I came across this and thought I'd share it with you folks that always bring up America as a evil imperialist country that stole the land from the Indians as promoted slavery.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/04/ … erica.html
Great Article, such a shame that it will just cause another debate over which side actually has it right.
Your link shows an accurate history of liberal victories over conservatives that have made this country great.
Thanks for providing it.
Yeah, making people feel as though America is a terrible, evil, and racist country is a HUGE victory. Congrats on that.
The article listed the accomplishments of liberals since the country's creation especially in the area of racial equality.
Perhaps you should read it.
Do i have to remind you of all of the liberals who owned slaves? Don't make it out that it was some sort liberal cause that resulted in racial equality. Many liberals were against it before they were before it just the way the repblicans were. It was an American happening (the freeing of slaves and later racial equality). Conservatives and liberals were on both sides of the issue, don't make it look otherwise.
No one is arguing that liberals never engaged in the same behaviors as conservatives. Where did you read that?
However, we are where we are today with regard to racial equality because of progressive ideals, not conservative ones.
RM was trying to make it sound like the getting rid of slavery was the work of a liberal victory over conservatives.
One could argue that the freedom of man is one of the greatest conservative values, so I don't see your point.
You call it a progressive ideal, I call it a good old conservative ideal that man should be free.
Do you understand the meaning of the term 'progressive'? Or 'liberal'?
Yes, my point was that sometimes a progressive ideal can also be a conservative ideal. A general sense of freedom is one of those. However, when you get past the general idea of freedom, the paths go very different directions.
Where in the hell is the damn aristocrat at???
Okay I love you again!
Yes-yes! Lets all have a drink on this one! Ha-ha!
One could argue that the Earth is flat..
One could be wrong.
Perhaps you should review your posts before hitting the "submit" button.
I am not an "America Hater" but I am liberal, so I suppose your post was partially directed at me.
Anyway, I agree with Ron. The article lists America's accomplishments, especially in the area of racial equality. These accomplishments would have never been realized had it not been for the steady push of progressive ideals.
Thank you, Poppa.
The real America haters are the ones who call their president anti-American and want him to fail!
And so all those liberals who did that to Bush are America haters? Not liking your president is not the same as not liking your country.
No one questioned Bushs's love of America.
People do that to Obama on a daily basis...and I guess that includes the people who voted for him.
We are anti-American and don't love America, right?
Man, it never ends...first we're anti-American for speaking out against a president, and now we're anti-American for supporting one.
I guess we should just decreee that only conservatives can be president and that only conservatives love America.
Would that make them happy, or should they just ship us all out to an island somewhere?
Then they'd always get their way.
How about the country of.. "Liber-ia"
(It's not an island, but it i warm)
I'd just take Hawaii!! They can send me there anyday.
If you go, look up my buddy - Sum Yoong Gai
Here's two things I found about Bush being anti-american just with a quick google search:
http://existentialistcowboy.blogspot.co … -anti.html
What? I didn't say that, you said that. You said that people that claim the president is anti-american are america haters.
What? I really wonder about your comprehension skills...
I'm talking about public officials...public figures, not bloggers on a blogspot!
Name me one member of Congress or one media figure on TV who had a daily show, or one radio personality who was on everyday...call Bush anti-American. It didn't happen. He was hero-worshipped!
And as far as world net daily---forget it, that is so right-wing as to be off the map.
This thread was started by PB saying The Liberal America Haters....I responded by saying the real haters are......get it? It was a response to his claim, not one started by me.
You didn't say that. You said no one.
Obviously you didn't even read the article because it was saying Bush was anti-american because he was taking away our freedoms and such.
Yes, I understand that. And mine was a response to your claim. I said that by your definition of real haters, that includes liberals too.
You're right! I was confused between another thread!!
So then I must retract my statement:
You can hate the president and hope he fails and still not be an America hater.
Now we are just left with bp's America haters; Liberals.
I don't want him to fail but I did want many of the bills he's resposible for to fail being passed. I hope the ones that passed will either prove me wrong or get repealed.
Ron - You would enoy this - along the theme of Right vs Left. It's from the movie 1776 - this scene Nixon persuaded the director to destroy - a negative survived the purge and a decade or 2 later was included in the DVD release. The scnene is the conservative wing of the Continental Congress who is opposed to Independence and (surprise) in favor of slavery. Classic cinema.
But that's what they have done and continue to do.
Ann Coulter: "Even Islamic terrorists don't hate America like liberals do."
That's the kind of smearing that we have put up with.
And I thought it was for criticizing Bush, but now it's for liking Obama.
It's more than a few people. It's basically the whole of Fox news and all of talk radio...that's a powerful propaganda machine and I think it's responsible for a lot of this hate.
Then when you add members of congress and popular political figures, it's a lighted match in a powder-keg.
And the fact that Fox is the highest rated cable show, and right-wing talk owns it, that means that it's a whole lot more than a few people.
It's calculated, planned, and dangerous. imo
Michelle Bachmann: "I want people on our side armed and dangerous."
No missing that meaning.
She hates America.
Wasn't it you who said you actually hate certain people? Or am I thinking of another liberal on here?
She's a hater and so are you.
You just won't admit it.
I hate neo-cons and zionists. Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Netanyutwut...etc.
But you and Bachmann love Obama, don't ya?
I dunno about Bachmann, but since I think she's a Christian, she probably feels like I do-----
she Loves Obama's soul and has no ill will for him as a human being, but she hates just about everything he does.
You can stop any ol' time trying to get people to actually hate someone, because it ain't happenin', not with me anyway.
You're using a typical liberal tactic when you outright say YOU hate someone (a former President at that!) and don't feel like you should be called on it, while you make assumptions as to what's in the hearts of conservatives.
I must say that's a nasty hateful tactic and I wish you'd stop it.
My tactics don't include strapping a gun. Armed and dangerous? Since when did Jesus advocate that??
Maybe you ought to re-think what the word Christian means.
Loving Obama's soul doesn't do him much good when you want his body dead.
Unless I'm missing the meaning of armed and dangerous. What is that, some new Sunday morning service?
"Jimmy, get dressed. Time for armed and dangerous. Hurry up, or we'll be late!"
To get back on topic, and just for fun (because I can't resist demolishing some idiotic Right wing thought) here is an annotated version of the article from the original post:
Maybe... but I'm extremely skeptical. Although this might be fair simply because America isn't old enough to have been feudal. However, I doubt its validity if you apply this only to last two hundred some years. Moving on...
Because the number of slaves a country imports is an excellent metric for how racist it is. [/sarcasm]
Honestly, that is perhaps the most idiotic way to measure racism yet concocted. First, I think it should be noted that, using this metric, the US is perhaps the most racist of white majority nations, given that no other nation imported as many slaves as we did (at least, not into their own national territory, i.e. France imported a lot of slaves into Haiti, which has very little bearing on the racial attitudes of the majority of the French). Additionally, it should also be noted that there was certainly a great demand for slaves here, very likely outstripping the capital to acquire them.
I am fairly certain that there is no former slave holding nation with as large a black minority as the US, so this should not be terribly surprising. Relatedly, there were very few slaves in Continental Europe, most slaves ended up in various colonies (e.g. the US) ergo most former slave holding nations have very little in the way of citizens to make reparations to. In terms of international reparations, some certainly have been made, but on the other hand there were often various political pressures (unrelated to racial ones) which would make such reparations inexpedient.
Also, it should be noted that the US was the last among Western nations to abolish slavery. Even serfdom in far eastern Europe was gone before the US was rid of slavery.
Yes, the first black president who was throughout the campaign (and to this day) attacked as somehow foreign and un-american. Just sayin'
Impressive accomplishments all, but it should also be noted that there is exactly one black member of the senate.
There is a difference between governmental policy and popular attitudes. So yes, we are so racist that we allow them to come here and then discriminate against them upon arrival (and even found political parties upon precisely that, see the Know Nothings). Relatedly, sometimes such discrimination is governmental policy: such as the various times the government has specifically disallowed immigration from particular places.
Yes, and because they did it it's all okay.
And the long and bloody War of Philippine Insurrection, which Americans always seem to forget about. But that's okay I guess because the US finally "granted the Filipinos independence in 1946." Yes, a half century later; perhaps we should all applaud (take note, that is longer than the USSR held together, and certainly longer than it held the Eastern Bloc). It should also be noted that we 'liberated' Cuba from the Spaniards in that same imperialist war (Spanish-American, not Philippine Insurrection), and then proceeded stomp all over their attempts at independent government.
Well done, only 74 years overdue.
Yay, we're not as bad as the Soviet Union! We're better than Stalin! Why don't we just pat ourselves on the back.
Also, I think something there needs to be given a bit more emphasis: "President Harry Truman created the Age of the Nuclear Weapon when he ordered the Army Air Force to drop atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, thus ending Japan's participation in the Second World War." Yes and wreaking havoc on two civilian targets, killing thousands upon thousands upon thousands of innocents.
If by "learned to look at life through the prisms of contrast, comparison, and context" you mean learned to absolve your own sins by pointing out those of others, no I suppose we haven't, and thank god for it. "Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?"
Additionally, if you want to talk purely in terms of area, in terms of simple numbers, America is one of the most imperialistic powers in world history. Beginning with a few meager holdings on the east coast it spread all across the continent, decimating and removing native populations as it encountered them (also, see the Mexican-American War, and the War of 1812, actually). The only way around this is a strict definition of empire: i.e. a state which subsumes but respects local boundaries and power structures (e.g. Britain or the Ottomans). In which case the US wasn't terribly imperialist, it was much worse: instead of respecting tribal rights and boundaries and, say, requiring tribute, we destroyed the boundaries and killed off populations wholesale.
A brief addendum: this article doesn't even mention or try to defend some of the most objectionable actions of the United States, many of which have taken place in these past fifty years: see intervention in places like Iran, Nicaragua, Vietnam, etc.
In sum, there is almost nothing right in this article. Please try again.
You wanna know how I feel about it?
It's America. Love it or leave it.
Well written. Well researched. Logical Organization. Conclusion consistent with the arguments.
And you got a tired cliche' from the head cheerleader of the wingnuts.
by Kylyssa Shay 2 years ago
American Conservatives, do you think Liberals who believe in Christ are real Christians?Many of my Liberal Christian friends are puzzled that, when speaking with Conservatives, they sometimes find themselves referred to as non-Christians and the Conservative perspective referred to as the Christian...
by lady_love158 7 years ago
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing- … ht-to-hellIt's pretty clear Waters hates Americans that don't share her radical views, telling them they can go straight to h***! Really Maxine? The poster girl for unethical behaviour wants more of the tax payers money! Given how she's abused it in...
by Mike Russo 6 years ago
I have been in many controversial political discussions on hub pages. I consider myself a centerist. I believe we need both some components of socialism to provide the things that we can't do as individuals and some componets of capitalism, but not enfettered capitalism. It seems that...
by Grace Marguerite Williams 3 years ago
Do you believe that America was much better when the Conservatives ran it or with the Liberalscurrently running it? Why? Why not?
by Jack Lee 2 months ago
Equal representation in the media, in Hollywood, in academia and in public unions...?By all polls, the American people is approx. 40% conservative, 40% liberal and 20% moderate. Yet 90% of academia professors are liberal. How come?
by Kathryn L Hill 8 weeks ago
... or not?
|HubPages Device ID|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Google Analytics|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel|
|Google Hosted Libraries|
|Google AdSense Host API|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels|
|Author Google Analytics|
|Amazon Tracking Pixel|