“When moonbats twist facts” — conservatives are just as guilty of this as liberals.

“US is a boogey man on any topic” — That’s not liberals. Criticizing Mr. Bush or his policies is not making the U.S. a boogey man. I’ll bet you criticized President Clinton; did that mean you were anti-American?

“Ann Coulter’s ‘Treason’ — Yeah, anybody can write a book. There’s a whole chapter about Ann Coulter in a book by Al Franken. Book vs. Book.

“George W. Bush is not your president” — I never said that. However, raising questions about what happened in Florida in November 2000 does not make one anti-American. Quite the contrary — it’s anti-American to suppress that inquiry.

“Global test” — it’s clear from the transcript of the debate that when Sen. John Kerry used the word “global” he meant in in the sense of “general,” as in “a global estimate,” not in the sense of “requiring permission of other nations.” It is dishonest to pretend otherwise. And, in fact, Kerry clarified this point, but conservatives continue to lie about it.

“subordinate ourselves to various world bodies” — I never said that, and I don’t agree with it.

“Liberman [sic] is a closet republican — I strongly disagree.

“Modify our founding documents to give Sharia a prominent spot in our system” — Liberals oppose that as much as you.

“Our system is one of the worst systems of government” — I strongly disagree with that.

“If you think that our government should not flow up from the people, rather self-chosen elites ought to decide what’s best for us and enforce it for our own good, then you might be an anti-American.” — Excuse me, Conservatives now control the White House, the Senate, the House of Representatives, and the Supreme Court, and you are afraid of liberals deciding what’s best for everybody? WTF?

“If you think the government has the right to take what is yours and make it ours, then you might be an anti-American.” Excuse me, the Constitution specifically includes the words “lay and collect taxes,” remember?

“If you think Bush stole the elctions in 2000, then you might NOT be an anti-American, but you sure are gullible.” Let’s get this straight. By the official tally, Bush won Florida by 537 votes. It is not “gullible” to suspect that of over 50,000 voters scrubbed from the voter rolls under contract by Secretary of State/Chief Election officer/Chair of the Bush Campaign [Do I hear "conflict of interest"?] Katharine Harris, there were well over 537 — more likely thousands — of non-felon eligible voters [mostly Black! Do I hear "racism"?] who would have unambiguously put Kerry over the top, if they had not unlawfully been deprived of their right to vote.

“Aliens are coming to take over the world with their flying saucers” — Not me. I’d bet that belief is more prevalent among conservatives than liberals, but anyway, I agree with you that that one is ridiculous.

“If you are proud to be an American and willing to stand beside her & guide her her thru the night with the light from above, pitch in and work within the system to both defend and improve it, being a good sport even when things don’t go your way, then you are a loyal American.” That’s me! And most liberals too!

“Are you sure you don’t work for State Department?” Not I!

Dan

But when moonbats twist facts, or make incomplete rationalizations as to why the US is a boogey man on any topic, they are rightly considered anti-americans. Put it this way;

If you think Ward Churchill, George Soros as well as the sorts spelled out by Ann Coulter’s “Treason”, are loyal Americans, then you might be an anti-American.

If you think George W. Bush is not your president, then you might be an anti-American.

If you think that we need to pass a global test before lifting a finger against tyrants, then you might be an anti-American.

If you think we should subordinate ourselves to various world bodies, then you might be an anti-American.

If you think the Liberman is a closet republican because he isn’t hard left, then you might be an anti-American.

If you think that we should modify our founding documents to give Sharia a prominent spot in our system, then you might be an anti-American.

If you think that our system is one of the worst systems of government, then you might be an anti-American.

If you think that our government should not flow up from the people, rather self-chosen elites ought to decide what’s best for us and enforce it for our own good, then you might be an anti-American.

If you think the government has the right to take what is yours and make it ours, then you might be an anti-American.

Did I miss any? Oh yeah.

If you think Bush stole the elctions in 2000, then you might NOT be an anti-American, but you sure are gullible.

If you think there is a vast right wing conspiracy, then you might NOT be an anti-American, but you sure are gullible.

If you think that aliens are coming to take over the world with their flying saucers, then you might NOT be an anti-American, but you sure are gullible.

If you are proud to be an American and willing to stand beside her & guide her her thru the night with the light from above, pitch in and work within the system to both defend and improve it, being a good sport even when things don’t go your way, then you are a loyal American.

PS, are you sure you don’t work for State Department?

I asked you to stop using the term “anti-American” to describe loyal Americans whose views differ from yours.

Did it ever occur to you that their report was deep-sixed not due to a coverup, but that possibly it was so flawed, it should have never seen light of day? Their report is at odds with the 9-11 commission report, as well as other reports.

Let’s explore this enemy of my enemy meme a little bit.
*Osama is a theofacist like the Taliban in Afghan & Mullahs in Iran
*Osama hates the US
*Osama hates Islamic apostasy, this includes Saudi Arabia, Kuwait & fence sitters like Jordan.
*Osama also hates secular Arab states, such as Iraq & Syria, their saving grace is that they’re Sunnis.
–Kuwait is Pro-American
–Saudi, along w/ an opportunist Jordan, are “buddies” w/ America.
–Iraq/Syria & America are not.
–Iraq wants to take over Saudi & Kuwait, while Syria wants Lebanon so as to flank Isreal.

Granted this is just a fraction of the complex interrelationships in SWA, but if you’re going to triangulate the devil, who’s Osama’s best friend for as long as necessary? Who harbored and mended Osama’s men as well as other notorious terroists?

Bottomline, State Dept is run by a cabal of statist. These guys are so in bed with their foreign hosts that they’ve gone native.

This is the same group who were horrified/disgusted by Reagan and choked on their brie and schnitzel when Reagan demanded that Gorby tear down the wall. How dare the Gipper upset their carefully nuanced apple cart?

This is the same group who hastened to apologize for Reagan’s rashness and reassure them that no matter what he says, things will remain as before, sprouting nonsense like “Must be that senility kicking in”; “Pay no attention to that man”; “We’ll still be here after he’s gone”; and “We have Senators and others who support brownnosing our foreign masters”.

Credible pro-American experts on Euro/Soviet countries? I think not.

This is the same group who saw nothing wrong with their visa express system that allowed anyone from Saudi to fasttrack their visas for coming to the States — I mean no one, not even Europe, had it as easy as the Saudis to get into the US legally. In spite of some of of the 9-11 terrorists getting in that way, State Dept was bound and determined to maintain the system, to the point of insubordination to our govt.

Credible pro-American experts on Saudi/Islamic countries? I think not.

This is the same group who pried the fingers of American women & children off their embassy gates , in order to turn them back over to their moslem husbands and fathers. Remember that Sally Fields flick, “Not w/o My Daughther”. She was lucky, hundreds of others are trapped behind the Koranic curtain.

Credible pro-democracy/freedom advoates in Saudi/Islamic countries? I think not.

The same people that cautioned, better the Saddam we know than someone we don’t know and argued every trivial point they could think of against action in Afghanistan & Iraq. The same people who have a vested interest in seeing “diplomacy” win this battle by any means necessary.

Face it, State Dept does not have a winning track record, especially when they willfully ignore their diplomat-in-chief.

But that’s ok, Condi has a couple of years to give them an attitude adjustment. I do believe those spike heel shoes will be most useful in goring delicate namby-pamby toes. By the time she becomes POTUS, I’ll imagine, the hardcore anti-Americans will be so terrorized, they’ll get out of foreign service ASAP.

Finally, if you were waiting on diplomacy to start the domino effect I hope youe weren’t holding your breath. Clinton had the chance, but he ducked and ran. Man, just imgine if Gored had been president when 9-11 happen. So far, he’s been wrong on just about every isse as che ankle-biter

Kindly stop refering to people who disagree with you, or President Bush, or the wisdom of embarking on the Iraq qar as “anti-American.” Reasonable people may differ. I certainly don’t call those who disagree with me, or believe that this $300 billion boondoggle was the right course, as “anti-American,” so kindly grant the other side the same respect we grant you.

Even the U.S. State Department acknowledged that Al Qaeda was not active in Iraq prior to 9/11/2001. This was posted to the State Department’s website. Unfortunately, that page has been taken down (Could this be a cover-up?) but you can find a record of it on Kevin Drum’s blog at http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2004_09/004766.php.

As for the democracy domino effect, I’m as excited as you are by the possibility of Syria getting out of Lebanon. I am just as cheered as you by whatever progress is made in democratizing the Middle East. But let’s remember that the great blue whale in this part of the world is Saudi Arabia, which remains as undemocratic as it gets.

Respectfully,

That’s been sufficiently detailed in the “bi-partisan” report on 9-11. If you download the PDF, just find “Iraq” and you’ll find about 12 pages devoted to the courtship of Saddam & Osama. Furthermore, most anti-americans also claim that Bush lied about the association between Osama and Zarqawi. But that’s been debunked almost from the get go. I find it curious that AAs will go to any length to parse and spin the obvious and common sense reports into Bush lied.

I was wondering what the deal was with the heightened security at the airport when I got on my flight. Now the MSM is saying that from multiple sources, that Osama has told Zarqawi to forget about Iraq and focus on attacking the US at home. Hmmm. Enemy of my enemy is my friend…

So who’s been lying now? Who’s been deluding themselves under the reality-based matra? Gotta love the democracy domino effect going on in Lebanon, Syria, Egypt and even Iran. Bush had to go and tip the apple cart and now all dem apples are rolling every which way faster than the tyrants can catch em. Bwahahaha

I did not get your comment. Please send it to (my name) followed by @earthlink.net.

How does Lakoff treat the two “paradigms”?

In my view, both liberalism and a certain strand of conservatism—the more free-market oriented one—fall on the modern side of the ancients-modern divide. What would Lakoff say about that?

Just to make it clear where I am coming from: I think that the modern view is powerful, and has some truth to it, but I think the ancient view is better in one major respect: justice, for the ancients, is not a matter of contract, but of the nature of things.

By the way, I sent you an email—but with the NO SPAM. It hasn’t bounced back, but perhaps you didn’t get it. Did you?

Cheers,

Adrian

Our education system has clearly shortchanged a significant number of its students in this vital skillset as aptly illustrated by this image. It’s been said a picture is worth a thousand words. The maleducated elites have mangaged to reduce it to just 7.
http://www.grotto11.com/blog/archive/1109295693.shtml

I ‘was’ guilty of over generalizing in my previous comment Anomalocaris. There are always exceptions in a grouping based on political preferences. I apologize to you if you are not one of those in the generalization.

I do enjoy reading your rebuttals here and hope you and others continue. But, I really do believe Iexist’s comment more closely represents the largest majority of liberals attitude when discussing their country.

Where is any credit given, unless in a defensive response? When is any positives promoted? Where is any patriotism demonstrated?

It is a clear pattern and perception most liberals leave and they either have to be more positive, or live with the negative responses to it.

Lakoff’s book deals with your ancient/modern dichotomy, although it does not use those exact terms to describe the paradigms.

Sincerely,