![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
"By the way, there's a little exercise I like to do
whenever hearing or reading stories about dissent in the US.
I just substitute the word 'protester' in the copy with the
word 'citizen'. This is both true and changes the tone
significantly." -- ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif){kind=small}
number_12,
2005-01-22
I agree, but you know that
Though beer is more English, it was safer than water back when; so I heard.
But protest is as patriotic as you can get, right? As a protestor, I must object to being dubbed "un-american" I am a citizen, (checks birth certificate)yep, and just because the current administration is stuffed, puffed, and benighted, the U.S. way prevails. I can still drive barefoot legally in all 50 states, and stand shirtless on my roof singing "God Bless America" in Rochester, NY. without getting busted. Gotta contain those hotheads somewhere. Then I can do Katherine Lee Bates' "America the Beautiful". All the verses, if I'm not too cold and no one calls les gendarmes to complain about the racket.
Complaint: The Truly Amurrikin Way a Life.
*giggle* ;) (spit on the sawdust)
I do so have a sense of humour. Just not about death.
(no subject)
There is a big differance. It is ok and in fact needed to protest policies that you are against. Even a president you are against. But when you start making value judgements on the character and quility of the country then you are no longer protesting policy and now are simply protesting america... as in america itself is bad and a wrong thing. The only way you can define those actions are "anti-american" because when you say "american is the source of all the troubles in the world" you are indeed against america and not against a action taken in it's name.
Burning the flag is a perfect example of anti-american (not anti policy) protest. The flag has never represented a policy. It has always represented america. So when you burn it you are in effect saying "destory america" and not "stop this policy".
Lets turn the coin... wwould you say I was anti you if a walk around with a sign saying "you are evil"? or could you call that anti your actions?
(no subject)
U.S. is a right concept. We declare our freedom to think, damnit. Merely failing to salute the flag is not concommitant with burning it. Even if I find it aesthetically loathesome.
Now, I Ihave failed to salute the the flag since 9th grade. It's a gaudy bit of fluff that appeals to those I don't consider worthy of being a patriot. Whee. I'm not a U.S.er. I have an idea for a better bit of fluff.
I calls notions like I sees 'em and you can disagree all you want without my protest. I may change my ideas or agree with you on the basis of your arguments. No snot off my nose either way.
I don't argue with anyone on a less than personal basis. My ideas are based on my own experience. I neither fly nor burn the bit of fluff.
Nor do I carry around a placard saying "You are Evil". Do it if you wish. I know right well the notions on that shit.
Sorry to be harsh. Respond an you will.
Sorry D'G, for putting it by your wayside.
(no subject)
But when people throw away specific referances on what they are against and instead target teh symbols of the nation. Well then those people are indeed anti- that nation.
I don't know how you protested. If those who called you un-american were telling that because you don't suppport Bush or any one issue then they are wrong. But if you are yell that america and not the policy is wrong then they would be correct in their assessment. But you would have to give details on how you protested what you said and what they said.
I don't take anything political personnally. I don't care if you don't salute the flag or even if you think this country is bad. Your welcome to any or all of your views. I am just pointing out that their are forms of protest used today that can only be described as "anti-american".
(no subject)
I certainly don't want the US making policy decisions for my country, because I can't vote in your elections, but that doesn't stop people like Paul Cellucci from trying to do just that. This goes well beyond politics into things that have actual, practical impacts on day-to-day life. The Reagan Axis' big PR victory, NAFTA (thank you Brian Fucking Mulroney), guarantees the US access to Canadian energy resources, but does not concomitantly guarantee Canada access to US energy markets. Notice the disparity there?
I want to leave you with something that my Hebrew professor said the other day. He said, "Rome was a parasitic economy. It lived off what it could bring in from its provinces." Think about that for a second in light of the US' massive trade deficits and military bases in 80+ countries. As to the rest of the epithets, well, if the shoe fits...
(no subject)
As for you stances against america.. well you are welcome to them. I have a few negative things to say about Canada also. But I think that would just piss you off, so I will not bring them up.
(no subject)
I'm also a bit confused as to whether your initial "anti-American" comment was in response to the quote from
In addition, I believe there is a (perhaps precarious) place to stand where one complains that America is [wrong|harmful|on the wrong path|misguided] without being anti-American, because one still loves what the country and sees what is still good in it and hopes to convince others to assist in repairing it while there's still time. It's perhaps not as easy a stance to clearly identify in a five second newsclip as the other examples being held up as "pure" positions (clearly America-loving but opposed to a specific policy, or clearly anti-American), but it's an important one to take note of.
Of course, if the policies person A is protesting are ones that person B perceives as deriving inevitably from what person B considers core elements of Americanism, then person B is likely to see person A as un-American even though person A is every bit as America-loving as person A and merely has a different idea of which characteristics are essentially American and which are merely "policy".
Which in turn makes
(no subject)
So clearly he wants the people who are blowing up civilians and american troops to win. Because in the eyes of Moore they are the future of Iraq.
"But protest is as patriotic as you can get, right? As a protestor, I must object to being dubbed "un-american" I am a citizen,"
My referance is toward types of protest. In this he states as a protestor I must object to be being dubbed "un-american". Well purhaps it is a leap to say un-american is anti-american but it is not much of a leap. My point was their are types of protest that are anti or un american. That if one engages in those types of protest then one does deserve the label there of. Protests that target the nation and not the issue or policy could count as such.
"I believe there is a (perhaps precarious) place to stand where one complains that America is [wrong|harmful|on the wrong path|misguided] without being anti-American, because one still loves what the country and sees what is still good in it and hopes to convince others to assist in repairing it while there's still time."
I accually agree with you. As I had said a number of times it is fine to protest policy. But as a point of fact certain kinds of protest should be labeled for what they are anti-american. Targeting the flag is to target a symbol of america as a nation and not a policy. So when one burns a flag one is in fact saying either I hate flags or I hate america. But I also stated that to hate america is fine also. Just like I have the right to hate you should also.
In fact I would defend number 12's position as long as I know the context. If number 12 refering to peaceful protest opposing a view then number 12 has it right. If number 12 is refering to violent protest then number 12 is wrong.
a correction
(no subject)
Say what?! Maybe I'm missing important clarifying context, but the bit you quoted does not imply that. He voiced an opinion about their role and made a prediction. I didn't see Moore's desire expressed there.
If a few weeks ago I had said (rather than silently thought) that the Ravens would not get into the playoffs, would you construe that as rooting against them?
Further, if my understanding of Moore's position is correct (that we shouldn't have gone to Iraq in the first place), then even if he'd rather see us pull out than "win" [separate debate there], that doesn't mean he wants soldiers to die; it means he see their deaths as the result of bad policy decisions.
And apart from the above, nowhere in what you quoted did he encourage others to kill American soldiers. He's not promoting anything of the sort!
The only way he can be seen as promoting that is if someone is trying to spread the "anyone who opposes the war is anti-[soldier|American]" meme to demonize those who disagree on a matter of policy -- propogandists. In short, you appear to have just what
Did you drink the Kool-Aid?
"In fact I would defend number 12's position as long as I know the context. If number 12 refering to peaceful protest opposing a view then number 12 has it right. If number 12 is refering to violent protest then number 12 is wrong."
Actually, even then he's right: they're still citizens doing the objectionable and/or violent protesting. He didn't say you had to agree with them or accept their methods, only to remember that this particular "they" is a subset of "us". I don't read him as saying that we should be "so open-minded that our brains leak out", only that it's useful to remember this bit of perspective.
(no subject)
When it comes to war you have to be very careful on how you protest. In Moore statement he lifts up as honorable those who are killing our troops. This is supporting the enemy. Treating them as the hero and thusly justify there killing of the US troops and the Iraqi's that support them. Tell me this if some one beats the @#%# out of you and then I tell you that that guy was right to do so.. even more so while he is still beating on you would you say he was on your side?
As for violent protest... well that is fine as long as the government can violently put it down. But suspect you would have a problem with that. No issue out there today can justify a violent protest. If you become violent you then justify the government becomeing violent in return.
You are so close...
Re: You are so close...
The real test is if he would go to iraq and say this to the troops. I think he would be lucky to get out alive and whole. Have you noticed he has never tried to address the troops? Wonder why?
Re: You are so close...
You're awfully quick to ascribe your own interpretation of his motives to him, with no more evidence.
(no subject)
The main reason you have to "be careful how you protest" a war is that pro-establishment hawks quick to wrap themselves in the flag will raise spurious accusations against you, not because it actually helps enemy soldiers kill our kids.
(no subject)
I need more explation, I guess. I'm not cuting some
Nation? What? I owe allegiance to my land. I trash any reference to my nation. I don't own it, just love it to the very bones of the earth. What of significance have I missed? I can start over.
My life is quiet and not in anyone's face except indirectly. Grandpa would've liked it so.
Oh and try spelling. I fail often enough, but would like to not have to argue the what I get.
I get what I get. Sorry if I got unacceptable. Bone me. Apologizing gets tired.
(no subject)