Saturday, June 04, 2005

It's time to just come right out and say it: yes, I question the patriotism of Democrats.

I'll take it one step further. I have no doubt that the dominant forces in today's Democratic party -- the group I call "Modern Liberals" -- not only are not patriotic but hate anyone who is.

The reason for this is simple: Modern Liberalism is predicated on the belief in "multiculturalism" -- the notion that all people, cultures and forms of government are equally good and equally right. To the Modern Liberal any other conclusion is, by definition, an act of bigotry.

Anyone who loves America cannot do so because freedom and democracy are superior to tyranny and dictatorship because, to the multiculturalists, they are not. The only reason to be patriotic, then, is that one is xenophobic and racist. Thus not only is the patriot wrong for loving America he is downright evil.

This is why Howard Dean, recently crowned head of the entire Democratic Party, can honestly say that he "hates Republicans" and argue on another occasion that America is in a battle between "good and evil" with evil being not the mass murdering, fascist terrorists of Islam -- they are to be understood -- but rather the Republicans who would stand up and, for love of country, fight against them.

The multiculturalist further hates America because, when all people, culture and forms of government are equally good and equally right, the only possible explanation for success is chicanery. Similarly the only explanation for failure is victimization. This is why the left so detests America (and Israel) and so adores every one of America's failed enemies from Cuba to the Soviet Union to the corrupt, terrorist fascists of the Arab/Moslem world.

18 comments:

GNN Staff Writer said...

Is it self-hate or just stupidity? Is it some funky public school version of history? Is it cocktail party, small talk wisdom?

Each time I attempt to present an argument that many of Bush's policies have proved to be successful, I am met with "he's an idiot", "He looks like a chimp" and "he lied to the country. When did this become the level of political discourse?

I'm an old guy and still a Jack Kennedy Democrat. I remember wonderful spirited debates with Goldwater supporters. They were good honorable people. Now, as part of a society with little memory, I am constantly saddened.

J. Silverstein said...

"...the left so detests America (and Israel) and so adores every one of America's failed enemies from Cuba to the Soviet Union to the corrupt, terrorist fascists of the Arab/Moslem world."

Let's see, now...The dictionary defines Fascism as follows: "Any program for setting up a centralized autocratic national regime with severely nationalistic policies, exercising regimentation of industries, commerce, and finance, rigid cencorship, and forcible suppression of opposition."

Rigid censorship. Regimentation of business. Suppression of opposition. Hmm, that sounds an awful lot like the rhetoric and attempts at lawmaking vomiting out of the mouths of the hard-line Republicans in Washington. Can you say, "Hypocrisy?"

According to you the left make the Nazis look sexier than Marilyn Monroe. Any political organiziation that considers somebody like Al Sharpton a viable candidate for office is not a lover of America's enemies, it is just plain incompetent. However, any political organization that considers somebody like David Duke a viable member of their party could be considered more of an enemy to the people than the left is.
I believe that eventually it will be proven that the Bush Administration is laughing at all the Republican supporters because they're depending on that support to help pull the wool over everyone's eyes. And you know what the scariest thing about that is? They are making the left look GOOD.
Pass the Pepto-Bismol, please.

Evan Sayet said...

J. Silverstein perfectly outlines what is wrong with Bush haters. He says:

Let's see, now...The dictionary defines Fascism as follows: "Any program for setting up a centralized autocratic national regime with severely nationalistic policies, exercising regimentation of industries, commerce, and finance, rigid cencorship, and forcible suppression of opposition."

Rigid censorship. Regimentation of business. Suppression of opposition. Hmm, that sounds an awful lot like the rhetoric and attempts at lawmaking vomiting out of the mouths of the hard-line Republicans in Washington. Can you say, "Hypocrisy?"

Is it really possible that Silverstein is so stupid as to be incapable of seeing a difference between fascist regimes where they cut out the tongues of anyone who says anything the dictator doesn't like and America's efforts to prevent vulgarity on the public airways?

Can he really be so stupid as to compare whatever silliness in his head is "suppression of opposition" in America and the mass graves found in fascist states like Saddam Hussein's Iraq?

Being incapable of understand concepts like "degrees" any regulation of anything is FASCISM thus only anarchy is not fascist.

As I've always stated, as my very thesis, these people have removed critical thinking and rational judgment to the point where they cannot tell reasonable efforts to form a civil society from the most horrific of mass murderers. This is why they hate America and this is why they chant the moronic "Bush is Hitler."

Evan

J. Silverstein said...

Guess what, Mr. Sayet? You have proven my point on why the extremist right wing is as lame as the extremist left wing. You are doing exactly what the deaf dumb and blind followers of both sides always do: I outlined some very clear facts, and all you can do is call me names while conveniently ignoring my points and then hitting below the belt by labeling me a leftist. And, contrary to what you think, my judgment is more rational than you can imagine.

1) Don't insult your readers by suggesting I don't know the difference between Fascism in Iraq and Fascism in America. Saddam Hussein was a madman and his regime was sick and violent. I've never suggested otherwise. But silencing an opposing political view through censorship, while obviously not mass murder or cutting their tongues out, is THE SAME POLICY!! Why do I have to spell this out? I can't believe you thought I was talking about freedom of smut. I'm talking about freedom of opinion. Everybody has the right to say anything they want for or against our government without fear of reprisal as long as they're not threatening anybody. That was always the biggest selling point to American children in schools when teaching them the difference between Communism and freedom in America. Somebody once said, "I don't agree with what you say, but I'll fight to the death for your right to say it."

2) You have a HELL of a nerve to insinuate that I'm one of those who chant, "Bush is Hitler." Bush may be a lot of things, but Hitler he's not. That's left wing excretion...er, extremism at it's worst. Can't you connect the dots? I am not left wing. I am not right wing. If I have to be labeled to be identified by the narrow-minded thinking of either side, then label me an independent and be done with it.

3) By suggesting I'm "stupid" you unwittingly declared your hypocrisy for all to read. The following are YOUR OWN WORDS:
"This is the ego and arrogance of the leftists who believe that there are only two possibilities: either one agrees with them or one is stupid."

"Stupid." There's that word again. This is my whole point: BOTH sides are stupid. And they have the right to remain stupid, which they probably will. Even the slightest notion that there are viewpoints other than the left or right seems as likely to either side as 9/11 was before it happened. And all the while the common good of America continues to to suffer under the purge of extremist rhetoric from both sides.
Talk about stupid.

GNN Staff Writer said...

Please forgive me if this posting seems inappropriate. I need a favor from Conservative political blogs. If you have a moment, please read this posting on my blog, and then let me know when I can return the favor. Thanks.

http://nickiegoomba.blogspot.com/2005/06/nickie-goomba-is-asking-favor.html

pepelapue said...

j.silverstein seems to think like most liberals do, that is, if you say something...it therefore becomes true. You know, kind of like truth and reality is different to each individual. The libs are trying to preach (oops, I mean teach) this to ever younger children so that they will grow up to be "rational thinkers" like j.silverstein.

It seems he likes to rant over and over about the "silencing an opposing political view through censorship", evidently done by Republicans in his "rational" mind. Where, when, how and what is he talking about? He never says. That is just one of the "very clear facts" that he thinks he is laying out, yet somehow I see no proof or justification for what he is trying to say. Other than hyperbole with no "clear facts" to support himself, what is he doing and saying. (I guess he is like those "rational thinkers" such as Tim Robbins who thinks that if I criticize something he says, which he has every right to say, then that is tantamount to censorship. There's that "chill wind blowing" again.)

Take for example this "very clear fact".

"Any political organiziation that considers somebody like Al Sharpton a viable candidate for office is not a lover of America's enemies, it is just plain incompetent. However, any political organization that considers somebody like David Duke a viable member of their party could be considered more of an enemy to the people than the left is."

Show me where the Republicans embraced David Duke in the year 2004 Presidential campaigns j. Oh, they didn't. I see, your "very clear facts" just don't seem to stand up under criticism (er, censorship in your "rational" mind).

My friend, if you could look past your own hyperbolic temper, you would notice that there is more opportunity for freedom of speech and expression in this nation than anywhere, anytime in the history of mankind. Example...exactly what we are doing here today. Who is silencing you? Sure we can criticize and call names if we want to. But, who, exactly, is silencing you?

J. Silverstein said...

Pepelapue,
You want examples, I'll give you examples. You and I can trade thoughts here, but when it comes to any well known person, the rules change because it's believed that their popularity could influence a lot more people than, for example, you and I can on this website. Look at the hysteria that erupted after the Dixie Chicks said they were ashamed to be Texans as their way of criticizing the president. I personally don't care about them or what they do, but they are entitled to their opinion, and people are equally entitled to disagree. It's the over-reaction to what they said that I found disturbing: Boycotts, threats, calling them un-American, banning their albums from stores and airplay, public demonstrations of smashing their CDs that made people think that what they said was blasphemy. Look at the outrage that Susan Sarandon had to deal with after her comments against the war. Before you say it, I know you're just going to wave it off as me supporting their Liberal ways, but that's not my point because I am not a Liberal. You see Pepelapue, you're making the same mistake about my views. Just because I don't agree with the Republicans does not make me a Liberal. Just because I don't like the Liberals doesn't make me a Conservative. It does not make me un-American, and it doesn't make me "hysterical." What it does make me is frustrated and angry that the political parties and their faithful-to-the-exlusion-of-all-else followers have become so polarized and stubborn and have buried themselves under a mountain-range of denial.
If I were famous and I came out and said that I believe the war is about oil, not freeing people, and then questioned where the weapons of mass destruction are, then demanded to know why this president has created a frightening deficit the same way he bankrupted the Texas treasury department when he was governor, you can bet your @ss that I'd be pressured into toning it down. I'd also be ridiculed and called unpatriotic by supporters of this administration and then they'd probably organize some kind of major protest. If I said that Jimmy Carter's Cuban boat flotilla was an outrage, the left would just quietly deny it and look away like sheep. Denial is dangerous on both sides.
One of the worst things to ever come out of the Liberal camp was Political Correctness. It's nauseating, and typical of their way of thinking. However, the right has come up with Patriotic Correctness, and that is much worse because it tries to convince people that you can believe everything this administration says, because they never lie and they're always right. I could drop 10 paragraphs of facts here right now, but instead, I invite anybody to look past your political loyalty, whatever it may be, just for a while and look around at what's going on in Washington. Stop thinking that every negative stat printed and everything said that goes against the president is nothing more than leftist rhetoric, and therefore warrants silly attacks on people's patriotism. Force yourself to be sensible. Want a clear fact, Pepelapue? Try this: This administration will go down as the most corrupt of any in history. Why? Because they can. The Democrats are too inept and apathetic to do anything about it.

[Good thing I'm not famous. I'd have to retract that last statement]

Oh, by the way, Pepelapue, one of many reasons David Duke wasn't mentioned during the 2004 campaigns is because he was finishing up a federal prison term after pleading guilty to mail and tax fraud. Apparently I didn't make myself understood: In the 1980s Duke, in spite of his KKK connections, got support from many of his fellow Republicans. Not all of them, but he got enough support to get elected to the house in Louisiana. And one reason why he's been elected and Al Sharpton has never even been nominated for anything is because Sharpton is more of a clown. But they both speak the same racist language.

But I'm probably wasting my time here. I know that the next comment will probably be the same old staid response that I don't know what I'm talking about, I'm un-American, I sound like a Liberal...Yawn...it gets tiring.

Huan said...

it does get tiring.
a group of people do not like what is happening and speaks out against it. another group likes what is happening and disagree, thus too speak out against it. one is labelled unpatriotic, the other fascists.

can speaking out against the government be patriotic, yes. but not if during a course of a war such dissents can be appropriated by the enemy to strategic advantages, such as was the case of Vietnam. but in general, other than poor judgement no one has been sensured for vocal dissent from Washington.

and yes, fascism can be defined as:
"Any program for setting up a centralized autocratic national regime with severely nationalistic policies, exercising regimentation of industries, commerce, and finance, rigid cencorship, and forcible suppression of opposition."
1. has there been plans for a centralized autocratic regime? last i remember, the three branches of government remains functional (though some more than others) and congress has not been dismissed, nor as the courts. and a national election was conducted.
2. has there been "severe" nationalistic policies? i must have missed this one as well
3. regimentation of industries, commerce, and finance. were the enron, tyco, and various other trials shams? was boeing and KBR dealings investigated? have things not been deregulated rather than regulated? or did you mean the Kylo case?
4. rigid censorship. the janet jacksopn boobiegate? america has always has had a thing about being prudes, from day one. if anything, things are so much more lax now.
5. forcible suppression of opposition. better not admit to being a democrat, i hear they are being rounded up and shipped in box cars into the unknown wilderness, never to return.
the opposition remains as vocal and as shrill as ever. there has been no forcible suppression.

either you are a scaremonger, or so biased as to be ignorant of reality.

mamapajamas said...

J.Silverstein: "However, any political organization that considers somebody like David Duke a viable member of their party "

David Duke registered as a Republican, which anyone, including YOU, can do, ran for an office, and was NOT supported by RNC funds. He was EXPELLED from the party more than a decade ago, my friend, and in recent years has been running as an Independent.

J. S. "Rigid censorship"

What censorship are you talking about???? You mentioned the Dixie Chicks in a later message, but the simple fact is that the reaction to them was PUBLIC, not a government reaction. It was the people exercising their OWN freedom of speech by complaining about the Dixie Chicks.

"Censorship" is what happens when the FBI comes along and arrests you for making comments the government doesn't approve of. And that just has not happened.

Geesh... you "progressives" seem to think that only dissenters are entitled to freedom of speech. Guess what? The REST of us are ALSO entitled to it, and when a celebrity makes an unpopular statement, he or she must be ready to weather the storm of protests.

Repeat: The protests against the Dixie Chicks was ordinary people expressing their own freedom of speech, NOT "censorship". Censorship has to come from the GOVERNMENT to be censorship.

mamapajamas said...

J.Silverstein: "Oh, by the way, Pepelapue, one of many reasons David Duke wasn't mentioned during the 2004 campaigns is because he was finishing up a federal prison term after pleading guilty to mail and tax fraud."

It's about damn time someone arrested that slug.

However, he could not be arrested for being a KKK creep... that would have been "censorship" :)

Anonymous said...

Back in the mid-1990's wasn't Susan Sarandon successful at leading a boycott to have Dr. Laura's show cancelled?

Today's Liberals believe:
Your freedom of speech are belonging to us (we'll tell you how to think and if you don't like it we will scream rape so loud we won't be able to hear you)

Your wealth are belonging to us (we hate all rich people with the exception of those uber-rich members of our Collective)

Your news and entertainment are belonging to us (we know how to report distortions, manipulations, and lies on behalf of the greater good and we are masters at the art of creating bottom-fed entertainment with all the pretty people to prove it)

Your religions are belonging to us (we wish to exterminate all religious people except those whose religion requires they kill all non-Collective Liberal Americans and other infidels)

Your property are belonging to us (we can bulldoze your home whenever we need Government to provide jobs for the peasants and more taxation to fill our Collective coffers)

Don't people know that Ms. Sarandon was speaking out on Behalf of the Greater Good.

happygolucky said...

J. Silverstein claims not to be an extremist, that is scary because the scariest thing in the world is an extremist who claims not to be so. Whitewashing one's point of view is intellectually dishonest.

I side with the rightwing and I am proud of it. I believe in something that has alot of merit on its side. My belief is as valid as anyone else's.

If someone criticizes my beliefs I have a right to speak back. Quite often the left seeks to silence criticism against it, but luckily is not powerful enough. How many times have "protestors" snuck into private Republican events to interupt them, attempting to deny Republicans of their right to free speech? I cant count the times I have been called brainwashed or shouted down for my beliefs.

However, they have a right to disagree with me, as much as I should be allowed to do the same.

Michael Moore successfully produced a movie spreading outrageous propaganda against the US. Has he been arrested or harrassed?

Prominent Americans like Soros, Durbin, Chomsky, Medea Benjamin, Ramsey Clark, Ted Kennedy, Ron Kuby, Sean Penn promote their anti-Americanism without interference.

To suggest that America suppresses opposition is not incorrect, its a lie!

Evan Sayet said...

The problem with the example given of the Dixie Chicks is that no government source tried to "censor" them. Instead people who took offense to their mindless attack on the Commander-in-Chief of the United States at a time of war -- in a foreign country no less -- opted to no longer buy their music.

Would it have been "censorship" if The Dixie Chicks had said "I hate blacks" and people said "I won't buy their music anymore" have been either objected to by Silverstein or any other decent person? So why should the mindless and reckless attacks on America be accepted without backlash?

The idea that the left has been offering "dissent" is ludicrous. Lies, slanders, hate and propaganda is not honest and acceptable dissent and is, in fact, unpatriotic.

There is nobody -- not even the most ardent leftist -- who believes Michael Moore's movie was an honest attempt to factually portray the real events surrounding 9/11. Everyone knows it was a lie-filled movie with cherry-picked "facts" and manipulated footage all designed to trick people into hating America. That's not dissent, it is treason. And the fact that the leaders of the Democratic Party (Nancy Pelosi and Tom Daschle) gave what they knew to be a lie-filled, anti-American movie a standing ovation speaks volumes about the loyalties of the Democratic Party.

M Silverman said...

Mr Silverstein,

Censorship is the failure to fully explain that muslim extremists have been making beheading films for yrs. They became popular in Checnya and were used as propaganda films and used to terrorize the victims families.
Censorship is the failure to show Nick Berg or Daniel Pearl's behaedings on primetime television. Let the audience hear the chants of "Allah Akbar" or God is great. Censorship is the failure to show the IED attacks with the cameraman chanting Allah Akbar and the some "Saladin is coming, blah, blah blah" song as background music. Censorship is the failure to explain that the victims of a bus bombing in Israel were elderly Russian immigrants and teenage girls on their way to school. Censorship is the failure to show the awarding of medals to our soldiers for their every-day actions. Censorship is the failure to show the real face of Islamofacism.

So if I choose to turn off some blonde twit who is talking smack about my president in a foreign country, then that is my right. If I choose to stand up and be counted as one of the few who will go forth and destroy our nations enemies, that is my right. And if I choose to tune you out and watch another channel because your channel is nauseatingly depressing, that is my right. If I choose to set standards of morality and conduct for my children in an attempt to protect their innocence a few days longer, that is my right.

Sir, I know what facism looks like up close and personal. I also know what communism and socialism look like up close and personal. (I grew up in the San Francisco Bay Area) My wife grew up under communism; she is still feeling the effects of socialized medicine. So don't come here and talk about enlightened, rational thoughts, etc, etc, etc. Come with that and you will be handed your ass to wear as a hat. The biggest threat to this nation has not been from outside it's borders, but inside. We are threatened by those who think nothing is worth war and that we must rationalize everything we do. How can you rationalize the murder of 3000 people who's only crime was going to work and making an earning to take care of their families? Only thing I heard from Europe and the left after 9/11 was "relax, take a breath, think, think about what YOU did to bring this upon yourself" I was in Europe at the time of the attacks and you could feel the collective breath of the Euros being held on Sept 12th as they awaited our first nuclear attack upon some "innocent" city. (Like Tehran, Berlin, or Paris)

Sir, I have ben debating and battling people like you since President Reagan (All stand and have a moment of silence for the Gipper)was elected into office. I was barely out of diapers (I was a late bloomer) but knew a winner. As a teenager I stood on the frontlines of a protest march to show support for our polices in Central America. I was called a baby-killer, facist, etc, etc, etc. I was spat upon, cursed, mocked, and intimidated. All in the name of peace. But we few (two of us) stood our ground and eventually got the better of the thousands who came to protest democracy. These same kooks are the leading ass-clowns against anything that smacks of democracy and freedom.

Sir, I have seen the gore of war and the glory of victory. I have felt the sting of battle and the shame of defeat. I have felt the blood of a comrade slip between my fingers as I tried vainly to save him. But nothing has been worse than to know that there are those in my own country who will stab me in the back to further the enemies cause, all in the name of "peace".

j. silverman said...

the bush haters remind me of the nixon haters of yore...and like the nixon haters, they are blinded by emotion. did you know that nixon initiated affirmative action, even ignoring his romance with red china. and who brought us closer to nuclear war than any modern president? john kennedy, that's who. and what president in a single term was able to set records for inflation and unemployment simultaneously? jimmy carter. so, forget what they say and pay attention to what they do.

Anonymous said...

Dissent is the essence of democracy. By attacking dissent, you have proved that you don't give a damn about democracy. You don't deserve it. You are so blind to the rhetoric of the right that you don't even stop to think about what you are saying.

You want to know why Iraq is so screwed up? It isn't "liberal hatred of America." It's the failure to listen to top military brass in planning. It's the failure to devise an exit strategy before entering the war. It's the failure to provide proper equipment for the troops. You righties were so busy focusing on rhetoric that you forgot to actually fight the war.

rhetoric, rhetoric, rhetoric, rhetoric, rhetoric- keep waving your flag. It isn't going to make this country stronger.

happygolucky said...

Silencing my opinion wont make this country any more free. I have a right to my opinion...

You can whine and moan about Bush and Republicans all you want. Is your right to condemn Bush's and my point of view more sacred than my right to condemn your views?

Stop telling me that I have no right to disagree with you. Hypocrite!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

J. Silverstein said...

As always, the extreme left and the extreme right miss the points of common sense. It's become boring. You live in your little cocoons and any time somebody says something that's doesn't jive you go off on some lame tangent and make idiots out of yourselves. Fortunately, your numbers are small. You just make more noise than most and that's why the media gives both sides so much attention. You really excel at slapping labels on everyone, don't you? I've been tagged a Liberal, a Conservative, a Leftist, a Nazi, a Communist, Intellectually Dishonest, a Scaremonger, a Progressive...Who the hell cares? It's just another meaningless title.

This is what I said before: "Just because I don't agree with the Republicans does not make me a Liberal. Just because I don't like the Liberals doesn't make me a Conservative. It does not make me un-American, and it doesn't make me "hysterical." What it does make me is frustrated and angry that the political parties and their faithful-to-the-exlusion-of-all-else followers have become so polarized and stubborn and have buried themselves under a mountain-range of denial."

I'm not perfect and neither are any of you. I'm just not as "Right" or as "Left" as you are and it really irks some of you. All these lables I've been called is proof that none of you here get it and never will. Oh well, onward and upwards...

Have fun in your worlds.