one ranks right up there with your statement about Limbaugh’s neanderthal audience dwindling the day before he signed the biggest media contract in history.

    {CLAP! CLAP! CLAP!}


  12. That said, I shall declare: From this day forth in the Chamber, anything that doesn’t meet the standards of (or anyone who seeks to undermine) this most American of ideals will be considered as ”anti-American”. Calls that don’t meet this lowest of bars will be deemed to be just hallow, inflammatory, pejorative-laden rhetoric, and they have no place here.

    So Chen? Are you now going to be the arbitrar, the resident thought police, the judge and jury of what is just and fair at “THE CHAMBER?”

    Of course, it is your prerogative as it is your blog but I should warn you of this. Consider it advice from your quasi-friend.

    If I were to give you credit for the one redeeming quality concerning your own character, it would be this. You are one of the very libs that have the moral courage to let the other voice have their say, no matter how distasteful you might find it and let it stay on your blog. As a matter of fact, if memory serves it was your premise for starting this whole exercise.

    Personally knowing and experiencing you own preconceived biases on occasion, what makes you think you can be objective and completely fair? Sounds to me like you might be leading yourself down the path of the old Charlie Johnson routine…

    Let not thy head swell too awfully large…


  13. I have an idea…

    Maybe we should label the 23% or so of people who currently approve of the job that George Bush is doing as Anti-American.

    George has lied to us to push his policies, bankrupt the country, enter a illegal and unneeded war that has made us less secure, attack our civil liberties, and generally divide this great nation using fear. I would think anyone who thinks he is doing a good job must hate America.

    Ideas and Revolution – If you’re not outraged you’re not reading this blog


  14. Tex-

    So Chen? Are you now going to be the arbitrar, the resident thought police, the judge and jury of what is just and fair at “THE CHAMBER?”

    Of course, it is your prerogative as it is your blog but I should warn you of this. Consider it advice from your quasi-friend

    I think you might have misunderstood my intent with this thread. Admittedly, I can understand why, ’cause it might look like I’m going to censor anything that doesn’t meet the standard. But all I’m really saying is that this thread serves as a reference point for all future claims of “anti-American” made in the comments section here.

    I suppose I don’t see a lot of it, as there are only so many Michele Bachmann-types out there, but when it appears, I have this post to point to. It would just be an easy way to enlighten the wielder that his/her use is based on a subjective notion, without having to go through the trouble of explaining it all over again. Make sense?


  15. I guess I will dive right in and test this.

    Is this the type of stiffling of free speech and expression we can look forward to from an Obama presidency?

    The concept of labelling something as “un-American” so that it can then be censored is the very definition of “un-American.”

    I thought libers are progressive. So why are we returning to the Age of McCarthy?


  16. “libers” should be “liberals.”

    Tex’s typo condition must be contagious here.


  17. “I think you might have misunderstood my intent with this thread. Admittedly, I can understand why, ’cause it might look like I’m going to censor anything that doesn’t meet the standard. But all I’m really saying is that this thread serves as a reference point for all future claims of “anti-American” made in the comments section here.”

    Point taken.

    Yes, it does appear that you are planning to censor ideas and opinions.


  18. Alright, alright…my bad.

    “have no place here” has been changed to “will be called out as such”

    It is what I meant anyway.


  19. @The Red Pill

    Are you confused? Who is stifling(another typo of yours) free speech and what does this thread have to do with a Obama Presidency? We all know you have great man love for Obama but maybe just once could you make a comment and not mention him?

    I think most people would agree that labelling people un-American is dangerous and that’s why people are lashing back at Michele Bachmann and Sarah Palin who have been making these type of remarks.

    My comment was to make a point about the Bush Administration and the people who still support him. They are not really anti-American but maybe ignorant. I was just using the subject at hand in a sarcastic way to illustrate my point.

    Ideas and Revolution – If you’re not outraged you’re not reading this blog


  20. But as long as the tenets of the Constitution remain intact and can be effectively upheld and executed, America remains.

    Let me see if I can further enter the posts head.
    So should free speech trump the Fairness Doctrine ? Should a number of points and “intents” of the Constitution trump the card voting scam pushed by the unions and their (D) supporters ? Should the ideals of Life ,Liberty ,and Happiness apply to babies that survived abortions ? I obviously could go on and on asking the questions that seem to fit the lowest standard. I think the lowest rung on this ladder would be that we as Americans can, should and will ask.


  21. Kay,
    I wouldn’t mind your comments as much if they were said by someone who at least attempts to show the other side, or who isn’t the just as much a hypocrite as anyone they were blasting. Sorry Kay, but it’s the truth.

    Chen,
    I disagree with your definition of anti-american. I would say that any act or declaration against the citizens and goverment of the United States, or any act undermining democracy that is not allowed in the original Constitution is anti-american.

    Protesting is american, bombing goverment buildings is anti-american. Trying to legalise murder is american (unless you wish to consider that undermining democracy), murdering is anti-american.

    Standards change, only occasionally for the better.


  22. I like MJs hypocrisy. This post isn’t about Bush, either. But that didn’t stop your BDS from kicking into overdrive, did it?

    Yet when I call out Barack (let’s crucify anyone who asks “distracting” questions) Obama then I am displaying my “man-love” (A term he couldn’t even come up with for himself, I might add. He got it from me.)

    He can use Bush to make his point, while I can’t use Obama to make mine.

    Better get used to that kind of thing, folks.


  23. Some of us are already used to it, unfortunately.


  24. @The Red Pill

    Do you know what hypocrisy means?

    My comment was on topic since the question by ChenZen is if one wanted, how would you define anti-Americanism everyone could agree on…

    I made a valid point on one way one could define it by taking a shot at George Bush by using him and his approval rating as the defining standard.

    You, on the other hand just made a random statement about this thread stifling free speech and somehow reflecting on a Obama Presidency.

    Not only did I take a better shot with some merit at Bush then you did at Obama, I tied it to the topic at hand which you did not.

    Ideas and Revolution – If you’re not outraged you’re not reading this blog


  25. Chen-
    I think your definition of anti-American is too narrow to be useful. Intuitively, I can imagine anti-American amendments to the Constitution. For instance, repealing part of the First Amendment and creating a state religion. It’s totally Constitutional to amend the Constitution, and after it’s done a state religion would be Constitutional. But it would violate one of America’s deepest motivating principles: freedom of conscience.

    Think about it. Have you ever asked yourself “Sure it’s Constitutional, but should we do it?” That’s a reasonable question, I think, and demonstrates that your definition is too narrow.

    My point is, the laws of the land are meant to capture and enforce an underlying moral and social ethic. I think it’s that moral/social ethic which is American, not the imperfect (and they are imperfect, everyone agrees to that) laws which are meant to reflect it. You’re ignoring culture, and if you do that you give America over to the lawyers, civil servants, and Constitutional scholars, in my opinion.


  26. BE,
    Good points.


  27. One last thing-
    If I wanted to put my finger on the pulse of America, I’d probably take a long road-trip and hang out in diners, churches, and city parks. I definitely wouldn’t pick up a work of Constitutional law and think the job complete.

    In other words, you can’t understand what America is (and thus can’t understand what it is to be against America) if you do this: “strip away all of the cultural icons, traditions, monuments, and any given individual’s belief in what the American ‘spirit’ is …, thus leaving just the lowest possible standard of what is unequivocally American.”

    You’re saying ‘I’m going to ignore a big chunk of America and that way I can get to know what America really is.’ Don’t make no sense.


  28. solar1-

    I disagree with your definition of anti-american. I would say that any act or declaration against the citizens and goverment of the United States, or any act undermining democracy that is not allowed in the original Constitution is anti-american.

    Well, in the second part, you’re agreeing with me. And I think that the first part is just too broad, which is why I put the bar where I did. Heck, every righty radio pundit I listen to daily would be considered anti-American ’cause they spend a good part of the airtime whining about too much government.

    brainexplosions-

    I think your definition of anti-American is too narrow to be useful. Intuitively, I can imagine anti-American amendments to the Constitution. For instance, repealing part of the First Amendment and creating a state religion. It’s totally Constitutional to amend the Constitution, and after it’s done a state religion would be Constitutional. But it would violate one of America’s deepest motivating principles: freedom of conscience.

    And in that example, I would say that the state religion wouldn’t be anti-American. As long as it was implemented according to its tenets, it would have been enacted by officials that represent (and are empowered by) the will of the American people. The Fathers designed the Constitution to be amended and flexible, allowing for the evolving and organic nature of the culture and the world we live in. I’m sure the other amendments would have been viewed by those who lived generations ago as being anti-American (in the same way you’re arguing), but today people don’t view it in that light, do they? One need look no farther than the 13th to realize that. America is a very different place than it was 50 years ago, and especially 200 years ago. If those people were alive today, they would likely scoff at the idea that slavery is anti-American, but no one would argue it now. My point is there isn’t much of anything about our culture that one can be against that would specifically be “anti-American” and hold up under scrutiny.


  29. Chen,

    Whining about too much goverment is allowed by the constitution, and therefore American according to my definition.

    Brainexplosions said that your definition was too narrow, is his narrower?

    Did he B.E. give a definition?


  30. @MJ

    Yeah I know what hypocrisy means. It basically means it’s OK for you to do something, but it’s not OK for me to do the same thing. And since that is what you are saying—where is the problem with my usage?

    My statement about free speech was valid enough to get Chen to edit his post in order to further clarify his point. And I wasn’t the only one who felt that way. Perhaps you missed all that. It wasn’t random at all.

    And I think Chen’s continuous and unwavering support for Barack Obama, combined with Obama’s habit of shunning or destroying all who speak out against him, makes Chen’s sudden initial claim of what does and doesn’t have a place here stand out to some of us who have seen the way the wind is blowing lately.

    In case you haven’t noticed, speaking out publicly against Obama is forbidden. Doing so will get you labeled as a Republican mouthpiece, a campaign plant, a liar, a racist, etc. I just assumed that “un-American” was the going to be the next label.

    I’m sorry you were unable to digest my nuance. I’ll be sure to spell everything out for you from now on since I don’t have the media to do it for me like Obama and Biden do.


  31. “And in that example, I would say that the state religion wouldn’t be anti-American.”

    At least you’re sticking to your guns! However here…

    “As long as it was implemented according to its tenets, it would have been enacted by officials that represent (and are empowered by) the WILL OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE”

    and here

    “The Fathers designed the Constitution to be amended and flexible, allowing for the evolving and organic NATURE OF OUR CULTURE and the world we live in”

    you let culture sneak into your definition through the back door. You assume the Constitutional amendment for state religion is not anti-American since it reflects the culture of the American people.

    How does that not imply that the culture of the American people is what’s really important here? If the state-religion amendment didn’t reflect the will of the American people, but through legislative trickery became an Amendment anyway, wouldn’t you say that parts of the Constitution are anti-American?

    Doesn’t that show what’s really important when considering claims of anti-Americanism? Something conceptually icky and contentious like civic virtue or American spirit?


  32. Plus, I think the idea of total allegiance to the Constitution simply because it is the Constitution is pretty un-American. We have a proud history of thumbing our noses at the man and vocal dissent. Aren’t you implying that saying anything contentious about the Constitution would be anti-American? The only way you cannot be saying this is if you allow culture to enter the picture.


  33. brainexplosions-

    you let culture sneak into your definition through the back door. You assume the Constitutional amendment for state religion is not anti-American since it reflects the culture of the American people.

    How does that not imply that the culture of the American people is what’s really important here? If the state-religion amendment didn’t reflect the will of the American people, but through legislative trickery became an Amendment anyway, wouldn’t you say that parts of the Constitution are anti-American?

    hmmmm…

    No, I wouldn’t. I suppose we’d have to take a closer look at said “legislative trickery” and determine if that was unconstitutional, but assuming it wasn’t, we’d then imply that such trickery was “American”, as the Constitution allows for it. If the “trickery” was deemed disagreeable by the American people, one would assume that the Constitution would allow for that action to be reversed. (reminds one of prohibition, no?)

    The distinction is that certain aspects of the culture (like the belief that slavery is wrong) is not uniquely American, whereas the Constitution itself most definitely is. Sure, the culture effects the Constitution and visa versa, but the Constitution is really the only thing that represents America. Like I said in the post, half the country could die tomorrow, and if the Constitution remains, America remains. But if tomorrow no one dies and the culture doesn’t change, but the Constitution is destroyed, America is destroyed.


  34. You’ve created an interesting thread here. In using the example of Prohibition though I am a bit lost. That was all populism that oddly enough violated the Constitution. There have been other decisions along the same line with only imagined roots in the Constitution. I’ll also add the increase in reliance on bodies of work OTHER than the Constitution that the SCOTUS has used. Where’s that leave us ? That’s my big question now. If “we” destroy the Constitution by employing international law and other “un American” (by that I mean NON American) resources where are we then ? Haven’t we ceased to be America(n) ? That is where I think many people start to have the legitimate concerns of our future and anti/pro issues.


  35. “Like I said in the post, half the country could die tomorrow, and if the Constitution remains, America remains. But if tomorrow no one dies and the culture doesn’t change, but the Constitution is destroyed, America is destroyed.”

    Well, I guess we’re at an impasse because this just doesn’t click with me at all.

    Anyway, cool discussion. Chances are you’ll be calling me out for being un-American in the future hahaha.


  36. Jeez…and I was just about to cry uncle and give up.

    Interestingly, I think we’ve almost gotten to the point in this discussion where one might conclude that we’ve proven that “anti-American” doesn’t really have much meaning at all. While that may serve to further highight Bachmann’s silliness, it wasn’t exactly where I was expecting to wind up. LOL

    I suppose the popular versions of the definition fall along the lines of “against American interests” (which could lead to an entire debate on what American “interests” are, and subsequently whether those interests represent the collective will of the people, or simply those of the powerful), or simply saying “I hate America” (although that certainly falls outside of the context of what happened with Bachmann), or actions taken that undermine the operation of the U.S. Government (which would include the actions of al Qaeda; something that I kind of sidestepped, but I did frame this discussion in the context of the “views” of fellow Americans).

    Now I’m getting a headache.


  37. IMHO…

    Interestingly, I think we’ve almost gotten to the point in this discussion where one might conclude that we’ve proven that “anti-American” doesn’t really have much meaning at all.

    All you have really proved is that you don’t recognize unpatriotic people who care about nothing but themselves. This board is full of them, as are most of the Obama supporters. And when The Prophet is unable to change their sorry lot in life, rest assured that I will be here reminding them of that fact soon thereafter.

    Sorry Chen, nice guy who has no moral compass or moral sense.


  38. Puke,

    Not only did I take a better shot with some merit at Bush then you did at Obama, I tied it to the topic at hand which you did not.

    You wouldn’t recognize anything of real merit if it kicked you in the ass…get back to that marxist, pagan hole you call a blog that you slithered out from.


  39. Save the headache, ChenZhen…you’ve hit the proverbial nail on the head. It is the essence of McCarthyism to allocate false motives to others and then use that perverted description to ‘win’ an argument.
    In a fair and rational discussion there should be no need for pointing out the essence of ‘Framing’ and trickery to pervert argument rather than honestly strive to make one’s argument by clear reasoning; rather than by false assertion.
    I’ve used my Links page for a number of summaries of this situation I think important – not mine BTW !
    KayinMaine is one of the most honest and enthusiastic bullshit-spotters I know : you notice her encouragement.
    http://pandagon.blogsome.com/2007/04/03/well-paid-assholes-with-opinions-versus-poorly-paid-assholes-with-opinions/
    From the ‘Overton Window’ section.


  40. Anybody that thinks UglyKay the ultimate bullshit spotter ought to have the hole in their head examined.

    That dog is the one that said our military committing genocide in Iraq. And that is the very essence of being a traitor and being anti-American.

    Opit must be another is a list of the Brownshirt WordPress shills…


  41. No, I was wrong about Opit.

    Even better, one of the atheistic propagandists than UglyKay runs with…no wonder he’s deluded.
    :lol:


  42. HA HA HA! I don’t know if Barry anti-American. His fatal flaw in my books is he’s narcissistic to the nth degree. But he sure does run with a bunch of them, both domestic and foreign, that are. That is unless all you fascist leftist think the UN has America’s best interests at heart.

    More proof Obama is a major league chump.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/25/AR2008102502011_pf.html


  43. Eh. I think the rest of the world is as sick of Bush as we are, Tex.


  44. Chen,

    My crowd has a pool on how long before you guys throw THE ONE over the cliff. Bill Clinton went from our first black Pres. to racist scumbag according the Obama bobble-headed lemmings in less than seven years.

    I’ve give Obama about three…

    You want to enter the pool or is that like betting against yourself?


  45. Tex-

    When you say “my crowd”, who are you referring to?


  46. Fantastic discussion. I think BE pointed out an important kind of circular logic in that if our constitution reflects our “values” then isn’t being anti-american ultimately a values statement, not a constitutional one.

    I think a better definition of anti-american is very simply the desire to destroy our country. By this definition, (sorry Tex) Reverend Wright does not qualify. First, he served his country in the military. Second, the “goddam america” quotes Tex provided make a very valid statement. If America seeks to oppress its citizens, it needs not only damning but course correction. Wright seeks a better America. You might not like his rhetoric toward getting there but tough.

    It brings me back to an excellent discussion Chris Matthews had with Pat Buchannan comparing an ex klansman to an ex Weather Underground member. It is a matter of motives vs methods. What motivates the Klan is hate. End of story. What motivated the Weather Underground was a desire to create a more ethical country. Their methods … sucked big time! But we cannot make equivalencies between all violent people. Some violent folks seek a higher purpose, some don’t.

    Chen, while I’m not claiming that BE is supporting my Ayers point, I think you dismiss Ayers too quickly for the same reason that BE challenges your constitutional construct. I think we’re talking values here, not a piece of paper. It makes it harder to pin down the meaning of anti-american.

    I think what we can agree on is that it is not sufficient to call someone anti-american simply because they don’t agree with you.


  47. Chen,

    When you say “my crowd”, who are you referring to?

    Functional people, independent people, God fearing people, Apple Pie people, sane people, people distrusting of THE PROPHET people, independent people, achieving people and normal people. You know, people who aren’t progressive people. :)


  48. So…nine people?


  49. Rutherford,

    Are you crazy?

    It is a matter of motives vs methods. What motivates the Klan is hate. End of story. What motivated the Weather Underground was a desire to create a more ethical country.

    So did Timothy McVeigh think he was making an ethical statement. So did David Koresh think himself making a more moral society. You mean you, an educated man, can’t even admit that Bill Ayers is a disgrace? Do you have a brother named Joe on WordPress? He can justify Rev. Wright as a race healer. This statement…

    Wright seeks a better America.

    My Lord, you can’t be that naive. This snake oil salesman posing as a religious man takes poor people’s tithes with their permission, builds himself a multi-million dollar home in almost exclusive whiteyville suburbs, and then preaches about the evils of the white man.

    If you really think that, I don’t want to hear another dirty word from you about these snake oil TV evangelists like Benny Hinn or Pat Robertson. Wright’s methods are different (far more hateful and divisive) but he is just as corrupt.

    I am beginning to think you and Chen have gone completely insane over your politic. I would never put you in the same category (while being truthful) as that horrid Ugly Kay, but sometimes you all are just as willingly blind.


  50. So…nine people?

    Ten, and they all live in your duplex complex. Don’t look out the window, because I’ve got them stalking you.


  51. “Apple Pie people”

    Am I the only one totally horrified by this?


  52. Tex-

    I am beginning to think you and Chen have gone completely insane over your politic. I would never put you in the same category (while being truthful) as that horrid Ugly Kay, but sometimes you all are just as willingly blind.

    Well, considering that a few posts up, you linked to the story that the whole world wants Obama in there. Add that to everyone else domestically that has endorsed the guy, and I imagine that its safe to say that the entire world has gone completely insane in your eyes.

    Try to hang in there.


  53. Am I the only one totally horrified by this?

    Yea, the cherry pie people are much hotter!


  54. Sorry, Tex, no such thing as apple pie people.

    http://www.jukeboxalive.com/peoplesearch.php?query=apple+pie


  55. Neocons are functional independent people who aren’t religious freaks and are sane?

    Bah hahahaha HAHAHAHAHAHAHA hahahahaha!


  56. @ChenZen who said…

    “Interestingly, I think we’ve almost gotten to the point in this discussion where one might conclude that we’ve proven that “anti-American” doesn’t really have much meaning at all. While that may serve to further highight Bachmann’s silliness, it wasn’t exactly where I was expecting to wind up. LOL”

    I assumed this was where you were going with this thread all this time.

    @Red Pill

    Thanks for showing me you know the definition of hypocrisy but you failed to show how it applied to me since you still never have explained how mentioning how stifling free speech has to do with a Obama administration.

    “In case you haven’t noticed, speaking out publicly against Obama is forbidden.”

    No I hadn’t since that statement is totally ridiculous. Either you don’t understand the difference between one defending one’s self from falsehoods and forbidding people to speak out against one’s self. (How would he do this by magic? and how do you account for FOX News?) I hope it’s not bad drugs causing you to make comments like that since I do care about you, really…

    Ideas and Revolution – If you’re not outraged you’re not reading this blog


  57. “Interestingly, I think we’ve almost gotten to the point in this discussion where one might conclude that we’ve proven that “anti-American” doesn’t really have much meaning at all.”

    Just because people disagree doesn’t mean it doesn’t have meaning. There are definitely anti-American folks in the world and there are definitely pro-American folks in the world. A blurry border between the two doesn’t mean we can’t still draw that distinction.


  58. I know on liberal boards such as this one, the subject of faith generally held in a poor light and mostly a taboo subject to mention. I know why but won’t go there. Being much too shy, it is usually a subject I don’t broach on these boards. :)

    But one thing has become clear to me thru this whole ordeal Chen of being here for the better part of a year. Actually, I really owe you some thanks because I have determined my neighbor was right and you and your troops have helped to reinforce what I already knew.

    ——–

    The widow across the street was President of the local Girl Scouts for years. I both respect her and admire her wisdom. One day before anybody outside of Chicago had heard of Barack Obama, as we were sitting outside shooting the bull, we got into a conversation about how people think, what makes them tick, so on, so forth. We were both not only confused but horrified in our opinions of how people could be so egregiously wrong in their judgment of what is good and what is evil. This was shortly after 9/11 and she pointed out a simple fact to me.

    She said (paraphrased by Tex), “If you believe the Bible to be true, if you believe it is the inspired word of God, then you have a core set of beliefs of how you discern the world and they do not change.”

    If you discount the Bible as a nice set of stories, or just folklore; or you don’t care; or you think Christ kind along the lines of MLK – a good man with some advice worth repeating but certainly not the messiah; or if you think science is the answer to the universe and much of it just undiscovered as yet, you have a different set of core beliefs with man at its center.

    All of you “progressives” have had a little bit different story to tell, a little different view but pretty much along the same lines, a different flavor of opinion concerning religion but leading to the same conclusion. For all intents and purposes, you reject faith or think of it unimportant – really any faith but more specifically find the Judeo-Christian faith as bogus and some of you see it at the core of not only the division in this world but the central problem of this world.

    As I see it, some are like Obama and Rev. Wright and will use religion as a tool to pander votes or gain authority. It is so obvious to me. They mouth the words but are for the most part, diametrically opposed to the message. Some are like Rutherford who will take the occasional cheap shot but for the most part leave it alone. Then there is Chen or Marc, the more respectful type where it doesn’t really appear on the radar much and not really discussed because it makes too many uncomfortable. I would guess both as loosely as agnostic. Then you’ve got the ‘devout’ atheist like this Opit guy I read of last night. And finally, you have the hatemongering thugs like the Revolting Pawn and Kay who take every opportunity to vilify and degrade the Judeo-Christian faith.

    As I signed off last night, I was thinking a couple of things. First, no matter how simple it may seem, my neighbor was right. When everything is stripped naked, faith is really the division. There are many who cross boundaries for economic philosophy, etc…but it is still based on a world view. Second, both parties can’t be right. This is one area where there is no gray area like Rutherford attests that everything stands. Either God is in control and Christ is as He claimed or He was a liar and it is man solely who determines the outcome.

    If you were looking to drive up traffic Chen, I guarantee this is one topic that would do so because I believe it to be at the heart of the matter.


  59. @Tex Taylor

    I have ignored your personal comments against me for like almost six months now since would rather take the high road unlike you. Today, I am at the point where really need to answer your nonsense.

    Your whole last comment was just idiotic no nothing crap but I will be referring just to the part where you mention me…

    “And finally, you have the hatemongering thugs like the Revolting Pawn and Kay who take every opportunity to vilify and degrade the Judeo-Christian faith.”

    First of all, you are the name calling, hate mongering, personal attacking thug around here. Please point out using links where I take every opportunity to degrade the Judeo-Christian faith. I may be of the agnostic sort but you can’t back up your statement because you are nothing but a lying piece of shit who hides anonymously behind a keyboard.

    Really, what about your core beliefs thinks it’s OK to go around 24/7 criticizing people’s blogs (when have none yourself), calling people names, and making shit up about people you know nothing about?

    I am not a believer but you are certainly not a Christian or any kind of man of faith. In fact you spit out so much venom on these boards one would have to think every comment you make is the result of Satan taking another stoke with his cock up your asshole if one believed in him.

    This will be the last time I refer to you in a comment. If you have problem with anything I am saying let me know when you are in Buffalo and will arrange to explain it to your face. We know that would never happen since your a fucking chicken shit type.

    ChenZen, I apologize for going over the line but you know he has it coming to him. You have a first rate blog but why do you allow Tex on your blog to just insult your other readers? Do you need to rise your comment count that bad? I know Tex would cry censorship but of course he doesn’t even know what the word means.

    Ideas and Revolution – If you’re not outraged you’re not reading this blog


  60. Hey!

    You libbies didn’t tell me the redistribution of wealth to the 40% of the non payers was also going to include reparations.

    So Barry Obambi doesn’t think the Supreme Court correctly addressed the economic issues when they addressed civil rights, huh? So now you going to do it thru the legislature Barry?

    You know, I think you libbie guys and gals might be on to something. I don’t believe many of you have had the joy of supporting the undeserving. If Obammi comes and takes some of your funds and your toys too, and then redistributes it to people of color, well hell, I might just vote for our African tax collector after all!
    :lol:


  61. Sorry General,

    That time, GN was by accident. Don’t know what caused me to do that…old habits die hard.


  62. Ooops….Alzheimer’s is setting in! Cleaned my computer up today and now I can’t do anything right! :wink:


  63. MJ-

    ChenZen, I apologize for going over the line but you know he has it coming to him. You have a first rate blog but why do you allow Tex on your blog to just insult your other readers? Do you need to rise your comment count that bad? I know Tex would cry censorship but of course he doesn’t even know what the word means.

    I dunno why your post got stopped by the Chamber cyber-sentries, but I pulled it out as soon as I saw it. Sorry ’bout that.

    But I have nothing tangible to gain from more hits, so Tex being around really has more to do with my reluctance to censor others’ views (’cause it really bugs when it happens to me). Now, normally I give him an Emblem when he uses strawman arguments and ad hominems, but lately I’ve gotten kinda lazy. Heck, Tex dishes enough straw to feed the starting grid of the Kentucky Derby for a year. This is the Chamber after all, and there is a certain expectation that visitors can defend themselves. So, I say bravo, ’cause Tex had it coming.

    Tex-

    If you were looking to drive up traffic Chen, I guarantee this is one topic that would do so because I believe it to be at the heart of the matter.

    If you want to have a deep discussion on religion, you can bring it up in the Lounge (or, maybe Wickle’s blog?). I don’t really go into that stuff too much. Like I just said to MJ, the site isn’t really about traffic (if it was, I’d post about Dancing With The Stars or something).

    Speaking of MJ, maybe you should provide evidence that he’s degraded Judeo-Christian faith. (incidentally, this is one of those situations where mastering the art of the archivist would really help your argument.)


  64. To those who drag their knuckles on the ground when they walk and who are drooling down their necks as they read this (talking to Tex Taylor and his moonbats):

    EVERY TIME WE PURCHASE SOMETHING IN AMERICA WE ARE SPREADING OUR WEALTH AROUND.

    Isn’t that something? I bet you hadn’t thought of it like that before. Well of course you haven’t! You could be making $18,000/year and will applaud John McCain every time he rants, “Tax the poor; feed the rich!”. Yep. Dumb dumbs.

    And since you’re terrified of socialism but are okay with fascism of the last 8 years, what are you going to do about these social programs:

    THE FIRE DEPARTMENT (paid by taxes)
    THE POLICE DEPARTMENT (paid by taxes)
    THE TOWN GARAGE WHO FIX THE ROADS (again…our social taxes at work)
    SOCIALIZED MEDICINE/HEALTHCARE FOR OUR SOLDIERS

    What are you doing to get rid of these vicious, scary, social programs? Huh?


  65. The Fire and Police are primarily supported via property taxes (those awesome public schools too) so the taxation is from those that would use the service. THAT’S GOOD TAXING
    Road repairs come from the gas tax. An awesome tax due to it’s fairness and regressive nature.
    Socialized medicine would be better exemplified by Medicare and Medicaid payments. Military health care is a defense budget item and is important on it’s own standing.
    The poor don’t pay taxes in America. The middle class support the economy but it’s hardly the same as socialism or communism.
    And for the record…moonbats are lefties and wing nuts are on the right


  66. Chen…

    What proof do you want about the Revolting Puke than the very highlight of asshole’s blog, though I am absolutely confident you aren’t deep enough to understand the context? And this lying coward called the Revolting Pawn considers himself an agnostic? Horseshit. He is a jackbooted thug in virtual world, an unpopular coward in real life.

    “Freedom From Religion Foundation”

    Given the chance, this revolting punk would censor religion just like he censors his own site. He can’t handle a challenge; can’t handle the heat. Puke’s a bigot and a blowhard and the absolute bottom of the WordPress dregs.

    ——

    Hey REVOLTING PUKE!!!

    First of all, you are the name calling, hate mongering, personal attacking thug around here. Please point out using links where I take every opportunity to degrade the Judeo-Christian faith. I may be of the agnostic sort but you can’t back up your statement because you are nothing but a lying piece of shit who hides anonymously behind a keyboard.

    What’s wrong big boy? You got the same problem your messiah Obama’s got? A little thinness of the skin? You and Chen don’t like me? Well ain’t that too bad. I don’t need a link to prove you Puke a religious, degrading bigot and a lying sack of shit. All I need is your home page…

    This will be the last time I refer to you in a comment. If you have problem with anything I am saying let me know when you are in Buffalo and will arrange to explain it to your face. We know that would never happen since your a fucking chicken shit type.

    Yeah, old Tex is scared shitless of something that looks like a cross between Ugly Kay, fetal alcohol syndrome, and the local Buffalo Goth punk. I’d give you my address just so you could prove it to me but we’ve got young boys in the neighborhood and the neighbors are not real welcoming of the NAMBLA, librarian assistant, peter puffin’ type.

    Let me give you some much needed traffic so you don’t have to keep pimping your blog here and the folks will know why I’m absolutely terrified:

    http://ideasandrevolution.net/about/

    ———-

    Now Chen the callow social psychologist and lefty propagadist, give me one of your idiot emblems. I’ve earned one. And thank God I didn’t give you one cent before I left as I intended to do for your troubles. I’d be kicking my own ass now for doing so…


  67. Alfie,

    I admire your patience trying to explain the most obvious to Kay. Damn near everything she listed is supported by local taxes. I’ve got from laughing out loud, to shaking my head, to simply getting gas when that abomination of a gravatar appears.

    I used to think Kay was the brownshirt variety. I’ve now decided she’s so ignorant about virtually every subject, brownshirt would be giving too much credit.

    But I do find it ironic that Ugly would concern herself with the military – the very same ones she is continually accusing of committing genocide in Iraq. You would think she’d want them to be cheated.


  68. You know General. I got to thinking you are right. My suggestion was poorly prescribed.

    It would be a complete waste of time trying to explain the deepest of subjects to an incredibly shallow group.

    After I posted it, I had a funny feeling anything of real substance might make you uncomfortable. Playstation and grabbing the daily Olbermann talking points is so much easier.


  69. Now its beginning to sound like a dare…

    An Official Chamber Theology Thread?


  70. You know Pawn,

    There is one thing I would like to say to you and for some reason my last comment didn’t show while I insulting you – which is much too easy because you are such an easy target. For all I know, Chen has adopted your censoring techniques.

    Your whole last comment was just idiotic no nothing crap but I will be referring just to the part where you mention me…

    I hope you realize that you just proved my neighbor’s point. You wouldn’t recognize because you are completely in the dark but you did.

    I could call you every name in the book, read your every thread if I could stomach it, scream and yell and get your goat, but what you just wrote there tells me far more about you and your mindset than any discussion, or political disagreement, or exchange of insults that might take place.

    And though it wasn’t my intent because most of what I write here is crap and is intended as such, when I do pen the occasional serious message, it’s the one that most infuriates you pagans because the truth hits close to home.

    You’ve obviously been wounded or rejected sometime in your past and rebelled. You’re militant in your hate and it carries forward to every post. It is very typical and explains the boulder on the shoulder and your disdain of organized religion because it certainly isn’t vested in any logical reason. Perhaps Mom or Dad tried to force it on you.

    Now I understand.


  71. Oh I see…here in Maine Question #1 is about adding a tax to soda and you’d think this 5 cents was the most horrifying tax of all mankind! OMG, the wingnuts are dragging their asses on the ground like a dog with worms just thinking about it.

    Trust me, YOU NEOCONS BITCH ABOUT ALL TAXES…even the good ones.

    Our property taxes are high because the WINGNUTS IN THE HOUSING INDUSTRY CONTINUALLY APPRAISE HOMES WAY ABOVE THEIR ACTUAL WORTH. It’s a sickness. It’s called greed.


  72. Now its beginning to sound like a dare…

    An Official Chamber Theology Thread?

    Since you have personally admitted you know little, nor care little, how are you pen your thread Chen?

    After I gave it a minute’s thought, you would do better and come closer to being able to discuss Newton’s Laws of Gravity.

    Still glad I wrote my post, though. Like people who used to gawk at Madalyn Murray O’Hair, the “Pawn” explained to me all I needed to know. Three months of insults got me nothing but air – but one small comment about the most important of topics and bingo.

    You know Chen. One thing you still haven’t figured out about me. Sometimes, I am simply curious at determining what makes the hatemongers tick.


  73. Socialism will be great for America. Fascism has not been great for America. The End.

    And neocons, please lay out how you were harmed for having a portion of your taxes go to those on welfare (which include lots of neocon children/families).

    John McCain:

    Worth over $100,000,000
    Owns between 7-10 homes/apartments
    Owns 13 cars

    He doesn’t want to pay taxes. He wants tax cuts, tax cuts, and more tax cuts. Even when paying his taxes, ole Johnny will still be rich! Oh, but giving a TAX BREAK on their income taxes to those making less than $250,000/year is bad according to McWingnut. Yep, his mantra is: TAX THE POOR; FEED THE RICH!


  74. Hey Alfie,

    here in Maine Question #1 is about adding a tax to soda and you’d think this 5 cents was the most horrifying tax of all mankind! OMG, the wingnuts are dragging their asses on the ground like a dog with worms just thinking about it.

    Perhaps your patience is working. Did you note that U…Kay thought a sales tax was ‘even’ a good tax? Perhaps if you strain your patience to the nth degree, Kay would understand that is exactly how those knuckledragging, jack-booted, fascist neocons have thought taxes should work.

    What do you figure Kay would think a fair national sales tax would be? Shoot, if she paid her fair share even from her measly salary say from dollar one, I’d even be willing to let her pick the percent.

    Who would ever have thought Kay was coming out of the dark side to become an ass-dragging neocon and she never knew intended it?


  75. Tex-

    After I gave it a minute’s thought, you would do better and come closer to being able to discuss Newton’s Laws of Gravity.

    Well, now that would be something of substance, ’cause at least with that we’re discussing provable concepts and examples.

    As a topic, I view theology as a bit of a powder keg, as I feel we would ultimately devolve into a “I believe X, you believe Y” impasse, and along the way there’d be plenty of proselytizing, scripture citing, and (eventually) insult flinging. However, don’t underestimate my ability to think deeply about the existence of god, our place in the universe, and the positive and negative effects of organized religion on society. I can (and have). You are right on one thing, though. I don’t have as much interest in it as I used to. Maybe my lack of enthusiasm is related to the fact that I gave up weed a year and a half ago. I dunno.


  76. However, don’t underestimate my ability to think deeply about the existence of god, our place in the universe, and the positive and negative effects of organized religion on society. I can (and have).

    Ah yes. I forgot of the small god Obama. Are you wear flowers in your hair?

    I know what you mean about the lack of interest. I gave up thinking Kung Fu as a religion as a young child.

    “When you can take the pebble from my hand, it will be time for you to leave.”


  77. @ChenZen

    “But I have nothing tangible to gain from more hits, so Tex being around really has more to do with my reluctance to censor others’ views”

    It’s not like Tex adds anything worth while to the dialogue. I am all for people expressing their views but guess old fashion in that people should be civil while doing it.

    ChenZen, ever consider maybe some people view your posts and the thread and like to add to discussion but see Tex spewing out garage at people so just move on? I think allowing Tex around actually may deter more discussion and viewpoints on your blog.

    @Alfie

    “…gas tax. An awesome tax due to it’s fairness and regressive nature.”

    Huh? Regressive taxes are not fair like how progressive taxes are fair.

    “The poor don’t pay taxes in America.”

    Double huh? You just mentioned the gas tax and don’t forget about sales tax. There are a thousand different taxes and fees opposed by the government all paid by poor people.

    “Military health care is a defense budget item and is important on it’s own standing.”

    Health care access for all is important…

    Ideas and Revolution – If you’re not outraged you’re not reading this blog


  78. MJ-

    ChenZen, ever consider maybe some people view your posts and the thread and like to add to discussion but see Tex spewing out garage at people so just move on? I think allowing Tex around actually may deter more discussion and viewpoints on your blog.

    Of course I’ve considered that. I guess its a risk that I take.

    Look, I’ve been all over the political web. There are certainly cesspools of ugliness on many sites, including many of the most popular out there. I’ve been through the gauntlet of places like LGF, and remained intact. As a result, my skin is pretty leathery. So I tell you that based on my experience and all things considered… Tex is relatively mild.

    But since I mentioned LGF, I might as well add that one thing I prided myself on was the ability to withstand all the the garbage and remain civil, attacking the argument instead of the arguer. At times it would drive the lizards absolutely bananas. Call me a little demented, but the challenge of maintaining that discipline while holding my own in the debate was something I enjoyed.

    Unfortunately, the Chamber isn’t a message board, and there is no feature to “ignore” other users. But you still could ignore his jabs, choose to counterpunch, or just remain civil and take the high road. Of course, there’s grey in between, and one of the things I like to do on occasion is draw from my quiver of snark, sass, and wit.


  79. Chen,

    I know you and the Pawn on the same side of politics, but I hope you are smart enough before I leave, and I think you are, to know Pawn is trying to manipulate you to persuade you to play his little game he uses on his blog. You and I have discussed this before. Even if the Pawn calls himself a progressive, he is a complete fraud.

    While you have something going here, you know Pawn is a loser even if you can’t say it. He’s about as weak as they come, and a coward. He must pimp his own blog here because he has no audience. Even Kay doesn’t do that.

    And I hope if you’re really trying to be objective and you take a look at his pathetic blog, you will realize that I was right in my statement in the above comment. Pawn is not simply an unbeliever as he attests. He’s the most rotten form of bigot, not only a bigot on a virtual board, but a bigot in real life.

    You should do you own research about his “Freedom From Religion” support.

    You asked what is unAmerican or anti-American? What is more unAmerican than broaching freedom of speech – or more specifically trying to privatize something so you can silence it? That is the purpose of this despicable group. The Pawn (and he is) may parade himself as tolerant but he is anything but. You are.

    In Pawn’s world, his wish is to silence those that disagree with him because he doesn’t have the fortitude to support his own positions.

    But if you agree with him, please ban me.


  80. HOLY COW! You see what horror discussion of religion hath wrought?

    MJ, I feel for you man but quite frankly, I’ve found Tex’s recent tone somewhat reserved comparatively speaking. He’s one tough customer but you have to just hold your nose, shovel through the manure and pull out the actual POINT he’s making. And I will say (as I think I said in an earlier thread) when the insult level decreases a bit, Tex is quite the sound debater. No pander here Tex … just the truth as I see it, even though I know my opinion means nothing to you.

    Now MJ … I am the one who should be supremely insulted because after receiving every name in the book, after having my name and “blog design” slandered, what did I discover? Tex commenting on Deanna’s Ramblings blog! Tex … now that hurt! You could take the time to drop a turd over at Deanna’s and you won’t even spare a moment to piss on mine? And I’ve got some posts on there sure to get your blood boiling too!

    Speaking of which, I recently reviewed Bill Maher’s film “Religulous” on my blog. (Yes, Tex, the arrogant faux blogger also fancies himself a film reviewer. LOL) The comments section somewhat bears out Chen’s suspicion that any discussion of religion is likely to boil down to “I believe X and how in &deity’s name could you believe Y?”

    Still I find such discussions invigorating because it challenges the interlocutor to find creative ways to convey his point without insulting his audience. So, Chen, when it comes to a religious thread, if you build it, they will come … or at least I will. :-)


  81. Ronnie Reagan was a socialist by redistributing the wealth using the Earned Income Tax Credit:

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-abrams/reagan-the-redistributor_b_138428.html

    How dare he be a traitor to America! (right, neocons?)

    Rutherford, the right wingers will do anything to change the subject. ;-)


  82. And Tex? As a small business owner myself and a great Patriot of this country, I DON’T MIND PAYING MY TAXES. It’s those who hate America by wanting to bankrupt it by allowing the wealthy to not pay there’s that is a sign of a….well you know….a Michele Bachmann!


  83. If Obammi comes and takes some of your funds and your toys too, and then redistributes it to people of color, well hell, I might just vote for our African tax collector after all!

    Goodness gracious, the assumptions inherent in this comment, Tex, just boggle the mind. “Your funds and toys” …. eh is “your” equal to “you white people”? Tex you are way too smart for me to have to say this but for the benefit of others … there are wealthy black people whose “funds and toys” will be “redistributed” under Obama’s plan …eh, sorry … that are already being redistributed since we already have a progressive tax system. Now let’s go to the other end of the economic food chain. “… then redistributes it to people of color” … wrong again! There are loads of dirt poor white West Virginians (who sadly, probably won’t vote for Obama) who need this “redistribution”.

    You see Tex, this is exactly “what is wrong with Kansas.” White folks need to get “over” being white and recognize that poor is poor regardless of skin color or ethnic background. When one of us achieves, we all stand a better chance of achieving. I don’t care how well you are doing financially right now, you’re damn sure not doing as well as Oprah Winfrey and under Obama’s plan, Oprah pays more taxes than you do and that is as it should be.


  84. @ MJ
    I believe in regressive taxation because I believe ALL people should have a dog in the fight regarding taxes. The fuels tax is totally fair on the basis that it is linked to voluntary usage and then funds a direct line item, the roads.
    By definition progressive taxes are not “fair”. They seem better on the logic that those with more can give more.
    Yeah the bottom 50% of Americans don’t pay income taxes. They do get whacked with the sales tax though ,but again we’re back to regressiveness.As for excise taxes,property taxes and fees they are fair because they are linked to voluntary consumption/use.
    As for the health care point I was responding to Kay’s comment and will not steer the thread farther off course with the full measure of my health care views.
    @Kay the EITC under Reagan had a lot of baggage that makes me somewhat surprised by your comment. The 1986 tax code bill was also written by Dems so they deserve the good and bad from it. Better than HuffPo and easy to read Wiki
    Also regarding the sales tax on soda. Soda only ? Hows that right ? It sounds like a sales tax that is also a thinly veiled vice tax.


  85. again @ MJ. my health care position is actually pro universal access but seriously the full comment would be long, not a dodge just trying to stay civil on a thread I don’t own.
    @ Kay

    Our property taxes are high because the WINGNUTS IN THE HOUSING INDUSTRY CONTINUALLY APPRAISE HOMES WAY ABOVE THEIR ACTUAL WORTH. It’s a sickness. It’s called greed.

    Although I think it’s an oversimplification I honestly wonder if you hold equal ire for the (D) politicians as well as the (R)’s that have no problem finding ways to spend the tax money ? Mind you I’m in the Bay State and none of the local clerks were put off when the appraisals by government was allowed to mirror the market ones. Ironically we have a lot of towns and cities here recently called on the carpet for NOT sending out excise bills on boats and RV’s.


  86. Chen-
    I think there is a better argument for banning Tex. If you continue to allow him to comment here the power of one of his ideas will eventually shatter the earth. Are you really willing to take that risk?


  87. I’m eligible for the DAR and I think I’ll join just to shove the membership in the face of anyone who’d claim I was “anti-American”. I’m damn proud of being an American and of this country even if I do not espouse certain actions taken by this nation (after all, in retrospect, who on Earth considers slavery anything but an atrocity?). In later decades everything will be reconsidered as always is the case. If I didn’t occasionally dissent, would that not be ultimately “anti-American” as well?


  88. Sad update: Bachmann got reelected. :-( At least there is some consolation that Elizabeth Dole got booted out on her ass.


  89. It is easier to tell, than to make.

    By the way, what do you think about this icons site?



Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 32 other followers

%d bloggers like this: