Is Dissent Still Patriotic?
From what I have learned over the last few days, it is very important that “we all come together.”
Yet from what I remember during the previous 8 years, the main phrase was that “dissent is patriotic.”
It is amazing how the rules of civility are completely altered when a democrat wins the White House. Perhaps that is what Barack Obama meant by “change.”
We have tough problems to face, so we have to rally around our new leader and support him. Funny, in 2000 the mantra was, “Let’s destroy this guy because we feel like it.”
Now that those that know only insatiable bloodlust are being forced to smile and be pleasant, they expect conservatives to just let vicious bygones be vicious bygones.
It doesn’t work that way.
I have nothing against Barack Obama personally. He seems to be a likable fellow that is right about some things and wrong about many more.
As for his far left supporters, they should be subjected to abuse every bit as devastating as what they put George W. Bush through, and nothing less.
Not surprisingly, a stunning republican brunette offers wisdom on this very subject. Christine Flowers, when not busy with her other job as an underwear model (Ok, I made that part up. Again, she is a republican brunette.), is reminding everybody that we still have free speech in this country, despite the efforts of “tolerant” liberals to silence dissension.
I agree with her right off the bat when she says:
“We non-Obama voters shouldn’t be bullied into supporting our new president.”
“It’s one thing to wish President Obama well as a human being, to acknowledge the historic magnitude of his getting elected, to admire his sweet family and his mellifluent speaking voice and his prodigious brain.
But it’s quite another to endorse his social, economic and national security policies if, in fact, you think they pose a serious threat to the fabric and essence of this country we all claim to love.”
Thank you Ms. Flowers! Yes kids, there is logical reasoning in the media, once one escapes the clutches of leftism.
“Regardless of who is doing the finger-wagging, it’s pretty clear you can’t tell someone to just shut up and get with the program if they actually don’t like the program. Or if they think it’s a blueprint for disaster. This is America, after all. Home of the Free. Land of the Critics.”
The left will then use this sentiment to justify their own behavior. Nonsense.
The left did not criticize the governing blueprint. They went after the President presonally. It was never about governing. If it was, they would have offered contra solutions. The critics were against him because he existed. They were nothing. After all, only a party that is for nothing could support people like Bill Clinton, Al Gore, and John Kerry. It is easy to choose a candidate when the entire platform is, “I’ll have what the other gentleman is not having.” Then they would apologize to themselves for being so civil, and change their approach to, “I’ll have what that evil dumb conservative who should die 1000 deaths for having the nerve to breathe is not having.”
“So here is my promise to our new president. I will pray that he and his family continue to be happy and healthy. I’ll assume that everything he does is undertaken in a good-faith effort to preserve, protect and defend these United States.
But I won’t be pressured into being quiet when I see him straying off course, pushing this country in what I believe is the wrong direction. And if success means he’ll challenge the fundamental nature of everything I believe in and cherish, I won’t root for his success.”
That is noble opposition. What the left practiced in the prior 8 years was reflexive oppositions.
They were more interested in losing a war than allowing President Bush to get credit for winning it.
They were more interested in badmouthing an economy from 2002-2007 than allowing President Bush to get credit for its strength.
They cheered on during the financial collapse of 2008, because that would get them elected when they were behind in the polls.
They celebrated and sent gleeful emails when somebody threw shoes at the President, too dumb to realize that this was an assault, and could have been bullets.
They did not have the decency to be respectful as he left office, determined to hound him to his grave.
Now these same barbarians who yell obscenities, key cars, steal republican signs, and froth at the mouth, want us to “come together.”
Ms. Flowers, ever the lady, says it in ways much more dignified than I would.
“For eight years, many people insisted that they’d lost their country. They detested Bush, hated his politics and condemned his choices when they disagreed. Loudly.
Good for them. Now, it’s my turn. God bless America.”
I don’t have her grace. I made a promise to hold back on Barack Obama, since he has been a gentleman. I will oppose him when he is wrong, but with the dignity and respect he showed President Bush.
I made no such promises towards the leftist supporters. I will treat them with the same contemptible lack of dignity and respect they showed President Bush.
If they thought Dubya was bad, wait until they confront his staunchest supporters. We have had 8 years to listen to it.
It’s payback time.
eric
January 24th, 2009 at 9:07 pm
Its going to be a while before this sinks in to the heads of the ones you speak of.
I feel much the same way towards Obama as you but with a little more contempt.
Reason being I didnt appreciate having my intelligence insulted on a daily basis for almost two years.
Today hes doing much of what I suspected he would do by not keeping his word on more than a few issues. I understand this is par for the course when it comes to politcs and campaigns but his campaigns rhetorical promises were a little steeper than anything I’ve heard before.
I know a hustler when I see one. And even though I shouldnt be upset that it was liberals he was hustling it made me think that if he’ll do it to his own base then he’ll do it to anyone..
So from the git go I’ve had a good amount of distrust for the man.
In the interest of saving American lives, if the policy is sound, I will support him with as much fury as when I go after rabid far left moonbats.
When I see him failing, lying or catering to anything but the people I will put him in the pen with the far left radical moonbats and do what I believe I do best.
In the meantime I will also be doing everything I can to point out the flaws in democratic leadership so that 4 years from now we can have a leader in office that represents my beliefs. And not the beliefs that Obama thinks we all share with him.
I might even change my screen name to Jack Bauer
January 25th, 2009 at 11:17 am
Well, in a way, I guess it’s good to see that some conservatives have learned, all of a sudden, that dissent is a good thing and that one doesn’t have to support a politician in order to support their country. One could call this “barefaced, shameless hypocritical flip-flopping for convenience,” but I’ll just go with “changed your minds.” But then, chaning minds is not something ideologues are known for…
“It’s payback time.”
Oh, okay, that makes more sense.
Conservatives don’t change their minds, and they never admit hypocrisy - but raw vengeance is something they’re quite comfortable embracing.
Good luck with that.
JMJ
January 25th, 2009 at 12:36 pm
“Conservatives don’t change their minds, and they never admit hypocrisy”
How ironic that the party who champions hypocrisy would say such a thing.
Kinda gave me a little chuckle.
Really Jersy, the venom that the left has spewed in the last 8 years and even up untill after Obama won should be reason enough for you to humbly back out of that position or change it.
If anyone is executing revenge right now its the rabid moonbats that should be happy right now but instead are running all over the blogoshere hurling insults and still blaming Bush for Obamas difficulties.
I dont even want to get into the blind retaliation we see going on in congress and some of the policies Obama is trying to push thru.
Pelosi and Reid are so high on the opportunities for revenge right now I swear they’re probably drooling at the thought of it.
Are they doing it to better their country, or satisfy an itch ?
I do revenge for simple reason that it informs you to not ever do again what you did to me so that the problem does not arise again.
Its how we retaliate, its how we defend ourselves, its what people do to stop further wrong doing.
We all do it.
So get off your high horse.
Yes, it is “payback time”
Anyone with any sense of objectivity would realize that this is whats in order for anyone who believes in their position.
Will it anger the opposition to retaliate ?
Yes, I hope so, thats the point.
To keep going until the best man wins. Its called fighting for what you believe in until the opposition either submits or takes side with you.
Erics point is spot on.
It was you on the left who decided to change the meaning of blind freaking hatred to dissent.
Thats the point.
No one of any intelligence ever said that voicing an opinion or concern was unpatriotic.
But to make up lies and accusations that are un-provable as you yourself and so many others have so often done is not dissent. Its treasonous.
Its evil. Learn the difference.
January 25th, 2009 at 1:11 pm
Micky, hey, look, I think dissent is great. Dissent ’til your hearts content. That’s fine with me. Dissent in a time of war, dissent in a time of peace, dissent when times are good, dissent when times are bad, dissent against the well, dissent against the sick… Dissent is vital to the health of a republic. It is the pain mechanism of the body politic, and pain is a good thing - it tells when when something is wrong.
Of course, there is a bad type of dissent, though, and that’s dishonest dissent. It’s good and healthy to dissend honestly - to speak what you see as truth to power, whether you’re right or not. And sometimes what is right for you may not be right to someone else. That’s okay too. But dishonest dissent is when you just fuss over nonsense, or fuss over something that simply does not exist, or fuss over a lie, or lie just to make a fuss.
Blind dissent can be honest dissent or dishonest dissent, or only appear to be blind. Some people, like me, dissented from Bush pretty much all the time because I believe his very thought processes, his personality, his character, his epistemology, were flawed, corrupt, born of ignorance and stupidity. When I thought he was right, I acknowledged it, but almost always realized that when he was right it was just dumb luck. Even the Devil can do something that seems good, but you always have to wonder why. When Bush did something good - Medicare Part D, the Steel Tariffs - he didn’t do it out of the goodness of his heart or the rightness of his logic, but for political expediency. Medicare was a giveaway to retirement-age voters and the pharmaceutical and insurance industries. The steel tariffs were to garner GOP votes in the Rust Belt. Just the same, both were the right thing to do even if they were done for the wrong reasons.
What you guys see as Blind Dissent - the Bush Haters - the other guys see the same - the Clinton Haters. But neither group was blind - they simply didn’t agree with the motives of the Bush or Clinton administrations regardless of the outcomes. That is not Blind Dissent but a deeper Epistemological Dissent. It is not “evil,” as only a fool believes in Good and Evil. It makes perfect and reasonable sense.
Now, when it comes to lying, whether something is a lie or not often depends on who you ask. Did Bush lie to get us into Iraq? Yes to me, no to you. I think it’s obvious, you think it’s unsubstantiated. I could show you piles of evidence supporting my view, and you could give me piles of of evidence supporting your view. The trouble here is that the powers that be now have such tremendous institutional power at their disposal they can flood us with all sorts of information that we can pick through to support almost any opinion. It comes to the point where no one can figure what are facts and what are fictitious. So we do our best to decipher what we can. In other words, if we seem blind you have only those that blind us to blame - and even if just from that alone we should dissend.
JMJ
January 25th, 2009 at 4:38 pm
“Of course, there is a bad type of dissent, though, and that’s dishonest dissent. It’s good and healthy to dissend honestly - to speak what you see as truth to power, whether you’re right or not. And sometimes what is right for you may not be right to someone else. That’s okay too.”
BS.
You’ve lied about Bush and neither you or any of the moonbats out there that said he lied about this or that have ever even been able to prove it.
Truth is truth, not someones opinon or version of what they think is the truth.
if its your opinion, say so. But dont come as if you know it for fact and insist upon it as that unless you have proof.
You have nothing, that proves he lied with the intent you claim.
Nothing.
You’re talking to one of the best bullsh*t artists out there so dont even go there.
Like a child with a mouth full of cookies who said he didnt go in the cookie jar.
You could tke a lesson from Kucinich.
That moron keeps trying to prosecute Bush and everyone on the hill tells him to screw off.
you accuse someone, you have to convince everyone, put up or shut up.
“I could show you piles of evidence supporting my view”
But you never have.
January 25th, 2009 at 5:39 pm
Micky, there’s volumes of proof out there showing Bush lied about this or that. There’s also proof that he did not. Therein lies the problem - what to believe. Bush now admits that there were no WMD in Iraq but stated it as fact previously that there were. Was he lying? I think so. You think he was just mistaken or that there were WMD and they were just hidden or something. We could go on and on with this. The obfuscation is so thick, it’s hard to tell what is true or not. Anyone outside the key players in all this would be lying to say they know anything for certain. So you have to use deduction. Did Bush lie to get us into Iraq? Well, would he? In my opinion, yes he would, so to me it makes perfect sense. To you he would not, so you doubt he did. The truth will probably ever be known for sure.
If you want proof of anything, just Google it. There’s millions of sites out there with information and documentation and proof of this and that. One would have to live under a rock to believe there’s no proof that Bush lied about some things. There’s tons of proof. You just choose not to believe it.
And that gets top what this is really all about. Modern conservatives are Authoritarians. You are idol worshippers. You love Bush. He’s a hero to you - virtually infallable. That’s why you guys think all liberals and democrats love Clinton. They don’t. But you guys assume they do because you think that everybody thinks like you - that everyone is a hero worshipper and must worship the hero of their group. We don’t. We are not authortarians. We question ALL authority. You do not.
JMJ
January 26th, 2009 at 3:08 am
“And that gets top what this is really all about. Modern conservatives are Authoritarians. You are idol worshippers. You love Bush. He’s a hero to you - virtually infallable.”
That is a load of crap. We do think he was a good President and that he got a lot right but I have seen many of us here criticize various decisions he made along the way. We also found things Clinton did right along the way. Yet most Democrats and Liberals cannot find one thing Bush did right. Obama found some good things to say about Bush.
What gets me is the left can’t stop. Every day I still hear or see on line some venomous comment about Bush from somebody on the left. He is gone you can stop now. When Clinton left office Republicans would have been happy to stop talking about him, although he couldn’t go a month without finding some way to get his name in the papers again. Usually making some sort of public statement.
January 26th, 2009 at 2:50 pm
“Micky, there’s volumes of proof out there showing Bush lied about this or that.”
Maybe, but you never proved to me or anyone that he lied intentionally to go to war as you claimed.
Period.
What is your problem ?
What world do you live in where you can find so many bullsh*t ways to explain what is and is not truth ?
If you cant be honest enough to realize that Bush along with most of your party all believed and said the same thing to the whole world than its you who is the liar.
So, that means that every single person who agreed with the same intelligence are also liars.
They did not just take Bush’s word for it so you cant say that they were mislead.
They saw the reports themselves. Not only from American intelligence but also from many others who were a part of the coalition.
You have absolutely nothing whatsoever to prove your accusation accept the feeble weak and pathetically disgusting audacity to think and tell others that your opinion is what determines truth.
The concrete facts that are available is what you use to determine the real matter of something.
Put simply.
If you took your case to court, if you even got that far, you would laughed out of the courtroom right on to the curb and probably be countered against by the court for malicious contempt, attempted defamation and slander.
The finest system of justice on the planet would tell you take a flying **** and that you have not and can not prove your case beyond a reasonable doubt with just your perception or opinion. You must convince the peers, the jury and with no evidence of any kind all your doing is clogging up the courts calendar.
We are not talking about the truth one sees for themselves when looking at a Picasso.
We are talking about a gathering of facts that point to the obvious.
Just like I have a gathering of facts that prove you to be a liar.
Because so far, out of everything that has been posted between you and I regarding Bush’s alleged lying you keep saying he did but have nothing to prove it where one can say;
“Oh yea ! He knew it was all BS and did it anyway”
You can only guess that , wish that or whatever.
But none of it is anything that anyone would bet a red nickel on.
You’re a liar.
You say things that you cant prove and no substantial validity by any means other than your opinion.
I’ll tell you what.
Start running around your neighborhood telling everyone that the guy living next to you is a child molester because you think so and that everything you’ve seen and heard has lead you to believe its true.
When he comes crashing thru your front door and you have nothing to prove it let me know how your version of the truth worked out for you.
If you can still communicate.
Fair enough ?
Will you do that for the both of us ?
Because if you’ve got some method of proving truth that none of us know about I would love to hear it.
Otherwise consider yourself a contemptuous hateful, liar
January 26th, 2009 at 3:16 pm
“You are idol worshippers.”
More inanimate objects depicting Obama have been sold more than any other president in history.
Conservatives are authoritarians.
We dont tell people how to speak.
We dont tell people what to eat.
We dont tell people where to live.
We dont tell people how to keep their garden.
We dont tell people how to build there house
We dont tell people not to say God
We dont tell people what they should spend their money on
We dont tell people where to smoke.
We dont tell people what to do with their own property
We dont tell people there is no debate
We dont tell people how to raise their kids
We dont tell people they cant have guns.
We dont tell people with real authority that we have more authority than them.
“Hes a hero to you”
Yes, and George Walker BUsh earned that title.
Obama did not, yet he is worshipped as a messiah for doing absolutely nothing.
Try again