The Political Discussion Thread

[Ben 'Teal'c would WIN!!' Noble]

I am in the US now and have got to say there was wall to wall coverage of 9/11 yesterday on nearly every channel.

[shipper hannah]

Nope, sounds too much like "sanatorium".

That's not what's funny..

Here

Apparently they've removed the entry Santorum (sexual neologism) from Wikipedia.

[Galileo_Galilee]

God save us from the oversensitive pricks who can't stand hearing words like sex.

[Ukko]

God save us from the oversensitive pricks who can't stand hearing words like sex.

AAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHH!!!!! *Runs away*

[Goose]

That's not what's funny..

Here

Apparently they've removed the entry Santorum (sexual neologism) from Wikipedia.

Yes, I know. And there is an article about it on Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campaig...m%22_neologism

[Womble]

God save us from the oversensitive pricks who can't stand hearing words like sex.

That's a few too many sexual innuendos in one sentence even for my dirty mind!

[shipper hannah]

Yes, I know. And there is an article about it on Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campaig...m%22_neologism

Ah I guess they changed it. The Wikipedia article "Santorum (sexual neologism)" used to be the first thing that came up on a Google search, but I suppose they changed it because of complaints.

[Galileo_Galilee]

Yeah. Let's hear it for editing wars. Yeeesh.

[KEK]

The wall of coverage is for the anniversary is annoying, not least because none of the right lessons have been learned. I must say though, the way that American politicians (and British to be honest) were able to sell the "they hate us for our freedom" theory was inspired. The idea that people genuinely believe that hatred for the West in the Middle East is motivated by hatred for our freedom would be comical if it weren't so tragic.

[aretood2]

The wall of coverage is for the anniversary is annoying, not least because none of the right lessons have been learned. I must say though, the way that American politicians (and British to be honest) were able to sell the "they hate us for our freedom" theory was inspired. The idea that people genuinely believe that hatred for the West in the Middle East is motivated by hatred for our freedom would be comical if it weren't so tragic.

It's a common theme that helps develop a national identity. America's identity is that of "the land of the free" and thus any attack on America is to be interpreted as an attack against the identity. This brings the threat to all, and not just those who live in areas most likely to be attacked. It isn't individual lives near targets, its the very nature of the lives in the nation that is truly under threat. This has a much more significant psychological affect on the population. How else to you compel parents to send their children to war? It is a rather genius ploy, and in the eyes of many it is exactly the cognitive image of the United States that the terrorists are at war with. The American Identity to Americans is "the land of freedom loving people", but the identity to the Terrorists is "America as the land of intrusive libertines." The identity is what is under attack, but the government nor the people will ever agree to what the terrorists say that America's identity is, thus the conclusion is that the terrorists are attacking the American version of American identity, that is freedom.

They attack America because of its freedom (as in its identity which both groups disagree with, but the identity none the less).

[Nolamom]

Historically, leaders have brought people together by pitting them against a common "enemy" - real or perceived. Hitler was masterful in doing it with the Jews. He made them the "enemy" of the German people, thus uniting them at a very difficult point in their history. It made it possible for them to come back after WWI and the heavy reparations, and economic turmoil to fight WWII so quickly. Both sides in the current situation seem to have made an enemy of the other to help in uniting their own people.

[lordofseas]

Historically, leaders have brought people together by pitting them against a common "enemy" - real or perceived. Hitler was masterful in doing it with the Jews. He made them the "enemy" of the German people, thus uniting them at a very difficult point in their history. It made it possible for them to come back after WWI and the heavy reparations, and economic turmoil to fight WWII so quickly. Both sides in the current situation seem to have made an enemy of the other to help in uniting their own people.

Germany was easy ground for that though. Lutheranism and Catholicism were rather anti-Semetic up to that point.

[Nolamom]

Germany was easy ground for that though. Lutheranism and Catholicism were rather anti-Semetic up to that point.

True, but nothing like what Hitler took it to of course. He also targeted other "undesirables" - homosexuals, mental patients, Jehovah's Witnesses, et. al. It was a grab bag of those that he particularly felt that society could do without and whom he could easily turn the masses against.

[lordofseas]

True, but nothing like what Hitler took it to of course. He also targeted other "undesirables" - homosexuals, mental patients, Jehovah's Witnesses, et. al. It was a grab bag of those that he particularly felt that society could do without and whom he could easily turn the masses against.

Luther took it pretty far: LINK!

[mad_gater]

Germany was easy ground for that though. Lutheranism and Catholicism were rather anti-Semetic up to that point.

someone needs to read "The Myth of Hitler's Pope"....if we were anti-Semitic then what was Pope Pius XII doing HELPING as many Jews as he could escape the Holocaust?