Dissent no longer the highest form of patriotism

“I pledge to be a servant to our president and all mankind.” Ye Gods.
Damian P.

Advertisements

24 thoughts on “Dissent no longer the highest form of patriotism

  1. So, has anyone yet done a spoof of the Obama poster with the word HOPE replaced by OBEY?
    Please tell me they have.

  2. You know what else was creeping? Those Christian fundamentalists in “Jesus Camp” who were worshipping a cardboard cutout of George Bush. Hero worship: it’s scary when it’s other people doing it?

  3. Gee, Self-Loathing. I missed out on that whole G.W. Bush Cult of Personality. You’ll have to enlighten us. Do you have a link?
    And wouldn’t worshipoping a graven image be, I don’t know, un-Christian?

  4. Are you actually telling me there was no George Bush personality cult on the right? That in the aftermath of 9/11, there was no uncritical support for Bush?
    http://www.youtube.com/results?search_type=&search_query=jesus+camp+bush+worship&aq=0&oq=jesus+camp+bush
    Anyways, here’s the link you asked for.
    What a pathetic bunch of posters. Really pathetic. I mean, if you want to disagree about political philosophy, that’s one thing. But that kind fo willfull ignorance is really sad.

  5. Don’t we all agree that the Jesus Camp thing was an abomination? Are we now not allowed to point out that empty-headed celebrities are also making fools of themselves?

  6. If the best evidence you can offer for your “George Bush personality cult” is a documentary about some wierd Pentecostal camp and “uncritical support” for the President shortly after several thousand Americans died from a terrorist attack, then you’ve proven my point. There is (and was) no George Bush presonality cult. As usual, you’re just spouting nonsense.

  7. SLM,
    You’re in the same position as Dr. Dawg, there is just no winning because you’re just…. em…. wrong. Can’t be right.
    Just because you made a statement and then gave video evidence of exactly what you said happened, don’t think that this is sufficient. You now have to frame your argument in Bruce’s own construct (cult of personality), which he incidentally gets to define and revise as necessary.
    While his challenge made it seem that he implicitly accepted that the scene in your video would constitute being cultish, this changed as soon as you answered said challenge.

  8. “Bruce’s own construct (cult of personality), which he incidentally gets to define and revise as necessary”
    Quite frankly, I find it bizarre that anyone would assert that President Bush had a Cult of Personality. Even the Wikipedia leaves him out of their list of American Presidents “noted to have some traits of a cult of personality.” They list Kennedy, Reagan, and Obama, but somehow miss George Bush, the man the media love to hate. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cult_of_personality#Examples_in_a_democratic_society
    But then, according to Dara, somehow I’m defining and revising my “own construct”.

  9. SLM wrote; “Are you actually telling me there was no George Bush personality cult on the right? That in the aftermath of 9/11, there was no uncritical support for Bush?”
    Those are two SEPARATE issues. In the first case, your grammar allows for two interpretations (not unexpected from a Dawg Lite poster. The obvious, literal interpretation is that a meeting of two individuals would qualify it.
    The second interpretation fails as you’ve only given evidence of a single instance (not that there aren’t possibly others).
    The second statement is arguably a double negative. a) There was a LOT of criticism of Bush, post 9/11. b)There was a LOT of nationalism, or patriotism, in the coming together of the country; absolutely independent of Pres. Bush, or any other personality.
    In both of the above statements, individuals came from all sides of the political spectrum; CRITICISM of Pres. Bush came mainly from the Left. That’s NOT the same thing as saying the Right was uncritical.

  10. Bruce, with due respect, I must disagree. Not.
    ‘W’ did have a cult following, clinging to his every misunderestimation. It was called “Bush Derangement Syndrome.” In the long run, they were about the only ones paying attention. Most of us on the Right grew rather Fed-up with his priorities.
    By the way – Bruce knows this, so this goes out the the Left… Obama has spoken of his fondness for one Saul D. Alinsky and his primal work “Rules for Radicals”. Alinsky teaches specifically that a leader must encourage such worship and feelings amongst followers. Alinsky was deliberately and specifically aiming at the emotive, irrational foundations of the system we call modern “liberalism.” Alinsky knew exacly what he was saying, and Obama has been an even better student than Hillary.
    This issue is one of those that so very clearly defines the fundamental differences between the modern libertarian Right and the fascist-socialist Left: To us, leaders should be ordinary and expendable. To the Left, well, look at the way they treat Obama as the new messiah.
    If the 20th century teaches us anything, one lesson might be that a “dear leader” is a dangerous commodity.

  11. Dan, according to the Wikipedia (and other sources), “A cult of personality or personality cult arises when a country’s leader uses mass media to create a heroic public image through unquestioning flattery and praise.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cult_of_personality#Examples_in_a_democratic_society
    Is there any recent President whose treatment by the media fits that description less than George W. Bush? They’ve been after him since Bush v. Gore. Self-Loathing just says stuff without having a clue as to what it means. And what Dara means by accusing me of redefining the term is a mystery. Perhaps he’d care to elaborate?

  12. Personally, I like the line “I pledge to use less plastic” around the 2:10 mark. Funny line given all the plastic surgery in Hollywood.

  13. You guys are a riot. You post a video showing some person pledging to serve Obama and mankind as proof of an Obama personality cult. Then, when I show a video which shows more than one person worshipping Bush, you write this garbage:
    “Just because you made a statement and then gave video evidence of exactly what you said happened, don’t think that this is sufficient.”
    For what it’s worth, I actually agree that there is an Obama personality cult. I just find your capacity for self-deception to be absolutely incredible.

  14. “They’ve been after him since Bush v. Gore.”
    Here’s an interesting hypothesis for your little mind to comprehend: did it ever occur to you that a lot of that is calculated? The constituency that right likes to target think the country is run by a cabal of cosmopolitan, urban hipsters in the media and intellectual community. By positioning themselves as “outisders” they gain the support of their political base. That’s all most political blogs are good for: a kind of large-scale, market research group to see what candidate’s “brand” will do best.
    Also, while you’re at it, explain the role the media played in the lead-up to the Iraq War? How many so-called “liberal” media institutions spoke out against it? How many papers, or TV commentators said, not just that it was wrong because the US might fail, but that it didn’t have a right to invade any ways? Once you’ve done that, we can talk about media bias.

  15. Is it normal that I only recognise one person (Bateman) in that entire video? Two if you include Harvey Dent, but since I don’t know his real name I don’t think it counts.

  16. “Also, while you’re at it, explain the role the media played in the lead-up to the Iraq War? How many so-called “liberal” media institutions spoke out against it? How many papers, or TV commentators said, not just that it was wrong because the US might fail, but that it didn’t have a right to invade any ways? Once you’ve done that, we can talk about media bias.”
    Much Loathed is back again, I see. Is it just me, or are your absences getting longer between each blog pummelling you receive here? I think so. I should just leave it at what Bruce said,
    “Self-Loathing just says stuff without having a clue as to what it means,”
    but you’re such a pompous ass, I can’t resist wading in.
    Much Loathed, I expect this will be difficult for you to comprehend, but allegations of Left leaning media bias are not proven unfounded by citing isolated exceptions to the general rule. The ideological direction in which a media entity is slanted is determined by the preponderance of its positions on all issues. In other words, morons like you can’t get away with portraying an unabashedly Left Wing paper like the New York Times as centrist, fair and objective (I’ve even seen some exceptionally delusional far Lefties claim it’s conservative), on the basis of it’s contrarian stance on one or two issues. But since we’re on the topic, and since you’ve asked the question, the 2 largest “so-called ‘liberal’ media institutions “ (in the newspaper context), did speak out against the war. Here‘s the New York Times‘ final editorial on the subject, 2 days before the invasion:
    “War in the Ruins of Diplomacy” – March 18th, 2003
    http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C01EFDA1431F93BA25750C0A9659C8B63
    “President Bush’s father and then Bill Clinton worked hard to infuse that role with America’s traditions of idealism, internationalism and multilateralism. Under George W. Bush, however, Washington has charted a very different course. Allies have been devalued and military force overvalued.
    Now that logic is playing out in a war waged without the compulsion of necessity, the endorsement of the United Nations or the company of traditional allies. This page has never wavered in the belief that Mr. Hussein must be disarmed. Our problem is with the wrongheaded way this administration has gone about it.”
    The Los Angeles Times made a similar case against the war on March 14th, 2003:
    “The Right Way in Iraq”
    http://articles.latimes.com/2003/mar/14/opinion/ed-iraq14
    “In a post-9/11 world, the president argues, things are different. The nation must protect itself. Yes. So the question becomes, would an invasion of Iraq make the United States and the world safer? If the world community unites to do it, yes. But a U.S.-led invasion, without sanction from the United Nations, would make this nation and the world at large more dangerous.”
    […]
    “But the president’s next step – in effect, “if the U.N. doesn’t do it, right now, the United States will” – is where he loses us and, we suspect, many other Americans.
    The Bush administration’s months of attempts to justify quick military action against Iraq have been confusing and unfocused. It kept giving different reasons for invasion. First, it was to disarm Hussein and get him out. Then, as allies got nervous about outside nations deciding “regime change,” the administration for a while rightly stressed disarmament only. Next, the administration was talking about “nation-building” and using Iraq as the cornerstone of creating democracy in the Arab/Muslim world. And that would probably mean U.S. occupation of Iraq for some unspecified time, at open-ended cost.
    Then, another tactic: The administration tried mightily, and failed, to show a connection between Hussein and the 9/11 perpetrators, Al Qaeda. Had there been real evidence that Hussein was behind the 9/11 attacks, Americans would have lined up in support of retaliation.”
    I would also remind you that you’ve dishonestly attempted to confine your pathetic dismissal of “liberal “ media bias to one country. On the subject of regime change in Iraq, the editorial position of the vast majority of media entities in virtually all other western democracies outside the U.S. was one of opposition to invasion.
    I shouldn’t have to tell you what that does to your argument.

  17. “For what it’s worth, I actually agree that there is an Obama personality cult. I just find your capacity for self-deception to be absolutely incredible.”
    Wow. How perceptive (not to mention conciliatory) of you. Just how large would you guess-timate Obama’s personality cult is? Ball park figure…

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