I wasn't going to reply properly to your bigot post, to avoid what someone recently referred to as quagmires.
There won’t be a quagmire, because I’m not going to argue it. I won’t argue with someone who believes that anyone who happened to be born in a nation called the United States is an idiot or supporter of some evil totalitarian regime.
I know that I am fairly intelligent and a fairly decent fellow, and that most other Americans are quite like me. I feel no need to defend myself or others' overall decency against someone who’s never been here and will never come here and throws around every ignorant stereotype she can like it was a gospel truth.
I do know that some US citizens here feel offended by my criticisms of US foreign policy and domestic policy as it relates to global issues like climate change, food stocks and humanitarian/human rights questions such as torture and the death penalty.
Don’t try to muddy the waters here. I’m not writing about your valid criticisms of US policy. I agree with many of your points on these issues (although the statism betrays a streak that is a bit too totalitarian for my taste) and yet I manage not to consistently offend anyone or get "bashed" by folks with differing political views. In fact, I've had some decent discussions and learned some things from people here with very different views including super-religious folks, libertarians and old-school conservatives.
What I am criticising are the repeated denials of any possible counter-point, your tossing about of ignorant stereotypes, your patronising attitude and your need to throw a moral dimension (with the US as invariably evil) into every discussion without having a coherent moral position of your own.
Our Negroponte discussion was a perfect example of the latter. You criticise and condemn actions as “immoral” if they are done by the US or its agents. Yet, you contend that the same actions in the same circumstances are morally just if done by other actors. This is an incoherent moral position and yet you felt the need to criticise the “moral compass” of Americans from your flimsy position.
And most subjects discussed here are US-related or have a US dimension, so it's the US that gets the majority of my comments.
Again that is understandable. The issue is that your “comments” are often shown to be ignorant stereotypes and / or factually wrong. The example that ROB brought up of your refusal to accept the figures on charitable contributions is just one of many examples.
But when I use the same criteria to criticise European countries, the EU or Britain, nobody seems to be offended, not US citizens, not even citizens of the country/countries concerned
If / When you use the same criteria for criticising policy that is true. However, when you criticise the policy of other nations, it usually is just a criticism of policy without the ignorant stereotypes and sly digs. You also don’t spend such a disproportionate amount of time on “criticisms” of any other countries and for you certain countries (Venezuela and Iran are examples) seem to be totally exempt from criticism.
Trust me, if you start bashing the Australians, the Canadians or the French with the same single-minded vigour and persistence, I reckon you’d get the same reaction.
Jaeger: since I did partially reply to your bigot post, I should also have thanked you for your positive comment.
You're quite welcome, and the whole thing is meant to be positive.
I like having, as friendlyskies put it "your hot commie ass" on the board. We need a little bit of your particular brand of insanity to liven things up. I just meant to point out that (especially lately) the polemics and the stubborness have been getting a little bit ridiculous and over-the-top, and that you might want to think about toning it down a little.