Why is all criticism of the US dismissed by some right wingers
 

Go to any board, watch fox, CNN or any political forum and it seems blindingly clear that any non positive point made against Bush and his cronies is dismissed, any criticism no matter however based is welcomed with calls of anti americanism, anti freedom, pro terrorist, Bush hating, and so on.

When presented with evidence the US secretary of state refused to answer questions posed by a UK news presenter John snow working for ITN, has Bush actually ever answered any difficult questions?, would the White House press core shy away from asking why even British companies were being refused contracts despite being able to handle them more effectively (P&0 a UK shipping company was point blank rejected), would any high level US politician right now last 5 seconds on Hard Talk.

Even after spending hours on this very board which is without a doubt the best I have encountered for political discussion on an approachable level there still exists unfounded criticism for the source or at times the poster.

This would refer to the worst offenders of course, there have been some highly convincing right wing arguments. But after this rambling why are right wingers so apt to utterly dismiss anything they dont like and revert to vitual name calling, for the perfect example watch fox news.

Its politics and it works both ways. Much of the criticism is merely political, as is much of the dismissing. With an election on the way, everything has become over-politicized. Hard line democrats don't want Bush to accomplish anything, and hard line republicans don't want him to be perceived as doing anything wrong.

Re: Why is all criticism of the US dismissed by some right wingers
 

So when did you stop beating your wife?

You didn't ask a question, you posted an editorial, and thats fine, but it won't promote a discussion. I would recommend including some examples for reference. If a perfect example is fox news, well fox news has a website, go find some articles.

I will counter with the same amount of evidence that you provided. You are wrong.

Another nice question would be, why do liberals hate the fox news channel, and call it names, just because it presents a conservative viewpoint?

I am not wrong, just by posting what you call an opinion you prove my case.

I believe that the right wingers dismiss any opinion that is contrary to theirs because they truly and fervently believe that they are right and all the others are wrong. They probably cannot comprehend why others disagree with their self-evident truth.

But so do the wacko Fundamentalist Islamic suicide bombers. And so do the wacko Fundamentalist Christian abortion-clinic bombers. They all believe in their own truth and cannot begin to fathom the possiblity that other valid views of the world exists.

[corrected for horrible grammar and spelling]

No, I said your claim that fox was a 'perfect example' was false, you need to back up your claim. If not you are just doing what you claim the right does.

I think you go to far with the example, alka, the fundys do not represent the power base in the US nor any level of representation anywhere but the fringes. A reasonable person on this very board will attack left wing arguments becuase they percieve it as some threat and have no convincing arguments against it.

Right wingers have done this for years only now normal people have a much more international and varied forum to argue with each other. Whether its stamping down on alcohol or rock n roll or weed, trance music, ecstacy, violence in video, swear words used in music, pornograhy/ art, right wingers percieve something and cannot argue against it effectively, all to quickly pulling the 'threat to children' line that has convinced plenty of parents.

The truth is that there are extrememists everywhere that dismiss well founded criticism they don't like while embracing unfounded critcism they agree with.

But the honest person looks at the facts before believing or rejecting criticism.

I for example, posted a rather scathing post in the Orson Scott Card thread because I believe what Card said is true. From that, many will undoubtably think I'm a die hard conservative. But I also strongly disagree with the current administration's Patriot Act and Patriot Act II as well as its stance on abortion rights. That might make some think I am liberal.

The reality is that I try to look at each situation and evaluate it on its merits, which far too few people do, IMHO.

I dont belive I forgot this, but look at Michael moore, he was called a freakin traitor, his book was so heavily criticised people were buying it out of hype.

And amongst it all is an average fat american with a bit of savvy and alot of drive writing things down and talking about them. Are any of his points really dealt with within the mainstream media, oddly no. Claims made in the book are down right libelous yet instead of slamming moores inaccuracies Moore is called a traitor, infact the best real criticism of the man comes from liberals.

in the broad spectrum of political doctrine, i am pretty conservative. i'll admit that there are those among the right that do defend conservatives at any cost. blindly defending anything is a recipe for trouble.

but, i would also caution that just because someone is naming a particular action or statement unpatriotic or unamerican doesn't mean that they are wrong. I feel that the media lacks the courage to make moral judgements when confronting those who do things that are traiterous on both sides of the political spectrum.

There is no such thing as anti-american.

There was DNA evidence against Clinton, and after that came out the left went from "He didn't do it!" to "So what! Why are you so interested in his penis!?"

Care to exapand on this point?

I shall do, I know I believe its right but I cannot yet break it down enough from all the crap swirling in my brain right now, perhaps tomorrow.

Its all Clinton's fault. Or Woodrow Wilson.

Damn, my broad brush of ignorance seems to be on the fritz.

"He's bound to be guilty 'r he wouldn't be here." -R. Kipling

-2Wolves

I disagree with many conservative viewpoints. I have nothing against the expression of these viewpoints on a national television network. The thing that disgusts me and causes me to "hate the Fox News Channel" is that they constantly bombard me with a facetious slogan proclaiming that they are "Fair and Balanced."

In responto the original question:

The reason that any criticism is dismissed as anti-American is Bush's frightening proclamation that "You're either with us or against us," leaving no room for a middle ground in which respectful or civil disagreement can be displayed. In the time of crisis, many people blindly followed the leadership of our country, and allowed that concept to be permanently embedded in their poitical views.

Does it not bother you that the New York Times, LA Times, Star Tribune, ABC, CBS, NBC, etc all claim to be objective news sources when it is obvious that they are not? It's not their slogan, perhaps, but every biased media outlet claims to be objective though it simply is not the case.

Why? Because they believe they are right.

That they are wrong is entirely beside the point.

The automatic gainsaying of any opposing point will, if done in an organized fashion (or even in a swarm, as often happens on internet fora), create a sense of inevitability. The truly genius thing about this technique is that it cannot be opposed effectively by turning it back on it self. When one tries that, one "lowers the debate" or gives in to partisanism. It's the equivalent of going negative hard and early in a campaign. The candidate who goes negative first will rarely find themselves on the defensive, and, if properly managed, the opponent will never appear an underdog, merely a scoundrel or weak. This is why the Democratic candidates all regularly bash Bush. They know that if Rove can get them on the defensive, they will never get back up.

Why do liberals hate the Faux News Channel? They distort. We deride. I love the Faux News Channel. I hate that there are some many folks who actually believe it, but the channel itself is pure comedy gold. Actually, trademarking "Fair and Balanced", and then not even making an attempt to hide their bias really chafes my buttocks, and I suspect that's the root of much of the scorn.

seretogis nearly makes a good point, but founders on the assumption that the liberal media bias is a fact, and not a myth. There is no liberal media bias. There is a sensationalist media bias. There is a laziness media bias. The soft pedalling Shrub got during the campaign and the truly brutal distortion of Gore's record by all the sources noted above ought to lay the liberal media bias myth to rest.

OK, time to go to work.

"Does it not bother you that the New York Times, LA Times, Star Tribune, ABC, CBS, NBC, etc all claim to be objective news sources when it is obvious that they are not"

These are the media sources to which I am assuming you refer, at least these were the sources noted above! Are you attempting to say they distorted Gore's record?


"the truly brutal distortion of Gore's record by all the sources noted above ought to lay the liberal media bias myth to rest."

It seems to me that these were the media that were lined up to kiss his ass! If they aren't liberal biased I'd like to know what you see them as being?

I was wondering how long it would take for someone to pull out the "Clinton" card......
not very long.

And that's what I'm talking about. Different reality filters give you a different view of the world. Specifically, none of the mainstream media gave Gore the defense he needed against the "claiming to create the internet smear". (That really was a masterful smear, BTW. It had just enough truth in it that there was nothing short of a liberal bias in the mainstream media that would have washed it off.) In case you want to argue that he said that, no, he didn't. He said (and I don't have the direct quote) that he consistently supported the creation of the internet through both legislative and executive means.

I'm at work, so I am going to leave it at that one for now, but there are other examples out there.

And so do the wacko pro-abortion groups, and so do the insane PETA people, and so do the wacko anti-war groups, and so do the crazy environmentalist groups. They all believe in their own truth and cannot begin to fathom the possiblity that other valid views of the world exists.

Tophat is one clearly person, my problem with fox is that I have seen the lefties get heckled off the forum for not agreeing with killing iraqis or wanting gun control. Literally bashed, its like the right wing zealots were barely supressing the urge to make claims of pinko lefty faggots any second

Can you explain the "wacko anti-war" groups ? What crazy things do pacifists do to show they don't like war ?

I'm serious, I would really like a response on this one...

Lets see there was that silly march where they had duct tape on their mouths.

Then there was the strip for peace thing where women would get naked and write 'no war' or whatever on their bodies and put it on some web site.

Then there were the morons trying to play human shields, that was cute.

All I can think of without really thinking right now.

Oh and Ironcarrot, I still wait for your explanation.

It's a good one, I wonder why liberals are so quick to dismiss said point as irrelevant? Hmm.

The explanation is that finding a basic ideology and following it is easier than thinking. But if you think it is limited to the right, you are sorely mistaken.

Well, I think that politics, like religion, is a belief system. People stake their entire being onto something they can't really prove, and when that is encroached upon, they react defensively. It's not wrong of them to do, because it's human nature. However, human nature is just the excuse we use to not grow beyond our base desires and instincts. A well defined individual will base their beliefs on evidence, not on a label (such as right/left, conservative/liberal, Republican/Democrat).

This is not to say that I am a well defined individual, though I do attempt to be. Its just easier sometimes to fit in with a given label, to bow to the stereotype, rather than to give the energy and time to intense introspection. And after I've given my identity over to that side, I do feel defensive when it is attacked. Hence, my friends, I will defend postures that, given the time to reflect, I would not defend. I am sorry to say this, but despite my mediocre efforts, I remain rather more on the "animal" side of humanity.

MB

Well put.