verte76
Blue Crack Addict
80sU2isBest said:verte76, I consider you to be one of the most open people on the forum.
Thanks! I like your posts too.
80sU2isBest said:verte76, I consider you to be one of the most open people on the forum.
Lilly said:
the climate during the cold war was a lot different than it is now. first off there was a lot more blind support for the president. secondly, and more importantly, during the cold war, the majority of americans hated the "enemy" (in quotes because communists were just continually misrepresented in order to create a hate to manipulate it so the president had more leway when he made horriffic decisions).
Lilly said:secondly, and more importantly, during the cold war, the majority of americans hated the "enemy" (in quotes because communists were just continually misrepresented in order to create a hate to manipulate it so the president had more leway when he made horriffic decisions).
speedracer said:
The federal government may have misjudged the direct threat the Soviet Union and other Communist states posed to the security of the United States, but given the atrocities Joseph Stalin, Mao, the Khmer Rouge and others committed against their own people, I don't think the US should be faulted too much.
Citron said:...The important point is that if greater public dissent was expressed, to the point that the media felt that their viewership was endangered, it will give up its domination by the govt, as occurred during the Vietnam War. I understand that there are holes in what I am saying, but I think my simplistic explanation does generally apply.
Lilly said:mrs. edge - i hope you're not upset with me. but let me explain the whole "being alone" thing. i'm saying that that's probably why you (you being those who aren't americans) don't understand our psyche. like i don't understand british psyche cos i'm not in britain. there are a lot of nuances that come along with being immersed in a culture that someone even as close as being in toronto wouldn't understand. even if you're watching our news it may still be foreign, ya know? it's like if you came down to the twin cities and i said "hey, yah, i'll meet you up in highland for dinner." you don't know where highland is, and it isn't on a map, and dinner here can also mean lunch. so if i'm in highland at noon and you call me at 6 to say "lilian!!! where the hell is highland???" then we clearly have misunderstandings due to culture differences.
verte76 said:I agree with you Moonlit_Angel. If the president is doing something that's not good for the country I love, then I'm going to be mad. I'm going to protest. This stuff about anti-war protesters being "against the troops" or whatever is nonsense. We weren't criticizing the troops. We were criticizing the big shots in Washington. And if we can't criticize them then we do live in a dictatorship and not a democracy. As far as I'm concerned my government is a democracy, dammmit.
Originally posted by verte76
Sting, I understand that people who support Bush are not "blind supporters". Some people have analyzed everything, and thought really hard, and have decided that he's doing the right thing. The thing is not everyone feels this way. I've read stuff and tried to keep an open mind about Bush, the war, etc, etc. I don't *hate* Bush. I simply don't agree with his agenda. That's not the same thing. I don't think he's a or whatever.
Originally posted by sharky
I get as misty eyed as the next person when I hear Lee Greenwood's "God Bless the USA"
Citron said:I don't identify myself as a liberal or conservative, but much of the political controversy today should at least acknowledge that liberals (nonauthoritarians) seem more able to entertain and tolerate thoughts which they may not agree with, while conservatives (authoritarians) seem to have a more controlling approach.
80sU2isBest said:It all depends on what tolerance issue is being discussed.
sulawesigirl4 said:I guess it is because whenever people start talking about "absolute" standards, there is going to be disagreements about who the arbitrators of what those standards are and how they are defined. There is plenty of evidence that a great deal of death and destruction has been wreaked in the last century alone by those who claim to have a lock on absolute truth. Whether or not that means that such a standard doesn't exist is arguable of course, but it does provide some rationale for wariness on the part of observers.
kobayashi said:but i am curious to ask americans the following...why is it that the president must be supported at all costs? from where does that rationale come from? why, when the war began, did all questioning of the war need to cease?
to me this would appear to clash with much of what is fundamental to america.