It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

OP/ED: Cracks in the Facade

page: 14
6
<< 11  12  13    15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 30 2006 @ 08:18 PM
link   
Bwah, haw, haw. This is the kind of crap my Republican friends were emailing me as they were staging the photo-op's of the statue of Saddam coming down. What a joke.



The range of VNR is wide. Among items provided by the Bush administration to news stations was one in which an Iraqi-American in Kansas City was seen saying "Thank you Bush. Thank you USA" in response to the 2003 fall of Baghdad. The footage was actually produced by the State Department, one of 20 federal agencies that have produced and distributed such items.


But Grover's right. The VNRs are old news. What's new is that the FCC is investigating the stations that put them on the air.

My question is why? And why now?




posted on May, 31 2006 @ 12:00 AM
link   
That is also my question when I read Rwearjr's link. However, I truly think that things are starting to fall apart and the Bush Administration cannot hide anymore from the public. I think there is a fighting chance this might be first steps to actually see exactly what is happening instead of resorting to apathy.



posted on Jun, 1 2006 @ 08:20 PM
link   
Ya know one of the reasons why I find the right wing of the republican party so contemptable is this little exchange.

I had this letter posted in the local paper's letters to the editor on illegal immigration:

"When I hear all the uproar over illegal immirgation I have to ask, would we be hearing it at all if the ones sneaking across the border illegally seeking work were white, english speaking canadians as opposed to brown skinned spanish speaking hispanics? Somehow I doubt it."

I got this unsolicited note in the mail today:

"Dear Stratton (my real name),

You are probably right. We would better tolerate Canadian illegals than illiterate, unskilled, gibbering, furless monkeys.

Incidentally, how many of your relatives are bi-racial?

Affectionately yours,
Gringo"

This person does this regularly, sends typed unsigned indexcards out to people who have had printed liberal and/or democratic viewpoints in the local paper. I know several people who have gotten them and I have a small collection, all nasty and mean spirited, the last suggested I should be castrated before I breed.

If this were an isolated incident that would be one thing but when you listen to the toxins spewed by the likes of limbraugh, hannity, beck, savage and coulter to name the most egregious, it is hard not to come to the conclusion that the hard right apparently uphods and stands for some of the foulest and nastist attitudes in American politics, ranging from the bumpersticker that was being sold at the California Republican convention in 1983 that read: 'AIDS, its killing all the right people" to the people who threatened those of us who dared to protest publically against georges splendid little war.

Like it or not this attitude runs like a vile current through the conservative/republican right wing, it is obscene and offensive, and I cannot help but ask how can people support and vote for peole with such vile opinions?



posted on Jun, 1 2006 @ 08:53 PM
link   
That's their idea of a sense of humor. If you don't think it's funny, you must be an uptight PC party pooper...

To be fair, there are plenty of nasty cranks on the left wing side of things, but the new right types particularly seem to take a particular perverse delight in that stuff.



posted on Jun, 1 2006 @ 09:19 PM
link   
Or it is a left wing radical attempting to enflame more left wingers into radical adverse thinking against the moderate republican party.

The truth is there is no way to know the political affiliation of someone that sends a moronic letter like that anymore than you can know the political affiliation of someone on here unless they reveal it.

Of course the Left is going to make the assumption it originates from the right. That is only expected. I on the other hand, figure he is just a kook.



posted on Jun, 2 2006 @ 01:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by grover
I got this unsolicited note in the mail today:

"Dear Stratton (my real name),

You are probably right. We would better tolerate Canadian illegals than illiterate, unskilled, gibbering, furless monkeys.

Incidentally, how many of your relatives are bi-racial?

Affectionately yours,
Gringo"

This person does this regularly, sends typed unsigned indexcards out to people who have had printed liberal and/or democratic viewpoints in the local paper. I know several people who have gotten them and I have a small collection, all nasty and mean spirited, the last suggested I should be castrated before I breed.


I just about fell out of my chair when I read about that! It brought to mind something that happened to me back in 2003... I got a death threat thru the US mail after writing an op-ed piece. The one I received was hand-scrawled and unmistakeable in it's intent.

I still have the letter somewhere; it's in my souvenir pile.


Like it or not this attitude runs like a vile current through the conservative/republican right wing, it is obscene and offensive, and I cannot help but ask how can people support and vote for peole with such vile opinions?

I had the opportunity once to drive thru the upper western US, Montana, Wyoming, etc. and I happened across some very radical local talk shows, that would make Michael Savage look sane.

But the point is, nobody is voting for them. They may endorse a particular candidate, but they are not the ones running for office.

Instead of using "Republican", why not call them "ultra-conservatives"?



posted on Jun, 2 2006 @ 01:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky
Instead of using "Republican", why not call them "ultra-conservatives"?


I thought that is where we got neo-cons? I am with all those that felt cut down from either political side. Nevertheless, we are still on a "side", isn't that just as wrong? Cracks in what facade, the one that ties us down to being a part of something that is no part of unity?



posted on Jun, 2 2006 @ 05:54 PM
link   


Instead of using "Republican", why not call them "ultra-conservatives"?


I'd have to agree it's unfair to tarnish all Republicans with this kind of stuff.
I don't even think these people qualify as conservatives, what I'd define as true conservatism is a philosophy built around the idea of limited government.

Hell even though I don't like Bush much, I don't get the impression he embraces the whole racist hatemonger thing, he seems to go out of his way to distance himself from that kind of thing generally.

They're not neocons either, neocons are not simply extreme conservatives, they are "neo"-cons as in "neo" == "new". Because Leo Strauss and the original neocons were mostly disaffected former leftists. "Neocon" has come to represent a set of foriegn policy views that the US essentially ought to push it's weight around more, and remold the planet into something resembling American neoliberal democracy (look up the term, has nothing to do with domestic political "liberalism"), by means of intimidation and force.

I prefer to just call the Michael Savage/hate letter writing types "right wing kooks", but then again I'm a jerk



posted on Jun, 2 2006 @ 06:02 PM
link   
Maybe you are a jerk exmotex

But a well informed and obviously intelligent one.

BRAVO!!

[edit on 6/2/2006 by semperfortis]



posted on Jun, 2 2006 @ 07:20 PM
link   
Wow..... the next thing I'll be hearing is that Bush eats live human babies for breakfast.
Wait a minute,.....isn't he a reptillian?


But let me be serious for a minute. Grover,.... you've got an opinion, you've voiced it, and many here have agreed with you. You've made some very generalized, rude assumptions about Conservatives/Republicans that I can't say I appreciate much. I personally don't know a single Republican who fits your description (though I'm sure there are a few of those out there),.... but I do know a few Democrats who absolutely refuse to listen or watch anything that doesn't sit well with their ideologies. Believe me,... I've tried nicely to have a polite discussion, I presented some material, and it was literally thrown into the garbage can. I'm not saying all Democrats/Liberals have this mindset,... I'm just pointing out the few that I am personally acquainted with. If I wanted, I could form an opinion,....a generalization on all Democrats based on the few that I know, but it certainly wouldn't paint a pretty picture.
Fortunately I know the difference between personal character, and pollitical affiliation.

Now,.... I'd like to point out that there is not a single administration, government, or political party on this planet who has not lied/deceived the public about one thing or another. Not Democrat, not Republican, not Communist, nor Monarchy,... the list goes on. I'm not talking about little white lies,.. I'm talking world-changing stuff. An honest political party will take over this country when hell freezes over. While some of your accusations may be true (and I honestly have no idea what the truth is,.... I bet neither do you), all you're doing is stating opinions which could very well be based on lies. The media has ALWAYS been a puppet for the government, from the beginning of organized rule. This applies both to Liberal and Conservative rule.

Sorry,.... I have to cut it short. Ran out of time. Maybe I'll pipe in again later.



posted on Jun, 2 2006 @ 07:35 PM
link   
xmotex is right about the origins of the term 'neocon' however I don't think it's unreasonable to associate those who respond adversely to the type of information Grover is providing as Republican or conservative. Sometimes generalizations are apt. Not to say EVERY single Repub. feels similarly. But I can guarantee you that no or almost no Dem would respond that way. Why? Because Dems are, by definition, liberal. Dem's don't carry the same prejudices and biases against the poor that Repub's do, and Mexican's are coming over because they are poor.

Repub's are uniformly against any social spending or assistance to the poor that has as its source the public treasury. Taxation for social programs is anathema to Republican ideals. The very term 'conservative' is simply short-hand for 'don't spend my money helping someone else!' The brown monkey part was simply baiting Grover. Sure, many people don't care whether these Mexicans live or die. But I believe the hatred has as much to do with issues of poverty as it does skin color or language. If the Mexicans were coming into the US spending mucho dinero the gringos in that region would be welcoming them with open arms.



posted on Jun, 3 2006 @ 02:46 AM
link   

Originally quoted by seattlelaw

Repub's are uniformly against any social spending or assistance to the poor that has as its source the public treasury. Taxation for social programs is anathema to Republican ideals. The very term 'conservative' is simply short-hand for 'don't spend my money helping someone else!' The brown monkey part was simply baiting Grover. Sure, many people don't care whether these Mexicans live or die. But I believe the hatred has as much to do with issues of poverty as it does skin color or language. If the Mexicans were coming into the US spending mucho dinero the gringos in that region would be welcoming them with open arms.


seattlelaw, I agree partly with what you are saying. Republicans don't like welfare. That's what made Mr. Reagan's idea of the "welfare queen" so popular.

But like the "welfare queen", the "illegals" (i.e. a grammatically wrong perjorative term for illegal immigrant) carry a bias socially that partially does have to do with class and partially not. It goes into deeper waters.

Why else would some people in their frustration about undocumented workers from South America refer to them as "filth", "vermin" or as subhuman? There is something about conventional society which has prejudices about "the other". There are undocumented workers who are Irish, Polish, Russian, Armenian and Canadian that are over here. But, these "illegal immigrants" are not the focus of the hatred. They could be just as poor, but they are the "accepted faces" of conventional society.

Somehow, workers from South America have become the face of "criminality" and "poverty". Not only that, they are perceived as "enemies" and "terrorists" because the media gives the mean-spirited approach to describing them as "the other" that we Americans should be "wary of". But I would be hard pressed if any of the same fear would be attached to someone illegally here from Europe.

And the reason why is that the faces from Europe are attached to the "Ellis Island" mentality of immigration. That's why they are overlooked by the media. And no one is venting their anger towards them. South American people from over the border do not appear to reflect the "Ellis Island" mentality in our minds. And as a result, they are the ones that are demonized through a persistent diatribe by seperate forces who are capitalizing on post-9/11 hysteria.

When some people protest against illegal immigration, they are not shouting "Illegals Go Home!" in Gaelic, Russian or Polish. They are saying it in Spanish with much resentment. And that is part of the residue of fury from 9/11 as well. The Republicans have effectively capitalized on this mentality and made it par for the course to be accepted as an American right now. When those who represent "the other" suffer some sort of distress, no one cares.

This is especially true with the lack of outcry from the deaths in Hadditha as well as the random murders of Iraqi civilians. When one represents the "face of terror" they will never be fully accepted unless the stigma is removed.

And the Republicans have tried to generate more post-9/11 fear by consistently placing these faces on the news as the "evil-doers". As a result, it doesn't surprise me that some people are mean-spirited in their approach of attacking "illegals" or "terrorists". It comes from a heavily governmentally endorsed media who continues to lead with stories that try to scare us to death every night.

Since it pits American against American to the point of harassment, it's no surprise to me that grover and many others receive this treatment when embracing a humanistic approach to explaining the complex problems facing our society.







[edit on 3-6-2006 by ceci2006]



posted on Jun, 3 2006 @ 06:29 AM
link   
Amen to both you ceci and seattle...I have said repeatidly that I am fully aware that there are plenty of good and decent conservatives and republicans (and evangelic's as well) out there and that I can and do respect them even though we disagree. I am also fully aware that their party has been taken over by extremists from the hard right of both the evangelics and the fiscal conservatives as reperesented by Jerry foulwell and grover norquist for example, pat robertson is another. They have been taken over the conservative movement in a way that hte left and the democrats never were. I know they do not speak for all republicans or conservatives but they certianly speak for alot. Yes I painted with a broad brush, to make a point about the extent of the extremism and I did not make up a single thing, I have either been personally told (or heard) or seen in local print every single characterization I presented. The person who sent me that card does it repeatidly, I have about 7 and I know a good dozen other people who have recieved them and every single one is mean spirited and nasty. The intensity of the attacks generated by this post is also a characteristic of the hard right to shout doen any opposition, you see it in the media every day bill o'really is a prime example and those of us who dared stand in protest during the build up to the iraq war saw it plenty and what happened with the dixie chicks (who are #1 on country charts right now, I am no great fan but htat is wonderful and speaks volumes about the sea change in america since 03) are another. Personally I really wish the real moderate conservatives and republicans would wrest their party back from the extreme hard right, their party and this country in general would be far better off.



posted on Jun, 10 2006 @ 11:36 PM
link   


Grover I do not know who these mythical people are that believe these things you think.


Well you found one right here!

Hey, Tommy I have a question for you - how can you have a War in Iraq & continue to have *MULTIPLE* Tax cuts? Were is the Money for the War Spending coming from - oh yeah that is right they are looking to cut *DOMESTIC SPENDING* now (who needs College Educated people - what we want is more "Troops")! This is in-fact what Bush I called "Voodoo Economics"!!! THIS is why we have an OVER $400 BILLION DOLLAR Federal Budget Deficit! Here is something to think about:

www.msnbc.msn.com...
www.washingtonpost.com...

Do you know what all of this Debt is doing to the Market Value of the "U.S. Dollar"?
An Infomercial came on TV today were the guy was trying to sell the viewer on Buying Gold - I laughed & almost changed the channel - but you know what, the guy started to make sense to me - he was all like "The Government can't even balance its own Budget"!!!



posted on Jun, 11 2006 @ 09:51 AM
link   
Just throwing this out there at the risk of what skin I have left. HAHAHAHA

Perhaps Conservatives are not so against social programs, as against social programs that either do not work, or are being abused to the tune of billions and billions of dollars?

Perhaps Republicans do want to keep their money. You all said it, "their money". If it is my money, why would I not want to keep it? Forced Charity? Is that not what you are talking about? If I do not want to give, (not saying I don't, just an example) you are going to make me by taking more and more of my money to fund every single social program out there?

Tell me what social program has been a success. Which one is not being abused to the extreme? Am I expected to sit idly by and watch my money being thrown away paying for Illegal Aliens health care, Higher Insurance payments (Illegals are now causing a flux in the insurance market with accidents) and welfare/foodstanp abuse? Come with me and I can take you to 7 or 8 places in my town alone where you can buy foodstamps for 10 cents on the dollar.

I do not know how to fix it, no. I freely admit that. I also believe some programs are very very necessary. But why can we not spend more money regulating the programs we have instead of funding more and more programs that are only going to be further abused?



posted on Jun, 11 2006 @ 10:29 AM
link   


Perhaps Conservatives are not so against social programs, as against social programs that either do not work, or are being abused to the tune of billions and billions of dollars?


I hope all sane people are against programs that don't work, against inefficiency in general. Government programs mostly don't work. A lot of people seem hung up on trying, and that's admirable (to the extent their performance reflects ingenuity).

I, like many Republicans/conservatives, get sick of watching half-wits run head first into the same walls over and over again, and when they use public money to do it - that's a crime, a sin, an outrage, etc..

If we had responsible governance, and responsible citizens, and innovative, effective public works - I'd be all for social programs. For example...

Welfare pays rent, month after month, year after year. That's stupid. It's like burning money. If welfare bought $10k homes instead, it would make a lot of sense. Home ownership improves quality of life a great deal - when people own a home they're less likely to vandalize the area, throw trash around, commit crimes, and so on. An owned home can be transfered to children, sold for a profit in good market conditions, expanded and remodeled, etc.. It's an investment. Rent is just a cycle of dependency.

Another example...

The feds spend billions reimbursing pharmaceutical companies for medications so ludicrously marked-up, it would be considered gouging in any other industry. If they got a proper bulk discount, people would be paying a few dollars for their monthly meds, instead of a few hundred. Big freakin' difference. Supply and demand only works if the consumer isn't a freakin' moron, and the government is the most moronic consumer I've ever studied. It isn't savvy because it's not spending its own money, it's spending ours - it has no incentive to be thrifty short of the peasants breaking out their pitchforks (which will never happen as long as the TV stays on, as long as football games aren't delayed, as long as the liquor store is open for business, etc...).

Responsible and sensible social programs are necessary to alleviate poverty, and by proxy, crime. But throwing money at a problem is no kind of solution where I come from.

How much do we spend on do-nothing consultants and special committees, and travel expenses to facilitate baby-kissing come election time? It's offensive to sane individuals, and most politicians and agencies are guilty of these kinds of wasteful habits. They don't give a damn, it's our money...



posted on Jun, 11 2006 @ 11:02 AM
link   
Well said Wyrde,

But whats wrong with Football?



posted on Jun, 11 2006 @ 11:11 AM
link   
Absolutely nothing, I enjoy (American) football. It's rare that I have a chance to watch or play these days, there're so many more important things going on.

The way I look at it is like this: if your house is on fire, and your cat is trying to get you to feed it, and your mother is on speaker-phone lecturing you about finding a nice girlfriend and having some kids, you need to prioritize. First things first, put out the fire.

Edit: I forgot to say thank you for the compliment..so, thank you.




[edit on 11-6-2006 by WyrdeOne]



posted on Jun, 11 2006 @ 12:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by semperfortis
Just throwing this out there at the risk of what skin I have left. HAHAHAHA

Perhaps Conservatives are not so against social programs, as against social programs that either do not work, or are being abused to the tune of billions and billions of dollars?

That is a very good point. Conservatives are often portrayed as unsympathetic louts who would rather watch the less fortunate starve. Nothing could be further from the truth. We just have a desire to get the best result for the money spent.


Perhaps Republicans do want to keep their money. You all said it, "their money". If it is my money, why would I not want to keep it? Forced Charity? Is that not what you are talking about? If I do not want to give, (not saying I don't, just an example) you are going to make me by taking more and more of my money to fund every single social program out there?


It's called White Guilt. You are supposed to be ashamed for working hard and making a good life for you and yours.

I see the word altruism thrown around here like it is a good thing. It is a philosopy of death. Altruism requires victims, and a host for parasites to leech from. For humankind to succeed, we must all strive to achieve our individual best; the society as a whole benefits from that.

Give a hand-up, not a hand-out.



posted on Jun, 11 2006 @ 12:04 PM
link   
Altruism is a philosophy of death? You really believe that? If so I pray that you never are in need.




top topics



 
6
<< 11  12  13    15 >>

log in

join