Unpatriotic

[shmokes]

Can someone point me to an example of someone (someone significant, not just an average joe) actually using the word "unpatriotic" to describe people who oppose the Iraq war?  Google isn't helping.

[ChadTower]

I wouldn't bet on it because it's grammatically incorrect.

It's like saying "I was Patriotic, but then I started to actively convert people to USA haters and unpatriotizing people".

Un- is really supposed to prefix verbs.  Non- is for adjectives.

[Stingray]

The correct term is unpatrioticalful.

-S

[ChadTower]

It is pronounced Un-pate-ree-awt-ick-ew-ler

[Havok]

It can also be pronounced re

[mr.Curmudgeon]

Shmokes,

If you're looking for a direct reference like that, it probably doesn't exist. The current group of right-wing thugs aren't man enough to just come out and say it, instead they indirectly insult the opposition through a variety of means.

[fredster]

Try looking for "coward" instead of "Unpatriotic"

[Dartful Dodger]

Try looking for "coward" instead of "Unpatriotic"

I think they prefer to be called "courageously challenged".

[brophog]

Maybe one day we'll get smart and figure out they pick a two party system just to trick us.

[quarterback]

Search for the quote from 2004 where democrats were accused of wanting to coddle the 9/11 hijackers. 

"Coddle" wasn't the word used, but I can't remember exactly what the quote was.  The implication of the sentence was that instead of stringing these guys up, the democrats would have wanted to sit down and talk to them compassionately and let them cry on their shoulders.

EDIT:  Sorry, upon re-reading your original post, I see you're looking for something specifically about the Iraq war.   The quote I mentioned just popped into my mind because I remember having a real "WTF?" reaction when I heard it.  Much like my reaction to that knucklehead woman from Ohio that called Murtha a coward.

[quarterback]

If you're looking for a direct reference like that, it probably doesn't exist.
...
 they indirectly insult the opposition through a variety of means.

This is true.   The actual quotes usually revolve around things like "not supporting our troops" or "putting our troops at greater risk" or "encouraging the terrorists" or things like that.

EDIT: Try searching for the Ed Gillespie memo that got leaked in Nov 2003 about how to attack the Democrats. 

[danny_galaga]

patriotism is for jack-boot wearers...

anarachists unite!  (if, of course you could ever get them together...)

[fredster]

Good! With no government, I can come and kill you!
It's not against the law if there are no laws now is it?

[mr.Curmudgeon]

Good! With no government, I can come and kill you!
It's not against the law if there are no laws now is it?

You can still be killed. Laws or not. In fact, your own government may send you to far away deserts to die without justification, just because they want to.

Laws and government don't always keep you safe. But I generally agree, humans are too selfish and aggressive (ie: you first thought without Gov't was to kill someone) - hence, anarchy will never be a viable ideology.


mrC

[fredster]

Man, I'll have to write that down in my big book of DEEP THOUGHTS

[mr.Curmudgeon]

Man, I'll have to write that down in my big book of DEEP THOUGHTS

Big book?



mrC

[fredster]

Yeah, I'm getting them from your thread posts. 

[Zakk]

No worries Mr C.  There's now WAY Fred's mom is letting him outside if "the anarchy" is going on.  He'll be scubbing her bunions at home where it's safe, same as every night.

[ChadTower]

Yes, Fred would take care of his mother himself, rather than send her out to a facility and scream that the state should be doing it.

[fredster]

No Zakk, it's YO MAMA that won't let me out. She likes it toooo much ....

[Dartful Dodger]

Good! With no government, I can come and kill you!
It's not against the law if there are no laws now is it?

With no government we'd all be armed to the teeth, and no one would kill anyone.

By 'we', I mean those of us that matter, the rest would, of course, be killed off.  This would be part of God's and Darwin's plan, so we'd all be happy with the results.

By 'we', I mean me.

[USSEnterprise]

I think Cheney did say at some point that you are unpatriotic if you do not support the president

[ChadTower]

I agree with a part of that sentiment.

You are not patriotic if you do not support the Office of the President.

You do not necessarily have to support every decision the actual President makes but you should always stand behind the Office and his authority to make them.

[Harry Potter]

You do not necessarily have to support every decision the actual President makes but you should always stand behind the Office and his authority to make them.

Even if you didn't vote for the guy?

Or voted at all?

[ChadTower]

You aren't separating the Office from the man.

If you voted for anyone for President than you voted for the Office, no matter who won.

If you did not vote than you are not Patriotic in my eyes because you can't be bothered to take an hour out of your life and do your civic duty as an American.

[Harry Potter]

That makes me Patriotic by default because in Australia we have compulsory voting.

I don't mind voting since it's only 10 minutes I'd spend doing ---smurf-poo--- anyway.

But if the guy i voted for didn't get in, I'd find it hard to support him or the office.

[ChadTower]

The Office is a larger concept than the man sitting in it.

As an example... internally, you can fight the President's policies.  That is fighting the man.

If someone were to try and change the rights and responsibilities of the President, that would be attacking the Office.

They are separate, though subtly at times, concepts.

[Harry Potter]

The Office is a larger concept than the man sitting in it.

I agree with that, but a lot of the times, the man seems to be getting so much attention that no one pays any heed to what the office is doing.

Next thing you know, the office is doing sneaky stuff out of everyone's view.

We seem to be getting this a bit here recently.

[ChadTower]

That's pretty much true of any office, though, at any level.  Doesn't make it any better but it sure isn't specific to the Office of the President.

[Harry Potter]

That's true.

I love it when it used to happen at our office. The damn CEO was constantly getting all sorts of good/bad attention, meanwhile the company was slowly crumbling around us.

AT least the new guy is clever enough on staying out of most press conferences and concentrates on running the company. And it actually worked.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

You do not necessarily have to support every decision the actual President makes but you should always stand behind the Office and his authority to make them.

Disregarding the inherent fascist nature of this statement for one moment, let me address one point.

That this statement is completely unnecessary, really. There are very few people then - by your definition - that would be considered 'unpatriotic', since it seems no one is arguing for changing "the rights and responsibilities of the President" and rather a large number of people, are instead, directly opposing one particular president's policies.

By trying to further define this irrelevant subtly, and in turn, ignoring the subtext of how this McCarthyesque 'patriotic/unpatriotic' rhetoric is being used, all you do is give validity to the flimsy attacks being perpetrated by the right. As much as you say you disagree with some of this president's policies yourself, you sure do shoot a LOT of flack around in - what can be reasonably perceived as - his defense.

Also, what do you mean by "internally"?

mrC

[ChadTower]

Internal -> inside the United States.

Most of the reason I defend him, when I do, is because I get sick of all of the one note idiots out there screaming "BUSH BAD BUSH BAD".  Sure, he sucks, but BUSH BAD without LET'S DO THIS INSTEAD is of no use to anyone interested in actual improvement.

I prefer construction to destruction, and most people will never be capable of seeing farther than the destruction of the immediately bad towards the construction of what could be now or could be later.

As bad as Bush is now, I have grave reservations about what may happen in terms of our geopolitical security were he to be removed from office via criminal process... that would HAVE to be considered, though I know few people who would ever give it a second thought.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

Most of the reason I defend him, when I do, is because I get sick of all of the one note idiots out there screaming "BUSH BAD BUSH BAD".

That is really sad.

without LET'S DO THIS INSTEAD...

This is not true. Time and again, I've pointed out plan after plan, suggestion after suggestion, by either myself, other progressives, party Democrats, even Republicans. To say you disagree with said plan, or that you find fault in them is one thing, but to say that they simply don't exist is a blatant lie. Or you are just being ignorant on purpose. There can be no other reason and I'm tired of pointing it out to you.

It's intellectually lazy of you and completely disingenuous. Stop saying it.




mrC

[fredster]

MrC, that's respect for authority.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

I prefer construction to destruction..

This is a PERFECT example of your generally arrogant and egotistical nature (I call it like I see it, and I think you've agreed with my on this point before)...

As if only YOUR suggestions are "constructive", or only the ones you agree with - and all others are "destructive."

It's bullshite.

mrC

[mr.Curmudgeon]

Where do you get "inherent fascist nature of this statement " out of respect for the office.

To suggest that we as citizens can not EVER question the authority of the president is fascist. We live in a Democracy, and we as citizens have a right and I'd say a duty to control his mandate. The Constitution and all of Congress are, in fact, in existence as a check and balance of presidential authority, which is the very essence of our very foundation as a democracy . To suggest that it's unpatriotic to question that authority is, in itself unpatriotic and reads as inherently fascist. Saddam, Hitler, Stalin, Kim Jong Il, Pol Pot, etc...they agreed with absolute authority.

It's a cop. You don't beat up cops because you don't like them. You have to respect their AUTHORITI.

You respect the RULE OF LAW, and a police officers duty to uphold that law. They are only given as much 'authority' as said law allows and ever day cops are held to account because they chose to abused that authority, so much so that - at times - that authority is reconfigured through legislation.

I can't even tell where you are comming from in that last post. Most of the time I can see your twisted view of the world, but really "McCarthyesque".  That this statement is completely unnecessary, really.

"Unpatriotic" is the new "Red scare"...get with the times old man.

This is not true. Time and again, I've pointed out plan after plan, suggestion after suggestion, by either myself, other progressives, party Democrats, even Republicans.

When? I've been looking for that for a while.  Have an example there?

There's a little thing called the "search button"...use it.


mrC

[fredster]

This is a PERFECT example of your generally arrogant and egotistical nature

All he said was "I prefer construction to destruction.."

[mr.Curmudgeon]

"To suggest that it's unpatriotic to question that authority is, in itself unpatriotic and reads as inherently fascist." Nope.  It's not. You can question authority, but you have to do what they say while you question.

So if a cop asks you to give him a hummer and you don't, then he arrests you...and someone video taped it, who wins that case in a court of law?

Respecting the authority of any particular office, over the Rule of Law, is fascist...no matter how many times you say "no"...party of "no", indeed. That's why they are called "officers" fredster, they are slaves to a mandate created by legislation (ie: an office).

"Saddam, Hitler, Stalin, Kim Jong Il, Pol Pot, etc...they agreed with absolute authority."
So you think that Saddam was bad! I like that! 

I think a lot of people are bad, fredster, doesn't mean I think it's entirely wise to send our army into their country and try to force democracy down the throats of their citizens.

With all of this rethoric and vitiolic crap you put out comparing one dis-simalar thing to another, you can still say that I, the Fredster, make "straw man arguements" ? With a straight face?

Yep. Stating something with vitriol is not the same as putting forth a straw man. I can be angry and right, and you can be passive and wrong.

But if the cop is busting you and you don't like it, you can't say "I won't do that because I don't like the way you are doing it".

No. Normally, you can't. But, as I mentioned above, there are exceptions.

McCarthy was right. They did infiltrate.

So now you'll willingly make yourself look like an ass, and agree with McCarthy...after getting all uppity about me stating that something seemed "McCarthyesque" ?

You'll say you are joking, but I'll guess you most likely are not.


mrC

[duffjr]

I wouldn't bet on it because it's grammatically incorrect.

It's like saying "I was Patriotic, but then I started to actively convert people to USA haters and unpatriotizing people".

Un- is really supposed to prefix verbs.  Non- is for adjectives.

there are 2 un's in english.  one attaches to verbs and the other attaches to adjectives.

un:  prefix, attaches to A/Adv, not A/Adv
un:  prefix, attaches to V, do opposite of V

non:  prefix, attaches to N, A; not N, A

anti:  prefix, attaches to N, forms A, against N

they're all something like this.

[ChadTower]

This is not true. Time and again, I've pointed out plan after plan, suggestion after suggestion, by either myself, other progressives, party Democrats, even Republicans. To say you disagree with said plan, or that you find fault in them is one thing, but to say that they simply don't exist is a blatant lie. Or you are just being ignorant on purpose. There can be no other reason and I'm tired of pointing it out to you.

It's intellectually lazy of you and completely disingenuous. Stop saying it.

Or, perhaps, it is arrogant of you to think when I say such things I speak entirely about you.

There are several million people out there screaming the things I mentioned.  None of them are you, yet they exist, and in gigantic quantity.