US A Hated Nation, Thanks To Bush

[I miss Reagan]

Come on, if you're going to try to insult me at least come up with something original.

You support a party that is against everything you claim to be for. All you seem to care about is lowering your taxes .

So give me a hand with my comprehension here because you seem to be contradicting yourself.

Man, now I understand why you guys hate us so much though, you actually believe the propeganda in the Canadian media about us. You really believe those sappy Paul Martin election ads. What I find funny is we're villified ten fold when we try to fight back the same way. Kinda reminds me of the story of the guy buried up to his neck in the Roman Collosium. The lion comes out and the guy bites it in the n*ts and the centurion comes out and jabs the guy and says "fight fair".

So tell me more about the conservative agenda as you see it...

[Black Dog]

So tell me more about the conservative agenda as you see it...

The Conservative agenda (at least what passes for conservatives today) is pretty basic: expanding the wealth and power of the wealthy and powerful and ensuring the rest of the rabble don't get too uppity and demand their slice of the pie.

[I miss Reagan]

Interesting because that's kinda how I'd describe liberals. I see the liberal agenda as this elitest mentality of stealing from the middle class to give to the poor and then take credit for it. It's epitomized by hollywood types for example who made televised appeals for average Americans to give after Sept. 11 while at the same time they gave reletively little. In people like Walter Cronkite and the Kennedy's who give a lot of lip service to the environment but when it comes to wind power in Martha's Vinyard they're just a bunch of NIMBY's because it irritates their lifestyle. In rich people like Paul Martin who keep companies off shore to avoid the taxes they impose on the average Canadian. In people like David Suzuki who lecture people that "anyone who drives an SUV doesn't give a shit about the environment" yet have fancy dinners on fossil fuel guzzleing yahts.

I think liberals love the elitest lifestyle of benevolently bestowing their gifts upon their loyal subjects. Personally I go with the 'teach a man to fish' principle. At this point in my life I'm certainly not rich. But I'm glad my employers have some money and an incentive to stay here and employ me. As for "a slice of the pie", I think this is where we differ, this sense of entitlement. I think people should work for their piece of the pie.

[Black Dog]

Interesting because that's kinda how I'd describe liberals. I see the liberal agenda as this elitest mentality of stealing from the middle class to give to the poor and then take credit for it...etc etc etc...

Right. Like a relative handful of millionaire celeberties with leftist leanings can somehow compare to the stagering number of wealthy plutocrats on the other end of the spectrum. In any case, I fail to see the logic of the idea that the only way someone can be a "real" leftist is if they are poor.

We live in a capitalist soceity. There's nothing inherently wrong with being rich. If someone of the liberal persuasion is able to get rich by the sweat of thei rbrow and then use that wealth to support positive change, I say power to them.

Funny too how people like David Suzuki and Michael Moore, people who got rich by their own work ethic, are scorned while old-money brats like Dubya are revered.

[I miss Reagan]

Well in this country the plutocrats seem to all be liberal. I think the US has it's fair share as well, Kerry and Edwards weren't too bad off, neither were their supporters.

We live in a capitalist soceity. There's nothing inherently wrong with being rich. If someone of the liberal persuasion is able to get rich by the sweat of thei rbrow and then use that wealth to support positive change, I say power to them.

That's fine, it's when they preach against their own behaviour or the esablishment they have become a part of. It's like the guy who become rich off of sweat shops then uses his money to start a charity to ban sweat shops. It's hypocritical.

Funny too how people like David Suzuki and Michael Moore, people who got rich by their own work ethic, are scorned while old-money brats like Dubya are revered.

Once again these guys' actions are so blatently hypocritical it's offensive. Suzuki and Moore loudly proclaim the evils of capitalist society while at the same time they enjoy the fruits of it. And no they don't use it as a tool to get their message across, they enjoy the high life. Dubya may be rich but at least he's an advocate for capitalism.

[Cartman]

Suzuki and Moore loudly proclaim the evils of capitalist society while at the same time they enjoy the fruits of it.

IMR, I do not see the contradiction here. Anyone who criticizes capitalism in a capitalist country would be hypocritical by this criterion. Would Moore's views be more relevant if he lived/moved to a communist country? I criticize (validly I believe) the Liberal federal government even though I live in Canada. As a prof, I do not see myself as hypocritical if I criticize my institution's treatment of students.

I think you should enlighten me on your criticism of Suzuki. I simply do not understand it (really).

[Black Dog]

Well in this country the plutocrats seem to all be liberal. I think the US has it's fair share as well, Kerry and Edwards weren't too bad off, neither were their supporters.

Let's not confuse Paul Martin style, large "L" Liberals with real liberals, shall we? As for Kerry, Edwards (the former married into money, the later earned it), and the Democrats, the G.O.P have them beat on the wealth front hands down (how many of Bush's cabinet members are millionaires and multimillionaires?)

That's fine, it's when they preach against their own behaviour or the esablishment they have become a part of. It's like the guy who become rich off of sweat shops then uses his money to start a charity to ban sweat shops. It's hypocritical.

Sure, there's some examples of hypocrisy to be found. That's human nature. I like to think that instances where wealth is used to promote progressive views more than balances these few instances out.

What I do find interesting is that the right is spared your venom. F'r instance: is it not hypocrisy in George W. Bush talking of fostering a "culture of life" while waging a war that has cost gthousands of innopcent lives?

Once again these guys' actions are so blatently hypocritical it's offensive. Suzuki and Moore loudly proclaim the evils of capitalist society while at the same time they enjoy the fruits of it. And no they don't use it as a tool to get their message across, they enjoy the high life. Dubya may be rich but at least he's an advocate for capitalism.

By your logic, in order to maintain any credibility, David Suzuki should be living in a cave and subsisting on nuts and berries. I think that's ridiculous, nor do I think you have any inside knowledge upon which to base that opinion.

The trappings of wealth and ideals are not mutally exclusive.

[I miss Reagan]

IMR, I do not see the contradiction here. Anyone who criticizes capitalism in a capitalist country would be hypocritical by this criterion.

Well maybe they are. Perhaps if someone despises capitalism so much they should move to a more socialist country like Sweden. Someone who claims American clothes are produced on the backs of the poor working in sweatshops probably shouldn't be wear nikes. Reminds me of my good environmentalist buddy. He starts hammering McDonalds, claiming they destroy the rain forests... at the same time he chomps down his Big Mac. BD is right, hypocrisy is everywhere, it's human nature. It's the gross hypocrisy I'm talking about. No one should fault Suzuki for flying on polluting jet planes to get his spread his message. However, you can fault him when he makes condemning statements like "anyone who drives an SUV doesn't give a shit about the environment" then takes part in behaviour unbecoming of his mission. I don't appreciate him dictating what kind of behaviour is appropriate. Michael Moore shouldn't exhort himself as "working man of the people" when he's living the high life in NYC and raking in millions at their expense.

What I do find interesting is that the right is spared your venom. F'r instance: is it not hypocrisy in George W. Bush talking of fostering a "culture of life" while waging a war that has cost gthousands of innopcent lives?

Venom? no. impassioned perhaps. Let's not get off on a tangent here but Bush and many of us who like believe the waging of war in Iraq has saved millions of lives. I guess you could say the same thing about other leaders who took their countries to war. Clinton, Howard, Chretien, Churchill etc.

By your logic, in order to maintain any credibility, David Suzuki should be living in a cave and subsisting on nuts and berries.

Ya I don't know. Who is he to lecture me how much water is nessesary and what size of house to live in. I have my own personal feelings on what is excessive. I'm not sure someone needs to drive a BMW over a Honda. I'm not sure people need to live in giant houses. But who am I to tell them? This would be a good new topic for discussion, how much is really too much.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear I miss Reagan,

QUOTE 

By your logic, in order to maintain any credibility, David Suzuki should be living in a cave and subsisting on nuts and berries.

Ya I don't know. Who is he to lecture me how much water is nessesary and what size of house to live in. I have my own personal feelings on what is excessive. I'm not sure someone needs to drive a BMW over a Honda. I'm not sure people need to live in giant houses. But who am I to tell them?

Indeed, the nut and berry in a cave scenario is being practiced by Osama Bin Laden, but his courage of conviction doesn't mean I believe in the message.

[I miss Reagan]

Indeed, the nut and berry in a cave scenario is being practiced by Osama Bin Laden, but his courage of conviction doesn't mean I believe in the message.

Perhaps Osama should be lecturing people on the environment not American culture eh. After all he does wear an American made Timex.

[Black Dog]

No one should fault Suzuki for flying on polluting jet planes to get his spread his message. However, you can fault him when he makes condemning statements like "anyone who drives an SUV doesn't give a shit about the environment" then takes part in behaviour unbecoming of his mission.

I get what you're saying , but I think there's far worse hypocrisy out there to harp on. I don't think Suzuki's oppossition to overconsumption fossile fuels (SUVs being the most obvious target) precludes him from using fossil fuels: it ould be a differnt story if e owned an Escalade. As for Moore, he's an embodiment of the American dream: working class schmoe turned millionaire. I don't see much hypocrisy there.

Let's not get off on a tangent here but Bush and many of us who like believe the waging of war in Iraq has saved millions of lives. I guess you could say the same thing about other leaders who took their countries to war. Clinton, Howard, Chretien, Churchill etc.

So shouldn't he be talkin of fostering a culture of not making omlettes without breaking a few eggs?

Ya I don't know. Who is he to lecture me how much water is nessesary and what size of house to live in. I have my own personal feelings on what is excessive. I'm not sure someone needs to drive a BMW over a Honda. I'm not sure people need to live in giant houses. But who am I to tell them? This would be a good new topic for discussion, how much is really too much.

Well, I expect someone like Suzuki practices what he preaches. For someone like that, credibility is so important that he simply can't afford to be a hypocrite. So I'd have to see some damn convincing evidence before I start labelling him a hypocrite (the Kennedy one was a good call, though).

[Guest eureka]

I, too, would "like to believe that the war in (I say on) Iraq is saving millions of lives."

I would also like to believe in the Tooth Fairy and in Father Christmas. Unfortunately, like St. Paul, when I became a man I put away childish thngs.

[I miss Reagan]

I, too, would "like to believe that the war in (I say on) Iraq is saving millions of lives."

I would also like to believe in the Tooth Fairy and in Father Christmas. Unfortunately, like St. Paul, when I became a man I put away childish thngs.

Well then if you are a man, lets see some maturity here and post some arguments rather than emotionally charged insults.

[I miss Reagan]

BD, ya I don't think Suzuki is the worst. From what I understand he throws away only 1 garbage bag a month by recycling and refusing to buy goods with a lot of packaging. That's pretty impressive. I guess my beef is being lectured or preached to. Moore, however, I believe is on par with the rest of the limosine liberals. Maybe he's is the embodiment of the American dream, but he's the guy who seems to most hate the American dream. His message seems to be railing against the wealthy and making money on the backs of the poor. Isn't this what Micheal Moore has done? He preaches to Americans about overindulgence yet he weighs over 300 pounds?

[Black Dog]

Moore, however, I believe is on par with the rest of the limosine liberals. Maybe he's is the embodiment of the American dream, but he's the guy who seems to most hate the American dream. His message seems to be railing against the wealthy and making money on the backs of the poor.

The important part is the second half of that last line. Moore, IMO, is not a "smash the state!" Marxist, but an advocate for fair treatment of the working class. The idea is that making money and treating workers fairly are not mutually exclusive. For example, his early targets were corporate CEO's who would lay off thousands of workers while awarding themselves extravagant compensation packages. So I don't see his success as being incompatible with those principles (unless he's using sweatshop workers that I don't know about).

What continues to interest me is that you self-identify with right-wing causes, and claim to loathe hyporcisy, even as you turn a blind eye to the hypocrisy of the right-wing. Even if Michael Moore is a hypocrite of the first order, why is it that hypocrites with far greater reach and power to affect people's lives get a free pass? I mean, what is one filmmaker compared to the President?

[Guest eureka]

What American dream? And how many Americans share the dream?

[I miss Reagan]

What American dream? And how many Americans share the dream?

If Moore were genuine and practiced what he preached, he'd give all of profits from his movies to, unemployed plant workers, gun control advocacy groups, and the 9-11 victims. He'd live in a modest trailer in Flint and maybe keep a decent 60,000 wage.

I don't think any ideology is devoid of hypocrisy. Perhaps it's just my right wing bias, but I see more gross hypocrisy among the left, particularly Canadians. But to be fair I will say I don't think Bill O'Reilly should lecture the left on family values when he's sexually harrassing co-workers. I think it's also quite hypocritical how the southern bible belt of Christians also has by far the highest incidence of violent crime. Or right wing Christians who have little compassion or forgiveness for the weak in society.

[Black Dog]

If Moore were genuine and practiced what he preached, he'd give all of profits from his movies to, unemployed plant workers, gun control advocacy groups, and the 9-11 victims. He'd live in a modest trailer in Flint and maybe keep a decent 60,000 wage.

Why? I sMoore advocating that the rich in America give all their money away? No. So how i she being a hypocrite?

He's not saying people shouldn't be rich.

He's not saying people shouldn't be allowed to enjoy the fruits of their labours.

He's not demanding an end to capitalism.

It's kind of underhanded to villify someone for not living up to standards that they never set for themselves.

[I miss Reagan]

Why? Is Moore advocating that the rich in America give all their money away?

That's the message I got from Roger and Me.