How is someone 'Un-American'?

[JediMaster12]

Sam Dravis said it best but lately I think it is nothing more than blustering over who is more patriotic. Over the idiocies that have occurred the last 8 years and my opposition to the insisting on what is American, I might as well be called un-American.

 

Heck as far as my family is concerned I am toeing the line on Americanism since there are some ideas of theirs that I outright oppose.

 

It's all a matter of view but frankly it is ridiculous.

[CommanderQ]

The idea of un-Americanism is rather ridiculous, isn't it. I myself think America is more an ideal then it is state-of-mind, there really isn't a point where someone is Un-American, I wouldn't know where to draw the line. But when people start saying what is and isn't American, then we border towards McCarthyism {I think that's how it's spelled}. We all know that that sort of -ism isn't very American-like. It's all very confusing...

[Litofsky]

If we are to accurately describe "un-American," we must first describe the word "American," must we not? Here, I do believe that we refer that we use the word "American" as an adjective, that generally is used to describe someone patriotic, one who shares the same view as the speaker, and other such (idiocies?). Now, as to the meaning of "un-American", I'd say that many people would describe someone as "un-American" if they either 1) disagree with their views (and, in their opinion, would lead to something 'bad' happening to America) or 2) they are using it as slander against an opponent in a political race.

 

At any rate, I do believe that the term "un-American" is an opinion, and is only to be used when someone is losing real things to argue/debate about. Of course, it might depend on the situation, but the general consensus seems to be that calling someone un-American is to attempt draw attention away from a certain point, or some other political stunt, and is generally used by the one losing in a (certain) situation.

 

My two cents.

[vanir]

Yeh kind of along the lines Litovsky started on. We have the popular local term of "Un-Australian" in politics.

 

It means, "I speak for the popular majority."

 

It is complete and utter farce. In fact you can expect the proponent of such a statement to be inherently incorrect in anything else they've been levelling, straight off.

It is a resort to bullying, a lack of intellectual grounds.

[Darth333]

I'm not American but I guess the same applies everywhere...I just call it "low level populism".

 

Being able to criticize a political system or orientations is essential to any democracy IMHO.

[GarfieldJL]

I'm not American but I guess the same applies everywhere...I just call it "low level populism".

 

Being able to criticize a political system or orientations is essential to any democracy IMHO.

 

Uh there are some things which you can legitimately say that they are UnAmerican and/or borderline treasonous.

 

Selling military equipment to a country where in our laws it is illegal to sell stuff like that to especially when they are supplying and training people whom go on to attack our troups is a good example.

 

Specifically I'm bringing up General Electric which so happens to be the Parent Company of NBC and MSNBC.

[jrrtoken]

Uh there are some things which you can legitimately say that they are UnAmerican and/or borderline treasonous.

 

Selling military equipment to a country where in our laws it is illegal to sell stuff like that to especially when they are supplying and training people whom go on to attack our troups is a good example.

 

Specifically I'm bringing up General Electric which so happens to be the Parent Company of NBC and MSNBC.

That's more or less an action rather than speech. What about saying something that could be deemed "un-American" by some? For example, speaking out against the current administration in a time of war. Would that be considered un-American?

[GarfieldJL]

That's more or less an action rather than speech. What about saying something that could be deemed "un-American" by some? For example, speaking out against the current administration in a time of war. Would that be considered un-American?

 

Depends, I don't mind people disagreeing with the Bush Administration, but you can do that without accusing him of being the one to fly the planes into the World Trade Center. Stuff like that is just to attempt to try to give aid and comfort to the enemy.

 

If you want to disagree with them fine, but people can be civil about it.

[jonathan7]

Selling military equipment to a country where in our laws it is illegal to sell stuff like that to especially when they are supplying and training people whom go on to attack our troups is a good example.

 

Ever seen Lord of War?

 

Depends, I don't mind people disagreeing with the Bush Administration, but you can do that without accusing him of being the one to fly the planes into the World Trade Center.

 

I haven't heard anyone accuse Bush of flying the planes into the WTC - wouldn't that mean he was dead?

[EnderWiggin]

I haven't heard anyone accuse Bush of flying the planes into the WTC - wouldn't that mean he was dead?

 

 

_EW_

[True_Avery]

Uh there are some things which you can legitimately say that they are UnAmerican and/or borderline treasonous.

 

Selling military equipment to a country where in our laws it is illegal to sell stuff like that to especially when they are supplying and training people whom go on to attack our troups is a good example.

 

Specifically I'm bringing up General Electric which so happens to be the Parent Company of NBC and MSNBC.

If I recall, we aren't at war with Iran. And if General Electric cannot do business with them because it supports "terrorism", then why are we still exporting oil from the Middle East and paying them for it.

 

By your logic, every time you fill your car up you are supporting terrorists. That is just as bad as those WW2 propaganda posters in the US that said that if you didn't carpool you supported Hitler.

 

Oh, and are you implying that MSNBC supports terrorists? Again, you should probably double check this link:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarthyism

[Darth Avlectus]

I haven't heard anyone accuse Bush of flying the planes into the WTC - wouldn't that mean he was dead?

 

 

I've heard it, in a more indirect conspiratorial manner from Alex Jones.

 

Directly...can't say that I have either. Good point. Not to mention how damn STUPID it sounds when you actually consider it.

[GarfieldJL]

If I recall, we aren't at war with Iran. And if General Electric cannot do business with them because it supports "terrorism", then why are we still exporting oil from the Middle East and paying them for it.

 

No, it is illegal for companies in the United States to do business with Iran last I checked. We have other countries that we refuse to sell military hardware to, like North Korea.

 

 

By your logic, every time you fill your car up you are supporting terrorists. That is just as bad as those WW2 propaganda posters in the US that said that if you didn't carpool you supported Hitler.

 

While we do import some oil from middle eastern countries our top supplier is actually Canada.

 

Anyways, I'm not saying that at all, people should try to conserve and get more fuel efficient vehicles but some people can't afford hybrids or the hybrid doesn't have the power needed to do the job required (particularly with farms).

 

Oh, and are you implying that MSNBC supports terrorists? Again, you should probably double check this link:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarthyism

 

I've basically said that MSNBC is made up of a bunch of left wing kooks that are a sham. I'd sooner trust Rush Limbaugh to be fair and balanced on something than anyone on MSNBC, in other words MSNBC is so bad that they have absolutely no credibility in my mind.

 

Btw, I know quite well what McCarthyism is, and I'm rather insulted that you'd compare me with McCarthy.

[jrrtoken]

No, it is illegal for companies in the United States to do business with Iran last I checked. We have other countries that we refuse to sell military hardware to, like North Korea.

Says who? Have they been deemed possible combatants by the government?

 

If you ever go to a comic book store, try to find the Friendly Dictators Trading Cards. They might be fairly uncommon today, but I have my deck. Look 'em over, and you'll find some surprising former American allies.

I've basically said that MSNBC is made up of a bunch of left wing kooks that are a sham. I'd sooner trust Rush Limbaugh to be fair and balanced on something than anyone on MSNBC, in other words MSNBC is so bad that they have absolutely no credibility in my mind.

lolwut? Are you saying that you'd rather listen to a conservative radio guru who fancies Oxycontin than a supposed liberal TV network?

Btw, I know quite well what McCarthyism is, and I'm rather insulted that you'd compare me with McCarthy.

Well my friend, you sound very much like him. From what we have heard from you it this thread, you seem to believe that any liberal is somehow automatically anti-American. Perhaps I'm just mistaken, but the term "left-wing kooks" is awfully pejorative in my point of view.

[True_Avery]

I've basically said that MSNBC is made up of a bunch of left wing kooks that are a sham.

Fair enough.

 

By the way, an eagle needs 2 wings to fly. Cut one off or favor one, and it falls out of the sky. Take that as you'd like.

 

I'd sooner trust Rush Limbaugh to be fair and balanced on something than anyone on MSNBC, in other words MSNBC is so bad that they have absolutely no credibility in my mind.

Still, I got the feeling that by putting MSNBC into the ring with GE that you were insinuating that MSNBC is supporting terrorism and the killing of our troops. If so, I would have to call BS on the grounds of 1) no proof shown thus far and 2) finding excuses to call your enemies terrorists is as bad as McCarthy's finger pointing of communists.

 

Frankly, anyone that uses the terms "left-wing" "right-wing" "liberal" "conservative" "terrorists" "communist" "socialist" in a way that seems to insinuate that they are some kind of enemy destroys their own credibility and the credibility of anything they would like to pull up to prove their point. If people want to label people to make them easier to hate and point out in a gun fight, then go ahead. Don't expect me to do anything more then smile and treat your opinion like that of a 4 year old however.

 

I'm sure you view me as nothing more than a left-wing, socialist traitor to your country and frankly I'm fine with that. Whatever makes life easier I guess.

 

I guess I could comment further on McCarthyism, but I can't manage to reply to it without being very insulting so I'll just leave it at that.

[GarfieldJL]

Says who? Have they been deemed possible combatants by the government?

 

Says Federal Law: IRAN SANCTIONS, this is just an example there are others.

 

If you ever go to a comic book store, try to find the Friendly Dictators Trading Cards. They might be fairly uncommon today, but I have my deck. Look 'em over, and you'll find some surprising former American allies.

 

I'm well aware of the fact our country hasn't always chosen the best allies (putting it mildly). I fail to see what the heck this has to do with selling military equipment to a country that is supplying IEDs to attack our troops with.

 

lolwut? Are you saying that you'd rather listen to a conservative radio guru who fancies Oxycontin than a supposed liberal TV network?

 

That's about right, because at least when he gives opinions he's extremely honest about it, whereas the Liberal News Networks report their ideaology as news.

 

Well my friend, you sound very much like him. From what we have heard from you it this thread, you seem to believe that any liberal is somehow automatically anti-American.

 

I actually have liberal friends, I don't mind people having a difference in opinion with me and having a civil discussion. I do mind being treated like I'm either stupid or a hate-monger because I don't agree with them.

 

Perhaps I'm just mistaken, but the term "left-wing kooks" is awfully pejorative in my point of view.

 

A supposed objective journalist falling flat on his face to worship their 'messiah' Barack Obama would be a good example of being a left wing kook.

 

If they want to give their opinion fine, I don't care, I do mind when they report their opinion as news.

 

Another example of a left wing kook would be Michael Moore.

[jrrtoken]

That's about right, because at least when he gives opinions he's extremely honest about it, whereas the Liberal and Conservative News Networks report their ideaology as news.

You see? Both sides, both conservative and liberal news stations both report their news with biased filler. If you would accuse MSNBC as having a liberal bias, then you can also accuse Fox News as having a conservative bias.

 

But to the point: Would a liberal or a conservative be considered un-American if he/she has different views than the current government?

[True_Avery]

That's about right, because at least when he gives opinions he's extremely honest about it, whereas the Liberal News Networks report their ideaology as news.

I thought Fox News and Friends did the same thing. Seems you are simply favoring a wing to me.

 

I actually have liberal friends, I don't mind people having a difference in opinion with me and having a civil discussion. I do mind being treated like I'm either stupid or a hate-monger because I don't agree with them.

The good old "I have a [blank] friend" defense. I'm sure they love it when you call them left-wing kooks and socialists as well.

 

But I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. We're often much more subtle about our opinions in reality than we are online.

 

A supposed objective journalist falling flat on his face to worship their 'messiah' Barack Obama would be a good example of being a left wing kook.

I'm loving the "I'm a good friend of left-wings" lines right above the "left wing kook" lines. It just makes Kavars that much more worth reading on a daily basis.

 

If they want to give their opinion fine, I don't care, I do mind when they report their opinion as news.

Yet you complain and report posts when we call you on posting blogs and Fox News.

 

Hm. Fascinating.

 

Another example of a left wing kook would be Michael Moore.

I'd personally put him in his own little category. Both the left and right tend to look down on Moore, and his main crowd seem to be select groups of "liberals" and "conservatives".

[GarfieldJL]

You see? Both sides, both conservative and liberal news stations both report their news with biased filler.

 

At least the conservative station which there is only 1 compared to at least 5 liberal ones is honest about when it gives an opinion. The liberal media stations seem to think their opinions are the gospel truth and anyone that doesn't agree with them is evil.

 

If you would accuse MSNBC as having a liberal bias, then you can also accuse Fox News as having a conservative bias.

 

You could argue that but the despite what certain studies show, their own data shows them to be bald-faced liars.

 

http://www.journalism.org/node/13436

 

Looks to me Fox News was a lot better at election coverage. I really don't care what their analysis says, I am just looking at the numbers.

 

 

But to the point: Would a liberal or a conservative be considered un-American if he/she has different views than the current government?

 

If they are being completely dishonest I'd say they are unamerican and the liberal media has been so blatently dishonest this year, Sean Hannity is right, "Journalism died in this country in 2008."

[True_Avery]

At least the conservative station which there is only 1 compared to at least 5 liberal ones is honest about when it gives an opinion. The liberal media stations seem to think their opinions are the gospel truth and anyone that doesn't agree with them is evil.

Isn't that what you are doing right now? Preaching your opinion as gospel and telling us they are evil?

 

I've listened to Rush and Savage. They are far from being below finger pointing and hate speech. You are just favoring those on your side of the Black White board and ignoring the blatant bias that your own media outlets and talk show hosts have.

 

You have already admitted they are conservative talk shows. Why don't you also admit they are biased towards their own cause and will exaggerate and twist words like anyone that wants to make people believe their opinion? What makes your talk show hosts so much more credible than the others?

 

The liberals call you "evil". Well the conservatives call the liberals un-american traitors.

 

Oh hey, that is a great segway back to the point of this thread.

 

If they are being completely dishonest I'd say they are unamerican and the liberal media has been so blatently dishonest this year, Sean Hannity is right, "Journalism died in this country in 2008."

Wow, we lasted till 2008? That is impressive.

 

Personally its always been mostly dead anyway.

http://www.wickedsunshine.com/Projects/Republution/Images/Poster_WhenYouRideAloneYouRideWithHitler.jpg

[GarfieldJL]

Isn't that what you are doing right now? Preaching your opinion as gospel and telling us they are evil?

 

I haven't said all liberals are evil, seriously that's just plain stupid.

 

I've listened to Rush and Savage. They are far from being below finger pointing and hate speech. You are just favoring those on your side of the Black White board and ignoring the blatant bias that your own media outlets and talk show hosts have.

 

Yeah I heard about some of the "hate" speech, I haven't listened to Savage but Rush I have listened to and I've noticed a lot of the charges of hate speech directed towards minorities was literally made up by the people bashing him.

 

Rush has never cheered when someone fell and broke their hip, the left wing nuts did when it happened to Nancy Reagan! The so called "hate speech" on the right is usually nothing compared to what the far left does on a regular basis.

 

You have already admitted they are conservative talk shows. Why don't you also admit they are biased towards their own cause and will exaggerate and twist words like anyone that wants to make people believe their opinion? What makes your talk show hosts so much more credible than the others?

 

Difference between talk show and evening news, the evening news is supposed to try to be as objective as possible. Rush is honest about his opinions, the evening news on MSNBC tries to report their opinions as though it was what actually happened when it wasn't. That's why Rush is more trustworthy than MSNBC.

 

The liberals call you "evil". Well the conservatives call the liberals un-american traitors.

 

I haven't called liberals in general that, I've been rather specific when referring to the media or specific individuals and normally I'm just saying they are not only biased but they are flat out dishonest. This year the mainstream media betrayed the American people to further their ideaology, pure and simple. They deliberately didn't dig into Obama's past while coming up with phony stories concerning McCain. Or did a hit job on Hillary Clinton, I really can't stand her, but the media calling her daughter a very derogatory word which I will not repeat is simply unacceptable.

 

http://www.wickedsunshine.com/Projects/Republution/Images/Poster_WhenYouRideAloneYouRideWithHitler.jpg

 

Look when we were fighting in World War II we had to ration things here at home to further the war effort.

[jrrtoken]

I haven't said all liberals are evil, seriously that's just plain stupid.

Well, you're not very convincing, since most of the ideals that you have posted here have liberals being the scapegoat for all of America's problems.

Yeah I heard about some of the "hate" speech, I haven't listened to Savage but Rush I have listened to and I've noticed a lot of the charges of hate speech directed towards minorities was literally made up by the people bashing him.

I suppose that this isn't a lie as well.

Rush has never cheered when someone fell and broke their hip, the left wing nuts did when it happened to Nancy Reagan! The so called "hate speech" on the right is usually nothing compared to what the far left does on a regular basis.

There you go again, with the liberal bashing. How about this: Enough of the "liberal wacko, nutjob, etc." stuff. It's quite insulting and rather low-brow.

Look when we were fighting in World War II we had to ration things here at home to further the war effort.

I suppose that includes using racial caricatures to poke fun at dictators.

[GarfieldJL]

Well, you're not very convincing, since most of the ideals that you have posted here have liberals being the scapegoat for all of America's problems.

 

I haven't said that liberals cause all of America's problems either, I have my problem with some conservatives, the problem is that the far left tends to be treated as though they are the accepted norm.

 

I suppose that this isn't a lie as well.

 

That was rather insensitive of him, in all honesty Micheal J Fox's Parkinsons occurred at an unusually young age putting it mildly. And while I disagree with some of what Rush apparently said based on the information you've provided I do feel I need to point out that pro-ponents of embryonic stem-cell research have been outright dishonest with the general public about how effective it can be.

 

For instance, they claim it will cure things that it can never possibly cure because the problem is a genetic abnormality.

Furthermore, they haven't been honest about the fact that the same results can be achieved with adult stem celms which doesn't have that same ethical issues that embryonic stem cell research carries with it.

 

Also to be completely honest Rush may have had a point concerning Michael J. Fox, there are a lot of drugs out now that can surpress the symptoms that Mr. Fox demonstrates and he is quite frankly a lot younger and probably doesn't have the sensitivity to medications that my grandfather had before he died.

 

Calling someone a whiner and wishing someone ill are two different things.

 

Rush has never cheered when someone fell and broke their hip, the left wing nuts did when it happened to Nancy Reagan! The so called "hate speech" on the right is usually nothing compared to what the far left does on a regular basis.

There you go again, with the liberal bashing. How about this: Enough of the "liberal wacko, nutjob, etc." stuff. It's quite insulting and rather low-brow.

 

Actually it looks more like Rush was accusing of Michael J. Fox of semi-faking the severity of his Parkinsons. It wasn't hate speech, a lack of understanding on the part of Mr. Limbaugh, yes. However, someone falling and breaking their hip is pretty well understood, wishing someone had been hurt worse than they were and cheering when they fell and hurt themselves because of that fall is far worse.

 

I suppose that includes using racial caricatures to poke fun at dictators.

 

The term German refers to a specific Nationality, it is not a race. Very few countries can make the claim that their Nationality is also a race and Germany isn't one of them.

[ET Warrior]

wishing someone had been hurt worse than they were and cheering when they fell and hurt themselves because of that fall is far worse.

you keep saying this, but who was actually 'cheering' about Nancy Reagan? I didn't invite you to my 'Suck it, Nancy' party so how do you know there was cheering going on?

 

The term German refers to a specific Nationality, it is not a race. Very few countries can make the claim that their Nationality is also a race and Germany isn't one of them.

Of course, because hurtful stereotypes are A-ok as long as they're not racially motivated.

[jrrtoken]

The term German refers to a specific Nationality, it is not a race. Very few countries can make the claim that their Nationality is also a race and Germany isn't one of them.

I wasn't referring to the German racial caricatures, but more or less the Japanese ones. That propaganda made them look utterly inhuman. And yes, you still haven't specified whether propaganda of any sort is acceptable if it is by America, "the good guys".