OP/ED: Cracks in the Facade

Well, Muaddib, you have only one recourse since you are a bonafide Expert: write an op/ed piece extolling the virtures of President Bush and discount the reasons why these beliefs explored in grover's post are not a form of pathology.

Until you or someone else comes up with a valid answer, I will continue to validate grover's points with other articles which discuss a segment of the American population during this day and age.

No name-calling. No insults. Do what you need to do to convince me and the rest of us that Mr. Bush and his followers are right in their cause without using "liberal", "Bush Bashers" or anything else derogatory.

It is a reasonable request. And I expect a literate, erudite piece explaining the opposing position.

Originally posted by ceci2006
....or anything else derogatory.

It is a reasonable request. And I expect a literate, erudite piece explaining the opposing position.

Did you place such an absolute request with grover before the member posted up his Op/Ed, and if not, then your demanding of such from Muaddib becomes what, exactly: irrelevant?

Furthermore, in referencing "derogatory," are you implying such mentionings as this?

Originally posted by grover
No, I speak of Bush supporters, those men and women, who have bravely slapped blinders onto their eyes and plugged their ears, refusing to accept, nay venomously denying the abysmal failure of his presidency and his corruption of his policies.

Would not the above fit the definition of "derogatory" and/or simply more stereotypical rhetoric best reserved for PTS?






seekerof

[edit on 14-5-2006 by Seekerof]

Originally posted by ceci2006
Well, Muaddib, you have only one recourse since you are a bonafide Expert: write an op/ed piece extolling the virtures of President Bush and discount the reasons why these beliefs explored in grover's post are not a form of pathology.

First of all Grover only wrote an op/ed with nothing more than his opinion and he included derogatory insults against all Republicans.

Second of all, time and time again several members, including myself, have posted for years now "evidence from different sources" which contradicts many of the exagerations and lies that people like grover like to spout now and again.

Originally posted by ceci2006
Until you or someone else comes up with a valid answer, I will continue to validate grover's points with other articles which discuss a segment of the American population during this day and age.

As i have said time and again we have done this yet people like grover, and it seems you too, want to claim this is all "made up by the government"....

Originally posted by ceci2006
No name-calling. No insults. Do what you need to do to convince me and the rest of us that Mr. Bush and his followers are right in their cause without using "liberal", "Bush Bashers" or anything else derogatory.

Oh no name calling?....no insults?... I guess is alright and dandy to call people psychotic, religious fanatics, and to try to brand the name "nazi" to them...even though the U.S., and the present administration has minorities in power and even though the Nazis were National Socialists... but in order for you to try to sell your agenda you have to try to brand Republicans as nazis.....

Originally posted by ceci2006
It is a reasonable request. And I expect a literate, erudite piece explaining the opposing position.

Right...after you posted nothing more than more biased opinions, rethoric which include derogatory insults and name calling you want people to respond to you in a literate and erudite way?....

But i guess it is fine and dandy to resort to such tactics as derogatory insults against Republicans in this site, since i still don't see no "red flags aflying" and no more statements from SO....

ATSNN has changed, but it has changed for the worse.

[edit on 15-5-2006 by Muaddib]

Is that what you think? Well, I'm sorry you were so offended with what I posted.

But the request still stands. I just tend to think that you would rather attack other people for what they believe than taking the time and effort to write an op/ed piece of your own.

Sadly enough, you do not even care enough to support your views by properly posting a rebuttal in any literate form--unless you want people to know your work by just complaining about other posts.

Are you out of your mind?.... How is anyone going to respond, or try to debate in a civil manner to nothing more than derogatory insults and name calling?????

If I start calling you names, and I start insulting you, how are you going to prove that you are none of those things?....

You can't even be serious in posting all the rethoric you just posted, alongside with grover and then expect people to respond to those derogatory insults and the name calling in a "erudite way"......

BTW, go to the beginning of this thread and see what those members who support the war on terrorism have posted in response to all this "rethoric and derogatoiry insults"...yet the only thing people like you and grover do is present more sites which resort to more derogatory insults and more rethoric.

[edit on 15-5-2006 by Muaddib]

No. I'm not out of my mind.

I just think you are ashamed of your support of Mr. Bush. And you continue to pussy-foot around the issue without writing an op/ed piece.

If you were truly proud in your support of the POTUS, you would declare loudly and assuredly of your confidence in him instead of attacking people of an opposing view no matter what they post.

Originally posted by ceci2006
No. I'm not out of my mind.

I just think you are ashamed of your support of Mr. Bush. And you continue to pussy-foot around the issue without writing an op/ed piece.

If you were truly proud in your support of the POTUS, you would declare loudly and assuredly of your confidence in him instead of attacking people of an opposing view no matter what they post.

What in the hell are you talking about woman?.... you have been the one to resort to insults and attacks, alongside with grover.....

AGAIN....go back to the beginning of this thread and see what those who support the POTUS have said, and then look at your own response and that of grover...

Yes, of course. And I'm the one using the derogatory language.

Well, I have read the thread from the very beginning. And there were people who praised grover's work. And there were those, like yourself, have attacked it.

And I still stand by my request. Write an op/ed piece and refute grover's work.

That has nothing to do with me or my posts. Or what anyone else has said. But it is a piece on your own that rebuts the issues expressed in this thread.

What is it that you don't understand about my question?

BTW...you want op/ed and other threads where I support the POTUS on the war on terror?

Here you have them.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

There...if you want more let me know.

Thank you very much. I will read them and think about them. Now, isn't that better instead of howling about what other people said?

Originally posted by ceci2006
Thank you very much. I will read them and think about them. Now, isn't that better instead of howling about what other people said?

This is supposed to be a news forum, not a mud pit where people can post all their biased opinions using rhetoric, and derogatory insults....

If you don't want to understand that, and believe that posting excerpts from websites who only resort to more rhetoric and derogatory insults and plain old mudslinging then you don't understand what a "literate, erudite piece is"....

I find it ironic that even thou you didn't bring anything "constructive to the thread" you are now "expecting a literate, erudite piece." If you expect such responses then you should have started by doing the same thing yourself instead of posting excerpts which do nothing more than resort to insults and name calling.

Oh dear. I stand corrected. I'm sorry, Muaddib. I will most honestly try to suit your standards, high as they are. After all, you are the purveyor of decency and intellect on this board. And as a new member, I will follow your request with the utmost diligency.


And in case you were wondering, I still think you took the easy way out. I still would have much rather have you or another member espousing a dissenting view write an op/ed piece.

But from you, I wouldn't expect any less.

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
I wish the Bush bashers would relax. The man has less than three years left in office. In 2008, there will be an election. At this stage of the game, no one has the slightest idea who the Republicans will run and in all likelihood a Democrat will win, if for no other reason than change. In the meantime, I guess the surest way to get a few WATS is to post a Bush bashing Op/Ed to ATSNN.


[edit on 2006/5/7 by GradyPhilpott]

Not to mention that somebody in the 89% foreign owned MSM might see you and offer you a job since they need people that want to see their own country destroyed due to instability.

I know many will argue that it is Bush that is destroying america but I would argue that is is well down the ladder and is only one of the hired help... he is on a payroll you know.

Oh well those hungry Dems need to eat after 8 years or so without a job.

Originally posted by ceci2006
Oh dear. I stand corrected. I'm sorry, Muaddib. I will most honestly try to suit your standards, high as they are. After all, you are the purveyor of decency and intellect on this board. And as a new member, I will follow your request with the utmost diligency.

My high standards?....who was expecting people to be reasonable even though the only way they expressed their opinion is by excerpting sites which do nothing more than belittle and use derogatory insults?....

Originally posted by ceci2006
And in case you were wondering, I still think you took the easy way out. I still would have much rather have you or another member espousing a dissenting view write an op/ed piece.

But from you, I wouldn't expect any less.

Really?... i guess trying to prove you are right by providing excerpts from sites which do nothing more than name call and resort to derogatory insults and then expecting people to respond in a literate way by writting an erudite piece is not "an easy way out"?....

Remember who started it, Muaddib. And remember debate is not personal. But probably, this thread had hit entirely too close to home.

Originally posted by ceci2006
Remember who started it, Muaddib. And remember debate is not personal. But probably, this thread had hit entirely too close to home.

That's an easy question...grover started it, and then you supported it by posting more rhetoric from other sites....

It did not "hit too close to home".... I just found it extremely ironic that "liberals" and those who don't support the war on terrorism can resort to derogary insults and belittling comments yet the people being attacked are expected to respond in a literate and erudite way.... and if those being attacked respond to those insults....oh boy, "red flags will be aflying"....but "liberals" continue using nothing more than rhetoric yet "no red flags are aflying", and "people are expected to accept rhetorical comments which do nothing more than convey derogatory and belittling insults... and then you talk about "an easy way out?"....

[edit on 15-5-2006 by Muaddib]

Grover,

I just got to it, but nice post and brief on the state of medacity of the Bushies. It is truly an outrageous history and you did a nice job of summing it. Of course, no one could include all the lies in one day's posting, but it's a nice fat start to a project that someone should tackle seriously while he's still occupying the oval office and before the cell door locks on him. I understand Rove is to be indicted this week and will resign. Perhaps Cheney is next?

I ask you, how much corruption can one illegal administration handle? I mean, I know they virtually control the "liberal" media, but at what point do we get to kick him to the curb? His disapproval rating just hit 71% last Friday. Can I ask what 29% of invertebrates besides those mutts of his still wag their tails when this wacko cracks wise?

BTW, pay no attention to the squeeking mouse. People still worship Stalin and Hitler too, in places.



[edit on 15-5-2006 by seattlelaw]

[edit on 15-5-2006 by seattlelaw]

Seekerof

Since grover is into 'calling it like it is,' then it only serves objective justice here that being that the vast majority, that's right - the vast majority of ATS's membership - is anti-Bush..

The ATS membership accurately reflects the division evident out in the real world. The guy is a lightning rod, he's a comic foil, he's the bad cop. That's my contention. Someone is going to capitalize on that by running the 'good cop' in the 2008 elections, and when that happens, if s/he's a Democrat, you can be assured that some folks will remain off the bandwagon.

Where you been?

You, as with others, can continue to spread your messages of 'truth'

I'm not trying to spread any message of truth, I'm trying to refine my definition of truth through reading and discussion. That's why I'm here. I would much rather spend my time asking questions than providing answers for others, I'll leave that to the specialists.

All this is simply more or less the continued game of partisan politics, simply played and performed on another platform, correct? Hence, again, anything new here?

Yes, in a way, but there's at least one big difference. The 'side' I support proposes to do away with sides entirely. War for peace is the only justified war...

semperfortis

1. Why are we in the war. "I do not care! We are and it is one of the most successful wars in history. Do the math." (Soldiers and Marines fight, and die in wars. Thats what WE do. It is the single greatest honor a Marine or soldier can obtain, to die for our country.)

That's ludicrous, if you're on the battlefield you concern yourself with the battle, understood, but dying is not the goal. Victory, and peace are the goals. Debate that at your own peril.

2. Interest rates lowest in decades.

That has what, exactly, to do with Bush's economic policy? Is it your contention that interest rates over the last five years would have risen if the other guy had won? I don't think that's the case...

It probably has more to do with the hit the dollar is taking..

3. Unemployement, Lowest in decades.

That's nonsense. This has been discussed before, a number of times, and I grow weary of hearing this over and over again. Long term unemployment is higher than it ever has been, more unemployed people hold degrees than ever before, fewer people are eligible for unemployment, and fewer still find jobs before their unemployment expires.

On top of that, underemployment is epidemic.

If you want to believe that unemployment is the lowest in decades, I can't stop you. I can only suggest that there is a great deal of evidence to the contrary, if only you would show a little discernment in your media tastes.

www.epinet.org...

www.cbsnews.com...

A falling unemployment rate may be spurring President Bush's prospects for reelection, but it is masking millions of Americans who do not have full time jobs, a newspaper reports.

The Los Angeles Times reports that while the nation's unemployment rate of 5.9 percent is relatively low, it fails to include the 4.9 million people who want full-time positions but are working part-time jobs. The figure also omits 1.5 million people who have stopped looking for work.

Taken together, the total number of jobless reaches 15.1 million — or 9.7 percent, up from 9.4 percent a year ago, the Times reports.

www.efn.org...

The discrepancy originates in the methodology of calculating unemployment rates: only those signed up at the unemployment office are being officially counted as unemployed. The six million officially unemployed persons consist solely of those who are registered at state unemployment centers as actively seeking for work. Many millions more have concluded that pursuing nonexistent jobs is futile and have dropped out of statistics altogether. Millions of discouraged people aren't being counted and are simply disappearing from official U.S. unemployment statistics. This discrepancy also reflects the fact that many unemployed people are simply hard for a government bureaucracy to track. Unless a person qualifies for unemployment benefits, they are virtually impossible to identify. Even people who once qualified for unemployment fall out of the system once their benefits end.

Such absurd accounting conveniently overlooks too many people who for various reasons are unlikely to register at state centers: Native Americans on reservations, where unemployment reaches as high as seventy percent; black youths, whose unemployment hovers above fifty percent; the discouraged homeless people who quit looking for work; and all those workers with only part-time work who are presently being counted as fully employed even if they work as little as only one hour per week -- maybe... According to the latest Employment Situation Monthly Report from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, as of January 1999, there were as many as 3,562,000 part-time only workers. All these uncounted people must be included if one is to arrive at the true level of unemployment in America. The U.S. Labor Department's euphemism for them is "distressed workers," and after only a very quick look at the latest Employment Situation Monthly Report, it is clear to me that there are at least eight million Americans in this category. And then, there are another eight million Americans who call themselves self-employed consultants or independent contractors. "Many are downsized professionals who are too proud to admit that they are unemployed, who set up their own consulting firm and may even have a few clients, but who make very little income and would be delighted to have a regular job," economist Lester Thurow says.

Consider all the factors please. The unemployment numbers are a sham. They reflect only a very small portion of the people in this country who badly need work.

Add on to that fact that even with full-time employment, people cannot afford both rent and food. Surely the unemployment numbers that you receive from Fox are less important than that underpinning reality? Do you care what's real, or do you just want your side to be right?

www.cbsnews.com...

Nowhere in the country could a minimum wage employee afford to pay rent on a two-bedroom home, an advocacy group said Wednesday. And in three-quarters of the country, even two full-time, minimum wage jobs couldn't pay for such housing.

The National Low Income Housing Coalition, in its annual "Out of Reach" report, found that the average U.S. employee must make nearly three times the federal minimum wage, or about $14.66 an hour, to afford a modest two-bedroom rental and still pay for food and other basic needs.

5. Housing UP

What do you mean by that, exactly? New home prices were steadily down for a while, then they did a big bounce last month. Existing home prices were doing well during the new home slump, and I can't recollect right now whether or not they sank in response to last month's surprise rise in new home prices. Or are you talking about something else entirely? Do you mean the number of Americans living in homes increased? Or do you mean the cost of housing went up, and if so, how's that a good thing?

6. Standard of living, UP

I think that's something good to debate. It can be argued endlessly, I imagine.

At the risk of being taken to task for posting articles which discuss the "phenomena" of a segment of our population, here are some more passages for thought. After watching Good Night and Good Luck, I feel that the only way to combat the new surge of McCarthyism arising in our country is to dissect the psyche of those who continue to be in denial.

First Sign of Fascism: Nationalism
Political Scientist Dr. Lawrence Britt studied the fascist regimes of Hitler and Mussolini along with Franco's Spain, Chile's Pinochet, Salazar's Portugal, Papadopoulos's Greece and Suharto's Indonesia. He found fourteen common characteristics in these regimes and many are alarmed that we are seeing the signs of most, if not all, of these in the United States today. Over the next few weeks, I plan on taking looking at these characteristics one at a time. The first is nationalism, as defined by Britt:

Powerful and continuing expressions of nationalism. From the prominent displays of flags and bunting to the ubiquitous lapel pins, the fervor to show patriotic nationalism, both on the part of the regime itself and of citizens caught up in its frenzy, was always obvious. Catchy slogans, pride in the military, and demands for unity were common themes in expressing this nationalism. It was usually coupled with a suspicion of things foreign that often bordered on xenophobia.

One common display of nationalism is the continuing accusation that anyone who does not support the President or the war hates America. It is common for Bush supporters to question the patriotism of persons who dissent and even to link them with terrorists. Some of the more vocal protestors such as Cindy Sheehan, Michael Moore and moveon.org have become anti-American symbols. For example, Bill O'Reilly has said that Cindy Sheehan's protests border on treasonous. Chris Matthews on MSNBC recently said that Osama bin Laden sounds like Michael Moore. It's a running joke for Rush Limbaugh to call Senator Barack Obama "Osama Obama" or "Obama Osama". Ann Coulter is one of the biggest offenders with numerous statements such as: "The Democrats are giving aid and comfort to the enemy for no purpose other than giving aid and comfort to the enemy. There is no plausible explanation for the Democrats' behavior other than that they long to see U.S. troops shot, humiliated, and driven from the field of battle." Or,"even Islamic terrorists don't hate America like liberals do."

The effects of this nationalism could be seen in the divisive nature of politics after 9/11:

Nationalism

Many of those who supported the Iraq War consider those who opposed the war, and/or the ongoing reconstruction process to be impractically idealistic, self-righteous, and hypocritical. Some proponents of the Iraq War invoke arguments of Nation-building, which are reminiscent of 19th century American notions of Manifest destiny. Some also explicitly accuse non-supporters of being unpatriotic, if not treasonous. Several commentators supportive of the war have indicated they feel that news that paints the US in a negative light is giving aid and comfort to the enemy because it undermines the national solidarity of the U.S. to commit sufficiently to achieve final victory in the War on terrorism. Since war opponents tend to resent such accusations, the political debate has taken place in an atmosphere of unremitting partisan hostility.

All I can say after this is from the words of Edward R. Murrow: "Good Night, and Good Luck".






[edit on 15-5-2006 by ceci2006]