Posted on 02/12/2002 8:30:13 AM PST by vannrox
I believe he is confusing "ambiguity" with "schizophrenia." This child was obviously either a)seriously disturbed, or b)under the malignant influence of a substance or person. Most probably a mixture of both -- in any case, he is a poor example for the writer's argument.
I also can't remember Bush telling Americans to "fly a flag" -- as I recall that began spontaneously, but of course the author, being liberal, has no use for historical accuracy.
The author feels that he can turn the debate in his favor by redefining "patriotism" to something more congenial to his point of view. If he were the arbiter of the English language that would be one thing, but he isn't, he's just another liberal pushing vagueness as profundity. Nice try. It is amazing to me the number of liberals who were in open contempt of patriotism six months ago and who are now informing us of the true meaning of the word. I ain't buying.
There was no room for discussion of U.S. sanctions in the Middle East.
Of course there was - and the position of the left was that such sanctions had killed 100,000 Iraqi children and were immoral.
However, the greatest threat to our security is not a Fundamentalist Islamic regime or a power-hungry dictator, but our own arrogance that we, as Americans, belong automatically to a higher order of humanity.
If the author is referring to himself here he might have a case.
The author simply doesn't understand that there is something inherently polarizing in somebody arrogating to him- or herself the right to kill you to get your attention. Attempting to occupy a fictional middle ground with such an individual merely gives him or her a chance to make another attempt. There is nothing moral about this; there is a great deal stupid and suicidal about it.
The confusion that the Charles Bishop incident has caused is not just due to the apparent oxymoron created by the contrast of his personality and his actions, but also because of a fine distinction that has been created between patriotism and anti-Americanism. It is much easier to diametrically oppose these two concepts than to accept that very few people are one or the other; it allows us to label ourselves and others in order to feel safe in a hostile social climate.
Ummm, "I kinda like America and I kinda want to crash a plane into a building to point out their subtle faults?"
How about: "I don't believe that America should be destroyed, but it is evil and must be wiped from the face of the earth."
Or this: "Even though I don't approve of Osama bin Laden, I'm glad that his supporters are causing us to examine our foreign policy by killing us."
Is that good? Is that the middle ground?
That worked so well for the Red Army in the 30s, doncha know....
I realllly want to kill you and eat you.
Let's see if we can find some middle ground: Can I just kill you? No?
What if I just kill you and only eat your limbs? OK?
I'm sure there is some middle ground here....
How about I anesthetize you and only eat one of your arms and one of your legs?
That's a quite reasonable 'middle ground' in this instance.
You just have to allow it.
Defeatist.
Then what the heck is 'middle ground'?
What if there is no 'common ground'? They wanna kill us and we don't wanna die--let's find some common ground there...
If you are not willing to fight you are wasting a gun and ammo.
That's right, I'd shoot every last man in my unit to inspire them to victory!
LOL.
Sounds very macho, but offhand, I can’t think of a more effective way to destroy a military unit.
I’m pretty sure he didn’t mean it literally, i.e. start pumping rounds into guys in your own foxhole due to some perceived lack in their fortitude.
Owl_Eagle
”Guns Before Butter.”
How about you just don't backbite the country that gave you these freedoms and avoid crashing planes into buildings or tacitly encouraging those who do
The middle ground is "I love this country and want to see the awful acts of 9-11 dealt with, but I think there's room for debate regarding who constitutes 'they' and what exactly we should do to 'them'."
Cool...
When I burn your house down we can engage in a meaningful dialog about how you actually deserved to have your house burned down and how much money you should give me for doing it.
He who is middle of the road, gets hit by traffic going both ways.
Owl_Eagle
”Guns Before Butter.”
What's Clemence's problem? This is true.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.