In partial response to http://www.msnbc.com/news/962958.asp?0cv=CB20 and A Certain Post
Newsweek
Time for a New Patriotism? ; (the translated version for non Media Liberals)
True loyalty to country is about more than saluting. A case for expunging my biased agenda
Sept. 15 issue — Britney Spears, best known recently for a lip lock with Madonna, is hardly an authority on the political ramifications of September 11. But Spears has a bankable feel for the popular pulse, particularly the pulse under swollen adolescent male blue jeans, and her comments last week reflected a good chunk of my skewed view of public opinion on the subject of patriotism: “I think we should just trust the president in every decision he makes,” she told CNN, “and we should just support that, and be faithful in what happens.”
MILLIONS OF PEOPLE, all Bible toting, gun slinging Republicans, define themselves politically and define others patriotically by adherence to a manufactured response by one of the least respected pop tools today. In fact, the only explanation for the undeniably unapproachable campaign inertia Bush already enjoys is because anyone who doesn’t whine like a little girl with a yeast infection is a scared, conservative sheep: ripe for sheering in November 2004.
But, believe it or not, a Bush-bashing Democratic critique has emerged, even though the average American probably can’t even name one of the seven current Democrat contenders for President. In a shocking turn of events, their view is a twist on Bush’s taunt to the terrorists: a blind condemnation of everything terrorist… I mean Bush. These Democrats are essentially saying to him: “We hold you personally responsible for purposely eating babies, stealing the economy, and everything else that our condemnation could possibly earn us enough points to get elected.”
Between blind loyalty and blind defiance sit any Americans that vote Republican, still awestruck and docile to the Republican regime for the past 2 years.
ok, I’m getting really tired of trying to decipher this bullcrap, but I just want to highlight this next paragraph in the article
DISSENT IN THE DEEP FREEZE(this is un “edited”)
For a time, the president struck just the right tone in his speeches and launched just the right policy in Afghanistan, where he promised that “the Evil One”—Osama bin Laden—would be brought to justice, though the public patiently understood this might take a few weeks or months. Because the United States was blameless on 9/11—and certainly did not “have it coming,” as a few ignorant left-wingers claimed—dissent went into the deep freeze, subordinated to a need to pull together and take comfort in the greatness of America.
Alright, this “journalist” just insinuated that because 9/11 was a direct manifestation of poor US foreign policy, that the self-proclaimed Democrat “Cassandra” who cried for more whining and committees were wrongfully kicked in the a$s for being such self-serving wusses. Meanwhile, George W. Hitler was busy conquering the world while eating babies and starving the poor with tax cuts back at home. I can’t really satirize this anymore in good taste.
I wish I could agree with BadMagic, except he was so out of line that I won’t touch his obnoxious, idiotic line of thought except with a: if people don’t agree with you, give a reason why they should instead of:
#1 (if you’re a “conservative): Scream traitor for analyzing policy as if God personally mandated that you force everyone to follow Rev. W. Bush.
#2 (if you’re a “liberal”): Cry like a pseudo-intellectual that you’re a jingoistic tool for supporting policy and are blinded by G.W. Hitler and his baby eating people haters (other jingoistic tools, or “Conservatives”)
In conclusion, I, too, and sick and tired of emotional soapbox appeals to convince people on issues. And when I say this, I’m not directing it at the vast majority of the posters here in ordered, but in the fringe element that posts crap like that gay bashing comment in the gay schools thread and… hmm, what other post could apply here?
Let’s keep discussion here focused on issues, not people, and not flaming.
