Well, *that* was productive...Follow

Now, let's not go overboard here...

*Shrug* Use "unpatriotic" if it makes you happier. Use "Un-American" or "Anti-American". Won't change my opinion any.

The difference is of degree, not type

No. The difference is in direction. In the same way that boiling water is not the same as not freezing water. One assumes an action in a direction, the other assumes a lack of action in the opposite direction. It is absolutely incorrect to assume that a lack of doing something positive is the same as actively doing something negative (or vice versa), yet this does seem to be a common method (even if not argued directly) used by the Left.

Failing to support gay marriage makes you "anti-gay". Failing to support welfare makes you "hate" poor people. Failing to support any given "cause" means you hate whatever group the cause it intended to help. See the pattern?


It is doubly ironic given the claimed opposition by the same people who accept without question the exact form of logic you're using to the "with us or against us" rhetoric when it's openly stated...

Not the same thing as being a traitor. And I think you are grossly exaggerating the degree to which this happened (the criticism, not the speaking out).



Uh huh. Truly mainstream...



By whom? Quote? Cite? I mean, I suppose some blogger somewhere might have used that verbiage, but is that really your litmus test here?





Wait. So now "encourag(ing) people of good will to remain silent" is equivalent to being a traitor as well?

You're kinda digging yourself a hole here Joph. Find me an example in which a mainstream media source carried a story in which anyone was labeled as a "traitor" (that exact word) for opposing the Iraq war. And let's be clear. You need to find a story about someone on the right actually using those words to describe someone opposed to the war (or whatever). A story about "right wingers" calling someone a traitor isn't the same thing.

You can't stop though can you?

Um... Except that being unpatriotic simply means you are not "being" patriotic (especially in the context we're talking about). So if I *don't* fly a flag, I'm being unpatriotic. It doesn't mean I hate my country. Obama not wearing a flag lapel pin was viewed as being unpatriotic. It did not mean that anyone thought he hated his country. Patriotism in this context is the active expression of support for your country. Things like wearing a flag pin, saluting the flag, supporting soldiers during a war. Those are all patriotic things. Being unpatriotic simply means that you do *not* do those things. It is a lack of action, not an action of itself.


Being a traitor means you are actively and knowingly choosing to do something harmful to your country. Not supporting a war is *never* the act of a traitor. It's not just a matter of degrees. As I said before, it has to do with the direction of the action. A patriot acts on his love of country. A traitor acts on his hate of country. Failing to act in either direction does not make someone something else. Someone who just chooses not to be a traitor does not magically become a patriot, right? So why assume the opposite?


I place people who are "unpatriotic" as neutral. They aren't doing anything. They're *not* doing anything. You can't assume anything beyond that IMO.

You can continue to take a strictly logical translation of the word all you'd like; it doesn't change what the word connotes.

I have never heard someone called unpatriotic as anything but an insult.



That's great, but this isn't about how you use language. This is a question of whether or not the word is used as such in general english. I'm not going to pretend that I have a fantastic grasp of the collective consciousness of the lexicon of america, but I'd like you to at least recognize that it is that consciousness which can answer the question, and not your personal understanding of the language.

Patriotism is overrated.

Nationalism is where it's at!

Why would Obama call himself a gay-basher? He's for full civil unions but opposes same sex marriage. He's also a Christian. I often scratch my head whenever I see folks post what amounts to " Anyone that believes in God is retarded and anyone that opposes same sex marriage is a homophobe, that's why I voted for Obama."


Personally, I think throwing labels and insults at someone just proves that you have a handful of nothing. If I had facts that proved my point I would use them, as would anyone else. Labels are a clear sign that the one throwing them has no real ammo.

That's my 2 cents anyway.

I can try. I can't promise that you'll agree it applies, or that it actually does, but I can give you insight into why I thought it did.




To someone with no horse in this race, this boils down to:

Gbaji feels the Obama Administration is guilty of throwing labels and insults.
Red feels the Bush Administration was guilty of throwing labels and insults.


That you feel Gbaji is wrong and that he feels that you are wrong doesn't factor into my analysis that you're both saying the "other" side is guilty of sligin' labels and insults. Ergo, my comment is relevant.( in my mind anyway).

Who was requiring "official" government action? Red presented the silliness of "Freedom fries" and I quoted Ashcroft accusing critics of giving "aid to terrorists" (by merely speaking out against legislation) because these things happened. It doesn't mean they're the only things that count but rather examples of a "Shut up & Do What We Say" attitude permeating that cross-section of society from high level government officials to partisan pundits to slack-jawed yokels setting fire to CDs.