Apparently, I am a traitor *shrugs*

  • Context: News 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Zero
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the concept of free speech in the context of political dissent, particularly criticism of the Bush administration. Participants explore the implications of being labeled a "traitor" for expressing dissenting opinions, the nature of political discourse, and the perceived consequences of such labels in American society.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Meta-discussion

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants argue that dissent is a fundamental aspect of American identity and should not be equated with treason.
  • Others express concern over the politicization of patriotism and the use of labels like "traitor" to silence criticism.
  • A participant references the case of Max Cleland to illustrate the dangers of smearing political opponents as unpatriotic.
  • There are discussions about the implications of black-and-white thinking in political rhetoric, particularly as articulated by Bush.
  • One participant critiques the media landscape in the US, suggesting it lacks balanced reporting and is complicit in political narratives.
  • Another participant humorously claims to be labeled a traitor for expressing dissent, highlighting the absurdity of such accusations.
  • Some participants challenge the notion of free speech by questioning the limits of thought and expression in the media and political discourse.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally express disagreement on the implications of dissent and the labeling of individuals as traitors. While some advocate for the protection of free speech, others highlight the problematic nature of political discourse that vilifies dissenters. The discussion remains unresolved with multiple competing views present.

Contextual Notes

Participants reference various political figures and events to illustrate their points, but there is no consensus on the interpretation of these examples or their relevance to the current political climate.

Zero
I criticized Bush...therefore I am providing aid and comfort to the enemy(in that same moronic 2nd grade way that a flag on your bumper apparently gives aid and comfort to American troops). I guess I must be a traitor, huh?

F---ing stupid right-wing pundits!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Nahh...
Dissent is as american as apple pie.
So whenever you see the need to give the Bush administration a good kick in the pants, feel free to get a good running start.
 
Originally posted by HAVOC451
Nahh...
Dissent is as american as apple pie.
So whenever you see the need to give the Bush administration a good kick in the pants, feel free to get a good running start.
No, you don't understand! The right-wing thinks I am a traitor! LOL, and they think actual traitors are heros...Ollie North, anyone?
 
Originally posted by Zero
No, you don't understand! The right-wing thinks I am a traitor! LOL, and they think actual traitors are heros...Ollie North, anyone?

Under the US constitution you are entitled to free speech. You use it here on this forum. You are free to say what you believe in.

Why do you think you are a traitor? I'm probably what you would call right-wing and I don't think you are a traitor. Why should I? Have you sold secrets to terrorists? Have you fought against your country?

Free speech means listening to people you disagree with. Mr Bush and his government believe in free speech as much as you do.


Say what you want... enjoy it. :smile:

It is a freedom that most of the world don't have.
 
Oh, but I do.
 
i think this topic should be re-labeled as free speech is an american right, instead of worrying about what others think you are...they are entitled to believe and say what they want as much as you do, but i wouldn't let it bother you...
 
Originally posted by Adrian Baker
Under the US constitution you are entitled to free speech. You use it here on this forum. You are free to say what you believe in.

Why do you think you are a traitor? I'm probably what you would call right-wing and I don't think you are a traitor. Why should I? Have you sold secrets to terrorists? Have you fought against your country?

Free speech means listening to people you disagree with. Mr Bush and his government believe in free speech as much as you do.


Say what you want... enjoy it. :smile:

It is a freedom that most of the world don't have.
You should follow the American right-wing press, and our politics in general. I think the case of Max Cleland is a perfect example. He lost his bid for re-election as senator for Georgia, largely because of hate ads claiming that he was anti-American for criticizing Bush's actions in regards to the 'war on terra'. His opponent sat out Vietnam, while Cleland volunteered for the war, and lost 3 limbs in Vietnam.
 
Originally posted by Kerrie
i think this topic should be re-labeled as free speech is an american right, instead of worrying about what others think you are...they are entitled to believe and say what they want as much as you do, but i wouldn't let it bother you...
Well, you don't think this is a problem, when one political party thinks it is ok to smear the patriotism of the other, based on lies?
 
Originally posted by Adrian Baker
Why do you think you are a traitor?
He's being sarcastic.

However, I agree.
 
  • #10
Originally posted by russ_watters
He's being sarcastic.

However, I agree.
You agree that I am a traitor?[?]
 
  • #11
Originally posted by Zero
Well, you don't think this is a problem, when one political party thinks it is ok to smear the patriotism of the other, based on lies?

as you have the right to free speech, so do others...if you know they are lies, why waste the energy in being affected by them? lies and politics are synonomous...
 
  • #12
That reminds me of Bush's saying: you are either WITH us, or AGAINST us (ie either with us, or with the terrorists). This type of black/white thinking won't be good in any situation.
 
  • #13
Originally posted by Monique
That reminds me of Bush's saying: you are either WITH us, or AGAINST us (ie either with us, or with the terrorists). This type of black/white thinking won't be good in any situation.

...don't you mean 'it might not be good'? Otherwise you argue against yourself?
 
  • #14
heh :P
 
  • #15
Originally posted by Zero
Well, you don't think this is a problem, when one political party thinks it is ok to smear the patriotism of the other, based on lies?

"The rights of parties" vs. "rights of individuals?" Intriguing.
 
  • #16
Originally posted by Zero
You agree that I am a traitor?[?]
Yes. Not for the reasons you stated though.
 
  • #17
Well, according the the Bush administration if you criticize the Bush administration you're helping the terrorists.
 
  • #18
Monique
That reminds me of Bush's saying: you are either WITH us, or AGAINST us (ie either with us, or with the terrorists). This type of black/white thinking won't be good in any situation.
One might say, "you either enjoy Greed, or suffer Need." For many in the US this is literally black/white.
 
  • #19
Only the Ann Coulter crowd would say that, and they are obviously crazy, as Franken has proved. I mean, after all, it was Osama's boys who did the deed, not Americans.
 
  • #20
Free Speech in USA (A Patriot Wank)

Yeh, you guys have freedom of speech, but not freedom of thought.
Honestly guys. The US media would have to be one of the most pathetic nations in the world when it comes to “informing the people with balanced views”. Dr. Joseph Goebbels would be amazed at how closed the Fourth Estate in the USA is, how subservient it is, how much arse it licks. Your “journalists” might as well be Bush’s foot soldiers. They are either stupid, gutless or complicit (or a unique combination of all three). The politicians and media treat the US public like fools, they don’t even trust your intelligence enough to report facts.

But don’t believe me.
For the brainwashed idiots who can’t seem to cope with analysis, I suggest these “pretty easy to read authors”.
Try the classic Noam Chomsky book “Manufacturing Consent”. It exposes the US joke of “balanced reporting”.
If that doesn’t work, try watching “the Panama Deception”. The video won the 1990 Academy Award for Best Documentary (I’d wager most have never even heard of this). It gives a great overview of military and politic objectives and psyops tactics regarding media control in war/peace situations.
Failing that, look for some Bertrand Russell, John Pilger or Wilfred Burchett.

If Zero is a traitor to his nation, then I guess I’m a traitor and a terrorist who worships Satan, smokes crack, sell drugs to children and possesses weapons of mass destruction.
No sorry, that’s not me. That’s;

Kruschev
Ayatollah Khamenei
Colonel Gadaffi
General Manuel Noriega
Saddam Hussein
Osama Bin Laden
That “North Korean Commie guy”
Zero
(insert next “traitor of the month” here).

I want be “Arab, bearded, goat-rooting, terrorist of the month”!
 
  • #21
what the heck is "goat-rooting"?
 
  • #22
you win "insane rant of the month"
 
  • #23
Originally posted by schwarzchildradius
you win "insane rant of the month"
Damn. Well, I'll try harder next month.
 
  • #24
Originally posted by schwarzchildradius
you win "insane rant of the month"

Tee Hee

It will take some beating.
 
  • #25
Originally posted by russ_watters
Yes. Not for the reasons you stated though.
I'd like you to explain it. My explanation for your statement is 1) you are a jerk, 2)you are from some alternate dimension where being a patriotic American and being a fascist are the same thing, or 3) you don't understand what the word 'traitor' means. Can you explain yourself?

Or have you already called the FBI to investigate my treasonous activities?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #26
I don't get this entire thread. What was it's purpose?
To bring on personal attacks?
Isn't that agianst PF policy?
 
  • #27
i would have to agree with you kat, i was hoping it would stay along the lines of free speech, but instead it crossed the (fine) line into personal attacks...

perhaps the mentor needs to lock his own thread?
 
  • #28
Originally posted by Kerrie
i would have to agree with you kat, i was hoping it would stay along the lines of free speech, but instead it crossed the (fine) line into personal attacks...

perhaps the mentor needs to lock his own thread?
Yeah, I might have to...

The point I was trying toi make was that free speech doesn't make you a traitor, unless you are speaking about, say, classified information with other countries. Saying that Bush's policies are bad for America doesn't make you a traitor. Telling the truth about Iraq doesn't make you a traitor. Lying about why we went to Iraq may make you a traitor, or revealing the iddentity of CIA operatives to the press may be treason, but I doubt anyone in this administration will be charged.
 
  • #29
Originally posted by Zero
Yeah, I might have to...

The point I was trying toi make was that free speech doesn't make you a traitor, unless you are speaking about, say, classified information with other countries. Saying that Bush's policies are bad for America doesn't make you a traitor. Telling the truth about Iraq doesn't make you a traitor. Lying about why we went to Iraq may make you a traitor, or revealing the iddentity of CIA operatives to the press may be treason, but I doubt anyone in this administration will be charged.

that's why i suggested changing the name of the thread...the titles is begging for mudslinging...
 
  • #30
Originally posted by Zero
Yeah, I might have to...

The point I was trying to make was that free speech doesn't make you a traitor, unless you are speaking about, say, classified information with other countries. Saying that Bush's policies are bad for America doesn't make you a traitor. Telling the truth about Iraq doesn't make you a traitor. Lying about why we went to Iraq may make you a traitor, or revealing the iddentity of CIA operatives to the press may be treason, but I doubt anyone in this administration will be charged.

Hmm, maybe I missed something here, but there is a difference between mudslinging and law.
No, the above thoughts or speeches aren't Traitorous (?spelling??), no courtroom would convict anyone for the above. Are you saying that someone has been convicted for the above, or are you saying that someone insulted you?

Being profoundly against the Iraq war is fine, as is being for it.
Selling your country out to support either of these two positions is treachorous and the Law should act then.
 

Similar threads

News How long until the left labels Zell Miller a traitor?
  • · Replies 27 ·
Replies
27
Views
5K
News Embedded Journalists - AP Reporter Shooting Rehash
  • · Replies 62 ·
3
Replies
62
Views
10K
Three new books to read about expertise vs. democracy
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
4K
Other How Can I Improve My REU Personal Statement?
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
8K
News Do Some Americans Worship George W. Bush?
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K
News Is a Standing Army Necessary for a Peaceful Future?
  • · Replies 39 ·
2
Replies
39
Views
7K
News Did When Clinton Lied, No One Died Ignore Larger Issues?
  • · Replies 173 ·
6
Replies
173
Views
22K
News The Roots of Terrorism and US Foreign Policy
  • · Replies 31 ·
2
Replies
31
Views
6K
News Bush Honest & Trustworthy Until How Many Lies?
  • · Replies 65 ·
3
Replies
65
Views
13K
News Searching for the call for Kerry's DD SF-180
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
4K