Is Dissent Still Patriotic?

[au2004ece 30]

I predict that if all this worshipping that Obama is receiving continues, there will be a serious backlash in 2-4 years if he isn't everyone's saviour.

I had come around to the point where I was OK with him being President, but then I saw all this gushing over him these past few days and it made me want to puke.

Why praise the man so much before he has done anything? Or is simply being black and becoming president enough of an accomplishment? He still has to DO everything that a President does! That's what we should judge him on.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/...more_kings.html

Is Dissent Still Patriotic?

By David Harsanyi

Do all Americans truly have a yearning to fundamentally "remake" our nation? There must be a subversive minority out there that still believes the United States, even with its imperfections and sporadic recessions, is, in context, still a wildly prosperous and free country worth preserving.

Some of you must still believe that politicians are meant to serve rather than be worshipped. And there must be someone out there who considers partisanship a healthy organic reflection of our differences rather than something to be surrendered in the name of so-called unity -- which is, after all, untenable, subjective and utterly counterproductive.

How about those who praised dissent for the past eight years?

Is there anyone who still believes the Constitution was created to ensure each citizen has liberty and the ability to pursue happiness rather than a guarantee of happiness -- and a retirement fund, health care, a job, an education, a house .

Yes, two important historical events transpired Tuesday. The first was the peaceful transfer of power from one freely elected politician to another -- an uninterrupted streak we often take for granted. Then there was the first presidency of an African-American, which proves we can transcend our unsightly past.

After that, what we had was just another presidential election. We conduct one every four years. For those of you not shouting hosannas, it might have occurred to you that we are suffering from a rampant sickness in American life that casts government as the author of your dreams and an Illinois politician as the linchpin of your hopes.

Tom Brokaw -- whose hero, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, corralled thousands of innocent Asian-Americans into internment camps and assaulted the Constitution at every turn -- went as far as to compare Obama's inauguration to the Czech's fight for freedom over Communist oppression.

George W. Bush's administration, which I had a multitude of problems with, was not comparable to a tyranny, despite the protestations of his emotional detractors.

Liberals, rightly, recoil at the prospect of conservatives dictating which morals they should live by. Obama, though, has spent the past year preaching his own brand of morality -- with a list of demands. Everyone, you see, "must" sacrifice. As Michelle Obama recently explained, "Barack Obama will require you to work. . Barack will never allow you to go back to your lives as usual, uninvolved, uninformed."

Those of us who refuse to buy left-wing orthodoxy will remain "uninformed" and, inevitably, "selfish."

To be fair, I'm uncertain what Obama is going to require of me during these next four to eight years. I do know, right off the bat, that if he passes his centerpiece trillion-dollar ideologically driven government expansion (in the guise of a "stimulus" plan), he will be demanding my grandchildren work overtime to pay it off. That's after they're done paying Bush's tab.

Obama challenges Americans to have "a willingness to find meaning in something greater than themselves." So if you find massive concentrated power in Washington a turn-on, you've found your higher purpose.

But surely, most of you found meaning in something greater than yourselves long before some politician demanded it.

To require such fealty to power in the name of patriotism was once repugnant to the left. Now, with the right guy in charge, apparently, it can be embraced once again.

Change, indeed.

Reach columnist David Harsanyi at dharsanyi@denverpost.com.

[RunInRed 19,631]

Nothing wrong with dissent IMO. After all, most of us spent 8 years railing against a lot of Bush's nonsense. But an objective and rational view would be appreciated. Call him out when you think he's wrong, support him when you think he's right.

[autigeremt 7,542]

Nothing wrong with dissent IMO. After all, most of us spent 8 years railing against a lot of Bush's nonsense. But an objective and rational view would be appreciated. Call him out when you think he's wrong, support him when you think he's right.

"But an objective and rational view would be appreciated."

Come on! BUSH=Automatic dissent and hate for the left reaches of the Democratic Party. Obama is still taking shots at his administration, instead of focusing on hope and the future.

So, as I have stated before. I will uphold his positives, and implore his negatives. So far, he's 1-1 for the day. I strongly oppose the Gitmo stance, and I agree with the lobbyist stance (even though it's partly symbolic).

[RunInRed 19,631]

Nothing wrong with dissent IMO. After all, most of us spent 8 years railing against a lot of Bush's nonsense. But an objective and rational view would be appreciated. Call him out when you think he's wrong, support him when you think he's right.

"But an objective and rational view would be appreciated."

Come on! BUSH=Automatic dissent and hate for the left reaches of the Democratic Party. Obama is still taking shots at his administration, instead of focusing on hope and the future.

So, as I have stated before. I will uphold his positives, and implore his negatives. So far, he's 1-1 for the day. I strongly oppose the Gitmo stance, and I agree with the lobbyist stance (even though it's partly symbolic).

You might not have agreed with me most of the time, but I have always tried to be objective. Sure I think many of Bush's decisions were wrong but I also gave him the thumbs up when I agreed with him. These instances included his immediate response after 9/11 (although I later became critical after he diverted resources away to Iraq) his work/funding efforts for Aids and Malaria, etc...so to say Bush generated automatic dissent and hate from me is ridiculous. To say I disagreed with a lot of his decisions is fair but again, I would like to think I took a rational approach to my judgments and that you would respect my dissenting opinions, just like I pledge to do with yours.

[autigeremt 7,542]

Nothing wrong with dissent IMO. After all, most of us spent 8 years railing against a lot of Bush's nonsense. But an objective and rational view would be appreciated. Call him out when you think he's wrong, support him when you think he's right.

"But an objective and rational view would be appreciated."

Come on! BUSH=Automatic dissent and hate for the left reaches of the Democratic Party. Obama is still taking shots at his administration, instead of focusing on hope and the future.

So, as I have stated before. I will uphold his positives, and implore his negatives. So far, he's 1-1 for the day. I strongly oppose the Gitmo stance, and I agree with the lobbyist stance (even though it's partly symbolic).

You might not have agreed with me most of the time, but I have always tried to be objective. Sure I think many of Bush's decisions were wrong but I also gave him the thumbs up when I agreed with him. These instances included his immediate response after 9/11 (although I later became critical after he diverted resources away to Iraq) his work/funding efforts for Aids and Malaria, etc...so to say Bush generated automatic dissent and hate from me is ridiculous. To say I disagreed with a lot of his decisions is fair but again, I would like to think I took a rational approach to my judgments and that you would respect my dissenting opinions, just like I pledge to do with yours.

My remark has less to do with you personally and more to do with the over arching majority that represent the Demorcratic Party.

[au2004ece 30]

You might not have agreed with me most of the time, but I have always tried to be objective. Sure I think many of Bush's decisions were wrong but I also gave him the thumbs up when I agreed with him. These instances included his immediate response after 9/11 (although I later became critical after he diverted resources away to Iraq) his work/funding efforts for Aids and Malaria, etc...so to say Bush generated automatic dissent and hate from me is ridiculous. To say I disagreed with a lot of his decisions is fair but again, I would like to think I took a rational approach to my judgments and that you would respect my dissenting opinions, just like I pledge to do with yours.

My remark has less to do with you personally and more to do with the over arching majority that represent the Demorcratic Party.

And my remarks have to do with the swift change in attitude towards the office of the presidency that the media has undergone. The media generated the hate of Bush by their constant bashing. Now they are going to generate the love of Obama by their constant gushing even though the things that Obama will do will cause the same number of people to be angry the same number of times. It will just be different people angry this time because of the political swing from right to left. The know nothings in the middle could have been convinced by the media to love Bush and hate Obama if that was the media's prerogative.

[arnaldoabru 11]

You might not have agreed with me most of the time, but I have always tried to be objective. Sure I think many of Bush's decisions were wrong but I also gave him the thumbs up when I agreed with him. These instances included his immediate response after 9/11 (although I later became critical after he diverted resources away to Iraq) his work/funding efforts for Aids and Malaria, etc...so to say Bush generated automatic dissent and hate from me is ridiculous. To say I disagreed with a lot of his decisions is fair but again, I would like to think I took a rational approach to my judgments and that you would respect my dissenting opinions, just like I pledge to do with yours.

My remark has less to do with you personally and more to do with the over arching majority that represent the Demorcratic Party.

And my remarks have to do with the swift change in attitude towards the office of the presidency that the media has undergone. The media generated the hate of Bush by their constant bashing. Now they are going to generate the love of Obama by their constant gushing even though the things that Obama will do will cause the same number of people to be angry the same number of times. It will just be different people angry this time because of the political swing from right to left. The know nothings in the middle could have been convinced by the media to love Bush and hate Obama if that was the media's prerogative.

Maybe the "media" just saw Shrub for what he was?

[Tigermike 4,245]

You might not have agreed with me most of the time, but I have always tried to be objective. Sure I think many of Bush's decisions were wrong but I also gave him the thumbs up when I agreed with him. These instances included his immediate response after 9/11 (although I later became critical after he diverted resources away to Iraq) his work/funding efforts for Aids and Malaria, etc...so to say Bush generated automatic dissent and hate from me is ridiculous. To say I disagreed with a lot of his decisions is fair but again, I would like to think I took a rational approach to my judgments and that you would respect my dissenting opinions, just like I pledge to do with yours.

My remark has less to do with you personally and more to do with the over arching majority that represent the Demorcratic Party.

And my remarks have to do with the swift change in attitude towards the office of the presidency that the media has undergone. The media generated the hate of Bush by their constant bashing. Now they are going to generate the love of Obama by their constant gushing even though the things that Obama will do will cause the same number of people to be angry the same number of times. It will just be different people angry this time because of the political swing from right to left. The know nothings in the middle could have been convinced by the media to love Bush and hate Obama if that was the media's prerogative.

Maybe the "media" just saw Shrub for what he was?

President?

It wasn't the media that fed and fanned the flames it was the dimocrat party, from top to bottom. Algore, howard dean, schummer, reid, kennedy, kerry and yes obama. They were all in on that war. The dims declared war on the office of the presidency eight years ago and have only stopped now that they are in office.

[TigerHeat 9]

You might not have agreed with me most of the time, but I have always tried to be objective. Sure I think many of Bush's decisions were wrong but I also gave him the thumbs up when I agreed with him. These instances included his immediate response after 9/11 (although I later became critical after he diverted resources away to Iraq) his work/funding efforts for Aids and Malaria, etc...so to say Bush generated automatic dissent and hate from me is ridiculous. To say I disagreed with a lot of his decisions is fair but again, I would like to think I took a rational approach to my judgments and that you would respect my dissenting opinions, just like I pledge to do with yours.

My remark has less to do with you personally and more to do with the over arching majority that represent the Demorcratic Party.

And my remarks have to do with the swift change in attitude towards the office of the presidency that the media has undergone. The media generated the hate of Bush by their constant bashing. Now they are going to generate the love of Obama by their constant gushing even though the things that Obama will do will cause the same number of people to be angry the same number of times. It will just be different people angry this time because of the political swing from right to left. The know nothings in the middle could have been convinced by the media to love Bush and hate Obama if that was the media's prerogative.

Maybe the "media" just saw Shrub for what he was?

Emmanuel Goldstein?

[Strychnine 1,812]

Emmanuel Goldstein?

I feel a Two Minutes Hate comin' on.

[au2004ece 30]

You might not have agreed with me most of the time, but I have always tried to be objective. Sure I think many of Bush's decisions were wrong but I also gave him the thumbs up when I agreed with him. These instances included his immediate response after 9/11 (although I later became critical after he diverted resources away to Iraq) his work/funding efforts for Aids and Malaria, etc...so to say Bush generated automatic dissent and hate from me is ridiculous. To say I disagreed with a lot of his decisions is fair but again, I would like to think I took a rational approach to my judgments and that you would respect my dissenting opinions, just like I pledge to do with yours.

My remark has less to do with you personally and more to do with the over arching majority that represent the Demorcratic Party.

And my remarks have to do with the swift change in attitude towards the office of the presidency that the media has undergone. The media generated the hate of Bush by their constant bashing. Now they are going to generate the love of Obama by their constant gushing even though the things that Obama will do will cause the same number of people to be angry the same number of times. It will just be different people angry this time because of the political swing from right to left. The know nothings in the middle could have been convinced by the media to love Bush and hate Obama if that was the media's prerogative.

Maybe the "media" just saw Shrub for what he was?

Maybe the media is blind to Obama being the same thing as Bush, except from the left.