How is someone 'Un-American'?

[vanir]

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 just wanted to toss in a personal, somewhat academic impression in here, though I've no intention of derailing the discussion itself.

 

"Race" was an ideal largely levelled by (commonly British) anthropologists of the 18-19th century as an academic term. It was based upon the erroneous belief that regional cultural groups held physical, skeletal and intellectual differences measureable by a scientific means (such as skull dimensions). It was complete hogwash, for one (due to common ancestry and complex evolutionary diversity), and secondly, by its blatant intentions to support colonialism led directly to other unfounded assertions like the Eugenics movement and its cousin, Nazism. Quite simply the entire proceedings were determined by dedicated anthropologists around the 1930's to be no more than "scientific racism."

 

By the 1930's disciplines such as anthropology had become far more accessible to those without noble lineage, in part due to sweeping changes in world politics and thus economic control. During impartial tests it was discovered there were as many variations within even isolated regional communities as there were outside the group, one of the early, strictly scientific allusions to common ancestry (which was backed by archaeological evidence and linguistics studies, prior to modern DNA research that ultimately confirmed and revolutionised suspicions).

 

At that time, for example new ethics among anthropologists were evolved so as to prevent the use of such studies and statistical data for political purposes in the future. One can peruse the American Anthropological Society website for more details regarding these (I know, yanks are actually good for something peaceful, well done).

 

So, firstly there are no races. No such thing, sorry. All the terms Mongoloid, Aboriginal, Inuit, etc. were thoroughly based in colonial interests of the 19th century and racism.

There are certainly regional cultures, and regional physical variations in terms of medical immunities and so on. But these are never tied to genetic lineage upon an ancestral scale, a point which is quite proved.

 

Well then, if there are no races, what then are these differences to be more correctly termed? Cultural and regional communities (and/or situational medical themes).

 

With this new insight, indeed certain cultural groupings formerly termed, incorrectly "races" do exist, but the differences may be hardly genetic at any given instance.

 

And Germanic is indeed one of the contemporaries.

[GarfieldJL]

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?

 

Huffington Post had people posting that up cheering about it, and saying stuff about they hoped Nancy would be hurt worse.

 

To my knowledge they ended up taking it down after it ended up being brought up on the O'Reilly Factor. Mr. O wasn't happy putting it mildly and he brought up a pattern of incidents and quite frankly humiliated them.

 

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

 

You have to understand that we were at war at the time and stuff like that can and does happen. To be frank, tempers were extremely high after Pearl Harbor, and while we saw the propaganda stuff during that war, we don't see things like that about the Japanese today. To be perfectly blunt they had propaganda stuff that bashed Americans.

[jrrtoken]

You have to understand that we were at war at the time and stuff like that can and does happen. To be frank, tempers were extremely high after Pearl Harbor, and while we saw the propaganda stuff during that war, we don't see things like that about the Japanese today. To be perfectly blunt they had propaganda stuff that bashed Americans.

Yeah, but they weren't the ones who put its own citizens in de facto prison camps. I suppose it would be perfectly fine these days to do the same thing with suspected terrorists who are American citizens.

[True_Avery]

Yeah, but they weren't the ones who put its own citizens in de facto prison camps. I suppose it would be perfectly fine these days to do the same thing with suspected terrorists who are American citizens.

Rape of Nanking.

 

Japan abused its own people and the Chinese heavily during World War 2. We may have put our own people in camps, but they held a Genocide.

 

I know where you are coming from, but there were hardly any innocent bystanders in World War 2.

[ET Warrior]

Huffington Post had people posting that up cheering about it, and saying stuff about they hoped Nancy would be hurt worse.

I see, so an article written by a person that is insensitive about Nancy Reagan hurting herself and suddenly it's some kind of group liberal conspiracy of hate? Makes sense to me.

[jrrtoken]

Rape of Nanking.

I was actually referring to the Japanese internment camps in the US. I suppose I didn't clarify enough. >_<

[True_Avery]

I see, so an article written by a person that is insensitive about Nancy Reagan hurting herself and suddenly it's some kind of group liberal conspiracy of hate? Makes sense to me.

And when Rush calls J Fox out for apparently "faking" the symptoms of a fatal condition, its just his misunderstood opinion that by no means represents the conservative party.

 

Great how fervent partisanship works, huh?

[GarfieldJL]

I see, so an article written by a person that is insensitive about Nancy Reagan hurting herself and suddenly it's some kind of group liberal conspiracy of hate? Makes sense to me.

 

It was beyond insensitive it was cheering about the fact she got hurt and disappointed she didn't get hurt worse. Quit trying to downplay it.

 

 

And when Rush calls J Fox out for apparently "faking" the symptoms of a fatal condition, its just his misunderstood opinion that by no means represents the conservative party.

 

Great how fervent partisanship works, huh?

 

That song and dance may work on some people, but not on me because my grandfather had Parkinsons disease, and it wasn't what killed him. Seriously, Parkinsons takes time to progress quite frankly due to J. Fox's age Rush may have been right about about the guy not taking his meds at the time.

 

Fact is, that someone like Michael J. Fox could get enough care that Parkinsons probably won't be what kills him. It doesn't mess with vital organs, it messes with voluntary muscle movements, he may need a nurse or caretakers looking after him.

 

I was actually referring to the Japanese internment camps in the US. I suppose I didn't clarify enough. >_<

 

Last I checked, those internment camps weren't slave labor camps, nor were they death camps and those people were released after the war. It isn't even remotely equivalent to what the Japanese did nor is it remotely equivalent to what the Germans or Russians did during World War II. While the detainment of Japanese Americans was wrong, and I'm not going to argue that point, you cannot even remotely compare the US to the attrocities committed by the Axis powers nor the attrocities that the Soviet Union committed.

 

I'm sure any Concentration Camp survivor would be extremely offended by your comments.

[mur'phon]

Last I checked, those internment camps weren't slave labor camps, nor were they death camps and those people were released after the war. It isn't even remotely equivalent to what the Japanese did nor is it remotely equivalent to what the Germans or Russians did during World War II. While the detainment of Japanese Americans was wrong, and I'm not going to argue that point, you cannot even remotely compare the US to the attrocities committed by the Axis powers nor the attrocities that the Soviet Union committed.

 

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but you are essentially saying that it's okay because others did worse?

[GarfieldJL]

Please correct me if I'm wrong' date=' but you are essentially saying that it's okay because others did worse?[/quote']

 

That isn't what I'm saying at all, I'm not saying it was okay, however I'm getting sick of the blatent attempts to paint the United States as the cause of all problems in the world.

 

However, making it equivalent to what the Axis Powers did is demonizing this country and making it sound like what the Germans did during WW II wasn't that bad is beyond the pale.

[Astor]

However, making it equivalent to what the Axis Powers did is demonizing this country and making it sound like what the Germans did during WW II wasn't that bad is beyond the pale.

 

And where has anybody actually said that?

[CommanderQ]

I'm not sure anyone has said anything that drastic as of yet. The internment camps were indeed very shameful of the government to do, but it seemed to be the only choice at the time to contain the threat of spies. The people were not treated correctly, however, therefore ending with a project with bad intentions. The internment camps were indeed cruel, but no where near as cruel as places like Dachau or Aushwitz, or any other death camp of the Axis powers.

[mimartin]

The internment camps were indeed very shameful of the government to do, but it seemed to be the only choice at the time to contain the threat of spies.

Really? Where were the Internment Camps for German Americans?

[CommanderQ]

Actually, they had those I think, though the base of the internment camps were for Japanese Americans, which increased the problem by focusing more on them then any other ethnic group. It was bad, yes, a mistake on FDR's choice there.

[True_Avery]

That isn't what I'm saying at all, I'm not saying it was okay, however I'm getting sick of the blatent attempts to paint the United States as the cause of all problems in the world.

Sort of ironic coming from someone who has, for the past month, tried to paint the "left-wing wackos", "liberal socialists", and "mainstream liberal media" as a problem that will undermine the stability of the United states government and turn us into Russia or WW2 Germany.

 

That song and dance may work on some people, but not on me because my grandfather had Parkinsons disease, and it wasn't what killed him. Seriously, Parkinsons takes time to progress quite frankly due to J. Fox's age Rush may have been right about about the guy not taking his meds at the time.

 

Fact is, that someone like Michael J. Fox could get enough care that Parkinsons probably won't be what kills him. It doesn't mess with vital organs, it messes with voluntary muscle movements, he may need a nurse or caretakers looking after him.

That is not the point. Maybe he did forget his meds, but I'd think someone from a background in that type of disease would understand how utterly tasteless it is to say "Oh, that guy is either making up his illness or faking symptoms to get attention."

 

It might be J Fox, but what if someone went up to your grandfather and pointed out to you that he's probably faking his illness, or jerking voluntarily to get attention? You'd probably punch him in the face, even if it was the first time the guy had ever seen your grandfather.

 

Maybe your grandfather -had- forgot his meds that particular day. Maybe he was having an genuine attack. Regardless, its tasteless to point out that kind of stuff even if you are ignorant of the details.

 

It would be like seeing a bald, pale woman on the street and saying "She's probably putting on a cancer act because she wants attention." Does she have cancer? Maybe. If so, then that was an entirely tasteless thing to say, especially if said in a way that she can hear you. What if she didn't have cancer? Then you just decided to be blatantly ignorant of details and make an accusation that insults anyone with the actual sickness.

 

Is that as bad as cheering when someone breaks their hip? I'm going to say no, but its close. At least for Rush. Savage, on the other hand, is a conservative talk show host who has told a gay man with Aids to die on national television, claimed that mental retardation is a show, and has told students protesting on a hunger strike to, quote, "starve to death".

 

Tasteless? Yes. As bad as cheering at a woman getting hurt? Yes.

 

Does Savage represent the entire conservative party? No. Does he represent what I think of you? No. He's a guy who has a voice and has decided to use it.

 

So, I'd appreciate if you would drop the name calling just because a few people with a voice decided to speak their minds. Those "left-wing wackos" do not represent the liberal party any more than Savage represents the conservative party.

 

If you must speak down on them, then just the person in general. But don't clump them up into labels like "left" and "right" wing to make it easier to throw the mud. Many people have different beliefs and opinions, even if they are in a so called "party", and deciding an entire group in general is whats wrong in the world is just a shot to the foot of your credibility, and the credibility of your arguments.

[ET Warrior]

It was beyond insensitive it was cheering about the fact she got hurt and disappointed she didn't get hurt worse. Quit trying to downplay it.

I was not attempting to downplay anything, but since you seemed to miss the point, I will rephrase.

 

So an article written by a person that is unbelievably terrible and quite possibly the most horrific thing ever written by mortals about Nancy Reagan hurting herself and suddenly it's some kind of group liberal conspiracy of hate?

 

The emphasis is on the point that I'm really trying to make here.

[GarfieldJL]

So an article written by a person that is unbelievably terrible and quite possibly the most horrific thing ever written by mortals about Nancy Reagan hurting herself and suddenly it's some kind of group liberal conspiracy of hate?

 

It was a "respected" Left Wing site that only took it down after Bill O'Reilly utterly humiliated them on National Television by bringing it to the attention of the general public.

 

I'm not saying all liberals are like that, some would be generally appalled, but it seems that the ones actually running the Democrat Party are heavily tied to the mental cases on the left.

 

I have no problem with differences in opinion, but there is a level of hate seen from the "respected" members of the left that you'd never see from the "respected" people on the right. Least not without the media going crazy.

[True_Avery]

It was a "respected" Left Wing site that only took it down after Bill O'Reilly utterly humiliated them on National Television by bringing it to the attention of the general public.

Define respected in this context.

 

So far you've given us one new website. While I agree that what they said was completely tasteless, I've yet to see how it links to some liberal hive mind of hate.

 

If you'd like, I could grab some particularly tasteless things Savage and Bill'o have said, unless they aren't considered "respected" members of the conservative party. If they are not, then I'll try not to bring them up again in this context.

[GarfieldJL]

Define respected in this context.

 

So far you've given us one new website. While I agree that what they said was completely tasteless, I've yet to see how it links to some liberal hive mind of hate.

 

If you'd like, I could grab some particularly tasteless things Savage and Bill'o have said, unless they aren't considered "respected" members of the conservative party. If they are not, then I'll try not to bring them up again in this context.

 

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

 

I really have to go but this is what wikipedia has to say on them.

[ET Warrior]

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

 

I really have to go but this is what wikipedia has to say on them.

Wow, that was actually pretty helpful. From the wiki page:

 

"Negative comments about the then-86-year-old former first lady were posted in the public comment section of the website by members of the public."

 

So the negativity had nothing to do with any of the actual editors of the blog, but were asinine comments from random *******s, and THAT is the proof that the liberal party is a bunch of hate mongers. Your credibility in this particular argument is approaching zero unless you can prove that conservative blogs never have extremely hateful comments (you can't, because I've read them before).

[True_Avery]

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

 

I really have to go but this is what wikipedia has to say on them.

From the citations in case you didn't bother to even READ the source you posted:

 

http://www.billoreilly.com/newslettercolumn?pid=22771

http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2008/02/bill_oreilly_arianna_huffingto.html

 

As for Nancy Reagan, it was a far different story. On the crazy left Huffington Post, the following hateful comments were posted about the former first lady:

 

* "Like her evil husband, she has lived far too long. Here's hoping the hag suffers for several weeks, then croaks in the tub."

* "The old bat will probably steal everything in the hospital room."

* "I feel no pity for the b---- who took delight in watching thousands die of a horrible disease and watching the poor having to eat out of dumpsters because of her husband's political beliefs."

 

There are dozens of other vile comments available for your reading pleasure on the Huffington Post. Apparently, Arianna Huffington, the woman who runs the site, has no problem with publishing hate speech. Ms. Huffington has the power to remove this trash immediately, but she chooses not to.

They were COMMENTS on the website. And here you had me going that this was published! Wow, I gave you the benefit of the doubt but here you go losing all the trust I had in you.

 

 

Here is a story for you Garfield.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6BRmU9g1S9Y

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CowWSNO6v30&feature=related

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/02/20/bill-oreilly-i-dont-w_n_87616.html

http://www.alternet.org/blogs/mediaculture/77542/bill_o%E2%80%99reilly_apologizes_for_michelle_obama_%22lynching%22_comment,_hell_reports_frost/

http://www.236.com/tag/Michelle+Obama+Lynching+Party.+Bill+O%27Reilly+Michelle+Obama+Lynching+Party

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Bill_O%27Reilly#.22Lynching_party.22_comment

 

Bill O'Reilly talks of LYNCHING Michelle Obama.

 

Was this comments posted on his page? No. It is directly from his mouth.

 

How about Savage?

 

He was fired from MSNBC for telling a gay man he should die of AIDS on national television.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/...st-fired_x.htm

 

He called Autism an "Act" and Autistic kids "brats"

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/n...,7335653.story

 

He told an Islamic caller “take your religion and shove it up your behind” because “I’m sick of you.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/17/ar...syahoo&emc=rss

 

Said that college students on a hunger strike for immigration laws should "starve to death"

http://mediamatters.org/items/200707060009

 

Oh, here is something you'll find fascinating!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6BRmU9g1S9Y

 

-N*****s should be lynched anyways.

-keep the white house white f*** you obama and the b**** michelle n***** obama

-good going Bill to hell with that n*****

That video has racist comments under it. So, I propose we ask YouTube to shut down for being a white supremacy website that is for the lynching of african americans.

 

Right?

 

<Every insult towards the left and basically every post in this thread>

Your credibility and the credibility of anything you post from now on is Zero unless you can prove to me that there are no tasteless remarks about "liberals", "leftists", "socialists", etc on any conservative site anywhere.

 

Thank you for debunking your own argument, and good day sir.

[GarfieldJL]

Uh I'm getting nothing but broken links from your sources, and for the record I've seen O'Reilly go after the far right, but they aren't respected at all (at least Republicans don't want anything to do with them).

 

However, the far-left is part of the backbone of the Democrat party and the Presidential Candidates for the Dems, associated with them directly.

 

If McCain had associated himself with nutcases calling for the death of Barack's wife, the press would have had a field day. However, Obama associated with Huffington Post and the press was completely silent.

 

Furthermore I really don't care where the comments were nor do I care who posted those comments on Huffington Post, the staff there knew about them and refused to remove those comments until Bill O'Reilly blasted them for it.

[Det. Bart Lasiter]

If McCain had associated himself with nutcases calling for the death of Barack's wife

You mean the people at his rallies? Oh wait, they only specifically said they wanted Obama dead not his wife iirc.

[GarfieldJL]

You mean the people at his rallies? Oh wait, they only specifically said they wanted Obama dead not his wife iirc.

 

That would be a good point, if it were true. That story was debunked by the United States Secret Service. (If it were true there would have been people arrested at the event).

 

Another interesting tidbit was that members of the press were giving press passes to "Code Pink" at the Republican National Convention to sneak them in.

[The Doctor]

... so you'll deny just about anything, no matter how true it is, won't you Garfield?

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yIxRKjcbbBY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SEm5zb1lwxo

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KX-G6mxLuWQ&feature=related