Gyllenhaal on that 9/11 issue
Sherrybaby star Maggie Gyllenhaal, interviewed by New York‘s Emma Rosenblum, addresses that dumb-ass pickle she got into last year by saying the United States was “responsible in some way” for 9/11. “It was just terribly misunderstood,” she explains. “I never said anything like, ‘We deserved this.’ Nothing like that.
“Instead of apologizing, I wrote a little clarification of what I meant. I said that as important as it is to continue to honor all the people who were hurt and killed on 9/11, which was catastrophic, it’s also equally important to be brave and patriotic enough to look at the ways we can change the way we live, in order to help what is undeniably a really bad situation in the world. And I’m proud of having said that.”
I think what she really meant — and I totally agree with her — wasn’t that we need to look at ways of changing the way we “live” (like what…eating Big Macs?) as much as we need to look at how commercially, culturally, politically and militarily the U.S. is impacting foreign cultures and creating all kinds of hate, and we also need to look at the belligerent, reactionary, oil-addicted assholes we’ve voted for and installed in the highest echelons of government.
So, in other words….you (and chicken-shit Maggie Gyllenhaal, who just won’t admit it) are….. politicizing 9/11. Fair enough. So will I.
If Osama Bin Laden and radical Muslims hate us, I think we’re doing something right.
Besides, “belligerent” defines every screeching, America-hating “liberal” I know. They live to be miserable, and are never happy people. Go to any progressive gathering, and see if you find smiles or belligerent squawking that was tired in 1969.
I happen to like belligerent conservatives – at least they’re manly about it. There’s nothing worse than feminine/gay/girly-man belligerence.
No, I’m chicken shit, because I can’t even watch An Inconvenient Truth since all I see is the President I was supposed to have instead of the one we got and his g-d mistaken Iraqi war. It’s not just OBL and rads who hate us.
No, it’s OBL-loving Democrats, too. Good point.
I’s loving Sadam H. more and more each day.
Whether or not I agree with her opinions or not (and I think she’s a terrific actress), why should I give a shit what Maggie Gyllenhaal thinks about anything political? All these actors need to get off their fucking soapbox and just entertain us. Everyone with a voice in Hollywood is a liberal and guess what? People still voted for Bush in the last election. They make ZERO difference when they scream their opinions at the top of their lungs. I prefer it when I see them making a real difference by contributing time and money to causes in Africa and other areas of need, instead of having a millionaire just telling me how I need to change the way I live.
As an American, I simply cannot stand other Americans who believe our country has not engaged in activities deserving of intense hatred (from rational people, not just religious fanatics). Is it naivety or just denial or a little of both?
I’m mexican. I think any american who chooses to believe that 9/11 didn’t have all sorts of political implications for the american people in the way of how they live or their cultural expansion through the world or their government’s intervention in other people’s business are either delusional or in denial. No one has to politicize 9/11, it is political by default, and all parties are concerned.
Very few Conservatives deny that 9/11 had implications from people who hate America. They are fully aware that anti-Semitic, capitalist-hating Europe, and its terrorist proxies in Iran and Palestine, hate us and would like to see our destruction.
There’s no delusion about that.
“I’s loving Sadam H. more and more each day.”
The proof, of course. Press a liberal for more than a minute, and the pro-American, pro-freedom platitudes come crashing down, and they truly reveal themselves to love murderous dictators.
They feel guilty about this, of course, so they have to pretend George Bush is one, so they can at least rationalize their fondness for people who genocidally murder their own countrymen. Most liberals, I’m sure, would love to kill Christians if they could.
NYCBB,
You are as boring and ridiculous as Ann Coulter, who I’m sure you worship.
Nah, she’s religious. I hate her.
I’m just giving the conservative equivalent of the mindless, sloganistic, childish “left” rhetoric that people spout on this site.
It’s fun.
Exporting democracy in the largest Marshall plan in our history and sending a country into civil war calls for re-thinking.
“Exporting democracy in the largest Marshall plan in our history and sending a country into civil war calls for re-thinking.”
This I agree with. The Iraq War was a mistake.
I just hope it’s not the Democratic Party in charge of the re-thinking, that’s all.
Ann Coulter on gay men: “Of course I have gay friends, who do you think does my hair?”
I think she’s a hateful witch, but she does have a good sense of humor.
My favorite: When asked if she travelled with bodyguards, she said “Yes, I travel with conservative men”.
Amen, sista.
“Very few Conservatives deny that 9/11 had implications from people who hate America. They are fully aware that anti-Semitic, capitalist-hating Europe, and its terrorist proxies in Iran and Palestine, hate us and would like to see our destruction.
There’s no delusion about that.”
Unintentional irony, it’s the best kind.
“Unintentional irony, it’s the best kind.”
Whine, whine, whine. Go hug a terrorist or defend a child molester.
I love how conservatives are always saying that actors need to shut up and not talk politics. This from the party of Ronald Reagan, Sonny Bono, Fred Thompson, and Arnold Schwarzenegger?
They JOINED politics. They were ELECTED. Big difference.
I wanna see Sean Penn or Al Franken RUN for office rather than just whine all the time.
NYC, you’ve said before that you’re a skinny beanpole, so what’s with this weird “burly Republican manly man” fetish you’ve got?
Masculinity is a way of being, my good man, not just a physicality.
Besides, I said I’m skinny, not a beanpole. I’m rather muscular, actually, just not tall.
So there.
You have a cool name.
I’m actually a liberal who thinks that celebrities need to shut the fuck up. And I think most liberals need to shut up too. They mostly argue for the sake of arguing, without even knowing the facts. I’m a liberal, but I hate the democratic party. I am pro-Israel and anti-Hezbollah. I believe that in a war against terrorists who are predominantly Arab, racial profiling is necessary. But, I’m still a liberal, believe it or not because I am pro-choice and I disagree with almost every other Republican issue. I do not like George W. Bush, but I can credit him when he makes a right choice and I hate that some of my fellow liberals are so fucking dumb that all they can do is attack Bush, without even giving a thought to what they are attacking. There, I’m not a celebrity and I’m not here to entertain, so go ahead and rip me. But, you know what? You should all listen to NYCBusybody because more than anyone here, he seems to actually think rationally, even if I don’t always agree with him.
Thank you, Noah, my man.
I’m pro-choice, anti-death penalty, and pro-gay marriage, but there’s no point trying to convince most of these extremists. Just laugh it off, my man.
“Whine, whine, whine. Go hug a terrorist or defend a child molester.”
NYC maybe some day you’ll learn the difference between whining (which is pretty much all you do – well, that and post ‘helpful’ insults on blogs) and a bitchslap.
You’re political opinions are among the most ignorant I’ve seen and ordinarily, I would just think of your insipid observations as the sad ravings of an right-wing imbecile or an untalented troll, but you’ve really outdone yourself this time …”capitalist-hating Europe”?? Been hangin with the Birchers long?
“I’m just giving the conservative equivalent of the mindless, sloganistic, childish “left” rhetoric that people spout on this site.
It’s fun.”
Not to mention delusional and pathetic. Grow-up.
I saw the words insipid, imbecile, untalented, troll, ravings, ignorant, delusional, and pathetic.
This is exactly why it’s fun.
NYCBusybody, I love how you can write a rational, intelligent and persuasive comment and immediately follow it with one that is childish, sneering, simplistic flame-bait.
Seriously, I love it. You are the thinking man’s troll.
I saw the words chicken-shit, screeching, America-hating liberal, feminine/gay/girly-man, love murderous dictators, love to kill Christians, mindless, sloganistic, childish left.
This is exactly why it’s delusional and pathetic.
“I love how you can write a rational, intelligent and persuasive comment”
When the fuck did this ever happen?
I just haven’t been using the approved political invective for this site, so I’ve been duly scolded, and limp away a chastised shell of a man.
I’ll be reading, though!
NYCBB likes to be spanked.
No, I’m chicken shit, because I can’t even watch An Inconvenient Truth since all I see is the President I was supposed to have instead of the one we got and his g-d mistaken Iraqi war. It’s not just OBL and rads who hate us.
NYC: “So, in other words….you (and chicken-shit Maggie Gyllenhaal, who just won’t admit it) are….. politicizing 9/11.”
At least Jeff and Maggie didn’t use 9/11 to start an illegal war.
“If Osama Bin Laden and radical Muslims hate us, I think we’re doing something right.”
How is convincing moderate Muslims to join their jihad doing something right?
“Besides, “belligerent” defines every screeching, America-hating “liberal” I know. They live to be miserable, and are never happy people.”
Yes, why can’t they be perky and amicable like most right-wing talk show hosts?
“I happen to like belligerent conservatives – at least they’re manly about it.”
I didn’t know insulting people and advocating bombing of people you don’t agree with is manly.
“There’s nothing worse than feminine/gay/girly-man belligerence.”
At least they’re naturally feminine and gay and not just ass-kissing apologists like yourself.
“No, it’s OBL-loving Democrats, too.”
Wait, I thought it was the Republicans who loved Osama. They gave him money to become a terrorist after all; they called him something weird too. What was it again? Oh yes, “freedom fighter”!
“They are fully aware that anti-Semitic, capitalist-hating Europe,”
Sharon offered disaporic Jews to leave Europe for Israel, and they preferred to stay home. Also, Europe isn’t against capitalism, just the kind in which competition is dictated by five corporations.
“and its terrorist proxies in Iran and Palestine,”
Wait. Iran’s nuclear facilities were provided by us.
http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/nationworld/chi-060823iran,0,1434982.story?coll=sfla-newsnation-front
Also, last time I checked over 70 years ago, the Irgun were the ones blowing up buildings and people in Palestine.
NYC: “Press a liberal for more than a minute, and the pro-American, pro-freedom platitudes come crashing down, and they truly reveal themselves to love murderous dictators.”
So Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam means he’s a liberal? Or how about Bush doing business with
Qadaffi?
“They feel guilty about this, of course, so they have to pretend George Bush is one, so they can at least rationalize their fondness for people who genocidally murder their own countrymen.”
You mean like what we did to the Indians and slaves?
“Most liberals, I’m sure, would love to kill Christians if they could.”
Nah, we just wish they’d actually die for their holy wars instead of sending other people in their place.
“or defend a child molester.”
Why do that when you can hire one for Homeland Security?
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1002277595
“They JOINED politics. They were ELECTED.”
That doesn’t mean they’re qualified to run a country. Particularly when one of them has Alzheimer’s and another says he admired Hitler.
Noah: “Everyone with a voice in Hollywood is a liberal and guess what? People still voted for Bush in the last election.”
Except in Ohio…
“They make ZERO difference when they scream their opinions at the top of their lungs.”
The same could be said about Jerry Falwell, but
I don’t see you denouncing him.
I’s loving Sadam H. more and more each day.
I’m not denouncing Jerry Falwell because nobody I know would take him seriously. He’s preaching to the converted, just like Bill Maher does to you every Friday night. And you can cry about the fact that Bush was elected all you want and talk about faulty machines and the popular vote and blah blah blah, it’s not going to change the fact that he’s still in office and instead of whining about it, look to 2008 and make a difference when you can.
By the way, you wrote:
“How is convincing moderate Muslims to join their jihad doing something right?”
If they are joining a jihad, then these Muslims aren’t exactly moderate, are they? And if that is representative of moderate Muslims, then we should be trying to stop them.
Also, I love it when liberals talk about how awful Israel is when they defend themselves, but nobody mentions how insidious extremist Palestinians are when they blow themselves up on public buses.
^^^That’s because it’s obvious and doesn’t need to be restated.
There’s a lot of stupidity on this thread. A couple of interesting comments though:
“If Osama Bin Laden and radical Muslims hate us, I think we’re doing something right.”
The problem isn’t with radical Muslims hating America, you’re right about that. The problem, which we have exacerbated, is mainstream Muslims and non-Muslims around the world either hating us or happy to see us bogged down by a quagmire of our own making.
Exporting democracy in the largest Marshall plan in our history and sending a country into civil war calls for re-thinking.
Ann Coulter on gay men: “Of course I have gay friends, who do you think does my hair?”
Actually, it does need to be restated because it’s not stated often enough. That’s why there are idiots who believe the “poor” Palestinians just want to live in peace and then when the Israelis give them what they ask for, there’s another suicide bomber. But nobody calls the Palestinians on that, they just wait for the Israeli response and then rip them for it.
And what does it matter if mainstream and non-Muslims hate us if they aren’t going to attack us? Islamic fundamentalists (and I would say any religious zealot) should hate us because we are trying to thwart their attacks against us.
There is a lot of stupidity on this thread…thanks for adding to it.
If we had more political support from mainstream Muslims and others around the world, it would make the job of bringing stability to the Middle East vastly more easy.
Similarly, radical Muslims aren’t born that way. They are made out of mainstream Muslims. When your house gets bombed and your family gets killed and a friendly group called Hezbollah shows up with cash and doctors, whose side are you going to be on from that point on?
This is incredibly obvious, so I guess your first point (obvious things need to be constantly restated) is correct.
C’mon, this chick is an actress, not Secretary of State.
Who gives a crap about their political leanings.
What you don’t seem to understand is that there are always going to be terrorists. If they wipe out the jews, then they’ll want to kill the christians, if they wipe out everyone then they’ll wipe out more people. There are always going to be reasons to hate Americans and I don’t give a shit if they hate us because we’re trying to prevent them from killing us. Your argument is akin to saying, “let’s not stop this crazy group of people in Germany because the Nazi-sympathizers might become full-fledged Nazis if we don’t resolve this with diplomacy!”
Me heap-big DEMOCrat. Me VERY liberal. ME wish DEMOCrats stop fighting about Iraq and love President because he love us. Me wish beating Gay people everyday non-stop make better country. Kill all terrorists make better country. Also, notice how VERY VERY smart Sean Hannity is, even though he is a Republican?
Cannot Stand people not wanting to kill whales, or vote for Condi Rice, she very very smart too.
NYCBB likes to be spanked.
On the one hand, I understood waaaay back when this whole kerfluffle happened that this is what she meant to convey, and that she didn’t deserve to get publically flayed for it. Her overall opinion is, in the grand scheme of things, hardly all that controversial.
However, that doesn’t mean I don’t disagree with her final calculus. OF COURSE terrorists and others who attack the U.S. do so because they are angry at us. That’s a given. Thing is.. just because we can acknowledge that they’re angry doesn’t mean there’s a shred of validity or reason to their anger. America has done, and continues to do, some fairly shady stuff worldwide, sure.. but NOTHING we’ve done can possibly justify or even “explain” the kind of blind, seething anger that led to 9-11. That kind of madness generally only comes from ONE place: Religious zealotry, just like it did for Eric Rudolph. “America’s actions” aren’t the reason for terrorism, they’re the EXCUSE.
It’s like this: If you go wander around Watts wearing an “I HATE (N-WORD)S!” banner like Bruce Willis in Die Hard 3 and some guy beats you up… well, you did something DIRECTLY to make him made, and his attack on you is understandable if not really “justifiable.” On the other hand, if you go out wearing an orange shirt and you are attacked by a crazy man with a psychotic mental condition that causes him to violently assault the color orange… NOT understandable, THAT man is crazy idiot. Right now, we’re MUCH more at war with crazy orange-hater guy than outrage-minority guy
P.S. Gyllenhaal is STILL a friggin’ goddess
I think that actor’s opinions on politics are pretty boring too. But the thing is they are as entitled to an opinion as any of us, and if some interviewer asks them, what are they supposed to do?
I haven’t seen the Gylenhall interview, but I assume it was a WTC promotion. If she was asked her views on the war, or Bush, or anything else, she has the right to answer the question. If the media weren’t so celebrity obsessed we wouldn’t have to hear about it…………
Not making any excuses for what happened on 9/11 (although it is a fact that most of the terrorists were from US business partner Saudi Arabia and sponsored by members of the Pakistani gouvernment, NOT by Afghanistan or Iraq), what has caused “hatred” (read scepticism) of America in “capitalist hating Europe” (still trying to find out what NYCBushieboner means by this) are the actions taken in response, meaning breaking the democracy of the UN (in order to “Bring democracy to the middle east”) to launch a war that has no moral justification and has done everything but stabilized the middle east (notice how the amount of worldwide terror attacks have increased since this response, despite a calming of the situation in Ireland), using a very non-inclusive and childlike rethoric (wanted dead or alive, with us or against us etc ad infinitum), lying constantly about events around the world, ignoring major news stories (hundreds of legal demonstrators outside the 2004 Republican convnetion being illegally arrested and stored in an asbesthos-filled building, causing harmfull illness), targeting international media in Iraq, letting corporations take over each invaded country. If I was an American I would also be pretty pissed about the country being turned into a pranoid police state (“they hate us, more police, armies in the streets, turn your liberal friends in to the authorities!”) but frankly I do not have the energy. I love American movies and parts of its culture, but at the moment hysteria is thwarting everything us Europeans used to look up to.
“When your house gets bombed and your family gets killed and a friendly group called Hezbollah shows up with cash and doctors, whose side are you going to be on from that point on?”
Hezbollah WERE the reason these peoples’ houses were bombed and friends killed, not only indirectly through their actions, but DIRECTLY bceause they hide themselves in civilian neighborhoods HOPING that civiliians are killed, so they can “administer” cash to them and seem like the heroes.
I’m trying not to post anymore, but lies and rationalizations for murder like this need to be spoken against.
If you believe dropping bombs is ALWAYS evil, simply by the inherent act, and should never be done EVER (i.e. extreme pacifism), fine, say so.
If you believe Israel and the United States are the real terrorists, and are perpetuating war against innocent, peace-loving, misunderstood radical (and moderate) Muslims, fine, say so. That’s really where the disagreement lies, and there’s not a whole lot of arguing past that point.
But don’t defend Hezbollah. Don’t spread their lies. Don’t rationalize their murder. If you REALLY believe Fox News are the Infidel/Satan’s propagandic mouthpiece, fine. Rail against them. But don’t support Hezbollah, because they do the same thing on the other side.
“(turn your liberal friends in to the authorities!”)
This isn’t happening. No one in America even claims this is happening. If this is what the European press is reporting, they are lying. Which, of course, wouldn’t surprise me.
And Magga, mate, few Americans outside of Michael Moories give a damn what Europe thinks of us. We never did. You guys don’t do much, for good or bad. You’re just kind of…there.
Thanks for the Statue of Liberty, though.
Gyllenhal’s (as well as many on this board’s) notions of terrorism come from a misunderstanding of the concept of ‘oppression’. They think all terrorists are poor, uncivilized folk who are only fighting back against the capitalist, right-wing, patriarchal blah blah blah.
Of course if they actually read a book or two on terrorism as opposed to getting their views from films like Syrianna, they would realize that;
1) most Muslim terrorists (especially the 9-11 ones) were well educated at the best universities in Europe. These were not poor, oppressed men.
2) the vast majority of violence against other Muslims now and through history has been caused by other Muslims. Muslim nations that are oprressed are so because of other Muslims, not America.
3) the notion that being poor makes you a terrorist is a a concept so insulting that I cannot contain how ignorant it is. Not surprising that the majority who hold this view are ‘well-bred’ white liberals from Hollywood or the NE corridor. What an insult to all of the poor of history who have never picked up a gun or strapped a bomb to themselves.
4)They completley choose to ignore the fact that many Muslim fanatics also tie a link to Israel and a hatred of Jews to their actions. But hey, why worry about facing real anti-semitism when you can bash Mel Gibson while drinking a mocha-java-caramo-latte grande from Starbucks.
5) They also fail to recognize the torture and oppression of Christian converts from Islam in the Muslim world. Funny how some ‘oppression’ is always okay with the New Left as long as it is the ‘correct’ groups being oppressed.
…and they wonder why they lose elections. When even Canada starts electing a Conservative government, the left has to start going through some serious soul searching.
Nicol, you’re the man. We disagree on religion, but you’re the most sensible one around.
As to point #5 above, this is an indirect quote, link below, from Yuri Andropov, the ex-chair of the KGB, concerning how Soviet-Marxism instilled the idea of terrorism in the Islamic world.
“According to Andropov, the Islamic world was a waiting petri dish in which we could nurture a virulent strain of America-hatred, grown from the bacterium of Marxist-Leninist thought. Islamic anti-Semitism ran deep. The Muslims had a taste for nationalism, jingoism, and victimology. Their illiterate, oppressed mobs could be whipped up to a fever pitch.
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NjUzMGU4NTMyOTdkOTdmNTA1MWJlYjYyZDliODZkOGM=
Terrorism and violence against Israel and her master, American Zionism, would flow naturally from the Muslims’ religious fervor”.
Yes, the U.S. used questionable, heavyhanded, regrettable tactics during the Cold War. But the idea that Wal-Mart, McDonald’s, and Donald Rumsfeld are responsible for those gosh-darn oppressed Muslims and their terrorism is beyond belief. It boggles the rational mind.
NYC,
I think you’re the man too. No worries about disagreements, I still love reading your posts.
I know people think I bang this drum too much but it must be said; until the New Left of the West can weed out their Marxist influence of the past century they will be irrelevant to the modern world.
Marxism is a concept that is not relevant to understanding terrorism and clouds the left’s world view on everything from patriotism, religion, poverty and sexuality. It is that far reaching.
Yes, and for Magga:
That is what I meant by capitalist-hating Europe.
I didn’t mean ALL Europeans or European institutions are anti-capitalism.
There is a strong strain of Soviet-socialism still very prevalent in the attitudes of Leftists, EVEN IF THEY DON’T CONSCIOUSLY KNOW IT.
They side with Hezbollah and Al-Qaeda because these ideas have trickled down from the USSR and the KGB’s influence on worldwide Leftist thought in the 60′s and 70′s, particularly in Europe.
Was it foolish for the U.S. to give support to Bin Laden during the Afghanistan Invasion by the Soviet Union? Probably, yes. Our foreign policy was so aimed towards winning the Cold War and stopping the spread of Communism that we sided with some bad guys.
Bin Laden, of course, is not motivated by Marxism. He’s not motivated by anti-Capitalism. He’s motivated by religion. He fought against both the USSR AND the US. Why, if he represented the poor and oppressed like Castro “claims” to, did he fight BOTH sides?
Could it possibly be because of….religion?
“drinking a mocha-java-caramo-latte grande”
Can we please officially end this bullshit cliche? Last time I checked, coffee choices don’t predict political leanings. It’s not even offensive. Just lame and it paints you as mentally lazy. Seriously. Be more creative in your insults.
Then again, this Jeffrey’s site and we know how beholden he is to food choices as personality predictors.
Even so, it’s bullshit. Knock it off.
(I’d comment on some of the actual politics in this thread if I actually thought it would make a difference. Doesn’t look like it will. But if we can kill the latte-drinking beast, I’ll feel like I’ve accomplished something.)
L.B.,
I don’t know. I agree that insults based on such things are lame, but do I think they can’t predict political leaning GENERALLY? I think perhaps they can.
Coffee shop culture is substantially based in very liberal cities. My guess is that young people in Seattle, San Francisco, and Manhattan are much more into “coffee shop culture” than those in Tuscaloosa and Tennessee.
That’s not an insult, just a guess.
Well, I’d expect a defense of a worn-out cliched insult from you. But it doesn’t change the fact that it’s overused and cliche and lazy. You’ll notice that the term “coffee shop culture” was not included in the original phrase. That’s something you added. I’m just saying that the term “latte-drinking” is a lame trope and needs to be sent to retirement (along with a bunch of other ones from both sides of the spectrum).
And I unfortunately cut off the “at Starbucks” part of Nicol’s original quote. If “coffee shop culture” is the mainstay of liberal-leaning cities, then you need to give them a call. It might change their expansion plans.
Okay, now I’m going to jam pencils in my eyes to see if it’s more or less productive than debating with you. My guess is it’s a draw.
LB,
As NYC above says, coffee culture has always been associated with far left wing politics. From the beat clubs of the 50′s and 60′s to university campus culture to the whole Seattle scene.
I know many hard left-wingers and most have a refillable coffe mug, perma-wired to their over the shoulder hemp knap sack. Usually it will have an environmentalist slogan on it.
Go into many urban coffee shops and the entire culture will be geared to leftists. Catch phrases like ‘organic’ and ‘trade-fair’ will be omnipresent. Many will have music cd’s for sale featuring artists such as Sarah McLaughlan, Ani DiFranco and other ‘university feminist’ style pop stars.
Why do leftists drink so much damned ‘chichi’ styles of expensive coffee?
Hell if I know!
But don’t say there isn’t a correlation.
“I’m trying not to post anymore…”
Promises Promises
And Magga, mate, most fascists don’t give a damn what Europe thinks of us. This is because they have no proper understanding of alliances and the sizeable mutual advantage they provide. NYCBB has been lit up and smoked on this before, but attention span is kinda limited.
Sorry, Nicol.
I assumed you were being lazy. Not willfully ignorant.
My apologies.
I have a proper understanding of France’s alliances with terrorists and dictators, but I suppose that’s not the understanding you were referring to.
Mutual advantage to “alliances” with Europe? Like what, cod? Audis?
And Nicol D, I don’t think people like LB even REALIZE that not everyone in the world doesn’t have hemp products and doesn’t know who Ani DiFranco is. They think this is just the natural way of things, because they’ve never been out of the cozy environs of their Commie-Anarcho all-white clubs.
No, NYC, I’m one of those people who’s traveled a bit and realize that people can’t be comfortably boiled down into nice neat catagories. Look, I’d be glad to be labeled a latte-drinking whatever. If I drank lattes. I tend to go black with sugar. But I usually have to wait in line since the place I go is a block from the (Republican-run) capitol and wait for these latte-drinking conservatives to get service first. (Double espressos are also very popular.)
You don’t comfortably and gladly boil conservative Republicans into nice, neat categories such as “racist” and “fascist”?
Interesting.
No, I don’t. Please find an instance where I have and I’ll take it back.
No, I don’t. Please find an instance where I have and I’ll take it back.
If you don’t, I expect the same courtesy.
Oh, that was Spindozer.
Fair enough. My apologies.
Pardon the double post. I thought I caught it in time.
No worries, NYC. It always helps to read the fine print, even when it’s in tiny italics.
But since my original post was pretty much about an inability or unwillingness to pay attention to the details, you helped prove my point.
Sorry. Couldn’t resist.
You cheeky devil.
LB
The problem with your position, is that you are getting upset with us acknowledging that certain types exist when in fact they do.
Is your argument that:
A)not all left-wingers are part of the coffee culture
or
B)the coffee culture has absolutley no association with left-wing culture at all in pop culture.
If your position is A, you are right, of course all leftists do not drink coffee. It would literally be impossible.
If your answer is B, you do not have a very teneble grasp on pop culture and types. The coffee culture/leftist culture is very alive and well.
Perhaps a valid question for you is; why is there such a huge correlation between left-wingers and expensive coffee culture?
The pop culture connection does exist and just name calling me as ‘lazy’ or ‘ignorant’ is not an argument. It is more childish name calling.
A true argument would try to dissect for me why the type exists and why it is not valid. You have done neither and as such you have not made an intellectual argument.
I suspect the main reason most leftists hate the correlation is because it directly speaks to the hypocrisy of the New Left who claim to be ‘diverse’ and for the ‘poor’ while most coffee shops serve very expensive drinks that the poor cannot afford and have a very ‘white’ culture attachment in the type of music they play and endorse.
I did not invent the term ‘latte liberal’. Perhaps you should try to understand where it came from and why it exists.
Oh, I know you didn’t invent it. You just use it, really without thinking. And it ends up blocking communication. I’m all about communication. And once you apply a label to someone, regardless of what that label is, you block any real back-and-forth that might transpire after that.
Look, NYC tried to trip me up by accusing me of calling right-wingers “fascists” and “racists”. Those labels hurt and don’t help, which is why I don’t use them. Labels tend to block any further info from getting through.
Now I realize that- despite the grandiose idea that message boards and comment sections are all about people connecting and communicating from many areas of life- it’s really about scoring points and shouting your position louder than the next person. (The whole thing reminds me of the opening to the old Colbert/Carell Even Stevphens routine- Is God alive? I say yes.” “No.” “Yes!” “NOOOOOOOO!”)
Even so, I don’t think it hurts step in and say something since no one else was picking up on it. It just annoys me. It feels lazy and not-well-thought-out. Now that you’ve backed it up with your amazing amount of detail, I see that this was not just some tossed-off insult. More power to you.
The depth of animosity you have towards even the most benign elements of the world just leaves me in awe. Hats off.
“Mutual advantage to “alliances” with Europe? Like what, cod? Audis?”
ever hear of the Cold War? the “war on terrorism” is also lost unless we have allies clever boy.
And, lastly. . .
“Perhaps you should try to understand where it came from and why it exists.”
I understand where a lot of prejudicial language comes from and why it exists. I’ve studied it quite extensively. I could talk about the origins of a lot of labels people throw around without thinking.
It doesn’t make any of them more or less valid and it doesn’t mean they can’t be called out when you get the chance. I mean, I understand the roots of fanatical hatred aimed at the United States, but it doesn’t mean I cut any slack for the assholes who took those buildings down and killed my friends, or to anyone who aims to bring harm to me or anyone just because of the label that is my nationality.
Just trying to bring it back around closer to topic there. Sorta.
“The depth of animosity you have towards even the most benign elements of the world just leaves me in awe. Hats off.”
What was that you said about generalizations and stereotyping?
See that is the problem LB; you can’t say that you are all ‘nuance and shades of grey’ and then end your post with a direct shot at me saying all I have is ‘animosity’.
Then, in your view of me, you become exactly what you accuse me of being.
Complex, huh?
“You don’t comfortably and gladly boil conservative Republicans into nice, neat categories such as “racist” and “fascist”?
Interesting.”
You’ve hit upon an essential difference between us…you call all Dems leftists, etc. I call you a fascist, not Republicans. The current administration, to borrow one of your qualifying phrases, leans fascist.
I’m the only pro-gay, anti-death penalty, pro-choice Atheist “Fascist” I know, but if you want to label me one, fair enough. Whatever floats your boat.
As for alliances with Europe, the European public sides largely with Hamas, Hezbollah, and Iran on the issue of Israel.
Iran’s President has stated that the very STATE of Israel, it’s existence at ALL, is illegitimate and should be wiped out. For years and years, the PLO, Hamas, Hezbollah, etc, have lied, saying this is about land. It is not about who has more land, or a Palestinian state (W. Bush, by the way, was the first President in history to even use the phrase “Palestinian state”).
It is about the destruction of Israel. They do not like Jews very much, and do not want to see them around. And Europe, rather than rationally realizing this and perhaps even partially blaming Hezbollah rather than the U.S. and Israel, rally around Kofi Annan and the corrupt UN.
I find the destruction of Israel to be an unacceptable condition. If an alliance with Europe must be based on this, I find it untenable and immoral. If that makes me a Fascist, so be it.
I disagree almost entirely with Bush’s social views, as I am not a religious person.
But I do agree with Bush’s War on Terror, and also with the NSA wiretaps. I disagreed with the War on Iraq, not because of easy lies like “No Blood for Oil”, but because I thought it was a mistaken extension of the wholly viable and correct War on Terror, and now see it as essential that we stabilize the region, even if we fucked it up in the first place.
To demonize Bush as a “terrorist” and anoint people like Michael Moore who dub Islamic insurgents as “Freedom fighters” (how were Confederate soldiers not also “freedom fighters, by this logic?), is cheap, extremist, and dangerous, in my opinion, and I cannot vote for or support a Democratic Party that is held by this mindset.
Nicol,
If I’d said “all conservatives have such animosity” or whatever, that would have been a generalization.
Following a post where you almost literally spit venom at coffee shops as incubators for leftist thought and saying you have animosity towards basically benign elements is an observation. (I did mean that you yourself had animosity, not you and people you agree with or anything else.)
“Following a post where you almost literally spit venom at coffee shops as incubators for leftist thought…”
This is exactly the kind of hyperbole and vitriol I am talking about LB.
“literally spit venom”? Ohhhhhhh…you make me sound evilllllll and scarrrrryy. Do I have fangs? Can I be a Cobra?
Being nuanced is more than just a word, friend. If you read my posts, I usually always make them about the ideas and rarely take pot shots at individuals in ways that have nothing to do with the idea they are espousing.
Here, you try to portray me as Mr. Evil Demon Spawn, while you have never addressed the questions I asked you a few posts back.
You don’t even know me, friend. You have no context for my comments with regards to tone or how I voice my opinions. How can you? All you have is type face in a helvetica font.
All you know is that I made a direct correlation between coffee shop culture and hard left culture…hardly venomous, and very true.
Here is another generalization I’ll make about the New Left. Whenever they are critiqued in even the most mild of ways, they will always resort to hyperbole about how their critic was hateful and flying off with the mouth with rage.
And to think I am so calm when I write this listening to the moderateing, soothing and urban sounds of Christopher Cross.
“Once in your life you find her, someone who turns your heart around you…”
Okay, fair enough. I don’t know you and that shot was probably a cheap one. My fault I screwed up.
As for the Christopher Cross. . .keep the fire burning for Koko. brother.
“I find the destruction of Israel to be an unacceptable condition. If an alliance with Europe must be based on this, I find it untenable and immoral. If that makes me a Fascist, so be it.”
I may get some US news spun the wrong way as you say, NYC (although I got the idea that people turn each other in much easier today from Americans), but it would be pretty cool if you could name a European country which has as its policy to destroy Israel. Some people disagree with areas in which setllers have taken over despite Palestinian ownership (I do), some want Israel to withdraw to the borders of 1967 (which were themselves created through warpower), some may even go so far as to ask that Israel not occopy areas that were not theirs when the state was created in 48, but I have never heard politicians of any stature in modern Europe say that Israel has no right to exist. I honestly think you are making this up, but Ill eat my words if you give me a link of some kind. As for the war in Libanon, yes there is less support for Israels actions in that conflict in Europe than in the US, but that does not mean that Hizbollah have a lot of support. Hiding behind civilans, knowing that any attack would kill many innocent people is atrocious, as is bombing them regardless, just because someone else has to take more of the blame. Many more Libanese people were killed than were threatened in Israel, and people are people, despite being from places other than Israel and America. And the steps that have been taken in Iraq to “prevent another 9/11″ has killed several more people than died on that day (without in any way reducing that tragedy, just discussing appropriate response), and the only thing debated in regards to the war being “just” is the amount of dead Americans (a number which is itself approaching the amount of victims on 9/11) and the war seems to have increased activity in terrorist cells. If someone can explain the logic of any of this to me, Id shut up. Oh, and NYCB, I know you were against the Iraq war initially and youre right, having started this, the US must help stabilize the region, and in my opinion are morally obliged to rebuild the nation at whatever cost is needed.
More valuable content…
NYCBB: “Freedom fighters” (how were Confederate soldiers not also “freedom fighters, by this logic?)
I do not doubt that they would have defined themselves exactly so, which was Michael Moore’s point.
NYCBB: I cannot vote for or support a Democratic Party that is held by this mindset.
So how is this in anyway an accurate depiction of the ‘mindset’ of the Democratic party? You no-likee the Democratic Party, whutever, to portray them as aiding & comforting the enemy is nought but a transparent horse-shit lie.
NYCBB:
Before you went off on your ‘anti-semitic’ melt-down, the question at hand had to do with the US Europe alliance. Are you prepared to say either the US or EU could’ve “won” the cold war without one another?
Do you not realize that much of our intel on 9/11 plot came from EU intelligence?
Even if you’re dumb enough to blow off Europe, OBL is not. Due to both strategic & logistical reason, Al Qaida will target the EU to a much greater extent than the US with the goal of isolating us.
“Here is another generalization I’ll make about the New Left. Whenever they are critiqued in even the most mild of ways…”
Something you never do of course. The other problem is that most of your arguement is based on misrepresenting (your pal NYCBB does this pretty regular too) the subject of your criticism.
BTW, there is no New Left. This isn’t 1968, or even 1978 when they were all but gone. The dangerous subversives at large in america are…you.
Have you guys no idea how boring your Political Pissing contest is?