DescentBB

The comments reported to be by Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) that Obama and all \"liberals\" are anti-American make me shake my head in amazement. This kind of extremism doesn't exist in Canadian politics. Here all the mainstream politicians understand and accept that the others hold different views of Canada and have different paths they might want the country to follow but that all of them are Canadian and want to improve and support Canada. The exception is the Bloc Qubequois who are more focused on Quebec at the expense of Canada. But there is no outcry to have them or any of the politicians hauled before some committee and subjected to a loyalty test.

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

Really? What are \"anti-American views\". Belief in anything that she doesn't believe in perhaps? Will people like her make it a crime to have political views other that those approved by the state?
She wants members of Congress investigated to expose anti-American activities. These are the leaders of America. By definition what they do are American activities whether you like them or not.

This attitude that people who hold opposing views and beliefs are not worthy of being citizens of their own country is scary. Does Gov. Sarah Palin (R-AK) actually think there are \"Pro-America\" and \"Anti-America\" parts of her own country? (Comments reported at a fund raiser last week)If she had control how would she treat those areas whose politics make them \"Anti-America\" in her view?

America seems to be more polarized and more rabidly intolerant of opposing viewpoints than any other democracy in the \"free\" world. It's not a pretty sight and the American people deserve better from their leaders. The leaders should be doing just that, leading, and attempting to reduce this destructive tendency not encouraging it.

Remember I may be Canadian but my wife and children are all U.S. citizens so I have some stake in the country's advancement in tolerance. At the moment it appears marrying a Canadian might be worthy of punishment in the eyes of some politicians.

But I do notice “your” bias, and how you criticize the US when it’s doing something considered “Rightist” and are filled with joy with something “Leftist”

Fill in the blanks? Let me do it for you, sometimes you are Anti-American, mostly when you are aligning with the “Left”.

The fact is…some change in this country can be considered to be “Anti-American”. But I don’t consider the people that want the wrong change in this country “Anti-American”, just wrong!

And let me point out some of your bias, I see in you post that you are blaming the Right for the accusations of “Anti-American”, totally ignoring the political reality. See, this is where it goes beyond wanting what is best for the country, and becomes contempt for your opponants.

So, to summarize…You are as guilty as they are.

There is a difference between anti-American as in one who seeks to defeat the country and anti-American as in one who advocates policy that are the antithesis of the founding principles and fundamental strength of our economic system....

Context is king when trying to understand the English language.

Spidey there are many millions of Americans that feel exactly the same way about politics, religion and morality as I do. Am I anti-American when I side with them rather than those whose opinions I don't share? You are posting an example of the polarization and lack of respect for the opinions of others that I am complaining about.

Will America was founded with values that slavery was legal, that women were property and could not vote, that those of native or Asian descent could not hold professional positions such as lawyers.
I know you don't support those values yet any change from today's values is somehow \"anti-American\". I don't agree. The thought that a divorced person could run for the highest office in the U.S. with a possibility of winning would have shocked the America of 200 years ago yet the majority of Americans now would not hold Mr.McCain's marital problems against him.
Progress requires opposition and challenge not suppression and censorship. Therefore opposition and challenge of the status quo should be seen as positive not \"anti-American\".

Ford,
There's a big difference between a founding principle and a cultural norm. American founding principles are in our documents (eg Declaration of Independence, Constitution, etc.). Cultural norms have butted heads with these principles ever since.

I'll expand on this later.

Ford Prefect wrote:...
I know you don't support those values yet any change from today's values is somehow "anti-American". I don't agree....

I don't see you quoting the Minnesota Congressman saying that "any change" is the issue she see's as anti-American, she seems to be talking about specific changes Obama would make so the context she was speaking in should be the focus and the fact that some of Americas early positions have been abandoned are no proof that Obama's positions are also as virtuous as abolishing slavery nor is it any indication that anything that breaks the status quo can't be anti-American.

If for example she's referring to a President being able to arbitrarily set a limit on earnings and put a punitive tax measure in effect for all earnings above that limit so additional tax can be levied on some people and those confiscated funds be redistributed to less productive citizens I'd say she has a point...that is a very anti-American policy!
We all have a standard of what being American is and she has a right, in fact an obligation, to represent her constituents with a critique of Obama's policy and judge it according to that standard.
I don't think her comment sounds akin to blackballing suspected communists a la Sen. McCarthy in the early 50's....

Ford, you really must use a handbook…

Topics:

Talking points

Subject: Polarizing

Step 1. Introduce a topic, and blame the Conservatives of being polarizing.

Step 2. Ignore the counter accusation of polarization.

Step 3. Use any counter argument to accuse your opponant of polarization, in an attempt to make them defensive, therefore controlling the debate.

LOL Spidey. I guess you have a point. I am talking from one side of the spectrum to another. However I don't indulge in name calling, attempted belittlement and dismissive abuse of my opponent's position. Not that I'm accusing you of all of those offences. Those are however seeming to become the norm in American political rhetoric.
I find for example that the use of the term \"anti-American\" by certain Republicans at this point in the election process is being used, not as Will would like me to think, but as a code word for \"terrorist\". An attempt to place Obama's politics on a par with those of Osama Bin Laudin. And if calling for the press to investigate the anti-American activities of \"liberal\" congress members and citizens does not smack of McCarthyism well I don't know what does.

By the way Will isn't the American income tax progressive? That is you pay a higher tax by percentage on your earnings as they increase? That sounds exactly like:

for example she's referring to a President being able to arbitrarily set a limit on earnings and put a punitive tax measure in effect for all earnings above that limit so additional tax can be levied on some people and those confiscated funds be redistributed to less productive citizens

Which is just a scary way to describe your (and most ever one else's) system of taxes and social benefits. Hardly on a par with tearing up the U.S. constitution. And if that system is anti-American it's been in place for longer than Obama can be held responsible.

Yes, as I have said before, American politics are a dog of a different color.

Both sides use the same basic tactics, but the Democrats are much better at it than the more blatant Republicans.

Example: Calling someone “Anti-American” the Republicans use the tactics as you describe, but the Democrats do it a little more subtly. for example they say “the Republicans are trying to start a theocracy” how more Un-American can you get, than trying to impose religious law. Or perhaps they accuse the Republicans of “trying to destroy the constitution” can’t get any more Anti-American than that. They just don’t use the words, but they imply the same thing.

Fear tactics go along the same line, the Democrats are much better at using them than Republicans.

Example: How Bett now believes the Republicans will make abortion illegal, but it won’t matter because they are going to start WW3 so we will all be dead anyway. Still the common notion is that only the Republicans use fear tactics.

I would say it’s partly because they have a compliant press, but nobody believes that. The other reason is…they are just better at politics than Republicans.

Ford Prefect wrote:....By the way Will isn't the American income tax progressive?...

It is but so far I don't think any President has taken it upon himself to raise it based simply on his determining how much is too much for one person to earn. The income tax is supposed to be minimum amount the government needs to fund the necessary workings of the federal government and it is determined by congress not one man! And it is not an endless money supply to fund handouts of any politician who needs to buy some votes!

Obama's $250,000 limit is more in line with decrees handed down by Communist or Socialist governments.
Obama showed his hand when he mocked Joe the plumber at his rally the other day saying "How many plumbers do you know make $250,000 per year?!?" Really pissed me off to hear him say that. He's set a ceiling on what he thinks is the fair amount of earnings you can make before you have made too much and have to surrender extra cash to fund his new welfare handouts.

Usually Presidents propose lowering taxes based upon universal fairness or to stimulate the economy...Obama has told us that he would raise taxes so he can "spread the wealth around"...that is a little different and goes against the grain with a lot of people.

As to the other things this congresswoman said:

...An attempt to place Obama's politics on a par with those of Osama Bin Laudin. And if calling for the press to investigate the anti-American activities of "liberal" congress members and citizens does not smack of McCarthyism well I don't know what does....

... you didn't post it so how can we comment on it?

you didn't post it so how can we comment on it?

Sorry Will I thought the liberal biased press would be all over this and her comments on Hardball would be common knowledge.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/1 ... 35735.html

Usually Presidents propose lowering taxes based upon universal fairness or to stimulate the economy...

And how any current candidate can do that with a straight face in light of the 500 billion dollar per year budget deficit is beyond me. And yeah that means both of them.

Yes Spidey it takes two to tango as they say and both sides like to play the fear monger game. If you believed what you hear you would think the other side was running a candidate with a secrete agenda to destroy the country not just use a different path to keep it strong. The possibility that both might be wrong or neither one wrong just different never seems to be considered.

Ford Prefect wrote:

you didn't post it so how can we comment on it?

Sorry Will I thought the liberal biased press would be all over this and her comments on Hardball would be common knowledge.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/1 ... 35735.html

I think I see the problem but I share her concerns but to a different degree and from what I think is a reasonable and justifiable angle..
I have known a number of black people who are every bit as smart or smarter than I am and what I would consider very open minded politically yet if you bring up certain subjects their perceptions go from well rounded and curious of both sides of the debate to straight up black militant conspiracy theory unleashed.
I think it's a black thing and not a dogmatic democrat party fan boy thing.
So I wonder, even though Obama has only slipped twice that I can think of, once the spread the wealth thing and once in his book "the world in need is run by white folks greed"...
I can't help but wonder just how skewed is his perception of justice and equality?
Where does he really stand on reparations, affirmative action, quotas, welfare, etc.
His background and his wife's and his associations with all these radical thinkers and groups is suspicious to me.

His "spread the wealth" as reason alone to raise a tax rate is bad! Even if he finds the government justified in needing more revenue it shouldn't ever be simply because he feels like being Robin Hood!! It isn't supposed to be that way and to let that rationale go unchallenged on it's merit is piss poor journalism! He can advocate for increasing the funding of program X, Y and Z and ask Congress to back him but to just decide congress needs to even out peoples earning to make life fair is a different authority no President should feel he has at his disposal! That line of reasoning exposes something about his core beliefs that I wouldn't want in a President.
I suspect he may be a bit of the bitter angry black man inside an otherwise eloquent and very smart black man.

I may just vote for him though, and not just for the selfish reasons I mentioned before. Powell is right about a lot of things he said and I've always trusted his motives and judgement.
I wish I could trust him on foreign policy more, I think he needs a crash course in reality there, too bad Powell isn't Obama's Cheney...that would have sold me on it. Bidens not there for me by a long shot.
I'm very conflicted at the moment regarding who I think Obama will be versus who he says he is. I think he doesn't even know who he will be if he gets the job but it could really turn out as epic failure too...world history end of a nation failure...but that is true of anyone in that job in these times I suppose.

Ford Prefect wrote:

Usually Presidents propose lowering taxes based upon universal fairness or to stimulate the economy...

And how any current candidate can do that with a straight face in light of the 500 billion dollar per year budget deficit is beyond me. And yeah that means both of them.

Taxing to pay down the debt is a loser. Increasing production to increase revenues is the only cash cow big enough to pay down that debt and sustain a thriving economy so don't scare the investors in the job creation business into taking their money out of play! Business people across the country expanding their personal empires create many more jobs in more communities than the government hiring extra workers for hiway projects etc.
A guy on increased welfare or a guy now earning an extra two dollars an hour thanks to a democrat incentive bill doesn't hire workers, a new restaurant or condominium construction project does.

So a while back we had enormous discussions on eaves dropping and wire tapping by the Bush admin. Those of you on the left exclaimed how our civil liberties were in peril (even tho the limitations to what the govt. could listen in on were quite severe). So guess what will be the first order of business by Ms Pelosi if Obama gets elected?:

\"SHOULD Barack Obama win the presidency and Democrats take full control of Congress, next year will see a real legislative attempt to bring back the Fairness Doctrine - and to diminish conservatives' influence on broadcast radio, the one medium they dominate.\"

\"Yes, the Obama campaign said some months back that the candidate doesn't seek to re-impose this regulation, which, until Ronald Reagan's FCC phased it out in the 1980s, required TV and radio broadcasters to give balanced airtime to opposing viewpoints or face steep fines or even loss of license. But most Democrats - including party elders Nancy Pelosi, John Kerry and Al Gore - strongly support the idea of mandating \"fairness.\"
End excerpt

Now I don't know about you, but limiting free speech by applying \"fairness\" qualifiers is going to be much worse than any wire tapping would ever be. The liberal socialist's want to quell any dissenting voice. In this case by mandating equal time to opposing points of view. Lets face it, what fee paying advertiser is going to pay for air time to Bill Maher for 3 hours, after Rush Limbaugh? So if no one will pay for a leftist propaganda machine by advertising, then the radio station will be forced to kick Limbaugh from it's programing. So if we are looking at anti-americanism, look no further than what The democratic leadership wants to impose on our fundamental free speech rights.

Now, I suppose in a tit-for-tat game of one upsmanship, the claims by the right against MSNBC for equal time might possible lead to better news reporting tho I suspect the dems will find a way around this. All in all I would expect that finding a opposing voice to the liberal spin will be very hard to come by.

I'm really not comfortable speaking to any one candidate's policies or electioneering. I haven't commented on any of the election threads and I don't want to start now. My politics are fairly obvious but neither of these candidates is electable in my country. In yours you should do what you think is best for you.

My point for this thread is the low quality of the political debate in your country. With significant exceptions, the focus is on scaremongering and personal attack. Comments on the opponents policies are so distorted so as to make you wonder if they are talking about the same policies the candidate actually put forward. Making Governor Palin sound like a character from Atwood's The Handmaid's Tale and comparing Sen. Obama to Osama bin Laudin. Are ridiculous overstatements that some how in the U.S. make it into mainstream news sources. And even more frightening seem to find audiences who believe them.

Spidey you accuse me of encouraging polarization by backing a \"liberal\" agenda but just having a contrary opinion does not make for a polarized situation. It is when the two sides refuse to even consider that there may be the slightest merit in the other side and begin to see an opposing viewpoint as an enemy of their definition of \"right thinking\" people that things get worrisome. Other countries do a much better job of allowing extremist viewpoints to co-exist with mainstream political thought than the U.S. does and I personally think that such co-existence makes for a freer, more liveable society.

I think most of us are aware of the concept of the \"Tyranny of the Majority\". The majority of course sets the rules but when those rules are designed to prevent opposition and the existence of contrary opinion then they are in error. The U.S. Constitution was written with this in mind but too often I hear rhetoric from the U.S. that indicates that some factions think that constitutional guarantees should only apply to those they think are worthy of them.

It may have sounded like that Ford but…

I accused you of being polarizing because you were blaming one side for the problems in your original post. Therefore trying to draw a contrast…IE: Polarization.

1. cause division of opinion: to make the differences between groups or ideas ever more clear-cut and extreme, hardening the opposition between them, or become ever more clear-cut and extreme in this way

I accused you of doing exactly what you were accusing the Republicans of.

I didn’t accuse your politics of being polarizing, I accused you. You can have any view you want, it’s what you do with them that counts. In this case you chose to be accusatory.

That's the most mature response I can come up with right now.

Ford Prefect wrote: My point for this thread is the low quality of the political debate in your country. With significant exceptions, the focus is on scaremongering and personal attack. Comments on the opponents policies are so distorted so as to make you wonder if they are talking about the same policies the candidate actually put forward. Making Governor Palin sound like a character from Atwood's The Handmaid's Tale and comparing Sen. Obama to Osama bin Laudin. Are ridiculous overstatements that some how in the U.S. make it into mainstream news sources. And even more frightening seem to find audiences who believe them.

Spidey you accuse me of encouraging polarization by backing a "liberal" agenda but just having a contrary opinion does not make for a polarized situation. It is when the two sides refuse to even consider that there may be the slightest merit in the other side and begin to see an opposing viewpoint as an enemy of their definition of "right thinking" people that things get worrisome. Other countries do a much better job of allowing extremist viewpoints to co-exist with mainstream political thought than the U.S. does and I personally think that such co-existence makes for a freer, more liveable society.

I think most of us are aware of the concept of the "Tyranny of the Majority". The majority of course sets the rules but when those rules are designed to prevent opposition and the existence of contrary opinion then they are in error. The U.S. Constitution was written with this in mind but too often I hear rhetoric from the U.S. that indicates that some factions think that constitutional guarantees should only apply to those they think are worthy of them.

Ford, I agree with you completely about the low quality of debate by both of the two main parties but I think you haven't gone far enough. It's not just low quality - it's utterly impoverished. Both sides mischaracterize the position of the other. Both sides focus on talking points and catchphrases. Neither side is willing to engage in real dialogue. By the way, both sides are clearly content to not engage in a real dialogue. And why not? Supporters of candidates on each side don't care whether or not "facts" are factual. It's like they're rooting for their local football team as if all that were at stake is losing a contest. So when the average American is too fat and stupid to care he's being duped, why should politicians try to appeal to a higher sensibility? That might make them appear elitist. And nobody likes one of those! Darn, I hope I don't sound too un-American by wishing our politics had substance.

Sadly, the quality of debate on the E&C generally, and including this thread, is not much better. So I've essentially given up after years of trying have rational arguments with people in this forum who ignore anything unflattering about their position (i.e. party) and will never admit when they've been wrong, and who are either unable or unwilling to comprehend English. In about two weeks it's going to look like the Rush Limbaugh message forum.

As far as this topic...the attempt to divide Americans into two countries, big town versus small, real American versus anti-American is nauseating. And every one of you so-called DBB defenders of liberty should know that and stand up for that. Bachman is a numbskull and a partisan hack.

Palzon wrote:

Both sides mischaracterize the position of the other. Both sides focus on talking points and catchphrases. Neither side is willing to engage in real dialogue. By the way, both sides are clearly content to not engage in a real dialogue. And why not?

Why not? You forget the one truly important party that sits between the politician and the populace. That would be the press. If our news "journalist" are not going to root out the answers for us in a independent manner, then why should the politician worry about giving true factual statements?

All of us here do not have the time nor money to go out and hold a politicians toes to the fire. And when someone like Joe the Plumber does ask a question that a candidate replies with a embarassing answer, does the press dig at the politician or do they go after the guy asking the question? The founding fathers knew the importance of a free and unfettered press, too bad todays journalists are simply turning into party hacks...to the detriment of us all.

Wow we had fun while I was gone

I haven't heard the congresslady's remarks, but Gov. Sarah Palin is full of 100% crap. The implied meaning is overly liberal places are rooting for the downfall of the United States. What a load of crap!

If we absorbed Iraq into the United States as the 51st state, then yeah, we might have ourselves an anti-American part of America. But I highly doubt there is even a TOWN that is anti-american as a whole, let alone whole sections of this county

Dakatsu wrote:....But I highly doubt there is even a TOWN that is anti-american as a whole, let alone whole sections of this county

Go interview the average man on the street in Berkeley Ca.

Dakatsu wrote:But I highly doubt there is even a TOWN that is anti-american as a whole, let alone whole sections of this county

never been to San Fransisco have you

...give me a poll or something that actually says that San-Francisians (whatever) actually want the downfall of the United States of America, and/or it's government. This \"anti-american\" term seems more like a code word for \"liberal\" I even tried replacing \"anti-american\" with \"liberal\" on a few posts above this, and it seems like the case to me

Dak, they may be referring to places where there are a lot of people who advocate the abolishment of borders, laws the establishment…and such like that. (if liberal fit’s the shoes…so be it)

There is a place where they want to pass laws to kick out the U.S. Military from being able to have offices within their borders, they declared a no fly zone over themselves to keep U.S. military planes from being able to fly over them, they named their sewage treatment plant after President Bush as an insult, they declare the ground within their borders to be a safe zone for illegal immigrants including those who are wanted by the police for crimes including murder....

And this place isn't in Iran or Syria, it's San Francisco / Berkeley Ca.

Sounds like you might find an overall anti-American attitude in there to me!

Anti-Americanism can be as subtle as wanting to pass the \"Fairness\" doctrine, couching the language so it sounds like it will better the country when all it does is squash information detrimental to the new socialist cause.

Anti-Americanism is also opposing a war that you have voted for in the first place, the only reason for doing so is try and get more power.

Anti-Americanism is also using your power of the press to belittle people that opposing a certain candidate for political office, to show only the dark side of a war your leadership voted for or to promote a social ideology that most people want no part of.

Anti-Americanism is taking public money and then using it to fraudulently register voters to skew a election.

How am I doing so far?