Whether it be terrorist or traitor.. we seem to throw around very powerful words like they are candy these days. Should people be more responsible with their language? Are they damaging the moral of our great Nation.. much like McCarthyism did?
2007-05-09 07:22:05 · 4 answers · asked by pip 7 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Shelly's answer rocks!
Reading the Q and her answer, I'm put in mind of a memory from my long ago, sitting in the US Senate gallery in '85 or '86, watching deliberations and then the roll-call vote on a missile system that Reagan wanted. I was working on The Hill, but there were people in the gallery from all over the country.
The salient detail I'm recalling is that when they got to Grassley (R-Iowa, and still serving today), he voted NO on approving the system. At that point, a man sitting in front of me turned to his wife next to him and said to her, "I thought he was for a Strong National Defense".
I capitalized the key phrase here because it was an example of the way that the Republicans - under Mike Deaver for Ronald Reagan - had mastered the use of language to categorize and divide. So here was Grassley, a staunch fiscal conservative but with a Midwestern independent populist streak, voting NO - and my, my, how could that be? He was obviously NOT for a Strong National Defense.
Flash forward to today - we either are For the Surge, or we are Supporting the Terrorists. And people actually believe in this dichotomy as the be-all and end-all of the matter.
2007-05-09 13:44:44 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Shelly, why do you hate America? The us in this situation is America. This was stated 11 days after we were attacked and 3000+ were killed by terrorists. Don't take it out of the original context. He's not saying "Shelly you are either for GWB or for the terrorists. Here is what happened after he sad those words.
" (Applause.) From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime."
He was talking about US as a United nation at the time. Get a clue to life please.
To answer the question, you see those words flying around mostly on blog sites such as this one. People can say what they want (1st Amendment) and hide behind anonymity.
2007-05-09 14:43:10 · answer #2 · answered by mbush40 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
I agree. It is just used to polarize situations. People forget that there are gray areas which require thought - not every thing's such an easy answer (or sound byte...).
For example: President George W. Bush, in an address to a joint session of Congress on September 20, 2001 said, "Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists."
Gimme a break... The majority of Americans are not with George Bush, and they are certainly not terrorists...
And thanks for keepin' it real MBush... Although your point on the date of the quote was made (Hillary Clinton said something similar during this time), my point is that this sentiment has been adopted by many republicans, especially during congressional debates on the war. Also, you further proved my point by saying I hate America... There's another polarizing statement about patriotism!
2007-05-09 14:28:39 · answer #3 · answered by shelly 4 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Well... they have the right to say those things. Everyone has the right to make a fool of himself.
I feel, however, that with freedom comes some sort of responsibility. I think abusing your freedom is not a way to show that you respect it.
Calling people terrorists and traitors simply because they don't agree with you... I sort of think that shows a huge weakness in your confidence that your point of view is strong. If the only way you can validate your own feelings is to mock someone else's, I don't think you can feel secure in your own point of view.
Not you, personally. I was speaking in the abstract.
2007-05-09 14:34:14 · answer #4 · answered by Bush Invented the Google 6 · 3⤊ 0⤋