I have never understood why the elites despise America so much.
Because they are marxist socialists. America is rich amongst nations of poor, therefore it is a villain.

Why is it that some of you on right speak in simplistic and sweeping generalizations? What an uttlerly stupid post by the author.

Whos exactly is "they" (who teach with the good parts left out). Give us names. Give us examples. Give us the books they teach this from. What history textbook has left out that slave owning Founding Fathers wrote proclmations on universal liberties and human rights?

Other societies had or have slavery? So that somehow justifies or
excuses our history of slavery? I was always taught that America was better than that. That we held ourselveves to a higher standard than the rest of the world.

What textbook, what history book, what teacher doesn't teach that millions of were freed from tyranny in WWII.

When you make your srguments like sound bites or bumper stickers, e.g "love it or leave it" et al you have no cogent point or argument to make.

If ever there was a piece of wingnut drivel Pruestap's piece is.

We didn't just marxist/communists but people that were pulling for the Soviet Union.

During the McCarthy era they learned to go underground. Even the ACLU disavowed their ties to Communism. From then on, they stealthily worked towards Communism one slice at a time.

But also in conjuction with that, in order for the Soviet Union to succeed, the US must fail. This began the Anti-American branch of the Leftist movement. Not all Lefties had the conscious goal of advancing the Soviets by hamstringing the US, they got sucked into their propaganda. So Anti-Americanism became entrenched in the extreme left.

When the Soviet Union fell, the hopes were dashed among a good portion of the pro-Soviet communists. But much of the purpose for things like Anti-Americanism were hidden or masked from other communists/socialists in the first place from many members. They had that rationalized Anti-Americanism for other reasons. So although the Soviets fell, they had no reason to abandon their anti-Americanism. The pro-Soviet wing probably had some who wanted revenge. Or see the US as an obstacle to a future resurgence of Communism.

That is why they want to maintain the status quo with various dictatorships around the world. Only under such a system, it is believed that Communism can find furtile ground. A violent popular revolution that can be hijacked into a Communist dictatorship.

Iran has had for a long time a sizable Communist movement. If the US descimated the Iranian government and rebuilt Iran, what chance would the Communists have of siezing control?

Why is it that some of you on right speak in simplistic and sweeping generalizations? What an uttlerly stupid post by the author.
Post by Hugh

Hugh,

Right-wingers always speak in the most simplistic of terms because they have to create an "enemy" that their constituents can blame all of their problems on. Using the term "elite" is another way of doing this. The strategy is as old as the hills, but works very effectively when dealing with people who's mental capacity is limited. It's why they like Bushie McFlightsuit so much - he's as dumb as they are.

You're spot-on. A piece of crap posting by Priestap (but at least she's consistent).

"I have never understood why the elites despise America so much. There isn’t a country today or anytime in history that gives them the freedoms that America does"

Freedoms are nice, but they'd prefer total power.

' I was always taught that America was better than that. That we held ourselveves to a higher standard than the rest of the world.'

A perfect example of brainwashing by liberal public schools... let the self-hate begin!

Hugh,

We have to speak in simplistic (terms) and sweeping generalizations, because that's all many on the left can understand. Unfortunately, it's still over your head.

I went to 19 years of school and sure I learned that some of the Founding Fathers were slave holders, but it was right alongside the exultation of American liberties and reverence to the accomplish of those same founding fathers, etc. American history, like the history of any nation, has not always been pretty, but llearning that dark sides exist along ith the light cannot be a bad thing. Why are so many right wingers so afraid to embrace some of the uglier truths about our history? This doesn't make us less patriotic, it makes us smarter and helps us learn from the successes and failures of those that came before us. it's OK for America not to be perfect. We love it anyway.

Rob

"Right-wingers always speak in the most simplistic of terms because they have to create an "enemy" that their constituents can blame all of their problems on."

Yeah, and left-wingers are oh-so-nuanced.

Bush lied. War for oil. Halliburton. Corporate greed.

Sheik:

And you wingnuts have the nerve to call the left effete and elite after your response.

Can't support the drivel Priestap posted so make a "bumper sticker" reply. I'm underwhelmed.

"Why are so many right wingers so afraid to embrace some of the uglier truths about our history?"

We're not. We just tend to keep things in perspective, instead of wallowing in self-loathing and "we're as bad as they are" moral equivalence as many on the left do.

BTW: I'm sorry, but the "elite" label is totally lost on me. GWB is the son of a former president, Skull and Bones, grandson of a Senator and an oilman. Does it get more elite than that? I think the right needs some new buzz words.

JB

Anothrt banal, trite and inane bumper sticker response.

I'm with you, Sheik Your Booty.

It really comes out of some sort of self-hate. It should be a diagnosable disorder alongside BDS.

And, as he strongest and wealthiest nation in the history of civilization which also promotes human freedom and dignity, it is too much that we should not have been "held back" like many poorer countries, in their minds. But we were not held back because we did not hold ourselves back--we created a free and open society the world had not even imagined in 1776.

There will always be those poor souls to whom much has been given, but who refuse, for whatever reason, to appreciate this wonderful country and her excellent, generous countrymen.

Hugh: if the shoe fits...

Trite enough for you?

Bush lied, people died. No war for oil.

I suppose those are deep, nuanced, highly insightful positions on US foreign policy. They're not coming from the right, you know.

What's your response to that?

Does Hugh have the same passionate response to left-wing bumperstickers, I wonder? Or rather, I don't.

Why is it that some of you on right speak in simplistic and sweeping generalizations?

Right-wingers.. sweeping generalizations... see next quote... first line.

Right-wingers [b]always[/b] speak in the most simplistic of terms because they have to create an "enemy" that their constituents can blame all of their problems on. Using the term "elite" is another way of doing this. The strategy is as old as the hills, but works very effectively when dealing with people who's mental capacity is limited. It's why they like Bushie McFlightsuit so much - he's as dumb as they are.

Yes, you're so above doing something like creating an "enemy" to blame all of your problems on (Bushie McFlightsuit). I hear that those with limited mental capacity really latch on to this... frequently employing juvenille tactics such as mispelling someone's name (Bushie) as an apparent insult. Man, you really nailed it on this one.

- MikeB

You have made a rare error. The slave trade was stopped only in the UK and US possessions. It was legal in Brazil until 1884. It was legal in most parts of Africa and southeast Asia until the age of European colonization, and even then it was more honored in the breach in the more remote areas. Lastly, the East African/Arabian slave trade was legal up until the 1960's, and many insist that it is still being practiced today.

Ever notice that you can tell when someone does not like to hear the truth. ((hint-hughie)

Hey, stop tossing around that term 'founding fathers'. Every one knows it is sexist, discriminatory, and a harmful reminder of the racism applied by these aristocrats.

The proper term is 'Framers'.

Also blacklisted is 'Ethan Allen and the Green Mountain Boys'. The proper terminology is 'Green Mountain People'.

Also, every person of U.S. citizenship must be properly referred to as a (hyphenated)-American. Unless of course, you're white, then you're just a potential contributor for the reparations.

Good grief. As usual these posts (and I will take my ownership here) have degnerated into name-calling and "oh, I got you on that one" nonsense.

In my original response to what I still think is a piece of drivel written by Priestap I asked for supposrt of the position he took. Who are the teachers, what are the textbooks that support his points and what are the schools who teach it?

It's be nice to get back to the point of the post. I take it that since no one is defending the post that it is not defensable with FACTS.

"The American Pageant" is a college textbook that is used in Advanced Placement (AP) United States History courses across the US. The authors' interjection of adjectives throughout this tome makes it a revisionist masterpiece.

One example of the authors' 'American-hating' bias is in the treatment of US expansion. The glorification of native-Americans is quite apparent - "Two remarkable Shawnee brothers, Tecumseh and the Prophet, concluded that if this onrushing tide were ever to be stopped, that time had come." - while the treatent of U.S. Presidents is rather negative. Examples include: James Monroe - "Never brilliant, and perhaps not great" and James Polk - "Methodical and hardworking but not brilliant."

There's many more examples, but I've probably already thrown too many pearls before swine. Folks like Hugh will remain in the dark no matter how much truth you show them.

Translation: I got my ass kicked, so time to change the subject.

Notice Hugh's weasely passive voice "posts have degenerated." As if he had no responsibility there.

The American Pageant A History of the Republic
Eleventh Edition

Authors:
Thomas A. Bailey
David M. Kennedy, Stanford University
Lizabeth Cohen, Harvard University

Taught at:
University at Albany
Columbia
Indiana University
University of Vermont
University of North Carolina
(that's just 2 pages of Google. There's more)

Thanks for your response Clay. Other than the sarcasm i appreciated it. I still challenge anyone to support Priestaps's position that the "elites" omit teaching that slave owning Founders wrote procalamations about civil liberties. Also his point that "we" are not taught that millions were freed fom tyranny in WWII.

Those are his points. Those are the points I challenged for support. Can you support those points?

JB;
Can you read? And yeah man, if you feel a need to have won, well then I guess you did.

In Hugh's defense, he did take partial responsibility for the digression.

Clay,

Honestly, those are pretty weak examples. That hardly smacks of anti-American bias, but seems more like gentle editorializing (I don't condone this, by the way, but it's relatively harmless - perhaps those indians were remarkable and Polk not brilliant). If you have better ones, I'd be interested in reading them otherwise, I wouldn't consider those rock solid justifications for the author's post which smacks of O'reilley-esque anti-intellectual drivel.

Hugh is quite critical of Kim's post, but fails to note it quotes from an article by Michael Barone who is decidedly not considered by most objective observers of the press to be a "wingnut".

Hugh then uses the same type of bumper sticker slogans and generalities against Kim that he accuses her of using against elites.

Hugh's contributions are critical to be sure, but not very enlightening.

I think he can do better.

In my 18 years of schooling, I never received the kind of one-sided education you cite. I was taught both the good and bad things that were done—the internment of Japanese-Americans AND the liberation of Europe.

I'm sure there's all kinds of "educators"—some who teach only the good stuff Americans have done and some who teach only the bad stuff. Both types are lousy teachers. But I never had them as my teachers...

Well, yeah. The book is full of examples of the authors' bias. Geez, we can go on all day.

Andrew Jackson, Martin Van Buren, and the Democrats are cast as champions of "small-government". The Whigs, on the other hand, were the evil "big-government" party of business. Included in David Kennedy's The American Pageant, are comments that characterize Henry Clay as a "big-money Kentuckian," while Jackson was the "idol of the masses." One is led to believe that Jackson's stuffing federal money into his cronies' pet banks constituted "virtuous, industrious production." So, as Pilate asked, what is truth? Even when adjusted for population, government employment and spending grew steadily throughout the Age of Jackson.

The American Pageant authors couldn't rein in their disgust for The Gipper either. Reagan "was no intellectual," according to The American Pageant. Daniel Goldfield, who authored a textbook called American Journey offered his own opinion on Reagan in his book: "critics questioned [Reagan's] grasp of complex issues." In The American Pageant, Reagan's overwhelming trouncing of Jimmah Carter was explained away by citing low voter turnout and weaknesses in 1984 in Mondale, rather than seeing waht both victories really were: a rejection of liberalism. In The American Pageant, photo captions of the Reagans at a formal ball remind us of his wealthy supporters. And, The American Pageant authors can't seem to get a handle on supply side economics. They go out of their way to present a distortion of federal debt and deficit levels in the 1980s so as to ignore the positive results of Reagan's tax cuts. Twice, the charts used in the textbook fail to adjust dollar amounts in "real" terms. Nowhere in the text was Reagan given credit for defeating communism. Who ended communism, according to the textbook? You guessed it: it was the "great" Russian "leader," Michael Gorbachev.

Now, can I go back to work? As far as I'm concerned, this topic is done. I don't need to read anymore on this leftist volume of history.

First of all, I don't know which "objective observers of the press" you read, but Michael Barone certainly is a wingnut. Press critics may not use that term because that's not the way they write, but Barone is as rock solid a supporter of the right's failed policies as you'll find.

Second, Clay, it hardly supports your point to characterize statements in a textbook, rather than quoting them. Frankly, I don't trust your interpretations. And can you really deny that "critics questioned [Reagan's] grasp of complex issues?" Even many in his own party questioned his intellectual abilities. I was no Reagan fan, but he did have other qualities, like the strength of his convictions, that his followers admired. Are you suggesting he was totally above criticism?

And since when is favoring one President over another a sign of hating America? There is absolutely no logic there. If saying that Jackson was superior to Henry Clay makes one an anti-American, I can only conclude that what your saying is that support for Jackson makes one an America-hater. Or are you suggesting that students should be taught that all Presidents were equally brilliant and without flaws? Or should we only say that about Whig and Republican presidents?

Chris:

You betray your biases as far as Barone is concerned. Unless you can cite one mainstream journalst who has criticized him for holding outlandish rightwing views, I will take your critcism for what it is worth.

Yes Clay, please go back to work. We'll let you know when our textbooks resemble those in a 3rd world dictatorship, where students are regailed with the stories of our leaders' unquestioned genius and unfailing wisdom, whih seems to be what you'd prefer.

Reagan wasn't an intellectual.
Mondale was a weak candidate.
Andrew Jackson was popular

This is bias?

Whos exactly is "they" (who teach with the good parts left out). Give us names. Give us examples. Give us the books they teach this from. What history textbook has left out that slave owning Founding Fathers wrote proclmations on universal liberties and human rights?
-- Hugh

Not to be too much of a raving asshole, here, Hugh, but aiming your questions/blame/what have you towards Kim is blatantly idiotic, and I'm surprised none of your detractors have pointed it out to you, already:

KIM DIDN'T WRITE THE ARTICLE ....

Asking her to justify the points made by Barone is ridiculous.

"If ever there was a piece of wingnut drivel Pruestap's piece is."

--Hugh

If ever there was an example of liberal "not getting the point" Hugh's is.

--Yo

(word)

Yo,

The fact that Kim used a post to pass along this article can be interpreted as an endorsement of the views stated in the article. Cutting and pasting with a couple of lines of editorial nonsense thrown in is what is passing for journalism these days in the blogging world. Threfore, it is appropriate to demand some kind of basis for the poster's endorsement.

If bloggers want to be considered real journalists, then they need to be accountable for what they write, or pass along, including checking the validity of facts in a story they are picking up, or at the very least, having the vaguest sense of a factual basis.

Not doing this is exercising the same kind of irresponsibility for which these blogs are always assailing the MSM