Its not about Bush....

**mrba** · 07-21-2004, 06:09 PM

Heres another issue I have. Americans Bashing their president to those in another country. I think that if you have a problem with our country, and you are a citizen, then you should voice your concerns here, and not to those in other countries.

You have much more chance at changing things with a speech or letter to the editor at home, then you do criticizing our president abroad to those who do not have our best interests at heart!

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...tt_1&printer=1

**JRS** · 07-21-2004, 08:53 PM

That would seem to indicate that you think THIS BOARD is only read in the US. Seems, given your reasoning, no one should bash here as well?

**walt** · 07-21-2004, 09:06 PM

Originally Posted by JRS

no one should bash here as well?

JRS, please help me out on this. What do it mean?
Thanks

Sorry. I think I figured it out. I believe it means we should do our bashing at home to American audiences. Obviously most media today have some fringe foreign circulation, but that shouldn't be our primary audience since its strictly a domestic affair. (I remember the uproar when Lieberman's first announcement as candidate for the Presidency came from Israel rather than the U.S..) But I'm probably wrong.

**Jedi** · 07-21-2004, 09:23 PM

Bonnie Riatt in Sweden, WTF?

I think I summed this up in the thread regarding Linda Ronstadt. Both of these women have been out of the media spotlight for so long they will try anything to get a little taste of fame again.

Ring Ring, Oh Bonnie! Oh Linda! It's Celebrity Boxing on the phone for you.

**mrba** · 07-21-2004, 09:24 PM

Originally Posted by JRS

That would seem to indicate that you think THIS BOARD is only read in the US. Seems, given your reasoning, no one should bash here as well?

By that logic I shouldn't write a letter to the editor, because it may be read elswhere?

Lets stay on topic. Is it seditious speech to bad mouth the US from abroad? And would we be limiting free speech elswhere by banning free speech abroad?
And which is more important, a sense of national pride, or the freedom to tear it down?!

**walt** · 07-21-2004, 09:32 PM

Originally Posted by mrba

By that logic I shouldn't write a letter to the editor, because it may be read elswhere?

Lets stay on topic. Is it seditious speech to bad mouth the US from abroad? And would we be limiting free speech elswhere by banning free speech abroad?
And which is more important, a sense of national pride, or the freedom to tear it down?!

Swell spoken. :cheers:

**walt** · 07-21-2004, 09:43 PM

Originally Posted by Jedi

WTF?

Excuse me? Is this politically correct?

**mrba** · 07-21-2004, 09:47 PM

What the flowers!!!

**Steve Machol** · 07-21-2004, 09:47 PM

This is a red herring. Since when is voicing criticism of Bush synomymous with 'bad-mouthing America'?

There is a very dangerous trend in this country to label anyone who disagrees with this Administration as being 'un-American' or 'disloyal'. This is not only dangerous assault on the Constitution, it's direct slap in the face to Americans who sincerely love this country and have an honest difference of opinion on the policies and direction this Administration is taking. Attack against dissent is an attack against the very fabric of our freedoms and the values this country is supposed to represent.

Furthermore our rights as U.S. citizens under the American Constitution do not end when we travel elsewhere. Granted we have to obey local laws, but as far as I know no other country bans people from voicing criticisms against Bush.

**Jedi** · 07-21-2004, 10:19 PM

Originally Posted by walt

Excuse me? Is this politically correct?

Walt, your posts often baffle me.

To enlighten you, WTF was used as an expression of amazement. Amazement that the Swedes would be listening to Bonnie Riatt.

So, you're excused and yes it is a PC statement. I could spell it out for you be I don't believe it would get past the filters.

**walt** · 07-21-2004, 10:44 PM

Originally Posted by Steve Machol

This is a red herring. Since when is voicing criticism of Bush synomymous with 'bad-mouthing America'?

Since many of us believe that the President (PROTUS) personifies America in the foreign community. You apparently don't.

There is a very dangerous trend in this country to label anyone who disagrees with this Administration as being 'un-American' or 'disloyal'.

Shades of McCarthyism? Have seen nothing historically abnormal yet. Just slander as usual.

This is not only dangerous assault on the Constitution, it's direct slap in the face to Americans who sincerely love this country and have an honest difference of opinion on the policies and direction this Administration is taking. Attack against dissent is an attack against the very fabric of our freedoms and the values this country is supposed to represent.

Seems like a double-edged sword. "As you well know", (love it when Wolf Blitzer says that about every 5 minutes) attacking the opposition has always been a reality regardless of admistration.

Furthermore our rights as U.S. citizens under the American Constitution do not end when we travel elsewhere.

Some foreign govts may tend to differ.

Granted we have to obey local laws, but as far as I know no other country bans people from voicing criticisms against Bush.

You're sadly correct. Many are actually encouraging it. That's why these superficial swine flock to them because they eat it up. But to them, bashing Bush is the same as bashing America. Ever stop to think that maybe foreign animosity is due to jealousy. Ugly American, my a**! Try Ugly Foreigner!

(shanbaum, do me a favor and let me know if you find any typos, etc. Don't want to cause an embareassment. Tanks.) :)

**mrba** · 07-21-2004, 10:46 PM

There is a very dangerous trend in this country to label anyone who disagrees with this Administration as being 'un-American' or 'disloyal'.

Steve it appears you missed what I was getting at. We are not talking about "in this country." The question I am asking is, "is there a difference when done outside this country?"

I am perfectly fine with all kinds of bad mouthing Bush at home as is our right. It is also my right to label someone un patriotic! I tend to believe that bad mouthing abroad is a bit more than bad mouthing, and goes beyond being un patriotic.

Since when is voicing criticism of Bush synomymous with 'bad-mouthing America'?

Whether or not you like to policies of a president, he is our represenative in many ways to the rest of the world. Foreighn people see him as America, hence bad mouthing him is bad mouthing america in the eyes of the world.

**Steve Machol** · 07-21-2004, 10:54 PM

Believe it or not I am sympathetic to the original premise. When I traveled outside of the country, I found myself acting defensively and getting angry with criticism I heard about America - even when I agreed with it! Nonetheless I disagree with the labeling of this as seditious speech. Why is it seditious? Again that flies in the face of what this country is supposed to represent.

And Walt, you frankly are beyond belief. I am absolutely positive that you would have had no issue with people voicing criticisms of President Clinton under the same circumstances.

And no - I do not consider President Bush the personification of America.

Also you should look up the word 'slander'.

**mrba** · 07-21-2004, 10:55 PM

I do not consider President Bush the personification of America.

Yes, but my point was that others do consider him a represenative...

I am absolutely positive that you would have had no issue with people voicing criticisms of President Clinton under the same circumstances.

I am hard pressed to think of an instance (I'm sure there is one) where Clinton was bad mouthed in other countries. They are all so liberal they loved him, that didn't make him right.

**Steve Machol** · 07-21-2004, 11:01 PM

I thought you werre talking about Americans bad-mouthing their President in other countries as being seditious speech. That would have applied to President Cilnton and any American who criticized him.

Do you really believe that not one Republican or other U.S. Citizen criticized President Clinton while on foreign soil? Would you agree that if Gingrich or Dole or Tom Delay had done this, it would be regarded as seditious?

**walt** · 07-21-2004, 11:05 PM

Originally Posted by Jedi

Walt, your posts often baffle me.

To enlighten you, WTF was used as an expression of amazement. Amazement that the Swedes would be listening to Bonnie Riatt.

So, you're excused and yes it is a PC statement. I could spell it out for you be I don't believe it would get past the filters.

Sorry Jedi. Love your stuff. Also caught the WTF. RIP :bbg:

**mrba** · 07-21-2004, 11:05 PM

I thought you werre talking about Americans bad-mouthing their President in other countries as being seditious speech.

Actually I asked the question "is this seditious speech".

Do you really believe that not one Repulcian or other U.S. Citizen criticized President Clinton while on foreign soil? Would you agree that if Gingrich or Dole or Tom Delay had done this, it would be regarded as seditious?

Criticism and saying the president should get out are two different things... And the answer to your second sentence is a resounding YES.

**Steve Machol** · 07-21-2004, 11:11 PM

So if Dole/Gingrich or anyone else stated on foreign soil that they believed President Clinton should be defeated or removed as President, this would qualify as 'seditious' to you? Wow - even I wouldn't have thrown these guys in jail for that!

I seriously doubt you would have had the same issues if the critism was directed at Clinton instead of Bush.

**walt** · 07-21-2004, 11:23 PM

Originally Posted by Steve Machol

I seriously doubt you would have had the same issues if the critism was directed at Clinton instead of Bush.

"There you go again."

"critism"...? Careful, shanbaum'll getcha. :cheers:
(But then again, probably not unless he wants to risk getting thrown off the Board.

)

**Steve Machol** · 07-21-2004, 11:31 PM

Yep, you got me. You must be proud. However you are aware that there is a difference between a typo and illiteracy, right?

**JRS** · 07-21-2004, 11:50 PM

Amen Steve. Well spoken.

**mrba** · 07-22-2004, 12:59 AM

I seriously doubt you would have had the same issues if the critism was directed at Clinton instead of Bush.

Well I would say that although Clinton chose to give a diversity lesson instead of defend our country I wouldn't loose any sleep. However your supposition as to what I would say if it were the case is purely speculative...

However you are aware that there is a difference between a typo and illiteracy, right?

I don't think one should make fun of illiteracy...

**Steve Machol** · 07-22-2004, 01:04 AM

Hmmm...that's what I thought. You would not apply the same standards if the criticism was against President Clinton.

Also have you read Richard Clark's book, Against All Enemies? The Clinton Administration, and particularly Clinton and Gore, were actively involved in anti-terrorist activities and in defending this country. In fact they were much more involved in the fight against terrorism than the two previous Administrations, as well as the current Administration until 09/11/2001.

**mrba** · 07-22-2004, 01:06 AM

I didn't say that. Do you read what I say?

However your supposition as to what I would say if it were the case is purely speculative...

**mrba** · 07-22-2004, 01:10 AM

Also have you read Richard Clark's book, Against All Enemies? The Clinton Administration, and particularly Clinton and Gore, were actively involved in anti-terrorist activities and in defending this country. In fact they were much more involved in the fight against terrorism than the two previous Administrations, as well as the current Administration until 09/11/2001.

They were so involved in fact that the WTC bombing#1, Oaklahoma city, and USS Cole bombings went off without a hitch.

I think Clark is getting his revenge, because in Washington, everything is political. terror attacks are political, people dying from no health ins. is political, exporting jobs overseas is political... Its all a bunch of BS!

Nobody cares about doing the right thing. All they want is to grease another palm, when they aren't lining their own pockets. And they don't give a rats behind about who they need to steamroll to get what they want.

Anyone who thinks differently is a bafoon. Anyone who hopes differently should vote against an incumbant in the next election.