Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: iamzack on September 10, 2009, 12:05:08 pm
-
lol (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TyTelRaoBAI)
It's like health insurance reform town hall meetings, but with congressmen wetting themselves over nothing instead of insurance reps pretending to be Joe the Plumber (TM)!
-
I predict a political debate from Liberator or High Max.
Prove me wrong.
-
zomg ur bein biasd obama is teh stalin!!1!1!
*ahem*
Dick move on the representative's part, but at the very least, he admitted he was a dick and apologized.
-
Dick move on the representative's part, but at the very least, he admitted he was a dick and apologized.
Yes, but did he admit being wrong?
-
Too late for an apology anyway. He's pretty much guaranteed his replacement in 2010.
Kinda lame that THIS is, like, obscene these days.
What happened to the good old days of southern congressmen beating other congressmen to brain trauma with their canes?
-
You want fisticuffs, go somewhere with a parlimentary setup.
-
Doesn't even happen here nowadays, worse luck, at least if people started punching each other, or challenging each other to duels, it'd give some indication that they care.
-
You want fisticuffs, go somewhere with a parlimentary setup.
Taiwan
-
Dick move on the representative's part, but at the very least, he admitted he was a dick and apologized.
Yes, but did he admit being wrong?
"This evening I let my emotions get the best of me when listening to the President's remarks regarding the coverage of illegal immigrants in the health care bill. While I disagree with the President's statement, my comments were inappropriate and regrettable. I extend sincere apologies to the President for this lack of civility."
-
Too late for an apology anyway. He's pretty much guaranteed his replacement in 2010.
He's from the second Congressional district in South Carolina. That seat hasn't been held by a non-Republican since 1965. Even if this hurts Wilson's re-election bid (and I highly doubt that), I still can't see him losing.
That said, he was still essentially slandering the President and doing so at a highly inappropriate time. For a man of sixty-two and an eight-year veteran of the House, I'd expect the maturity to not make the remark to begin with, rather than having to beg for forgiveness after the fact.
-
Fisticuffs? We've outdone fisticuffs.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/31/Southern_Chivalry.jpg)
-
Too late for an apology anyway. He's pretty much guaranteed his replacement in 2010.
He's from the second Congressional district in South Carolina. That seat hasn't been held by a non-Republican since 1965. Even if this hurts Wilson's re-election bid (and I highly doubt that), I still can't see him losing.
Apparently his opponent has recieved upward of $50,000 in contributions since the incident.
-
Apparently his opponent has recieved upward of $50,000 in contributions since the incident.
A tally that will not be sustained, through November 2010 (by which point, this event will be long-forgotten), and a sum that will likely be spent well before then.
I think Wilson acted like a jackass, who deserves to be voted out, but the political reality is that this won't be what convinces his constituents to do so. All this event has done is momentarily galvanized those on the political extremes, and in his district, there are a lot more people on his extreme than on the opposite.
-
He didn't win by much last time around.
However, lots of people are calling the douchebag a hero and such nonsense. Why can't we just put all the morons on a big island together and forget about them? They'll be happy with their straight white christian only demographic, and the rest of us can work on improving civilization.
-
However, lots of people are calling the douchebag a hero and such nonsense. Why can't we just put all the morons on a big island together and forget about them? They'll be happy with their straight white christian only demographic, and the rest of us can work on improving civilization.
If you want representative democracy, then you have to deal with the bad as well as the good. Even when the bad makes you want to pound your head against a wall. :p
-
balls of steel
they need to make that guy president.
-
He didn't win by much last time around.
Sure. Only an eight-point margin. Barrack Obama only managed a seven-point margin over McCain in the Presidential election, and McCain literally got his primary and general election strategies reversed. Add to this the historical precedent of the President's party (whoever the President may be) losing seats in mid-term elections, the low voter turnout in mid-term elections, and the ridiculous 90+% incumbency rate in the House (especially in mid-term elections), and this whole event, in terms of electoral politics, is a nonevent.
I don't like Joe Wilson. I'm not defending his actions, but there's a reality here that you just need to deal with: This is not the act that will unseat him, full-frakking-stop.
Oh, and classy endorsement of internment camps. The Japanese-Americans of the '40's loved 'em, so why won't Whitey, right?
Mistakenly lumped in with the split.
-
He didn't win by much last time around.
However, lots of people are calling the douchebag a hero and such nonsense. Why can't we just put all the morons on a big island together and forget about them? They'll be happy with their straight white christian only demographic, and the rest of us can work on improving civilization.
You need the conservatives as well as the liberals. If you have only liberals then your society would basically turn into Britain, which the next logical step being V from Vendetta.
If you had only conservatives, you'd end up with a religious theocracy.
It's good that we have the idiots, because sometimes they are right; and they hold us back enough so that we don't bound forward without restraint and fall into a ditch. Sometimes they hold back too much, but progress inevitably marches forward.
-
No. Social conservatives have no place in a free and civilized society. If anything, they advocate moving towards V for Vendetta, not away from it. They only want small government when it benefits themselves and no one else.
-
He didn't win by much last time around.
However, lots of people are calling the douchebag a hero and such nonsense. Why can't we just put all the morons on a big island together and forget about them? They'll be happy with their straight white christian only demographic, and the rest of us can work on improving civilization.
You need the conservatives as well as the liberals. If you have only liberals then your society would basically turn into Britain, which the next logical step being V from Vendetta.
V for Vendetta was a fascist ultraconservative state. Isolationist, xenophobic, surveillance-heavy.
-
Which America is closer to being than the UK btw :P
-
The funny thing about the whole spectrum is that ultraconservative winds up being very close to ultraliberal when you talk about end results. :p
-
Yeah, that's very true. Very true.
It's pretty absurd how every time liberals are in power in the US the conservatives shriek 'communism', and every time the conservatives are in power people shout 'fascism!'
-
What's really absurd is social conservatives screaming fascism like it's not their goal.
-
The major problem, one of the major problems, for there are several, with governing people is that of who you get to do it. Or, rather of who manages to get people to let them do it to them. To summarize: it is a well known and much lamented fact that those people who most want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it. To summarize the summary: anyone who is capable of getting themselves made president should on no account be allowed to do the job. To summarize the summary of the summary: people are a problem.
-
The major problem, one of the major problems, for there are several, with governing people is that of who you get to do it. Or, rather of who manages to get people to let them do it to them. To summarize: it is a well known and much lamented fact that those people who most want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it. To summarize the summary: anyone who is capable of getting themselves made president should on no account be allowed to do the job. To summarize the summary of the summary: people are a problem.
R.I.P Douglas. :(
On a side note, I just finished his less-well-known book Last Chance To See (http://www.amazon.com/Last-Chance-See-Douglas-Adams/dp/0345371984). It's very good.
-
I just love the massive, massive variation of the meaning of the word 'Liberal' in the US, it's almost like an expletive over there, if you don't like it, it's Liberal.
-
Not only that, but from a political science standpoint, true "liberalism" historically falls far more in line with our traditional definition of "conservatism" than the "social liberalism" that it's come to define. The terminology is kind of one big kerfuffle nowadays.
-
FDR started the confusion it when he started describing his programs as "liberal". Before then those programs would have been termed "progressive".
-
Liberally Progressive Conservatism? :shaking:
-
Liberally Conservative Socialism?
That's my kind of politics ;)
-
I prefer auto-dictatorship. :D
-
It's pretty absurd how every time liberals are in power in the US the conservatives shriek 'communism', and every time the conservatives are in power people shout 'fascism!'
I guess you missed that whole 'Liberal Fascism' thing.
If so, you're a lucky man. Because it turns out that
Mussolini was born a socialist, he died a socialist, he never abandoned his love of socialism, he was one of the most important socialist intellectuals in Europe and was one of the most important socialist activists in Italy, and the only reason he got dubbed a fascist and therefore a right-winger is because he supported World War I.
-
Kindly reread my post.
Pay close attention to the 'in the US' part.
I'll add an extra parameter of 'since the Cold War'.
-
Ah, I was unclear; my point was that recently American conservatives, or at least some American conservatives, have 'discovered' that fascism and socialism (and, depending on who you talk to, progressivism and liberalism) are the same thing.
-
I just love the massive, massive variation of the meaning of the word 'Liberal' in the US, it's almost like an expletive over there, if you don't like it, it's Liberal.
Only to 80% of our population. The smart people, on the other hand, tend to describe themselves as liberal.
I usually skip the whole categorization thing and just describe myself as "someone you really, really don't want to argue with."
-
I just love the massive, massive variation of the meaning of the word 'Liberal' in the US, it's almost like an expletive over there, if you don't like it, it's Liberal.
Only to 80% of our population. The smart people, on the other hand, tend to describe themselves as liberal.
I usually skip the whole categorization thing and just describe myself as "someone you really, really don't want to argue with."
Anyone who openly calls themselves "liberal" or "progressive" honestly has way too high an opinion of themselves. Likewise, anyone who describes themselves as "conservative" outside of the way they dress or maintain their appearance, or politically "traditional" has a habit of living in the Dark Ages or being a massive hypocrite for supporting the current Republican Party.
There are some conservative ideas that just make sense: yes, we shouldn't be spending through the roof, and yes, we have an obligation to look into our past to see how we've grown as a country. On the same token, America has always been a liberal and progressive nation: if not, we'd probably still be English. The damn Cold War ****ed us. Ever since the damned propaganda wars between the US and the USSR, "progressiveness" and "liberalism" have automatic associations in an uncomfortably large number of Americans' minds as substitute words for "Soviet communism", and anything "traditional" or "conservative" has automatically been equated with Mom's apple pie and baseball.
I mean, God bless the Cold War generation, but the filth both sides are putting in their children has got to stop...extreme hippie parents telling their kids the military is out to get them and ultrarightwing parents drilling the "LIBERAL=COMMIE" idea into their offspring's heads. Parents have got to let their kids develop on their own...America won't grow if they don't.
-
The major problem, one of the major problems, for there are several, with governing people is that of who you get to do it. Or, rather of who manages to get people to let them do it to them. To summarize: it is a well known and much lamented fact that those people who most want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it. To summarize the summary: anyone who is capable of getting themselves made president should on no account be allowed to do the job. To summarize the summary of the summary: people are a problem.
thats what nukes are for.
-
You need the conservatives as well as the liberals. If you have only liberals then your society would basically turn into Britain, which the next logical step being V from Vendetta.
V for Vendetta was supposed to be a warning of what would occur following the continuation of Thatcherite policies. So you're so far off the mark it's quite funny.
-
You need the conservatives as well as the liberals. If you have only liberals then your society would basically turn into Britain, which the next logical step being V from Vendetta.
V for Vendetta was supposed to be a warning of what would occur following the continuation of Thatcherite policies. So you're so far off the mark it's quite funny.
If only the author had known about Bush and Blair.
-
The funniest thing to come out of this was a couple of people standing up in these town hall meetings (with video cameras everywhere) and equating a public health system with communism. It seems like very few people actually understand political systems ...because the comparisons are hilarious :)
-
"Hello, it's nice to understand that you speak for stupid, can you please tell me what communism stands for, and how this relates to healthcare?"
"Will stupid be running for the next election?"
-
The funniest thing to come out of this was a couple of people standing up in these town hall meetings (with video cameras everywhere) and equating a public health system with communism. It seems like very few people actually understand political systems ...because the comparisons are hilarious :)
What's even scarier is the ones who think Medicare ISN'T a government welfare program (it is, and it is very popular).
-
I like when they compare govt regulation of the health insurance industry and govt health insurance to Nazism. OBAMA IS HITLER! HE WANTS TO KEEP YOU FROM GOING BANKRUPT OVER A CAR ACCIDENT!
-
I cited two Godwin instances during a three-second clip of that big Washington march on the nightly news. I found it rather amusing. :p
-
Seriously! Half of the signs the protesters are carrying seem to be comparing the president to Hitler, Mussolini, Lenin, Marx, Stalin, Pol Pot, and/or Mao! I know Bush's detractors included some pretty retarded people but come on...is the president a communist or a fascist?!?!
Or a commuhomonationalsocialmaokenyanislamoterrorprochoicenazifasci st!?!? Do these people have any concept or histo-*head explodes*
-
Seriously! Half of the signs the protesters are carrying seem to be comparing the president to Hitler, Mussolini, Lenin, Marx, Stalin, Pol Pot, and/or Mao! I know Bush's detractors included some pretty retarded people but come on...is the president a communist or a fascist?!?!
Or a commuhomonationalsocialmaokenyanislamoterrorprochoicenazifasci st!?!? Do these people have any concept or histo-*head explodes*
Don't think too hard about these things...it only causes misery :)
You know I think it might be funny to gather some of these hilarious people and take them on a bus tour of Canada and see how "communist" we are with our public funded health system.
-
I still haven't figured out what painting Obama's face like the Joker mean. I think it's really funny and witty to some people, but I can't figure out why.
-
This is kind of what you get a few years after a political movement adopts an anti-intellectual stance: a total loss of historical perspective. It's easy to compare any politician you disagree with to an oppressor, when you have no understanding of what that oppressor did to gain such a reputation.
I still haven't figured out what painting Obama's face like the Joker mean.
Apparently (and I'd have to look the article up again for confirmation), the artist came forward and said he made the picture on a lark, and one of his friends took it off his Facebook profile, tacked on the word "Socialism," and thus the poster originated. Sometimes grassroots politics leads to pretty brilliant campaign material. Sometimes it appends its message to something unrelated and goes viral.
-
Well, there's also that amusing interpretation of The Dark Knight which holds that, um, Batman is George W. Bush.
-
No. Social conservatives have no place in a free and civilized society. If anything, they advocate moving towards V for Vendetta, not away from it. They only want small government when it benefits themselves and no one else.
implying free society is only to be given to the 'right' people, or should I say the 'left' people, amiright? lol
The funniest thing to come out of this was a couple of people standing up in these town hall meetings (with video cameras everywhere) and equating a public health system with communism. It seems like very few people actually understand political systems ...because the comparisons are hilarious :)
so taking money from the rich to pay for health care for the poor is not a communist institution?
-
so taking money from the rich to pay for health care for the poor is not a communist institution?
You know I was taking the piss when I was posting earlier but HOLY SHEET.
-
so taking money from the rich to pay for health care for the poor is not a communist institution?
If it is, the GOP is a bunch of commies too, as they explicitly state their support for medicare. In which case the debate over who the commies are is meaningless; we're all commies.
-
I swear communism is synonymous to some swearword over there but not actually the meaning of communism ;\
It's very confusing.
-
The Plan, as it is currently written, expressly denies coverage to people who are not US Citizens. However, there is nothing in it about requiring identification as a US Citizen.
Therefore it would be easy as can be for an illegal immigrant to use a phony social security number or other ID in order to get access to the program.
Thus the "You lie!" comment. Having a certain requirement while expressly forbidding any possibility of *verifying* the requirement means that requirement is in fact a complete lie.
Also falling into that category is the "liberals" opposition to verification of eligibility to vote.
American "liberals" have become exactly the opposite of the dictionary definition of the term. I call them restrictionists. They want to put restrictions on how much money one may make through the imposition of punitive taxes. They want to restrict freedom of speech and religion of anyone who disagrees with them. Many of the laws they've gotten passed that were supposed to promote "equality" have instead resulted in restricting the rights of some groups.
For example "Title IX". The supposed intent of it is to provide equal *access* and *opportunity* for female students to participate in sports and athletic activities. What's actually happened with it in many cases is the elimination of programs for male students when not enough females at a school wanted to participate. "Not enough girls want to play? Well then the boys can't either because that's DISCRIMINATION!"
Another favorite of the "liberals" is the "hate crime". They're ever trying to get additional penalties placed on certain criminal activities when perpetrated against a "minority" individual or group. What the concept amounts to at its roots is any crime committed by a white male against anyone with more melanin is a "hate crime", or if the victim is a homosexual.
Our "liberals" are fond of the words "racist" and "divisive". Everyone must play nice together and include men and women of all creeds, colors, genders and sexual orientations in any group. So why is the Congressional Black Caucus allowed to exist? It's an all Democrat, all Black, racist and divisive organization.
Any all male organization is very much frowned upon by our "liberals" but they'll very grudgingly allow it IF there's no racial discrimination... unless it excludes caucasians. That's perfectly OK. They don't bat an eye over an African-American Men's Prayer Group, but if a bunch of white men want to get together, watch out it's the KKK! Women can form any women only group they want, no problem, as long as it all inclusive, or any non-white race only.
We have the NAACP (National Association for the Advancement of Colored People), the United Negro College Fund, the American Indian College Fund and a laundry list of groups and organizations devoted to helping any non-white race or women or people whose ancestry can be traced to various other countries.
Yet if a group of heterosexual white men attempted to start a college fund for white college students who've taken a vow to refrain from sex until marriage... there's about a dozen sorts of things the "liberals" would call them - all the while the exact same things are just fine with them as long as the persons doing them aren't "white".
There was a Southern high school that for decades, by mutual consent of the students, had quietly held separate off-campus black and white senior proms. A couple of years ago the students decided, on their own, to finally hold a single integrated prom. Ohhhh boy did the "liberal" fur fly then! As if that was the first time they'd ever know about the prior practice. All those years of *discrimination*. Something Had To Be Done! What they were really upset about was that the students had taken care of it themselves and the "liberals" lost a chance to Make An Example of some "white racists".
Finally, if you've heard of ACORN, raise your hand. If you voted for Obama yet never heard of ACORN, where the bleep were you during the campaign?
Google for this
acorn child prostitution
What you will find *should* make you hopping mad at ACORN. Two college students posed as a pimp and prostitute and went to ACORN's offices in Baltimore and Washington D.C. to apply for a home loan and to get some business advice. They used a hidden video camera to record what happened. They were told they could claim her income from prostitution as a "performing arts" business and were told they could deduct various items like condoms as business expenses. Then the students upped the ante, saying they were going to bring in some teenage girls from El Salvador to be prostitutes. The ACORN people never batted an eye, told them they could claim the girls as "dependents".
But what's even worse is in both cases they were BLACK WOMEN calmly giving advice on ENSLAVING under-age girls. I guess they just weren't being discriminatory, or racist, since the two college students were white...
About the only outfit treating this scandal as the major news story it is, is FOX News Channel. The biggest paper in the State I'm in gave it three little paragraphs on page 7, and omitted the worst details.
A good thing that's come of this is the director of the 2010 US Census told ACORN their services were no longer needed. Why was ACORN ever brought on board to help with the Census after their multiple verified attempts at voter registration fraud for the 2008 election?!
If ACORN is happy to aid white slavers, have they also provided funding to garage drug labs? What do they call those? Pharmaceutical research laboratories?
ACORN has received a lot of taxpayer funding and Obama has promised them a lot more. They ought to be at least cut off from public funding. I'd like to see them have to return every penny.
Obama's connection to ACORN? He was one of their top lawyers before he got elected to the US Senate. "Community organizer"? More like criminal organizer.
-
I sense much confusion.
-
I'm pretty sure that video's full of it, since, you know, it talks about child prostitution (what up my Bureau buddies?) and admits only college students were involved in the same sentence.
Having a certain requirement while expressly forbidding any possibility of *verifying* the requirement means that requirement is in fact a complete lie.
Also this statement is hilarous since you admitted early the plan merely doesn't provide for a check, not forbid it. However as there's money involved and this is going to be set up as a corporation of sorts, a check will evolve nearly instantly. Also, newsflash: current provisions in the plan DO provide for a check.
Title IX? You know what that actually did? It made college football watchable. Better, in fact, than professional. There are no truly crappy college teams anymore, they all got killed off. Because it's the only real big-ticket sport that caused a problem under Title IX. Hell, you should be glad they passed it. It improved the quality of your television. Even I can stand watching college football games these days.
-
so taking money from the rich to pay for health care for the poor is not a communist institution?
If it is, the GOP is a bunch of commies too, as they explicitly state their support for medicare. In which case the debate over who the commies are is meaningless; we're all commies.
this is not an answer to my question.
republican != conservitive
and bizzybody, if you could just take a moment, draw some diagrams for me, maybe make a chart or two, and maybe explain to me where the ****ING HELL that diatribe fits into the conversation?
god this thread makes me sick.
-
bizzybody must be joking. Hate crime, reverse discrimination, FOX NEWS IS THE ONLY TRUTH, ACRON WILL EAT YOUR BABIES...
I mean, almost every single retarded talking point is right there. He only missed "god hates fags," "abortions on demand" and "contraception kills".
-
They all laugh until they find themselves choking on a condom.
-
That really was just a check list of right wing rambling, wasn't it?
-
I love the fact the whole argument is that Illegal Immigrants might fake an identity in order to get treatment, it's the most crazy, nonsensical, poorly thought out argument I've ever heard in my life.
That's like saying that Credit Card companies cater to thieves because someone might clone a card and use someone else's account.
-
Lawl@bizzybody, particularly with regards to his critique of 'hate crimes'.
He is apparently unaware that if a disease only affects a certain population, you focus your efforts on curing it in that population, instead of in the white male population where it has no real empirically visible effect.
-
No. Social conservatives have no place in a free and civilized society. If anything, they advocate moving towards V for Vendetta, not away from it. They only want small government when it benefits themselves and no one else.
implying free society is only to be given to the 'right' people, or should I say the 'left' people, amiright? lol
The funniest thing to come out of this was a couple of people standing up in these town hall meetings (with video cameras everywhere) and equating a public health system with communism. It seems like very few people actually understand political systems ...because the comparisons are hilarious :)
so taking money from the rich to pay for health care for the poor is not a communist institution?
Only if you consider Canada communist :)
-
I'm only sticking my nose into this thread to advise bizzybody and anyone else who would like to try and argue about this from the side of right to cut and run and let those who would allow tyranny and corruption take hold in they're leadership, whatever country they're in, think they are right in they're pompousness.
The only thing I can say further is I forsee a near 100% turnover in the upcoming congressional elections. The giant is awake, and he's not happy.
-
I'm only sticking my nose into this thread to advise bizzybody and anyone else who would like to try and argue about this from the side of right to cut and run and let those who would allow tyranny and corruption take hold in they're leadership, whatever country they're in, think they are right in they're pompousness.
The only thing I can say further is I forsee a near 100% turnover in the upcoming congressional elections. The giant is awake, and he's not happy.
And if that didn't sound totalitarian I don't know what doesn't LOL
-
I'm only sticking my nose into this thread to advise bizzybody and anyone else who would like to try and argue about this from the side of right to cut and run and let those who would allow tyranny and corruption take hold in they're leadership, whatever country they're in, think they are right in they're pompousness.
So where were you arguing about tyranny and corruption when Bush was in charge then?
It's amazing how silent you were back then.
-
Only if you consider Canada communist :)
its closer.
-
The only thing I can say further is I forsee a near 100% turnover in the upcoming congressional elections. The giant is awake, and he's not happy.
you are making the same mistake the other side is making, namely that the other side is a crazy ignorant vocal majority. in reality both sides have reasons and well thought out positions and your side is about 30%, their side is 30% and there is about 40% who don't give a ****. oh, and both parties are just useing your mutual hate to keep you loyal, while they spend us into oblivion and pay off their corperate cronies.
-
Bob, I don't disagree with you. The thing about people who aren't paying attention is that they don't see that while it might be that 30%, 30% and 40% you talked about, the reality is that the vast majority are dissatisfied with they're elected leaders. The problem is that they're not being presented an real alternative. So as the saying goes, better the devil you know than the devil you don't. I just honestly believe, that for good or ill, the vast majority of senators and congressmen who are up for reelection in 2010 are going to be shown the door. Obama is the crown jewel in a collection of corrupt self-important scumbags who would be working at the 7/11 if it weren't for they're ability to smoothtalk people into thinking that they'll do something for them.
-
And yet you said nothing about Bush.
I can keep this up all night BTW. :p
-
well 'screw who ever is in power right now' is the mentality that gave the democrats the last election, so it could just as easily lose them the next one. but meanwhile this stupid cultural war is going to just keep escalating, and no solutions are going to be presented, I don't think there is a way out of our current mess except for a huge 'eating the wood of your house because there is nothing else to eat' crash, effectively rebooting civilization. of the people who care they are not allowed to listen to the other people with a different position, they want it their way and they want everyone else to have it their way as well. From that we get socialist programs and gay marriage bans, am I the only one here who is noticing we are getting the worst of both worlds?
-
What's interesting to me is that Obama is getting slammed on the left in a lot of places. The most liberal of folks are Obama's biggest criticizers.
Folks on the right don't actually have much to ***** about. That's why all they talk about is birth certificates and death panels. They have to make stuff up in order to get people riled up against him.
Whereas on the left, people are going "hey, where's the gay rights legislation?" "why isn't health insurance reform passed yet?"
Obama isn't liberal enough for liberals to be happy, but he's not white enough for the right to be happy either.
Compare to the criticisms of Bush. Almost nothing came from the right, unless you count libertarians (but they're kind of crazy so I don't like to think about them). The left didn't have to make stuff up (though they did anyway on occasion), and not a peep from the right!
The only legitimate thing the rights *****es about is the deficit, but we had a surplus pre-Bush, so I don't know why they waited 8 years to start whining. No, wait, yeah I do...
-
Obama isn't liberal enough for liberals to be happy, but he's not white enough for the right to be happy either.
I see what you did there.
Bad human.
-
When the crazy birther-type rightwingers can point to a problem with Obama that actually exists, then I won't assume their only problem is racism.
-
Bob, I don't disagree with you. The thing about people who aren't paying attention is that they don't see that while it might be that 30%, 30% and 40% you talked about, the reality is that the vast majority are dissatisfied with they're elected leaders. The problem is that they're not being presented an real alternative. So as the saying goes, better the devil you know than the devil you don't. I just honestly believe, that for good or ill, the vast majority of senators and congressmen who are up for reelection in 2010 are going to be shown the door. Obama is the crown jewel in a collection of corrupt self-important scumbags who would be working at the 7/11 if it weren't for they're ability to smoothtalk people into thinking that they'll do something for them.
Evidence? Any? At all?
Even I didn't think Bush was intentionally doing harm; I thought he was just wrong. You, on the other hand, seem intent on treating the real world as if it were as simple and friendly as WoW.
-
http://www.thejaylenoshow.com/video/clips/prez-and-jay/1157069/ (http://www.thejaylenoshow.com/video/clips/prez-and-jay/1157069/)
1:41 for the thread tie in
-
http://www.thejaylenoshow.com/video/clips/prez-and-jay/1157069/ (http://www.thejaylenoshow.com/video/clips/prez-and-jay/1157069/)
1:41 for the thread tie in
And for those of us who aren't in danger of becoming communists because we already are communists?
... I mean, "not Americans?"
-
You can decry us as Capitalist Pig Dogs. I don't see the segment on youtube unfortuantely so I'm not sure how to find a copy for you Proles.
-
I really don't get you iamzack. I'll grant that you are young. But most people become Capitalists pretty quick when they have to provide for themselves when they get out into the big bad world.
Another thing, you talk like you dislike wealthy people simply because they are wealthy and that they must have climbed over someone and oppressed them to get they're money or were just plain lucky. For most of the wealthy people I know, it was a long time coming and they worked harder than most to get there.
-
You're making some pretty big assumptions there, Liberator. I think capitalism is a great economic system.
I just don't think it's perfect. Unregulated capitalism is just as bad as pure communism.
-
It's the interaction between Capitalism and Politics that is the problem to be honest, when companies attempt to massage the law in order to allow them to market a new product, or attempt to influence a Senator because their product contains toxic material and they don't want to have to accept responsibility, then something is going wrong to my mind.
-
Yeah, that's capitalism beating the regulations, isn't it? Without regulations, they'd make more profit because they wouldn't have to lobby. And what's good for business&stockholders is good for America! ..right?
-
Flipside, I don't see why a company should have to massage the law in order to be able to sell a new product. Can you provide an example of why a company should be forced to seek permission from the government in order to be able to market a product?
-
Flipside, I don't see why a company should have to massage the law in order to be able to sell a new product. Can you provide an example of why a company should be forced to seek permission from the government in order to be able to market a product?
Drug Companies.
-
Flipside, I don't see why a company should have to massage the law in order to be able to sell a new product. Can you provide an example of why a company should be forced to seek permission from the government in order to be able to market a product?
The 1900s-1920s.
-
Patent Medience.
-
For most of the wealthy people I know, it was a long time coming and they worked harder than most to get there.
Bollocks.
This is just "The poor are poor because they don't try hard enough" in another form. You look at any end of the pay scale and you'll find people working bloody hard. From the pauper working two jobs to have enough to feed their kids to the millionaire with no social life cause work is everything.
-
It also fails to take into account that rich people don't get rich in a vacuum. They may not be stepping on people to get where they are, but their wealth is built on the foundations that the government provides to everyone.
-
Can you provide an example of why a company should be forced to seek permission from the government in order to be able to market a product?
Sport Utility Vehicles.
Though quite obviously passenger vehicles, under the law, they are classified as light trucks, as opposed to large cars or vans. This permits auto makers to build them to lower standards of environmental impact and passenger safety. If you can stand the soul tax that accompanies that, it helps reduce the per-unit dollar cost.
-
http://www.entertonement.com/clips/pmpppkcngk--Never-meet-emission-standardsMom-Professor-Futurama-Futurama-Season-5-
-
I really don't get you iamzack. I'll grant that you are young. But most people become Capitalists pretty quick when they have to provide for themselves when they get out into the big bad world.
Another thing, you talk like you dislike wealthy people simply because they are wealthy and that they must have climbed over someone and oppressed them to get they're money or were just plain lucky. For most of the wealthy people I know, it was a long time coming and they worked harder than most to get there.
Actually, scientifically speaking, most wealthy or successful people start out with some kind of advantage. Check out Malcolm Gladwell, 'Outliers'.
Plus, your hypothesis totally fails to take into account the fact that there may be many more who who work hard for a long time and fail to get anywhere.
In other words it's meaningless and doesn't make the basest logical sense.
-
You know all this time I thought I was working hard.
-
I know someone who's working a full time job (bus driving), a part time job (bar tending), and going to college full time.
He makes $40,000 a year, $6,000 of which goes straight to school.
He's 45 years old.
He's worked hard all of his life.
Don't tell me you make what you earn liberator.
-
40k is not an uncomfortable living presuming you don't live beyond your means and control your debt. I've heard tales of folk making that and less paying obscene amts of debt and living happy and free lives when they're not burdened by that.
-
Flipside, I don't see why a company should have to massage the law in order to be able to sell a new product. Can you provide an example of why a company should be forced to seek permission from the government in order to be able to market a product?
It's not just a question of releasing new goods, take the petrol companies, and lead in petrol, take Tobacco and Nicotine poisoning, take toys with toxic paint on them, all of those were not caught nearly quick enough not because of lack of knowledge of the danger, but because of the political power of the organisations that produced them. That is the danger to my mind, when profit is more important than public safety, and I'm not talking about Government coming into your homes, I'm talking about the very thing the Government is there for, to protect and support the people that vote them in, when that suffers for profit, I can't help thinking that something is wrong with the system.
-
40k is not an uncomfortable living presuming you don't live beyond your means and control your debt. I've heard tales of folk making that and less paying obscene amts of debt and living happy and free lives when they're not burdened by that.
Could you not ignore all the arguments raised in response to points you make? It'd make you look a little bit less some kind of repeater for conservative talk radio.
And try living on 40K without health insurance.
-
40k is not an uncomfortable living presuming you don't live beyond your means and control your debt. I've heard tales of folk making that and less paying obscene amts of debt and living happy and free lives when they're not burdened by that.
Could you not ignore all the arguments raised in response to points you make? It'd make you look a little bit less some kind of repeater for conservative talk radio.
And try living on 40K without health insurance.
Why should I bother replying to anything any of you say? You think my beliefs are foolish and that I am an idiot. I couldn't say anything that could possibly be taken seriously in this atmosphere.
-
That's absolutely untrue. I am capable of separating my feelings towards your opinions (often very misinformed, such as the last one I critiqued) from my feelings towards you (probably a decent chap from a very different culture, possibly a bit too trusting.)
Seriously, I am aware of the fundamental attribution error.
On the other hand if the things you say keep getting shot down, then just ignoring them means you'll never learn anything, which does make it look like you're just putting your hands over your ears, rocking back and forth, and humming.
-
From my perspective, your side is one doing the humming.
-
Different perspectives are often the largest causes of conflicts in the world.
-
From my perspective, your side is one doing the humming.
I can cite my sources. You can't. If you had data I'd listen to you. Go read Outliers, give me your critique.
Wait. Hold on. What side am I on? Tell me who I am, go on.
You don't know what I read, where I get my information, or what I think about politics or the world - and yet you've made those traits clear in yourself. Why do you think I'm on a side?
I never said anything about your side. The entire idea of the 'culture war' is a myth; it has never influenced presidential elections and it certainly isn't represented in the actual US population. I talked about you, an individual.
:rolleyes: See, here's the difference. You rush to judge, hasten to categorize, and try to simplify everything into black and white. I'm at least willing to hear what you have to say before judging you. Do me the same courtesy.
-
Why should I bother replying to anything any of you say? You think my beliefs are foolish and that I am an idiot. I couldn't say anything that could possibly be taken seriously in this atmosphere.
Absolute "I am the victim" nonsense.
I'd be quite happy to listen to you. You on the other hand make NO effort to listen to me. When I or anyone else on here writes a clear explanation of why you are wrong you simply ignore it. You pay no attention to it unless you can find one line that you think you can answer.
So if you feel no one pays any attention to you viewpoints it's because we can prove them to be incorrect and you can not prove them to be correct in the slightest.
Of course you will ignore this post and carry on acting as if no one listens to you.
-
Yeah, that.
If it had to do with your politics, then people like spardason and Scotty would get the same treatment, but as it is they're capable and enjoyable debaters. So the problem is not with your affiliation but with your reasoning.
-
I remember a few years ago the conservatives basically saying 'lolhippies' about all the antiwar protests, now all of the liberals are saying 'lolinsurancecompanyplants' about all the conservative protests against socialized healthcare. at least the conservatives recognized there was protests going on.
-
The conservatives called antiwar protesters terrorists.
At least we recognize these people (http://lookatthis****ingteabagger.com/) aren't malevolent, just uninformed and racist.
-
racist?
-
Yeah, I gotta agree with iamzack, racism plays a pretty heavy role in a lot of these protests.
Probably not an explicit or even consciously acknowledged level, but it's there.
-
oh, I see, it couldn't possibly be because they don't like the legislation, it's because Obama is black and on an unconscious level conservatives are all racist so that must be why they are protesting, no one could possibly have a valid disagreement with redistributing wealth via health care, so yeah, lets just assume it's racism and ignore them.
you know, when I heard people saying we were not ready for a black president, I said, only if anyone who disagrees with him or his party will be called a racist. well I guess we see how that's turning out.
anyways
those hippies that protest against the war just hate Americans.
those racists that protest against socialized medicine just hate black people.
isn't it cool how much you have in common?
-
Racists:
(http://7.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_kpzvx6FWYM1qa3xbjo1_500.png)
(http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/images/obama-witchdoctor-muck.jpg)
(http://www.tarstarkas.net/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/3447036798_f756100fbd.jpg)
(http://www.gonemild.com/uploaded_images/IMG_8866-780256.JPG)
chain email (http://myrightwingdad.blogspot.com/2009/09/fw-obamas-first-low-pass-over-texas.html)
chain email (http://myrightwingdad.blogspot.com/2009/09/fw-history-corrected.html)
chain email (http://myrightwingdad.blogspot.com/2009/06/subject-fwd-fwd-fw-new-police-dogs.html)
chain email (http://myrightwingdad.blogspot.com/2008/10/fwd-fw-plot-to-kidnap-obama-discovered.html)
image (http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_uDR41t8h_2o/Sl5X1x4vWiI/AAAAAAAABBo/xCV4iDvhD1g/s1600-h/obamamoney.jpg)
image (http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_YI44i-cR4GI/SPeXF1kTUJI/AAAAAAAABaE/W1OJWwWd00Q/s1600-h/ob)
image (http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_YI44i-cR4GI/SLSUp_qZ_3I/AAAAAAAAAyk/CMliukNxxMI/s1600-h/plane.jpg)
*fixed
Now show me the hippies that hate America.
-
really?
I hate you for making me troll through a bunch of conservative blogs.
(http://bp0.blogger.com/_PVyDmTkfk6s/Rf9dlK7L8WI/AAAAAAAAAIE/2nsx_X_8LBA/s400/sfrally2.JPG[/img
[img]http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_PVyDmTkfk6s/Rf9bM67L8SI/AAAAAAAAAHk/lrVzD0OxXDY/s400/portland1.JPG)
(http://bp3.blogger.com/_PVyDmTkfk6s/Rf9bM67L8TI/AAAAAAAAAHs/ZbJEDu2-kBw/s400/portland2.JPG)
(http://bp1.blogger.com/_PVyDmTkfk6s/RfyENxUIOeI/AAAAAAAAAHc/i5wU21oBFCg/s400/2007_03170034.JPG)
(http://www.conspiracyplanet.com/images/shoot-officers.jpg)
and for good measure
(http://beattherich.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/bush_monkey3.jpg)
I'm sure I can find as many as you want.
-
Yeah, but those look like political protests. Nothing particularly racist.
-
yeah, I'm sure it's safe to judge everyone in a protest based on the select few images a hand full of politically antagonistic websites can find of them.
-
Probably not an explicit or even consciously acknowledged level, but it's there.
I think it's dangerous and foolish to start attributing opposition to subconscious racism. I'm not saying you are, but some certainly do: either they really don't understand the objections of the opposition (so they substitute a motive they can understand) or it's just a cheap shot to demonize opponents. Either way, it's not a healthy attitude.
I'm not denying the existence of racists, or the fact that some people protesting Obama are racist. I just despise the "closet racist" way of dismissing/demonizing opposition.
<rant>
Also, the fact that people are blaming/crediting Obama for new healthcare proposals makes me want to scream. Obama isn't writing healthcare proposals. He doesn't have that power! That power belongs to congress, as does the blame/credit for whatever ends up happening. Sure, Obama wields the veto, but that is most definitely the lesser responsibility. RTFC and hold the right people responsible for once! </rant>
<morerant>
I'm becoming more and more convinced that a huge chunk of America doesn't really understand or want the constitutional republic form of government that we theoretically have. They want one person, a King, to place their trust in and blame their problems on. That scares the crap out of me.
At the close of the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia on September 18, 1787, a Mrs. Powel anxiously awaited the results, and as Benjamin Franklin emerged from the long task now finished, asked him directly: "Well Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?" "A republic if you can keep it" responded Franklin.
</morerant>
I feel better now. Sort of.
-
Were some left wing protesters making complete fools of themselves? Sure were.
Were other left wing protesters making rational well thought out protests? Sure were.
What do you think got more news? The Democrats (rightly) told the nutjobs where to stick it. The rantings and fire starting and such didn't become party policy.
Now you have gibbering people with crazy signs and no real well thought out opposition. Health care reform as an idea has high poll numbers, public option has fairly high poll numbers, Medicare and Medicaid (socialism!) have really high poll numbers.
Why are right wing bloggers/teabaggers/Republican Party members against it then? Obama. Some dislike him because he's Democrat, some because he's black (and believe me, there ARE people who dislike him because he's black)
The main problem is for the GOP, this is now standard for them in opposition. They can't tune out the crazies because the crazies is all they have.
-
I didn't say there did not exist a single racist. I said you are an idiot if you think the right winged protests are because of racism and not because they have a problem with socialized health care.
-
They are in large part because of racism. I also cited "uninformed" as a factor.
TBH, I have yet to see/hear anything BUT misinformation and racism. And I don't just mean in the media. I mean *anywhere.*
-
Probably not an explicit or even consciously acknowledged level, but it's there.
I think it's dangerous and foolish to start attributing opposition to subconscious racism. I'm not saying you are, but some certainly do: either they really don't understand the objections of the opposition (so they substitute a motive they can understand) or it's just a cheap shot to demonize opponents. Either way, it's not a healthy attitude.
I'm not denying the existence of racists, or the fact that some people protesting Obama are racist. I just despise the "closet racist" way of dismissing/demonizing opposition.
Well, I do research on implicit subconscious racism, which is present in the automatic cognitive processes of just about everyone. And I must say that some of the criticisms of Obama carry some telling flags. By no means all, but when I hear things like 'he's not a real American', 'he's a terrorist', 'he's the first affirmative-action president' (because non-whites only achieve things due to handouts, right?), it sets off alarms.
As for the back end, as with so many of the freakouts these days, I don't see why you're concerned about people wanting a king now when everyone was rushing to hand the last administration our civil liberties in exchange for protection. Where was the fear then?
-
Yeah there are a lot of people pissed off at the government right now, and while its good press to throw up the imagery of the bat **** crazy ones thats a relatively small sample set of the amount of people who are worried about whats going on. There might be thousands of people pissed off because he's black but there are millions who are scared ****less (rightly or wrongly) about their retirement and health care. Trust me folk are much more concerned about their livelihood then Obama's skin color. Liberals trying to label everyone who disagrees with them as racists is as stupid as the conservatives screaming that folks were unpatriotic if they questioned theirs.
Now I'm not saying I agree with either side, quite frankly I haven't made up my mind, but the idea that everyone who is opposing the massive expenditures the government is proposing are doing it because they're bigots is foolish.
-
They are in large part because of racism. I also cited "uninformed" as a factor.
TBH, I have yet to see/hear anything BUT misinformation and racism. And I don't just mean in the media. I mean *anywhere.*
well, that's probably because you don't go to conservative sources. you go to "unbiased" sources, i.e. the ones telling you things the way you think is right i.e. liberal sources.
unless I'm mistaken and you give fox news enough time to let them pose their position to you.
-
I don't watch much tv, but I tend to turn it to conservative news sources when I do watch the news. I get bored of liberal paranoia.
Plus, conservatives make me feel smart.
-
Now I'm not saying I agree with either side, quite frankly I haven't made up my mind, but the idea that everyone who is opposing the massive expenditures the government is proposing are doing it because they're bigots is foolish.
I definitely wouldn't say that.
However, I don't understand how massive government expenditures now are any different from Bush policy, when we weren't even investing in our own country. The kind of national efforts Obama has proposed are pretty minimal compared to what we did for Iraq - after creating the problem in the first place!
-
The teabagger stance appears to be "Obama's a Kenyan Muslim terrorist who wants to destroy America by making us all commies/nazis/fascists also CZARS and the DEFICIT and BUY YOUR OWN HEALTH CARE AND IF YOU CANT YOURE PROLLY JUST A GREASY ILLEGAL OR FAG ANYWAY GET OUT OF GOD'S FAVORITEST NATION"
-
Apparently 70% of doctors favor a public option for health care.
Evidence enough for me.
-
well, that's probably because you don't go to conservative sources. you go to "unbiased" sources, i.e. the ones telling you things the way you think is right i.e. liberal sources.
unless I'm mistaken and you give fox news enough time to let them pose their position to you.
The problem with that is Fox News' posistions are almost uniformly stupid, being poorly researched and poorly thought-out.
Also, lulz liberal media card.
-
Now I'm not saying I agree with either side, quite frankly I haven't made up my mind, but the idea that everyone who is opposing the massive expenditures the government is proposing are doing it because they're bigots is foolish.
I definitely wouldn't say that.
However, I don't understand how massive government expenditures now are any different from Bush policy, when we weren't even investing in our own country. The kind of national efforts Obama has proposed are pretty minimal compared to what we did for Iraq - after creating the problem in the first place!
I think it comes down to fear, all the Patriot Act bull**** and the War came when we were afraid about terrorists and international threats. Folk were willing to let it slide because they were scared. Now we have the opposite effect, people are afraid about their livelihood and healthcare and now they are in opposition to the government's proposals.
I guess my issue right now is that quashing the entirety of the opposition with some catchy phrase like 'unAmerican' got us in a whole heap of **** during the last eight years. Using 'racist' like a bludgeon instrument to ram another bit of controvercial legislature seems like history repeating itself.
Course I wish Bush had managed to destroy the GOP during his presidency. The Democrats would have fractured and we would have gotten new parties and a refresh of the system.
-
Concur.
On a statistical level I doubt terrorists kill nearly as many people as our crappy healthcare every year.
-
Well, I do research on implicit subconscious racism, which is present in the automatic cognitive processes of just about everyone. And I must say that some of the criticisms of Obama carry some telling flags. By no means all, but when I hear things like 'he's not a real American', 'he's a terrorist', 'he's the first affirmative-action president' (because non-whites only achieve things due to handouts, right?), it sets off alarms.
Fair enough. Can't argue with that, but I still worry about people using some racist/semiracist opposition in order to discredit all opposition.
As for the back end, as with so many of the freakouts these days, I don't see why you're concerned about people wanting a king now when everyone was rushing to hand the last administration our civil liberties in exchange for protection. Where was the fear then?
You're right, I should have been more worried. I wasn't paying enough attention and that was a mistake. Still, though, I don't think that error invalidates my concerns now. The example you cite (giving civil liberties away for "protection" from the government) is symptomatic of the attitude I'm worried about. :) To be clear, my concerns are at least as much about society and how people think as they are about the government.
And for the record, I think that the "why weren't you complaining last administration?" argument is pretty weak too. :p If the concerns being raised are valid, they're valid regardless of the motives for raising them...IMHO it's better to deal with arguments/concerns directly, instead of dismissing them based on the source.
-
The thing is, if the same person who never once *****ed about spending under Bush is coming out to holler at Fox's tea parties, the concern probably isn't that big of a deal.
-
Fair points all, Sushi.
But this:
The thing is, if the same person who never once *****ed about spending under Bush is coming out to holler at Fox's tea parties, the concern probably isn't that big of a deal.
Is kind of the foundation of the 'why not last administration?' critique. It seems like a lot of these people are rationalizing their dislike of Obama by hunting for reasonable justifications.
Which is how human beings actually conduct most disagreements, including justifying the purchase of a hot dog instead of a hamburger, but hey, so it goes.
-
Dude, hot dogs are disgusting.
-
or maybe they are right wingers and he and his party are enacting left wing policies.
no, that couldn't possibly be it.
-
What left wing policies? He's advocating investing monetarily in our own nation instead of somebody else's for once.
Meanwhile, still waiting on gay marriage, marijuana, equal employment, drinking age, comprehensive sex education, bannination of ID/creationism in science classrooms, etc, etc.
-
he is suggesting socialized government run health care, that is left wing.
-
No. He is suggesting increased regulations on the private health insurance industry and expanding the various government-provided health insurance policies already in place.
-
"increased regulations"
"expanding the various government-provided"
left wing
-
Yes and No
Healthcare is a different can of worms then national defense. Taxes may go up to pay for the logistics of fighting a war and for the families who have their loved ones deployed it is pure hell. But overall it's not directly effecting the populace, healthcare on the other hand effects everyone. In a nation where the largest portion of the population is baby boomers looking at retirement and increased medical needs the type of changes the government is proposing is like looking down the barrel of a gun. Especially on the heels of a recession that just beat the **** out of many folks IRAs etc. They have legitimate concerns about whats going on because it directly affects them. Even if the governments' plan was perfection your still stirring the applecart for the largest portion of the population right when they need to buy their Granny Smiths. The fact that is controvercial has got folks scared and legitimately so. If we were predominantly a young healthy nation implementing big changes to the healthcare system wouldn't be a big deal, we would have a good chance of working out the kinks in the long term. But we are not, most folks are in their 50s and 60s so rocking the boat is damn scary because if the new system screws the pooch they are up the creek.
Personally one of my reservations about the whole thing is that while Scandinavia can rock Socialism like its hawt I tend to think our government is to retarded to implement it properly. :D
-
"increased regulations"
"expanding the various government-provided"
left wing
So rightwingers really believe that if somebody can't afford health care, they deserve to die in the street?
-
"expanding the various government-provided"
The left hardly has a monopoly on expanding the government, son.
-
"expanding the various government-provided"
The left hardly has a monopoly on expanding the government, son.
Yeah, seriously.
-
He's going to agree with you. He's a Libertarian; arguing with a Libertarian is the only activity known to induce suicidal behavior faster than watching the Teen Choice Awards.
-
I don't like to think about libertarians. They're social conservatives and also think roads, hospitals, and schools come out of thin air.
-
He's going to agree with you. He's a Libertarian; arguing with a Libertarian is the only activity known to induce suicidal behavior faster than watching the Teen Choice Awards.
Ah. Stop using logic. Gotcha.
-
Personally one of my reservations about the whole thing is that while Scandinavia can rock Socialism like its hawt I tend to think our government is to retarded to implement it properly. :D
I don't know if it's a matter of being retarded as much as it's a matter of there being way too much corporate bribe money in the way.
-
He's going to agree with you. He's a Libertarian
someone is paying attention :)
-
Y'know why the protestors get called racist? Because people like Mark Williams go on CNN and call Obama a "Indonesian Muslim turned welfare thug". Mind, this same man was insisting that no, racism has absolutely nothing to do with the mainstream of the teabaggers. It's just a lunatic fringe.
Also because a quarter of Republicans actively think Obama isn't a proper citizen, and therefore shouldn't be president. Oh, and it just so happens that even more than party lines, this follows a regional breakdown; whereas in the Northeast about 90% of those polled thought Obama was a citizen, in the South 20% actively think he wasn't born in the US and 30% are unsure.
Or Joe Wilson? Well, let's see, he interned for Strom Thurmond; strike one. He got all pissy when Thurmond's illegitimate daughter was like, 'yeah, he totally raped my mother'. Actually, she didn't say rape, but c'mon; let's quote Fox here "Her mother, Carrie Butler, 16 at the time, worked as a maid in the Thurmonds' home." In 1924. In the south. Anyone who claims there aren't any consent issues there...well, nevermind. I digress. Really Wilson just got pissy because In 2003, Essie Mae Washington-Williams' revealed that she was the daughter of Wilson's former employer, the late Senator Strom Thurmond, and Thurmond's black maid. Wilson was among those who publicly doubted her claim that Thurmond had a child out of wedlock. Wilson said even if her story was true, she should not have revealed it because "it's a smear" on Thurmond's image and was a way to "diminish" Thurmond's legacy. After Thurmond's family acknowledged the truth of Washington-Williams' revelation, Wilson apologized but said that he still thought that she should not have revealed that Thurmond was her father.
And finally, he opposed the removal of the Confederate battle flag. The Confederacy, of course, was inherently racist; racialized slavery was codified in its very Constitution, nevermind CSA VP's assertions in a speech (http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/index.asp?documentprint=76) that Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests upon the great truth, that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery -- subordination to the superior race -- is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth.
So yeah, not exactly pulling stuff out of thin air there.
-
And finally, he opposed the removal of the Confederate battle flag.
I always find such arguments about the battle flag to be painfully stupid. Yes, I know the context in which it was added to the state flags.
But I also know that the damn flag stands for more than just the inherent racism of the Confederacy. Great things were done with and for that flag, things worthy of rememberance. Not all of them were just or noble, but that is no reason to forget them.
It reminds me of Japan's desire to forget WWII. They also did great things, things worthy of being remembered. But they want to forget.
-
I gotta agree with NGTM-1R, you stand up on Cemetery Ridge by the Copse of Trees and look across that field and realize what the men on both sides did during that war transcends the causes.
-
The confederate flag is one of THE symbols of hate in the south. Whenever I drive through SC or western NC, I am so very glad I'm not an obvious racial minority, though it is nice how all the crazies are clearly labeled. I don't care what it represents to the enlightened. In the south, it represents hatred.
-
I thought it was the "Only good Yankee is one headin' North" bumper sticker.
I suppose I'm guilty of looking at it through a historical lenses of the war itself, as opposed seeing it stuck on a pick-up in celebration the last medieval society on earth.
-
As much as the free-speech-supporting side of me disapproves, part of me really wishes that the federal government would have outlawed display of the flag as a symbol of treason immediately after the war's conclusion. There's really no good reason whatsoever for someone in this day and age to be celebrating what the Confederacy stood for.
-
says the yankee.
-
Of course. We won, they lost, and it's high time they dealt with it. :D
-
I almost agree with Mongoose.
-
Of course. We won, they lost, and it's high time they dealt with it. :D
I'm going to ignore the opportunity to take the pot-shot at Black History Month that you opened up, and instead point out this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columbia,_South_Carolina,_in_the_American_Civil_War#The_burning_of_Columbia) and this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_of_Nanjing). Oh, and don't forget about this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elmira_Prison).
Some things are best remembered.
-
But I also know that the damn flag stands for more than just the inherent racism of the Confederacy. Great things were done with and for that flag, things worthy of rememberance. Not all of them were just or noble, but that is no reason to forget them.
The notion that random martial exploits can be considered great doesn't sit particularly well with me (although I suppose my discomfort depends on the definition of 'great' you're using). That aside, I'm not advocating forgetting anything about the Civil War. Oh no. I simply don't think the display of the flag is a necessary component of that remembrance. Especially since there's no way to elide the racist implications of the flag. Even more so since that remembrance often looks a lot like glorification, and forgetfulness of a different sort; witness the people who insist that, like, the Confederacy wasn't racist, dude.
-
...there's no way to elide the racist implications of the flag. Even more so since that remembrance often looks a lot like glorification...
That. That's the main issue I have with it.
-
I'm going to ignore the opportunity to take the pot-shot at Black History Month that you opened up, and instead point out this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columbia,_South_Carolina,_in_the_American_Civil_War#The_burning_of_Columbia) and this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_of_Nanjing). Oh, and don't forget about this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elmira_Prison).
Some things are best remembered.
I don't know where you're going with the Black History Month reference, and I fail to see what the first and third events you linked (please don't insult me with something along the lines of the middle again) have to do with the Confederate flag specifically. As mxlm mentioned, no one's advocating forgetting about any aspect of the Civil War entirely, nor about any of the atrocities committed during it or the deep and lasting national wounds it caused. That being said, I have very little sympathy for slave-holders and secessionists, and at least in my mind, flying that flag today is, at the very least, a massive display of bad taste.
-
I'm going to ignore the opportunity to take the pot-shot at Black History Month that you opened up, and instead point out this and this. Oh, and don't forget about this.
This is why we study history in school. It is not a reason to carry the standard of traitors or glorify their treason. Preserve the flag as a historical artifact, and study the events surrounding it, but don't fly it and ignorantly proclaim, "The South shall rise again!" as though the Confederacy was some pure and noble movement.
-
The confederate flag is one of THE symbols of hate in the south...In the south, it represents hatred.
It shows how little you understand some things.
The flag is representative of a fight for freedom from what was deemed an oppressive federal government by a group of states. It was that oppressive government that resorted to force to keep the states in the union. Until that time, the vast majority of governmental power had resided with the individual states. Certainly slavery had a part, and I'm hardly saying the CSA were a bunch of saints, but the war was more about individual states rights. Hundreds of thousands of brave men(and some women) fought, bled and died pretty horrific deaths for a cause they felt was right and honorable. For those that still fly that flag, the VAST majority are honoring the sacrifices on BOTH sides. Using your logic, the graveyards at Normandy should be torn down and forgotten as well.
-
I suppose I'm guilty of looking at it through a historical lenses of the war itself, as opposed seeing it stuck on a pick-up in celebration the last medieval society on earth.
Last medieal society? There are plenty of medieval and lower level societies still making the rounds out there you know...
-
The confederate flag is one of THE symbols of hate in the south...In the south, it represents hatred.
It shows how little you understand some things.
The flag is representative of a fight for freedom from what was deemed an oppressive federal government by a group of states. It was that oppressive government that resorted to force to keep the states in the union. Until that time, the vast majority of governmental power had resided with the individual states. Certainly slavery had a part, and I'm hardly saying the CSA were a bunch of saints, but the war was more about individual states rights. Hundreds of thousands of brave men(and some women) fought, bled and died pretty horrific deaths for a cause they felt was right and honorable. For those that still fly that flag, the VAST majority are honoring the sacrifices on BOTH sides. Using your logic, the graveyards at Normandy should be torn down and forgotten as well.
Besides being wrong in general (states' rights? have you read the Confederate Constitution?), you are utterly missing the point. People who fly the confederate flag in the south don't fly it to represent freedom from oppressive government or any of that bull****. People here fly the flag to intimidate and inspire fear. They fly it to glorify a revolution that was racist and hateful to its very core. It's not about "remembering history" it's about remembering the "good old days." And they wrap it up in victimhood, like the south was full of people who simply loved freedom, and the War of Northern Aggression was about killing off their way of life.
-
The notion that random martial exploits can be considered great doesn't sit particularly well with me (although I suppose my discomfort depends on the definition of 'great' you're using). That aside, I'm not advocating forgetting anything about the Civil War. Oh no. I simply don't think the display of the flag is a necessary component of that remembrance. Especially since there's no way to elide the racist implications of the flag. Even more so since that remembrance often looks a lot like glorification, and forgetfulness of a different sort; witness the people who insist that, like, the Confederacy wasn't racist, dude.
Fine then, consider the war from a purely logistical standpoint if it bothers you. Or think of it as a warning. The thing is, you are advocating forgetting. You want to forget the flag. How else will anyone remember it except by display? If you don't believe me, see what's happened to the Confederacy's civil flag. The vast majority of people won't recognize it because no one has ever displayed it. (Much the same can be said of the Army of Tennessee's battleflag. The design typically used is the Army of Northern Virginia's.)
I recognize the racist implications are a part of the flag now. That's part of the point. As I said, the Confederacy did many great things, things worthy of being remembered. Unfortunately, one of them happens to be holding millions in slavery. (Which is, if nothing else, an impressive technical accomplishment.) We remember the Nazi flag for the holocaust more than for what they accomplished militarily, though both are things that should be remembered.
So build it its own little flagpole of shame or something if that makes you feel better. But display the flag.
And surprisingly Liberator's not completely full of crap. Viewed through the lense of the time, how John Brown was hailed as a hero for attempting to start an insurrection based on a racist principle of his own (kill all whites, 'cept my guys, they're cool), the Southern states had every reason to be frightened for their way of life. The federal government was refusing to protect them. They might as well have already been part of a different country. Secession was viewed as pro forma, something already done in reality, that merely needed to be expressly spelled out.
Ultimately, the Civil War was about killing off their way of life. (Study the Reconstruction and it's very hard to believe anything else.) Granted their way of life needed to die for the greater good, but they have every right to view themselves as victims.
-
I suppose I'm guilty of looking at it through a historical lenses of the war itself, as opposed seeing it stuck on a pick-up in celebration the last medieval society on earth.
Last medieal society? There are plenty of medieval and lower level societies still making the rounds out there you know...
There are plenty places on Earth that socially or technologically could be considered 'medieval' but in terms of continuing the traditions directly from the middle ages Europe I think the South was it. Czarist Russia the other major holdout freed its serfs in 61. The Confederacy actively emulated feudalism with a small landed gentry holding the majority of the population in servitude up until the end of the war. Antebellum South held a lot of chivalric/feudal notions with veneration, there was a lot of honor before reason and a romanticized ideal of conflict. If I'm not mistaken Mark Twain's A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court was specifically a deconstruction of the South's idolization of the middle ages.
-
I'm going to ignore the opportunity to take the pot-shot at Black History Month that you opened up, and instead point out this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columbia,_South_Carolina,_in_the_American_Civil_War#The_burning_of_Columbia) and this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_of_Nanjing). Oh, and don't forget about this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elmira_Prison).
Some things are best remembered.
I don't know where you're going with the Black History Month reference, and I fail to see what the first and third events you linked (please don't insult me with something along the lines of the middle again) have to do with the Confederate flag specifically. As mxlm mentioned, no one's advocating forgetting about any aspect of the Civil War entirely, nor about any of the atrocities committed during it or the deep and lasting national wounds it caused. That being said, I have very little sympathy for slave-holders and secessionists, and at least in my mind, flying that flag today is, at the very least, a massive display of bad taste.
Really? Okay, I'll explain our posts for you.
Of course. We won, they lost, and it's high time they dealt with it. :D
I interpreted that (nice RetCon, by the way) as (considering the context is ceasing the display of the Confederate Flag) something along the lines of 'Dude. That was AGES AGO! They should forget about it and shut up.'
I suppose that I could be mistaken about your intended message, but I fail to see how.
I'm going to ignore the opportunity to take the pot-shot at Black History Month that you opened up, and instead point out this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columbia,_South_Carolina,_in_the_American_Civil_War#The_burning_of_Columbia) and this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_of_Nanjing). Oh, and don't forget about this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elmira_Prison).
Some things are best remembered.
My point was that some things are best remembered. E.g., atrocities commited during the course of war. The reason for including Nanjing was that I'm not readily familiar with any commited (against the Union) by the Confederacy, though I'm sure that there were, and I wanted to give the impression that I was speaking in general about atrocities, rather than about 'them damned ol' yanks.'
My sarcastic 'pot-shot' joke was that, by the interpretation of your post (that people should forget), those descended from the slaves of the time should forget that their ancestors were slaves.
--
This is why we study history in school. It is not a reason to carry the standard of traitors or glorify their treason. Preserve the flag as a historical artifact, and study the events surrounding it, but don't fly it and ignorantly proclaim, "The South shall rise again!" as though the Confederacy was some pure and noble movement.
What traitors? What treason? When did I advocate secession?
--
So build it its own little flagpole of shame or something if that makes you feel better. But display the flag.
Agreed. One thousand times agreed.
-
Jeez, I hadn't heard this before:
Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests upon the great truth, that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery -- subordination to the superior race -- is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth.
(thanks to mxlm)
The display of a flag meant to symbolize such a government is indeed an act of hate, and, I tentatively assert, should be no more permissible than the display of the swastika or the rising sun - symbols which also flew over a number of great and terrible deeds, but which are rightly vilified and cast aside.
-
And surprisingly Liberator's not completely full of crap. Viewed through the lense of the time, how John Brown was hailed as a hero for attempting to start an insurrection based on a racist principle of his own (kill all whites, 'cept my guys, they're cool), the Southern states had every reason to be frightened for their way of life. The federal government was refusing to protect them. They might as well have already been part of a different country. Secession was viewed as pro forma, something already done in reality, that merely needed to be expressly spelled out.
Ultimately, the Civil War was about killing off their way of life. (Study the Reconstruction and it's very hard to believe anything else.) Granted their way of life needed to die for the greater good, but they have every right to view themselves as victims.
Reconstruction was largely revenge for the Civil War. Look at Andrew Johnson's plan versus the Republicans'. The goal was to punish the south for trying to destroy the nation.
And it doesn't matter in the slightest what you think the confederate flag should stand for, which is what you're advocating. It doesn't. Period.
The confederate flag stands for freedom and states' rights and achievement in the same way that the swastika does. People don't display swastikas to "remember the holocaust." They display them to show their racist ideology. Same for the confederate flag. People display it in the south to inspire fear in those that they hate. The southern way of life before the Civil War was nothing to be protected. The southern way of life after the Civil War was nothing to be protected.
No matter what supposedly great things the confederacy accomplished, they accomplished them in the name of destroying freedom and equality.
By the way, here (http://www.filibustercartoons.com/CSA.htm)'s the confederate constitution side-by-side with the US constitution.
-
The display of a flag meant to symbolize such a government is indeed an act of hate, and, I tentatively assert, should be no more permissible than the display of the swastika or the rising sun - symbols which also flew over a number of great and terrible deeds, but which are rightly vilified and cast aside.
Japan still uses the Rising Sun flag, FYI. Indeed, saying you should censor the Rising Sun shows a deep misunderstanding, as that was the navy's flag, and while hardly blameless they still compiled a much better record then the army, who used the simple national flag. (Which Japan still uses.) But fine, if you wish to censor history, that is your perogative. Just don't expect the rest of us to jump off the slippery slope after you.
Reconstruction was largely revenge for the Civil War. Look at Andrew Johnson's plan versus the Republicans'. The goal was to punish the south for trying to destroy the nation.
Reconstruction was not revenge for the Civil War. Revenge for the Civil War was the actual Civil War, Sherman's March to the Sea, the burning of Atlanta. Hard war was a direct result of Union defeats. Reconstruction was about destroying Southern society to prevent a recurrance.
And it doesn't matter in the slightest what you think the confederate flag should stand for, which is what you're advocating. It doesn't. Period.
Oh come now. Surely you can do better than a simple straw man. This is not mere opinion; the battle flag of the Confederacy stood for something beside what you like to think and always did. That's why it's called "the battle flag of the Confederacy."
Also: Why should I care what you think it stands for? What anyone thinks it stands for?
The confederate flag stands for freedom and states' rights and achievement in the same way that the swastika does.
Again with the straw man. Hell, I'm not even mentioning states' rights. Are you actually going to argue with me on the merits?
=
People don't display swastikas to "remember the holocaust." They display them to show their racist ideology. Same for the confederate flag. People display it in the south to inspire fear in those that they hate.
Are you saying there's no Swastikas in the holocaust museum? 'cuz there are, I assure you. They're in a lot of textbooks talking about the holocaust too. Same for the Confederate flag and slavery.
Mind you, they usually show the actual Confederate States flag, not the battle flag, because they're not idiots and they realize that the Army wasn't half-assed about who served. Displaying the battleflag for the reasons you state is criminal for an entirely different reason. While it's not someone I'm directly related to (sadly, all-white in this line of the family AFAIK), people who bear my family name can trace ancestory back to someone who drew pension after the war from the CSA when they had gone with their master to join the Army of Tennessee. (And if you wonder how that works, recall the CSA's army was composed of units raised, equipped, and paid by the individual states.)
So **** on what you think they fly them for. **** on what they think they fly them for. Neither of you understand actually what you're talking about.
The southern way of life before the Civil War was nothing to be protected. The southern way of life after the Civil War was nothing to be protected.
While I agree with you, that doesn't invalidate my point. Try again.
No matter what supposedly great things the confederacy accomplished, they accomplished them in the name of destroying freedom and equality.
And that is why it is even more important that we remember.
-
Really? Okay, I'll explain our posts for you.
Of course. We won, they lost, and it's high time they dealt with it. :D
I interpreted that (nice RetCon, by the way) as (considering the context is ceasing the display of the Confederate Flag) something along the lines of 'Dude. That was AGES AGO! They should forget about it and shut up.'
I suppose that I could be mistaken about your intended message, but I fail to see how.
You are mistaken, because my actual intent was along the lines of what iamzack is saying. In my mind, the Confederate leadership were largely a bunch of racist, treasonous bastards, veiling their true motivation behind a screen of "states' rights nonsense." The Confederacy lost the war, and the Union was restored, but there are far too many dumbasses out there trying to glorify what happened, and the Confederate flag is the main instrument by which they do so. When I said "deal with it," I meant that they should get a clue about what really happened and shut the hell up with their nonsense.
-
The display of a flag meant to symbolize such a government is indeed an act of hate, and, I tentatively assert, should be no more permissible than the display of the swastika or the rising sun - symbols which also flew over a number of great and terrible deeds, but which are rightly vilified and cast aside.
Japan still uses the Rising Sun flag, FYI. Indeed, saying you should censor the Rising Sun shows a deep misunderstanding, as that was the navy's flag, and while hardly blameless they still compiled a much better record then the army, who used the simple national flag. (Which Japan still uses.) But fine, if you wish to censor history, that is your perogative. Just don't expect the rest of us to jump off the slippery slope after you.
The naval flag is considered offensive in most of the countries that were part of the Co-Prosperity Sphere. To Americans that fear may not seem as visceral, but Japan never impacted our psyche as deeply as the Nazis (despite the fact that at the time the Japanese were arguably more hated.)
The Confederate flag stands for a cause that was explicitly racist. It may have been a fight for state's rights, but the rights they asked for were the rights to enslave and oppress.
No matter what supposedly great things the confederacy accomplished, they accomplished them in the name of destroying freedom and equality.
And that is why it is even more important that we remember.
I don't understand this. Could you clarify? It doesn't seem like a statement that would hold true for the Khmer Rouge or the French revolutionaries or the Lord's Resistance Army or...anyone else of that ilk.
And I think I agree with Mongoose.
-
You know, that Confederate constitution makes for interesting reading; thanks for linking it, zack. As the page author notes at the bottom, the whole idea of the Confederacy being strongly in favor of "states' rights" kind of flies out the window when you observe how few and minor the concessions made to the states actually were; in fact, it actually restricts the rights of the states in a few notable ways. The language is also blatantly clear that slavery in the Confederacy is not only legalized, but just about mandatory, as no state is allowed to outlaw it. Putting those points aside, though, there are actually one or two unrelated phrases that might do the current federal government as it stands some good: the line-item veto, the elimination of unrelated riders from bills, and some fiscal responsibility measures.
-
The thing is, you are advocating forgetting. You want to forget the flag. How else will anyone remember it except by display?
I suppose it's true that if people stopped flying the flag it would fade from popular consciousness. But, look, I got my BA in history; the popular consciousness forgets just about everything (and when it doesn't, it often insists on drawing painfully stupid 'lessons' from a painfully simplistic notion of what the historical events in question consisted of), so it's not really something I'm all that concerned with. I'm going to remember. Historians are going to remember. The general public won't, but the general public doesn't remember anything.
But fine, if you wish to censor history, that is your perogative. Just don't expect the rest of us to jump off the slippery slope after you.
I for one am absolutely not in favor of restricting the display of swastikas or the battleflag or the rising sun. Actually, I like it when individuals display them as it tells me quite a bit about those individuals. The same holds true for government buildings. Which is the point; when Joe Wilson votes against the removal of the flag, that tells me a lot about him. Especially when I consider that he was Thurmond's intern and attempted to smear Thurmond's illegitimate daughter.
When you see a random private citizen, not the Holocaust Museum, displaying a swastika, does that give you a reasonable basis upon which to make certain assumptions about that person? Do you make any assumptions about that person? What if rather than 'displaying' the swastika, they have it tattooed upon their bodies?
-
I should clarify. I have no problem with swastika/sun/flag displays on a legal level. But I fully endorse social taboos and condemnation against them.
-
I don't favor banning any of these things on any level. I'm just stating what a confederate flag on a pick up in the south *actually* means as opposed to what we'd like to *think* it means. Context is very important. Confederate flag in a history book or flying over a Civil War memorial/landmark, fine. Confederate flag flying in front of the gas station down the street? I'm never ****ing going in there.
-
Actually, I think there is an argument to be made that, much like the burning of crosses, the display of the flag or the swastika or whatever is intimidation, but it's much harder to argue that in all--or even most--situations that is the case. It's hard to find a situation where the KKK would burn a cross on a lawn that isn't a specific attempt to intimidate and threaten. In contrast, it's much easier to find situations in which someone has a battleflag or swastika or whatnot and is not attempting to threaten or intimidate a specific person or entire group, or at least can make a reasonable argument to that effect.
-
Burning a cross on a lawn violates fire codes and such stuff.
But I agree it's certainly one (WBC-esque exercise in freedom of speech) thing to have a sticker on your truck and another (potentially illegal) thing entirely to leave a confederate flag on the doorstep of the black/Jewish/Hispanic/etc family down the street.
-
I do agree with you ngtm1r for many a valid reason...the Confederate Flag shouldn't be looked on purely as a racist symbol.
Unfortunately, I'm going to have to lean more towards IAZ and GB on this one. You, me, and probably a fair number of intelligent people can spend hours debating the merits of the Dixie Flag, the good it did stand for at one time and why it should be admired to some extent. Still...most of those people who are flying those flags now aren't looking that deep. To them, the dumbass hicks who decorate their trucks with the flag and the ones who fly it over their shacks in the woods...it stands for racism. Governments shouldn't endorse it, despite it being a significant part of their state history, because a frighteningly large number of their constituents are just that stupid---DRRRRRR DA SOUTH WILL RISE AGAIN DRRRRR OBAMA IS KENYAN DRRRRR YALL WANT GRITS WITH THAT
So yes, put the Confederate flag up in a museum--we can't afford to forget the past. Don't outlaw it--even if it is a symbol of racism to many, it has a more noble and honorable meaning to others. Comparing the Swastika to the Dixie Flag is apples and oranges.
If there are Southerners still backwards and ignorant enough that they still want to live under a Confederate States of America where the black man is lesser than the white man, then so be it--they don't have to follow the rest of us into the 21st century. But leave it be. There still were thousands of Southern men who died purely out of love for Dixie, not even the racist policies it enforced, but to protect the lands of their forefathers and their children from a perceived threat of aggression--for some, not even as a result of their own actions or desires, just simply caught up in the circumstances. Pissing on the memories of those men simply because they fought under a flag we don't like is the equivalent of pissing on the graves of good-hearted patriotic German soldiers who simply loved their homeland more than life. Not all of them should be praised, no, hardly, but not all Nazi or Confederate soldiers were horned devils.
-
Fair enough, and having read a lot of Civil War stuff during some random phase, I can certainly sympathize with the desire to preserve some aspects of that memory.
-
It's one of those things that just doesn't pan out in real life the way we'd like.
-
Not all of them should be praised, no, hardly, but not all Nazi or Confederate soldiers were horned devils.
On that note you might want to make a distinction between Nazi soldiers and German soldiers :p
ETA: Actually, that reminds me of one of the (many) things that I liked about Inglorious Basterds (omg, spelling); no matter what these people did, they're still people, and revenge fantasies don't become less horrific if the people you're fantasizing about mutilating are total ****ing assholes.