The Symphony of Conspiracies and Why It's Important to be "Anti-American" (Op/Ed)

I really struggle to comprehend the kind of mentality described in the initial post. Would people prefer American citizens to be uncritical, unthinking, unswerving, and blindly loyal to the current administration? How is being critical of the current administration "anti-American" or "unpatriotic"? Your alegiance is to your country, not to your government. If your government is not acting in the interest of your country then do you honestly expect people to side with their government? The Bush administration is not America, therefore being anti-Bush is not anti-American.

Dont people realize what unswerving and unquestioning loyalty gets you? Ask some German citizens that were around in the 1930's where unquestioning loyalty got them. Thats not some cheap shot by raising the Hitler analogy, its precisely where fealty to government leads to.

Just look at the police force, do they feel obliged to agree with and praise citizens to be balanced? Or do they remain quiet until they suspect some one to be doing something illegal? It's the same with the citizenry. Politicians dont need our moral support and unswerving loyalty. They need to know they are being watched like a hawk by their citizens and if they err they will be pounced on without mercy. This is the only way to ensure good governance. Politicians are people, as such they will invariably exploit anything and everything if they think they will get away with it.

Why is it "un-American" to deny politicians the climate to get away with wrongdoing? What ever happend to eternal vigilance?

P.S

Originally posted by DeusEx
Everyone's causes are their own, and they aren't going to change. Subz isn't going to wake up one day and support Israel.

Since you've tried to besmirch my reputation I thought I'd respond to that insinuation that im some how braindead.

If Israel were to retreat to its 1947 borders, decline its 33% share of the annual US foreign aid budget (whilst being the worlds 16th richest nation) and stop its practice of killing/terrorizing/depriving Palestinian civilians then I would have no cause to withold support from Israel. Im not a zealot, there are reasons why I do not support Israel and if they were no longer the case I would change my stance. Thank you.

[edit on 14/6/06 by subz]

United State's Constitution
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

Now where does it say: Unless they agree with the present administration? Like it or not this line:

As far as I'm concerned, anyone supporting the Bush administration is a traitor to their own country.

Why should his opinion be silenced? Why should you be allowed one and why should he not? I am sorry, but the whole idea of freedom of speech does not limit it to what you want to hear. The United State's would never alter, in fact it would not exist, if people were not willing to challenge the status quo.

posted by jajabinks

America deserves a nuclear bomb attack on one of it's cities..they think it's ok to go on the other side of the world and destroy cities and musrder thousands and rape their natural resouces..I think it's OK to go ahead and nuke an American city, it would kill about 100,000 , the US hava murdered more that 200,000 in Iraq already.

DeusEx, although it might break the T&C this is not the arguement here. Why should these people not be allowed to call for such things? Why is it O.K. for people in the United State's to call for the murder of others, those arrested for crimes, the invasion of Iraq, but when someone says the same that's not alright? Like it or not, there is no difference - in fact, the only major difference between the Iraqi and United State's Government, is that Bush was reelected. Sorry, but those we vote for we are responsible for what they do: they are our voice. If they kill people, it is as much on the voters heads as it is those of the administration as it is on every single soldiers head. Every innocent person is a loss, but like it or not we have a level of responsbility and it isn't Anti-American, to voice that.

This country is great no matter who is in office. Our freedoms are unmatched around the world. How can hating your country (instead of just the people who run it) change things for the better? Knowbody here wants their country (whatever country it is) to go down and stop existing! Excellent thread!

Originally posted by subz
I really struggle to comprehend the kind of mentality described in the initial post. Would people prefer American citizens to be uncritical, unthinking, unswerving, and blindly loyal to the current administration? How is being critical of the current administration "anti-American" or "unpatriotic"? Your alegiance is to your country, not to your government. If your government is not acting in the interest of your country then do you honestly expect people to side with their government? The Bush administration is not America, therefore being anti-Bush is not anti-American.

Dont people realize what unswerving and unquestioning loyalty gets you? Ask some German citizens that were around in the 1930's where unquestioning loyalty got them. Thats not some cheap shot by raising the Hitler analogy, its precisely where fealty to government leads to.

Just look at the police force, do they feel obliged to agree with and praise citizens to be balanced? Or do they remain quiet until they suspect some one to be doing something illegal? It's the same with the citizenry. Politicians dont need our moral support and unswerving loyalty. They need to know they are being watched like a hawk by their citizens and if they err they will be pounced on without mercy. This is the only way to ensure good governance. Politicians are people, as such they will invariably exploit anything and everything if they think they will get away with it.

Why is it "un-American" to deny politicians the climate to get away with wrongdoing? What ever happend to eternal vigilance?

Good points subz! And excellent rebut. I don't agree with you politically but I don't question your Americanism. Looking forward to reading more of your postings...

Originally posted by Odium
DeusEx, although it might break the T&C this is not the arguement here. Why should these people not be allowed to call for such things? Why is it O.K. for people in the United State's to call for the murder of others, those arrested for crimes, the invasion of Iraq, but when someone says the same that's not alright? Like it or not, there is no difference - in fact, the only major difference between the Iraqi and United State's Government, is that Bush was reelected. Sorry, but those we vote for we are responsible for what they do: they are our voice. If they kill people, it is as much on the voters heads as it is those of the administration as it is on every single soldiers head. Every innocent person is a loss, but like it or not we have a level of responsbility and it isn't Anti-American, to voice that.

To me, there's a pretty big difference between calling for the nuking of a major civillian population center, and the demand for the highest legal punishment of a criminal (the death penalty, in the US among other places). One is a call for innocents to suffer. The other is a suggestion for punishment of an individual guilty of a crime.

What about those that voted against him? As I recall, major population centers such as New York and LA were fairly 'blue' states that voted AGAINST Bush. But, I mean, I guess it's okay to call for their systematic murder too, right?

Hey Odium, I have a question...what ever happened to personal responsibility?

The fact that no one sees an issue with leveling a major population center, and saying they 'deserve' it because they may or may not have collectively smacks soundly of idiocy. That's basically the equivalent of saying that picking random citizens and shooting them for the government's crimes is acceptable.

How come no one is seeing the difference between anti-administration and anti-american?

DE

[edit on 14-6-2006 by DeusEx]

An old-timer once told me he was vehemently opposed to the burning of the United States flag, HOWEVER, he added he would fight to the last defending your right to do so

It is my opinion NO opinion should be silenced, period. It is this exact thing which has made this country the way it is, and what makes this site so attractive.....freedom of speech...... Notwithstanding the consensus that threats to do bodily harm should be avoided

Remember that old bumper sticker, well, you old guys/gals probably do, it simply said "Question Authority".

Do you think there were Liberals and Neo-Cons in Manhattan on 9/11? Doubtful, you see, when the threat is imminent, even knocking at the door, we all become Americans yes? Politics and Religion, differences of opinion, seem to take a back seat when one's life is on the line. Were you to be saved from certain death by a Muslim, a Christian, or a Jew, would you deny his hand?

I think a major problem is that serious revolting is considered like a Taboo now. We have people that look at any type of revolt and go, how insane!! The they start to spout off how dangerous it is to physically (doesnt have to be with guns or anything, just doing more then talking...like walking and riding a bike everywhere to boycott gas) go against the government. They tell us to go about it peacefully with words. I have no problem with peace, but guess what, we gotta go with more then words because things just aren't changing.

Sure you can all gather up in a protest, but what can you back that up with. What threat is a protest if you can do nothing to back up the protest should they not bother to listen to you. Thats my question? What do you do when your groups words stop being heard and addressed?

In all reality, the only real anti american activity is the attempt to squelch opposing voices...like what happened to the dixie chicks, in all reality I really don't care about them one way or the other, but they had the right to speak their mind whether the right wingers liked it or not. And, what really bites my ample butt is that is was not a spontaneous reaction of outrage against them like it was portrayed, it was corridniated, by at least around here by clear channel communications and from what I understand elsewhere as well. Out of the dozen or so radio stations in my area, the only ones sponsoring CD burnings and breaking parties were the ones owned by clear channel. Now that type of behaviour is anti-american in my book...do any on the right have any idea how nasty that was?

The irony of that particular situation Grover is that if they had done what they did about a year later no one would have paid much attention to it. They are guilty of very bad timing.

[edit on 14-6-2006 by Astronomer70]

this is true but as someone who took part in anti war protests before the start of aggressions I know the virulance and hatred that was out there, and bad timing or not, it was good that they spoke up, what happened afterward was what was bad.

Originally posted by subz
I really struggle to comprehend the kind of mentality described in the initial post. Would people prefer American citizens to be uncritical, unthinking, unswerving, and blindly loyal to the current administration? How is being critical of the current administration "anti-American" or "unpatriotic"? Your alegiance is to your country, not to your government. If your government is not acting in the interest of your country then do you honestly expect people to side with their government? The Bush administration is not America, therefore being anti-Bush is not anti-American.

The point is, subz, that there is no such sentiment here. At least, not to the extent that it is not balanced, or even out-weighed, by opinions to the contrary; that loyalty to the Bush administration is unpatriotic.

There has been some good news for the current admin this week. I think that that alarms and worries some people, thus the need for threads such as this one.

Imo, this thread is nothing but an overt attempt to stir up anti-Bush, anti-administration sentiment. It has created a straw man argument as a clarion call to silence certain voices in this forum.

Originally posted by jsobecky
The point is, subz, that there is no such sentiment here. At least, not to the extent that it is not balanced, or even out-weighed, by opinions to the contrary; that loyalty to the Bush administration is unpatriotic.

Please! There are countless times that people have said that they can't stand Bush and have been labeled as "un-American" and "anti-American." How ridiculous.

There has been some good news for the current admin this week. I think that that alarms and worries some people, thus the need for threads such as this one.

I promise you, at this point there is no need to worry about this man getting any sort of positive attention. I doubt he will ever be able to put himself in the high esteem of the majority of the American people by the end of his term, short of resigning maybe.

Imo, this thread is nothing but an overt attempt to stir up anti-Bush, anti-administration sentiment. It has created a straw man argument as a clarion call to silence certain voices in this forum.

So one of the Three Amigos is trying to silence people that come on this board, because he doesn't agree with them? Who would the rest of us debate with if people of opposite viewpoints wouldn't come on here and speak their opinions? An attempt to stir up anti-Bush/anti-administration sentiment... but that has nothing to do with being "anti-American" or "unpatriotic", so why exactly should you care? JsoBecky, you're on here all the time, as am I. Do you really feel that your voice has been silenced?

Originally posted by jsobecky
The point is, subz, that there is no such sentiment here. At least, not to the extent that it is not balanced, or even out-weighed, by opinions to the contrary; that loyalty to the Bush administration is unpatriotic.

I agree that the sentiment is expressed both ways. Maybe not 100% balanced, but who's counting? Both viewpoints are represented.

There has been some good news for the current admin this week. I think that that alarms and worries some people, thus the need for threads such as this one.

I don't buy that. Trust me - I am one of the most adamant critics of this administration on this board and I don't feel the least bit threatened by the 'good news' this week.

I believe this thread sprang from an SO reply in another thread:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Imo, this thread is nothing but an overt attempt to stir up anti-Bush, anti-administration sentiment. It has created a straw man argument as a clarion call to silence certain voices in this forum.

I strongly disagree! For one thing, the Anti-BushCo sentiment needs NO stirring. We are completely stirred! And to imply that we, who are SO against Bush wiping his ass with the Constitution, wish to silence people's opinions is frankly, an insult. (Don't worry, I'm not taking offense)

I will cop to hoping that people will change their minds. I don't want to silence anyone, I want to show them what I see and hopefully, they'll see it, too. I don't have a lot of hope for that, but I do have some.

jsobecky, SkepticOverlord is a poster here. Just like you and me. We have to trust that every once in a while he feels the same urgency that you and I do to start a thread with his views, opinions and beliefs. It's not about stifling opinions on the board.

We all want to change the world. He's no different.

Well, except for the tights and super-powers...

niteboy82 - How did you sneak in there? Such similar posts!



[edit on 14-6-2006 by Benevolent Heretic]

Originally posted by ConstantlyWondering
Good points subz! And excellent rebut. I don't agree with you politically but I don't question your Americanism. Looking forward to reading more of your postings...

Thanks although I should point out that im a British citizen, not American. Not that I wouldnt mind being an American, just not at this point in time

But what, politically, dont you agree with? I dont think I broached politics in this thread, are you refering to some other thread? Thanks for the compliment though, it brightend my day!

How can we not scream and be liberals and radicals while keeping the ideals of freedom of speech, dissent and assembly alive . . . has the American dream died after 9/11?

Why opposing a government that has given itself new and more powers than any other government in the history of our nation the right to do so without question?

Is questioning the actions of our leaders and the results of those actions wrong . . . then I am anti-American . . .but at least I am keeping my dreams alive and my ideals of freedom warm and active.

If questioning a president actions is UN-American then who dictate how American our present administration can be when right and left it has shown how UN American it can be.

We have an anti-American government and many can not even distinguish the reality of this fact.

Originally posted by marg6043
...a government that has given itself new and more powers than any other government in the history of our nation...

I would just like to point out that this is factually and historically incorrect, just a reminder, continue with the discussion.

[edit on 14-6-2006 by WestPoint23]

Originally posted by jsobecky
You are ignoring the claims by many of a "police state" and a "dictatorship", which are nothing but pure emotion, backed up by nothing but feelings, yet are staunchly defended as "facts" here.

If you are referring to the "Police State is Here" link on the front page, you will find all these threads as supporting sources, which also contain multiple sources of their own:
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Are you saying that it is not worth mention unless it is a thread title? Well, how about this one? As I stated, I could find many similar examples. Yet this thread is dedicated to a one-sided view, attempting to paint the other side as less-holier-than-me.

One thread, that even uses real events to back up their conspiracy theory, hardly represents the diverse voices on ATS. See Gools post on Reductionist thinking on the first page.

Why is that you would like to portray all opinions that criticize the Bush administration on this board are based on emotion...as well as trying to pretend that their is no rationale argument being made?

Originally posted by WestPoint23

Originally posted by marg6043
...a government that has given itself new and more powers than any other government in the history of our nation...

I would just like to point out that this is factually and historically incorrect, just a reminder, continue with the discussion.

Lincoln, for one, was worse...

lincoln was worse. Then again, weren't they in a civil war? Yea I amd pretty sure they were, bit difference in circumstances.

anyway business runs this nation. To be anti american is to be anti-business. Not even that, its to be anti-monopoly.
www.abovetopsecret.com...'

pretty good explaination of the monopoly running our country. I wrote it so everytime I decide to explain why things are getting so bad around here I dont have to write an essay, I can just refer to that thread.

Originally posted by niteboy82
So one of the Three Amigos is trying to silence people that come on this board, because he doesn't agree with them? Who would the rest of us debate with if people of opposite viewpoints wouldn't come on here and speak their opinions? An attempt to stir up anti-Bush/anti-administration sentiment... but that has nothing to do with being "anti-American" or "unpatriotic", so why exactly should you care? JsoBecky, you're on here all the time, as am I. Do you really feel that your voice has been silenced?

"An attempt to stir up anti-Bush/anti-administration sentiment... but that has nothing to do with being "anti-American" or "unpatriotic", so why exactly should you care?".

Because one of the most influential members has repeatedly authored anti-administration topics. That is his right, of course, but what happens is that it paints conservatives in a negative light. To what purpose? To make this site a mini "Daily Kos" forum? I would expect more balance from one in his position.

The problem is, threads like this one, and "I have a Dream" threads, attempt to label conservatives and Republicans as the real anti-Americans. And that is just plain wrong, no matter how you spin it.

And no, I am not being silenced. Many try to shout me down, but that's OK; that hasn't happened yet, so shouting doesn't bother me at all.

And, the proper spelling is jsobecky, btw. No need to capitalize for emphasis.

Okay, I started a series in the CM forum that I have yet to finish. Mainly because I'm too busy getting heat stroke on the weekends working on this 100+ year old money pit that is going to take me and Springer's lives. But anywho, I'd like to share a portion of what should be in that series and is relevant to this topic:


****************************

Chairman of PNAC is William Kristol a prominent figure in past Republican administrations, as well as in less "official" circles of the conservative side of policy making. Kristol was chief of staff to Secretary of Education, William Bennett, during the Reagan administration, and chief of staff to Vice-President Dan Quayle during the Bush I administration. He then led the "Project for the Republican Future" playing an at least notable role in formulating the winning strategy of the Republican party for the 1994 congressional race. He is also a founder and senior advisor to AVOT (Americans for Victory Over Terrorism).

AVOT, in its "Statement of Principles" compares the current "War on Terrorism" proclaimed by the Bush II administration as paramount in importance as the Cold War was, and in referencing the current enemy called "terrorism" it states:

America is confronted with an enemy no less dangerous and no less determined than the twin menaces of fascism and communism we faced in the 20th century. And as we were victorious over them, so we must prevail in this, the first war of the 21st century. AVOT will, as its first task, remind citizens of the paramount importance of this effort.(15)

Included in these principles is a statement that has been interpreted by some to insinuate a bit of warning against those who would speak in dissent of the War on Terrorism and the principles and goals of AVOT:

The radical Islamists who attacked us did so because of our democratic ideals, our belief in, and practice of, liberty and equality. AVOT will take to task those who blame America first and who do not understand—or who are unwilling to defend—our fundamental principles.(15)

14. Bio for William Kristol

15. AVOT's Statement of Principles

****************************

I'm starting to think we've been invaded with AVOT members who are hell-bent on making us all think we're "anti-American" because we speak against policies we take issue with.

They did this to the protestors of the Viet Nam war - they called them un-American and treacherous. We are the equivalent of "the protestors of the 21st Century". I will not be deterred in speaking my mind against policies that appear dangerous to the liberties and rights of the American citizen just because a group has decided "their way is the only American way".

Forget it people...your baseless name calling and allegations will not stay me from the course I've chosen. I'll look at each instance with objectivity and I will remain open-minded.

[edit on 6-14-2006 by Valhall]