This isn't patriotism

[Ban Hammer 13,345]

Uh, the McKinley example, Charles? I know you've been quite amused, but too amused even to notice I provided an example of "such" (as you are so fond of saying) right away?

so mckinley manipulated the people and congress to declare war? which war specifically? there was several.

McKinley only had the Spanish-American war as a fully-declared war, Charles. And I already listed other conflicts entered into via propagandandizing.

The real issue is that these actions should have been questioned, and had questionable motives.

actually, there was several "wars":

Spanish-American War (1898)

Philippine-American War (1899-1913)

Boxer Rebellion (1900)

i don't find a thing about him manipulating the people or congress to get war declared. i've found several newspapers writing some sensationalist stories that probably affected the general feelings of the populace.

perhaps you'd be so kind as to cite a reference for this?

Edited January 9, 2007 by charlesandnessa

[one...two...tree 2,762]

We already pointed out McKinley. There's one that meets those criteria. If we're splicing hairs over definitions (though I'm inclined to think you didn't get your case of the pedantic clevers until page four, else you wouldn't have cried Bush-bashing). If we allow in police actions/wars-that-are-only-wars when convenient, then it's pretty much every President since WWII.

All that aside....

Do you really believe what you say? Seriously? Forget Bush. If any President wishes to be immune from criticism, all he or she needs to do is start a war or police action, and then can take whatever steps necessary with those disgagreeing libelled as treasonous?

I realize you trust Bush... but would you be comfortable with Clinton having those powers? Presidential power is like toothpaste; once expanded, it doesn't go back in the tube.

I've tried to make a similar point to Charles.

[Ban Hammer 13,345]

We already pointed out McKinley. There's one that meets those criteria.

as far as i'm concerned, the jury is still out on that until someone shows me a reference. just saying it don't make it a part of history.

[Reynaldo 0]

We already pointed out McKinley. There's one that meets those criteria.

as far as i'm concerned, the jury is still out on that until someone shows me a reference. just saying it don't make it a part of history.

Oh Charles, when will you learn????

[Ban Hammer 13,345]

We already pointed out McKinley. There's one that meets those criteria.

as far as i'm concerned, the jury is still out on that until someone shows me a reference. just saying it don't make it a part of history.

Oh Charles, when will you learn????

uh huh.....are you saying never argue with alex?

[Alex+R 0]

We already pointed out McKinley. There's one that meets those criteria.

as far as i'm concerned, the jury is still out on that until someone shows me a reference. just saying it don't make it a part of history.

Uh, Charles, all I had to do was use Wikipedia, so I think it's pretty much accepted and agreed upon that propaganda was a factor to a greater or lesser extent. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish-American_War

Here's an example

The Spanish American War also saw the very first use of film in propaganda. A short ninety second film, called Tearing Down the Spanish Flag, produced in 1898, was a simple moving image designed to inspire patriotism and hatred for the Spanish in America. This film, as the title suggests, depicts the removal of the Spanish national flag and its replacement by the Stars and Stripes of America. This film was very effective in rousing its audience.

From PBS of all places

THE SPANISH-AMERICAN WAR AND WORLD WAR I

The Spanish-American War is often seen as a conflict almost initiated and fed by propaganda. Publisher of THE NEW YORK JOURNAL Randolph Hearst is commonly believed to have told a reporter in Cuba, "You furnish the pictures, I'll provide the war." Regardless of the veracity of that tale, Hearst's claim in the press that Spanish mines had sunk the Maine, pushed the nation toward war. His paper's notorious and ugly characterization of the Spanish and generous helpings of melodrama and sentiment became known as "Yellow Journalism."

[Ban Hammer 13,345]

We already pointed out McKinley. There's one that meets those criteria.

as far as i'm concerned, the jury is still out on that until someone shows me a reference. just saying it don't make it a part of history.

Uh, Charles, all I had to do was use Wikipedia, so I think it's pretty much accepted and agreed upon that propaganda was a factor to a greater or lesser extent. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish-American_War

Here's an example

The Spanish American War also saw the very first use of film in propaganda. A short ninety second film, called Tearing Down the Spanish Flag, produced in 1898, was a simple moving image designed to inspire patriotism and hatred for the Spanish in America. This film, as the title suggests, depicts the removal of the Spanish national flag and its replacement by the Stars and Stripes of America. This film was very effective in rousing its audience.

yes, i've seen that very link. but what, pray tell, connects mckinley to all of that? guilt by association? or are you saying the president is to blame for propaganda films? keep trying.

[Alex+R 0]

We already pointed out McKinley. There's one that meets those criteria.

as far as i'm concerned, the jury is still out on that until someone shows me a reference. just saying it don't make it a part of history.

Uh, Charles, all I had to do was use Wikipedia, so I think it's pretty much accepted and agreed upon that propaganda was a factor to a greater or lesser extent. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish-American_War

Here's an example

The Spanish American War also saw the very first use of film in propaganda. A short ninety second film, called Tearing Down the Spanish Flag, produced in 1898, was a simple moving image designed to inspire patriotism and hatred for the Spanish in America. This film, as the title suggests, depicts the removal of the Spanish national flag and its replacement by the Stars and Stripes of America. This film was very effective in rousing its audience.

yes, i've seen that very link. but what, pray tell, connects mckinley to all of that? guilt by association? or are you saying the president is to blame for propaganda films? keep trying.

Charles, you've got to be kidding me. You're not that stupid, are you? Just admit you're wrong and we'll all move on. Or don't, I don't really care.

[Ban Hammer 13,345]

We already pointed out McKinley. There's one that meets those criteria.

as far as i'm concerned, the jury is still out on that until someone shows me a reference. just saying it don't make it a part of history.

Uh, Charles, all I had to do was use Wikipedia, so I think it's pretty much accepted and agreed upon that propaganda was a factor to a greater or lesser extent. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish-American_War

Here's an example

The Spanish American War also saw the very first use of film in propaganda. A short ninety second film, called Tearing Down the Spanish Flag, produced in 1898, was a simple moving image designed to inspire patriotism and hatred for the Spanish in America. This film, as the title suggests, depicts the removal of the Spanish national flag and its replacement by the Stars and Stripes of America. This film was very effective in rousing its audience.

yes, i've seen that very link. but what, pray tell, connects mckinley to all of that? guilt by association? or are you saying the president is to blame for propaganda films? keep trying.

Charles, you've got to be kidding me. You're not that stupid, are you? Just admit you're wrong and we'll all move on. Or don't, I don't really care.

you're presuming mckinley is guilty somehow. i'm just wanting to know how you reached that conclusion.

oh right, mckinley had a conspiracy going back then and bush took lessons from him

[garya505 2]

oh right, mckinley had a conspiracy going back then and bush took lessons from him

Hey, didn't I see that in a Michael Moore film?

[Alex+R 0]

Define "conspiracy." Does that include tricking the American people into supporting a war because you know they'd never support your war for its real motives? Then yes, he sure did.

[keltic 1]

Goodness, this is entertaining. First you insist that 'manipulated the congress into declaring war' is a title only for Bush, that must be an insult to Bush, following your assertion that because this is 'wartime' footing, we must not criticize, and now you're insisting that it isn't a war contrary to your earlier statements, because you've linked a Wikipedia article.

Police action and war are historically very different things, though with the expansion of the powers of the executive branch lately they're nearly indistinguishable practically and politically. Hence why I said it's largely moot; a police action was intended for limited engagements, not to mention a bit of creative legal footwork to avoid having to bother declaring war in order to authorize military force. That's really no longer the case, except that maybe if we'd formally declared war we'd have an exit strategy.

But then, I haven't been insisting we're at war! war! so we can't criticize the President. That's been you.So, if we're not at war, then we should be free, on your reasoning, to criticize.

what i was pointing out was someone attempting to lay such at the feet of bush. i've been quite entertained that no one figured out that not one president is guilty of what was said. i never said that title was reserved for bush, i was taking offense that someone was trying to insinuate it was his. carry on

and i could just as easily (and at least with some grounds) take offense that you continue to insist that i was insinuating anything at all about bush while i said nothing of him in my question, in fact nothing in my question cited any historical precedence at all... i merely asked a question about one example of parameters... i could just as easily ask a question with regards to a president of a different ethnicity other than caucasian or a female president... still valid, even tho not historical as of yet... simply because anything is possible

im am rather intrigued with where your line is in your beliefs.... since you stated originally that during wartime we shouldnt question the president, i think its very interesting to know when that changes... when you answered my question "so, then, that means that as long as the president can manipulate the ppl and congress to declare war, then he is above any questioning?", you said "no"... so, if he isnt automatically above questioning just because he is president, where is the line that makes it unacceptable to question him? is it whether his beliefs fall in line with yours? is it what party he is associated with? you dont need to answer it really... just food for thought

personally, i feel that noone in the govt should be above questioning... where you cant hold behavior accountable is where you wind up with more and more power and, soon following, corruption... so, for me, i dont care what party, race, gender or any other parameter... if someone (president, governor, congressman, mayor, etc) does something that doesnt sit well, then i question it...

[Ban Hammer 13,345]

Define "conspiracy." Does that include tricking the American people into supporting a war because you know they'd never support your war for its real motives? Then yes, he sure did.

i think you should be the one to define it, as you're the one insinuating mckinley had something to do with it. was the film commissioned by mckinley?

[Ban Hammer 13,345]

and i could just as easily (and at least with some grounds) take offense that you continue to insist that i was insinuating anything at all about bush while i said nothing of him in my question, in fact nothing in my question cited any historical precedence at all... i merely asked a question about one example of parameters... i could just as easily ask a question with regards to a president of a different ethnicity other than caucasian or a female president... still valid, even tho not historical as of yet... simply because anything is possible

im am rather intrigued with where your line is in your beliefs.... since you stated originally that during wartime we shouldnt question the president, i think its very interesting to know when that changes... when you answered my question "so, then, that means that as long as the president can manipulate the ppl and congress to declare war, then he is above any questioning?", you said "no"... so, if he isnt automatically above questioning just because he is president, where is the line that makes it unacceptable to question him? is it whether his beliefs fall in line with yours? is it what party he is associated with? you dont need to answer it really... just food for thought

personally, i feel that noone in the govt should be above questioning... where you cant hold behavior accountable is where you wind up with more and more power and, soon following, corruption... so, for me, i dont care what party, race, gender or any other parameter... if someone (president, governor, congressman, mayor, etc) does something that doesnt sit well, then i question it...

so you're gonna tell me still that your statement was not aimed at bush? oh please. i've seen that same tired line trotted out time and time again. the fact remains - it's untrue.

as for the supposed fact that mckinley did such, i''ve yet to see any evidence regarding that, just allegations.

in regards to your question about wartime and presidents, there are many different situations that could have a bearing on the question. in general i'd say yes, if there was a conspiracy to lead the nation to war, one probably has a point in raising questions. however, prudence is the key word when doing so.

we already have enough corruption in government anyways. i don't trust any of them 100%, some far less than others.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Its always been so bizarre to me that the US is so polarised when it comes to politics - that a persons views can only be understood by first lumping them in one of two divergent groups, and using that as a means to pour scorn on them.

This stupid patriotism thing is also irritating - its clear from the the number of times its been trotted out on here that a fair few people associate "debate" with "Not wanting to play one the team". Misses the point entirely IMO, and continues to do so.

"We must win", "you're emboldening the enemy", "you should be with us or against us". None of those statements means anything substantive whatsoever. The guy who brought up 1984 is quite right to do so - Doublethink (Doublespeak in our case) is at work in our society, and has been for some time. Its as though if people repeat the rhetorical mantra enough times it must therefore be true.

But when for example, the President's press secretary comes out a couple of days before the President is due to give his 9/11 speech and says that the speech will be "non-partisan" in nature, then when you actually watch it and see that it is perhaps one of the most political and partisan things he has ever read, it makes me wonder whether people actually look at these things for themselves or just accept what they're told.

We're already in a position where the Iraq war is deemed legal merely because the President and his Attorney General say so, not because it actually is. The government knows (and actually counts on) the knowledge that people don't know the facts and don't have the time or energy to seek them out - so they can pretty much get away with murder.

If people really cared about how their government was run and took an active (as opposed to apathetic) approach to political issues - its a fair bet that noone in the cabinet, senate or congress would be elected. The old master-slave dynamic at work...