4 comments on “DENIAL AND QUIBBLING

  1. Much too broad of a brush, making it a stereotype. Whether I disagreed with the last eight years, and I did, it never got into the gutter with vitriol and name calling. To turn it around a bit, all those who supported the heir-apparent didn’t “admit anything negative about the candidate they voted for.” And, Lord knows, there was plenty to look at. Patriotism is a dirty word to progressives, but it’s not. One can be patriotic–and–critical at the same time. There are many things happening since January 20th that are unsettling but time will tell whether we’re better off had it gone the other way. But that’s rhetorical because we’ll never know. From what I’ve seen so far is that Zinke for Interior and Gorsuch for the SC are positive signs for I.C.

    • Perhaps, but not as broad a brush as those who ignore a plethora of unsettling facts and the stereotypical agenda of elected Republicans, the thug attitude emanating from the WH, or the deluge of lies.
      As to Gorsuch I’m not inclined to believe the apple fell far from the tree of his mother’s affinity with the so called “sagebrush rebellion” and loathing of regulations, but we’ll see.
      As to Zinke there’s a question mark about how he will use his position when it comes to “public land”.
      But you mention only two appointees you haven’t a problem with, what about others like Bannon and DeVos?
      Or how about Mike Pompeo who supports the use of torture, and is opposed to requiring labels on food products so consumers can make informed choices?
      Don’t you think people have a right to know what’s in the food they eat and what they feed their children?
      Then there’s Jeff Sessions, a man denied a federal judgeship due to a history of racist comments and now says he will follow the letter of the law……as though the “law” isn’t going to be radically altered under this administration.
      The blog archives clearly demonstrate that I’ve “admitted” on more than one occasion that Obama was anything but flawless and didn’t hesitate to point out the baggage Clinton was toting around,in fact if perused the only candidates I have supported have been Paul DeMain and Bernie Sanders.
      And I’ve continually spoken against the blind party allegiance that permeates both parties.
      If patriotism is becoming a dirty word the root cause of that is what is done in it’s name, not the word itself.
      Militia groups, the KKK, neo nazis, and any other hate group you can name refer to themselves as “patriots”.
      The ongoing slaughter of non combatant men, women, and children is sold as being part of an acceptable patriotic collateral damage.
      It’s “patriotic” to legislate domestic spying, to invade every aspect of privacy people have a right to enjoy – patriotic to pass “laws” that allow “indefinite detention” even though it shreds the Constitution.
      The Iraqi war clearly demonstrated to have been predicated on the flat out lie of Iraq having WMDs was showcased as being “patriotic”
      And now it seems it’s also “patriotic” to pander to corporations and the destruction of the environment.
      Would you say this link leads to a statement of patriotic truth or a lie? If a lie how many are acceptable?

      https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-claims-media-not-reporting-terrorist-attacks-200917625.html

      Also to be found in blog archives are my contentions that as a minority among other minorities with historically the least amount of representation and clout whatever misery befalls this country will impact the nations to an even greater degree – we don’t have retirement accounts, infrastructure, employment opportunities or any of the “safety nets” others have.
      We don’t even have the security of knowing that land belonging to us is safe from appropriation.
      Our schools, communities, and healthcare are solely dependent on whoever is pulling the strings,these are realities, not rhetorical, and as such may well lead to vitriol, and if so I’d say deservedly.
      Those who don’t fit a stereotypical mode in either party are the ones who should be stepping up and making their voices heard, I’d say that’s a patriotic duty as did individuals like Adams, Jefferson, Henry, Franklin, and others believed it to be.

  2. The reference was only to find something positive. Not mentioning every other nominee was neither intentional nor intended to promote an argument versus a discussion and civil discourse.

    “If patriotism is becoming a dirty word the root cause of that is what is done in it’s name, not the word itself. Militia groups, the KKK, neo nazis, and any other hate group you can name refer to themselves a “patriots”.”

    Really? Talk about stereotyping. Something you have often spoken out against. Putting right-wing extremists and fanatics in the same category as law-abiding patriotic citizens because they adulterate a word? That’s not a broad brush. That’s throwing a whole bucket of paint against the wall.

    • I believe the presidency is being adulterated, and in that context
      mentioning how the word patriotism is routinely abused is valid.
      If you’ve noticed in previous blogs I offered the opinion that the
      clear thinking among the Republican party need to step up and take
      their party back, which they first surrendered to the Tea Party and
      now the alt right. Would you agree that such a need exists?
      The implication in my saying this clearly implies that the brush is
      applied where it belongs while allowing there are those it would not
      apply to.
      I’m making an effort to respond to questions you ask but of the ones
      I’ve asked you seem to be avoiding them – specific questions related
      to appointees like DeVos, Bannon, etal.
      I imagine you’ve read the follow up blog, if so I believe it illustrates
      how I define patriotism – if you have differing opinion I wouldn’t
      mind hearing it.
      When I began his blog my intent was to address the issues pertaining
      to AIM, Peltier, and related to the nations, at a certain point and
      after decades of AIM ranting and railing on the net as they owned it
      I took the gloves off saying if that was their game I intended to give
      it back to them.
      This administration exhibits the same behavior, one lie after another,
      a self important leadership, bullying, and calling everyone who disagrees
      a hater, sad, disgusting, etc etc, so my approach is going to be the same
      as it was.
      I’m not going to sugar coat anything or give the benefit of the doubt when
      there is nothing to indicate I should.
      As to an argument vs discussion I haven’t felt as though an argument was
      taking place.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s