Leave a comment below!
Your error, like every other "conservative" brass-kisser out there, is that you seem to think reasonable doubt is "disloyalty". You can't name any criterion for victory, you can't identify the omnipresent "enemy" by nationality, you can't explain how "defeat" in Iraq would cost us anything that we haven't already lost, but are very quick to assert that anyone who doesn't trust you or Bush or his cadre' of corporate interests must be an "America-hating traitor," presumably because you've never entertained the possibility that the government can lie to people. I don't trust your masters because they can't be trusted. They have proven this time and again. If you continue to define "America's Will" as the questionable motives of the rich and powerful, than you will consistantly be dissapointed, because Americans aren't as stupid as you think they are.
I trust you're paid to blog, otherwise, you, sir, are a collosal sucker.
I'll give you one chance to clean up your act here, Mr. Planck, which I will offer by way of pointing out that I oppose the war in Iraq. See here, for example. I have also been a firm critic of Bush administration policy on a whole host of matters for several years now. So either you can educate yourself and talk like a sensible man and not fool, or you can leave. It doesn't matter to me.
A state may rightly move to insure loyalty among its subjects and punish disloyalty. We owe no special protection, in law, to wicked opinions, and it is permissible to punish opinions judged sufficiently wicked or seditious. I do believe that great care should be taken in this sort of endeavor; that it ought to be approached with trepidation and assiduity. Great dangers await the reckless. But I do also think our crisis today demands that we risk these dangers.
And terein lies the rub. In theory, it seems, one can take great care not to cross the line from punishing disloyalty to punishing opposition; from punishing wicked opinions to punishing free thought. In practice, however, it seems rather difficult to accomplish so fine a balancing act without giving so much leeway that the object of "tightening the patriotic belt" is essentially undone. Moreover, times of crisis are when rights of dissent and free opinion are least approached with great care, trepidation and assiduity.
And whom do you trust of the current crop of viable political leaders to accomplish such a task?
But you, see, if you beleive that it's IDEOLOGY that is wrong, and not how it was perveted to the whims of the powerful, than the argument is moot. There is no system so effective that it cannot be corrupted. I resent being equated with Micheal Moore, as I'm sure many conservatives resent being equated with Rush Limbaugh, but if vague generalizations are to be our lot, we can embrace or reject the prejudice of ourselves or others, or work against it. You appear to be to working FOR lumping everyone together in easily quantifiable groups, so in a way, I'm agreeing with you by embracing the voice of the Right as canon. Sorry, but to do otherwise would be disloyal.
Mr. Planck,
Had you gone back TWO posts on this blog, you would have read:
"What prevents me from supporting President Bush amounts to this: I do not trust his judgment. Put another way, a man whose judgment has been demonstrated to be so suspect cannot claim my trust."
How very silly you must feel.
I don't mind being equated or in the camp of Rush Limbaugh since he is a sensible man and knows what real enemies are to democracy and freedom. Michael Moore is a traitor, a snake in the grass, and a stabber in the back. The guy who opens the gate for the invader.
There are a number of times the country has acted against sedition. In John Adams' time, in Lincoln's time, in the early 20th century with the Palmer raids, and during WW2.
No one can illustrate those periods as unmitigated horrors where vast numbers of people had their rights trampled (although you can make the case of WW2 detainees - Japanese, Italian, and German Americans of you want but then compare Japan, Germany, and Russia and how they acted against internal threats.
We came out of those times and democracy and freedom did not suffer. The idea that the task is too hard won't wash. Americans are decent people and even when unjust, the injustice is often slight in comparison to any other people or such actions in history.
The Left's hysteria and fears are the product of fevered imaginations growing out of their own psychological projection. The Left fears the Right because they know how they would act if they had power to restrain their enemies. We see how they act like little Hitlers every place they get control whether it's a city council, a university, a state legislature, and Congress.
NOW we're cookin' with oil. You see, "Loyalty" presumes that the figures one is loyal to are themselves not lying about what they "believe in" and what they "fight for". That they are, in turn, as faithful to their followers as their followers are to them. That your trust is not being squandered on those that would exploit that trust for mere material gain. And material gain is no joke... We're looking at 200 million taxpayer dollars a DAY ( that's a DAY, meaning 24 HOURS times four years and counting) being poured into this idiotic Conquest of Asia campaign, with no discernable returns, and little gains economically outside the circle of Bush's closely knit collection of "honest" businessmen who all seem to keep getting jobs in Home-Sec due to some AMAZING COINCIDENCES, and then "retire" to the private sector to work for the companies who got no-bid contracts under their tenure, and I'm not supposed to think something fishy is stinking up the place? Why, doubt would make us LOSE this war!
Don't get me wrong, I'm a capitalist at heart. I despise both the concept of Socialism and the concept of "Social duty". FCC those parasites if they can't make a living on their own. I live to serve myself, like everyone else. But Jesus in Heaven, the cosmic level of avarice and sheer deceit exhibited by our current "leadership" makes MONARCHY seem like a viable alternative. This is the same thing John Adams BLOGGED about two hundred years ago. If tyranny is an acceptable alternative to the waste and corruption of a sold-out Senate, than what alternative do we have? Anarchy? Not on MY watch!
LOYALTY is not a commodity to be bought and sold, it must be earned. Loyalty is a two-way street, or a double-edged sword, or even a bipolar dog. It's whims are fleeting, and it's effects far-reaching. That is what Democracy was supposed to be about. Somewhere along the journey's path, we lost sight of that vision, and that blindness has now become our greatest weakness.
This is why I lash out blindly at anyone who irks me with their ill-chosen words. Can you forgive me?
Commenting by HaloScan
