That There Must be No Criticism of the President is "Unpatriotic, Servile, and Morally Treasonable"

[tytlyf]

It's not truthful to make anecdotal criticisms of the President, or emotional pleas. So far, that's all the left has, and it's pretty disgusting.

Disgusting?
Do you watch the real news at all or is it RW media 90% of the time? I'd respect more of what you say if it wasn't word for word from the next conservative. Someone teaches you.

 

[Mindmaster]

Nah, we need to hold our leaders to high standards. If you truly love your country, you should insist that the person behind the wheel not be corrupt and/or incompetent. Does it mean that you hate high-end sports cars if you think letting a chimp drive one is a bad idea?

It's funny how conservatives claimed that it was "treasonous" to criticize the president when Bush was in office, but quickly and quietly dropped such sentiments when Obama was elected.

This isn't the same comparison, but anyway just because I don't tolerate liberalism doesn't mean I am a conservative. I think the liberals have painted themselves into their own corner, and are really just mad at themselves.

I don't think it's treasonous to criticize a President, but I think it's semi-treasonous to disrupt the normalcy of the country for various agendas that are relatively worthless. Most of the leftists arguments are based imaginary problems. I'm not interested, and I have no time for them.

 

[Mindmaster]

Disgusting?
Do you watch the real news at all or is it RW media 90% of the time? I'd respect more of what you say if it wasn't word for word from the next conservative. Someone teaches you.

Just because someone doesn't agree with you doesn't mean they are a conservative, so you can end your witch hunt now. That's the thing about being a crazy person, they think everyone else is crazy... It's never them, lol.

 

[McBell]

... ...I think it's semi-treasonous to disrupt the normalcy of the country for various agendas that are relatively worthless.

You mean like a wall along the Mexican border?

Most of the leftists arguments are based imaginary problems. I'm not interested, and I have no time for them.

You seem overly concerned with labels...
Left this
right that

 

[tytlyf]

Just because someone doesn't agree with you doesn't mean they are a conservative, so you can end your witch hunt now. That's the thing about being a crazy person, they think everyone else is crazy... It's never them, lol.

?
Did you not read what you stated?
"anecdotal criticisms of the President, or emotional pleas. So far, that's all the left has"

There's a lot more than what you were told. Russia springs to mind. It's not normal having russian 'coincidences' throughout your entire campaign. Imagine if the Hillary had something like that. Heck, imagine if the Iranian governmentt was working with the Hillary throughout the entire campaign. Iranians hacking the republicans, releasing private information to help the Hillary win.

 

[Quetzal]

Hmm... we need to break this down.

but anyway just because I don't tolerate liberalism doesn't mean I am a conservative.

Let's look at the definition of liberalism:

Liberalism is a political philosophy or worldview founded on ideas of liberty and equality.

Are you against this? Or are you against the political party that represents "liberalism". Many times this can be two different things. Attachments to inaccurate labels can lead to division instead of unity, I hope you are better than that.

I think the liberals have painted themselves into their own corner, and are really just mad at themselves.

We have a lot to be mad at. Our primary candidate was pushed out at the DNC by questionable means. Then, we got a candidate who was "okay" at best. Then to only have our candidate lose the election and win the popular vote. It was a fair election based on the rules currently in place. But there is a legitimate reason to be upset. That will pass, but many liberals and progressives are really beginning to question the Democratic party as a whole and are beginning to ask some tough questions about their values. Further, if these values reflect what we really want in a political candidate. (Hillary wasn't even close, by the way.) These kind of growing pains will take time and we appreciate your patience in this matter while we try to figure it out.

Most of the leftists arguments are based imaginary problems.

As a "leftist", the primary focuses that I see are: social and legal equality for everyone regardless of race, sex, and religious orientation, the continued investigation of our climate and ways we can prevent natural disasters in the future, access to affordable healthcare/associated resources for those in genuine need, and continued government subsidies into renewable energy/space exploration. All of these things are working towards solutions to problems that I feel are justified. Are there any that you disagree with?

I'm not interested, and I have no time for them.

That's fine, you don't have to. With that in mind I hope you will refrain from making these sorts of postings in the future. (After all, if you can't be bothered, shared the love and don't bother us with a retort. Thanks! )

 

[Mindmaster]

Hmm... we need to break this down.


Let's look at the definition of liberalism:

Are you against this? Or are you against the political party that represents "liberalism". Many times this can be two different things. Attachments to inaccurate labels can lead to division instead of unity, I hope you are better than that.

Unfortunately, that is not the liberalism that exists with the Democratic side of the fence at this time. You know it, and so do I. There's is more like totalitarian religious leftist fascism, and it's not really the same thing as classical liberalism is it?

We have a lot to be mad at. Our primary candidate was pushed out at the DNC by questionable means. Then, we got a candidate who was "okay" at best. Then to only have our candidate lose the election and win the popular vote. It was a fair election based on the rules currently in place. But there is a legitimate reason to be upset. That will pass, but many liberals and progressives are really beginning to question the Democratic party as a whole and are beginning to ask some tough questions about their values. Further, if these values reflect what we really want in a political candidate. (Hillary wasn't even close, by the way.) These kind of growing pains will take time and we appreciate your patience in this matter while we try to figure it out.

I'd be mad if Bernie was my man too, and I still think Bernie was a better choice than Hillary at any point. (I think he could have won, or very close.) At least he would present a good contrast to Trump, with Hillary the lines blur.

As a "leftist", the primary focuses that I see are: social and legal equality for everyone regardless of race, sex, and religious orientation, the continued investigation of our climate and ways we can prevent natural disasters in the future, access to affordable healthcare/associated resources for those in genuine need, and continued government subsidies into renewable energy/space exploration. All of these things are working towards solutions to problems that I feel are justified. Are there any that you disagree with?

If equality means yoking everyone to the slowest horse, then I'm disinterested. There is no such thing as equal opportunity -- you get what you make or take. I feel that equality based on "identities" is garbage as well, the only criteria I accept is merit. The science behind climate change is also a joke with plenty of fabricated pieces of data, so there is no reason for me to accept that either. It's more of a subject for another post, however. (complicated!) Who decides who gets "equalized" and what basis is equality to be determined? Any criteria you can use just creates another class of discrimination versus the people who you think have the advantage, but probably aren't doing as swimmingly as you think.

That's fine, you don't have to. With that in mind I hope you will refrain from making these sorts of postings in the future. (After all, if you can't be bothered, shared the love and don't bother us with a retort. Thanks! )

I don't need your permission, or anyone else's to speak. But again, the left is about shutting down anyone that disagrees. You're only welcome here if you agree is a nice way of saying, "We're totalitarian, we have no room for any opinions that don't agree with ours."

 

[Thief]

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." -- President Theodore Roosevelt.

Here's the context in which the above quote is to be found:



The full quote makes the crucial point that criticisms of the president should be truthful.

Comments?

and what is truth?

(only the most common of questions)

I might say....no one in any office has the time to answer every allegation
the public is entitled to answers
but when would the man in office have that much time?

it's as if America is becoming thin-skinned cry babies
tugging on daddy's pant leg......why?daddy......why?

We should stand for what we believe in....and inform our leaders that memo
if investigation is warranted (both parties).....so be it

 

[Jeremiahcp]

It's not truthful to make anecdotal criticisms of the President, or emotional pleas. So far, that's all the left has, and it's pretty disgusting. Don't like it that Trump won? Save your lunch money and move, otherwise it's just useless talk. If you don't hate Trump enough to leave, you aren't really hating him enough and are just posing. It's not "your" country, and just because you don't like that the other team won doesn't mean you have the right to gripe constantly. That's my take, I mean if I disliked Obama enough I'd have left. There is no point to any of these "arguments", if that is what you can call them. If you're an American then you support our ways and our processes, and moreover support the current fairly elected President or just get the hell out. I mean, what's the point of these fantasies anyway? That's what I don't get at all, I mean the constant whining will get the left nothing but resentment and that's already happening.

The left needs to get off the identity politics (which lost them the election, imho) and focus on the things they bring to the table. (Environment, social infrastructure, etc)

"If you don't hate Trump enough to leave, you aren't really hating him enough and are just posing"

I can disapprove of Trump and still love my country.

"just because you don't like that the other team won doesn't mean you have the right to gripe constantly."

No, the Constitution gives people that right.

"If you're an American then you support our ways and our processes, and moreover support the current fairly elected President or just get the hell out. "

Blindly following any President is not the way to support American. We are a nation of free thinkers with constitutionally protected free expression; we best support America by making use of these. No President should ever pass in to the Oval Office without criticism and scrutiny.

Here in America we have freedom of speech, and if you don't like that then maybe it is you who should "get the hell out".

 

[Quetzal]

Unfortunately, that is not the liberalism that exists with the Democratic side of the fence at this time. You know it, and so do I. There's is more like totalitarian religious leftist fascism, and it's not really the same thing as classical liberalism is it?

I figured that is what you meant, but I wanted to make sure.

I'd be mad if Bernie was my man too, and I still think Bernie was a better choice than Hillary at any point. (I think he could have won, or very close.) At least he would present a good contrast to Trump, with Hillary the lines blur.

Mhm, that is where most of my bitterness stems from. Not from the election itself, but from the party I supported nullifying our best candidate that reflected what we tend to believe in.

I feel that equality based on "identities" is garbage as well, the only criteria I accept is merit.

There is more to equality than work ethic. Also, this argument isn't solely focused on this, either. It is a broad ideal that applies to many different things. The right to get married, the right to equal healthcare benefits, access to proper birth control, etc.

The science behind climate change is also a joke with plenty of fabricated pieces of data, so there is no reason for me to accept that either.

The great news about science is it exists regardless of your opinion.

I don't need your permission, or anyone else's to speak. But again, the left is about shutting down anyone that disagrees. You're only welcome here if you agree is a nice way of saying, "We're totalitarian, we have no room for any opinions that don't agree with ours."

I would like to welcome you to dropping the whole "us vs them" mentality and actually engage in meaningful discussion that transcends biases and fabricated teams that are pitted against each other.

 

[Jeremiahcp]

and what is truth?

(only the most common of questions)

I might say....no one in any office has the time to answers every allegation
the public is entitled to answers
but when would the man in office have that much time?

it's as if America is becoming thin-skinned cry babies
tugging on daddy's pant leg......why?daddy......why?

We should stand for what we believe in....and inform our leaders that memo
if investigation is warranted (both parties).....so be it

"and what is truth?"

Truth is that thing which is true.

 

[habiru]

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." -- President Theodore Roosevelt.

Here's the context in which the above quote is to be found:



The full quote makes the crucial point that criticisms of the president should be truthful.

Comments?

Well, it should be consider as a treasonable act.

 

[idav]

Nope, I wouldn't even make a single post in that regard. No point crying over spilt milk. Whoever wins, as far as I am concerned, wins. As long as it is fair, and there is no fraud regarding the election. I don't require everyone to agree with me, and I certainly don't think it's overly healthy for the government to be dominated by one party. I'm even sort of unsettled in the fact that the Republican's are going to own it all, I like enough balance in the government that the other party can protect us from extremes. Not gonna happen now, but I guess that's mostly because the rejection of the left is so extreme.

I will be happy to see the change in mockery in FB after eight years of bad mouthing Obama from anti-dems. And we all know how loud trumpeters can be.

 

[Revoltingest]

It's funny how conservatives claimed that it was "treasonous" to criticize the president when Bush was in office, but quickly and quietly dropped such sentiments when Obama was elected.

It might depend upon where one lives or posts.
I never got any grief for criticizing Bush.
But I was "racist" for doing the same to Obama.
Will I become a "traitor" for criticizing the guy I voted for?

 

[Kuzcotopia]

Unfortunately, that is not the liberalism that exists with the Democratic side of the fence at this time. You know it, and so do I. There's is more like totalitarian religious leftist fascism, and it's not really the same thing as classical liberalism is it?

I don't need your permission, or anyone else's to speak. But again, the left is about shutting down anyone that disagrees. You're only welcome here if you agree is a nice way of saying, "We're totalitarian, we have no room for any opinions that don't agree with ours."

I have no idea what you're talking about.

Can you give a few examples of how you've been "shut down" by those who identify as the left?

What other negative totalitarian fascist policies have affected you and those you love?

 

[Quetzal]

It might depend upon where one lives or posts.
I never got any grief for criticizing Bush.
But I was "racist" for doing the same to Obama.
Will I become a "traitor" for criticizing the guy I voted for?

Only if you tweet at Trump.

 

[Revoltingest]

Only if you tweet at Trump.

I
do
not
"tweet"
.

 

[Scuba Pete]

Save your lunch money and move,

This is disgusting. Why should we move? Did we ask you to move when Obama won? No. The Wretched Right criticized with abandon often using the "N" word in reference to Obama. Why would you think we were compelled to give Komrade Trumpsky any more respect than you've given Obama? Karma is a ***** and her sights are on Trumputin.

 

[idav]

Will I become a "traitor" for criticizing the guy I voted for?

Yea, now you have to agree with everything he says and does til he's replaced.

 

[Revoltingest]

Yea, now you have to agree with everything he says and does til he's replaced.

Uh oh.....I didn't know about that law when I voted.
Would it violate RF rules if I advocate breaking it?