Mary wrote > "Nihilists with an agenda"? Exactly who are you talking about, Kakki? If > it's leftists in general, most of them I know have as their purpose not > annihilation of anything for its own sake, but rather, restructuring and > starting again, with different and (from their point of view) better goals. > I'm just not sure who or what you're referencing.
I'm not referring to leftists in general nor to anyone on the list. I would not get involved in a discussion here if I felt like attacking someone personally. I think there are people in this world who you can characterize as nihilistic, in that they want to tear down, by any means possible, that with which they disagree. What if I quoted someone here on something I supported, such as tax reform? What if the person I quoted was a grand wizard in the KKK? I would totally expect to hear a few voices here wondering where I was coming from. And if I did not know before that I was quoting someone from the KKK, I would certainly acknowledge others' valid and most likely strong reactions and disavow myself from person I quoted. > And who said "everything and everyone is [our] government is so evil?" First > of all, if that's true, then we should be talking about it, Pollyanna-ism be > damned. But I'm not hearing that from anyone on this list. Probably poorly stated by me and my point was lost. > It does seem to me that you brand EVERY attempt to criticize the > U.S. as "anti-American." I think I have only used that term here twice in the past couple of years to refer to articles being posted which were written by people who everything I read from them is, in my perception, unfairly critical and often slanderous, toward the U.S. You can break it down and say "but they are not criticizing the American people, but rather it's government." But where does one draw the line at some point? I don't want to get into the whole election debate again, but the U.S. is a democratic representative republic. The people in government who make policies have been elected by a representative majority. American people have the freedom to vote out representatives, impeach them, protest them, file lawsuits against them, etc. To hear people from other countries attack U.S. actions or policies and then say they are not attacking the American people does not end up being entirely true, unless they assume that American people are so ignorant to have voted for the people who represent them. What if I sent articles to the list on a regular basis that were virulently critical of, for example, President Chirac or Prime Minister Chretien and everyone in their political parties? And then I said "but this does not make me anti-French or anti Canadian." I have a feeling that at some point the French or Canadian listers here would start getting a bit irate about it. Afterall, at some point it's their country and I am indirectly criticizing them for their choices in who they vote in to represent them. And then when they got irate, I and a few others would start attacking them back, saying they have no right to be upset. The point is, if someone wants to present volatile material on the list, it is very oppressive to say that people who disagree with it or become upset with it are out of line. I hope this clarifies where I am coming from. As for the accusation that I cannot bear to hear anyone disagreeing with me. That's silly. Why would I subject myself to discussions here with so many who do if I couldn't bear it. I actually have enjoyed very much having discussions here with people whose perspective is quite different from mine, especially Randy, and often Mike. Kakki .
