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.

 

Prevailing Left blowing wind on ATS (Op/Ed)

page: 6
6
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 5 2006 @ 07:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by semperfortis
There may be any number of Conservative Members out there, but they either remain silent or become silent after being bombarded by the left's defamation of their core beliefs and character.

What are you kidding? No one on this site 'keeps their mouth shut', whether on the left or the right.

The attacks I have witnessed are derogatory and inflaming at most and vicious and untrue at the least.

And you've said nothing when they occured???

Why is it a problem for you that other people are freely expressing their opinion? ATS is a discussion board, there is nothing preventing anyone from expressing any opinions, except perhaps the foreknowledge that a weak argument is going to be torn apart. Thats probably why we don't see as much expression of the so called 'conservative party line' that you are missing.




Being a conservative in today’s atmosphere is challenging, yet how can any American watch the Liberals scream, Dean, and rant, Gore, and use language such as Traitor, War Criminal and Dictator to describe our President and not attempt to defend someone so very downtrodden?

Are you joking? The extreme right uses the same language on anyone that it disagrees with, and if you think that President Bush is 'downtrodden' then you've got a pretty odd view of the world.


Reading and rereading the speeches leading up to the war, it is profoundly apparent that WMD’s were only a minor concern,

Demonstrate this.



Of course they never will, they simply want anything to complain about, any talking points to throw out in condemnation to this current President. The very nature of their inability to debate on this forum or in any public venue is very indicative of the emotional nature of their argument and not the substance of their words.

I find it ironic that you are talking about there not being an ability to debate on these emotive subjects, yet in the same paragraph refer to the people 'on the other side' by a petty and inaccurate political label such as "Liberals"


In debate class we learn first, that to properly debate and “get” our point across we must remain dispassionate and removed.

Abusrd. Emotive appeals are the basis of rhetoric.



This has escaped the liberals at some point and continues to elude them. Liberals use fear tactics, out of context quoting and the passionate, emotional outburst to send their message to the public.

Do you have some point to make, other than that some made up political alliance is 'stupid'????


That is the “rub” anyway. You lost and you lost big. Now you’re desperate to get any power back that you can. So your tactics are to discredit and defame Republicans as much as you can until the American Public begins to swallow all of the garbage you are forcing down their throats.

And that would be a good and worthwhile tactic. It works for the republicans, it works for any political party.

Well, if you get your Democratic president, and the country goes back into the darkness then I guess I can say, “I told you so.”

Well neener neener neener to you too then. Gosh, you really showed 'them' that they're incapable of an adult and rational debate on important topics.




posted on Jun, 5 2006 @ 08:14 AM
link   
Oddly enough, when i first came here in 2004, it seemed very right leaning to me around here.

I think what you're seeing is a reflection of the growing discontent with the right. I think ATS reflects the current political climate in general as I have seen it swing about.



posted on Jun, 5 2006 @ 08:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jadette
Oddly enough, when i first came here in 2004, it seemed very right leaning to me around here.

I think what you're seeing is a reflection of the growing discontent with the right. I think ATS reflects the current political climate in general as I have seen it swing about.


Right leaning? the main staff members are the same in the site as in 2004, and back then, at least in ATSNN, only reporters could make threads in ATSNN as "long as there wasn't any bias on the thread".... So i guess for you posting threads without bias is "right leaning"?.....

[edit on 5-6-2006 by Muaddib]



posted on Jun, 5 2006 @ 08:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan

Why is it a problem for you that other people are freely expressing their opinion? ATS is a discussion board, there is nothing preventing anyone from expressing any opinions, except perhaps the foreknowledge that a weak argument is going to be torn apart. Thats probably why we don't see as much expression of the so called 'conservative party line' that you are missing.

Excuse me. Are you saying that the " so called 'conservative party line' " does not have any arguments to offer that are valid? That they are "weak" and destined to be "torn apart"?

I'd be glad to debate topics such as immigration control or Social Security reform, to nullify your conclusion that the conservative position is "weak".

I think that what semperfortis was referring to was the sensationalism and rhetoric that accompanies many arguments against this administration and it's policies. Terms such as "police state" and "erosion of liberties" are thrown around to evoke an emotional response, without careful analysis. And, more often than not, there are no alternative solutions offered; all that are offered are raving attacks.



posted on Jun, 5 2006 @ 09:08 AM
link   
Nygdan, I salute you for your above post.

Something I've been thinking about...
With so much said in sound bites, I miss a good oration. Instead of glib comments like "Go ---- yourself!" in the halls of congress, I love to hear civil (but definitely passionate) discussion beginning with, "The good gentleman (or gentlewoman) from..." Somehow, Americans have been given the idea that you have to shut up and not discuss or question or point out; or, worse, let someone in the public eye rant for you and you grunt in agreement.
All talk and no listening is not good. A good discussion may not change a mind, but at least it might make one think.
My grandparents were happily married till the day they died, even though they were of opposing political parties. They always joked about cancelling out each other's vote. Certainly we can all live together, nay we should, with passion and even anger, but not hate.



posted on Jun, 5 2006 @ 09:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky
I think that what semperfortis was referring to was the sensationalism and rhetoric that accompanies many arguments against this administration and it's policies. Terms such as "police state" and "erosion of liberties" are thrown around to evoke an emotional response, without careful analysis. And, more often than not, there are no alternative solutions offered; all that are offered are raving attacks.


Please take careful consideration of the context in which these "raving attacks" are delivered. ATS is not a broad spectrum political analysis community... ATS is a broad spectrum "alternative topics" community with a strong focus on conspiracy theory. As such, it's only natural that the balance of topics, discussion, and opinion would flow in a direction contrary to the current administration (just as it did with Clinton was in office). This is because conspiracy theorists are skeptical, critical, and harsh of any party that occupies the oval office, house, senate, and anything else between there and your local school board.

If you're expecting ATS (or any conspiracy-centric discussion board) to represent a balanced cross-section of political opinion, you're going to be continually frustrated.



posted on Jun, 5 2006 @ 09:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky

Originally posted by Nygdan



I think that what semperfortis was referring to was the sensationalism and rhetoric that accompanies many arguments against this administration and it's policies. Terms such as "police state" and "erosion of liberties" are thrown around to evoke an emotional response, without careful analysis. And, more often than not, there are no alternative solutions offered; all that are offered are raving attacks.



Exactly that!

Not one word on alternative solutions, simply constant negative remarks in regards to every solution put forth by the Conservatives. More and more all you see are criticisms of Conservative Ideas, no alternate solutions or even suggestions, only how bad our ideas are.

That was a HUGE issue with Kerry. He never once clearly defined what his policy was toward anything. He spent his entire time talking about how bad the Bush policy was.



posted on Jun, 5 2006 @ 10:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky
Excuse me. Are you saying that the " so called 'conservative party line' " does not have any arguments to offer that are valid? That they are "weak" and destined to be "torn apart"?

No, however, in the context of this site, which is a conspiracy site, the party line, when it touches upon these topics, doesn't seem to have much of an arguement for it. Indeed, why shoudl it, conspiracy is not what people look to politicla parties for.
IOW, if I want to discuss economic issues, I'd look the the conservative party platform (perhaps), if I want to look at bush's responsibility for the iraq war, the rhetoric from the party isn't particularly illuminating.

Terms such as "police state" and "erosion of liberties" are thrown around to evoke an emotional response, without careful analysis.

But lets not pretend that that is a fault of the so called "Liberals". The board, qua board, is netural, no opinions are supressed. This is a discussion board, the threads are created by the members, if there is a "leftist bias', then its merely because there are lots of leftists on the board, or because the conservatives that are here aren't posting. The only reason a person would be on the board, but not posting, is because they don't have a good argument.

Therefore, the so called 'conservative arguements' must be the ones that even the conservatives recognize as weak and easily ripped apart.

If anything, this op-ed peice should at least serve to revitalize the 'conservatives' on board to offer their opinions on the matters being discussed, and show just how and why their 'opponents' are wrong (though it needn't be quite so adversarial as that).


Hell, this being a conspiracy site, you'd think that there'd be lots more conservative opinion, the NWO conspiracy theory, for example, was originally a conservative conspiracy theory, most political conspiracies out there are in origin conservative conspriacy theories, with the left being perceived as an internationalist cabal trying to take over the world. So, yeah, the conservatives should be more active on the board, but they tend not to be.

When there is silence on a discussion board, its usually because the silent ones have nothing to say.



semperfortis
That was a HUGE issue with Kerry. He never once clearly defined what his policy was toward anything. He spent his entire time talking about how bad the Bush policy was.

And jolly well good on your side for winning that election. Now get over it, and move on. The big bad kerry is gone, and everyone is tired of the 'flip flopping' tactic.

You don't need to present an alternative plan when you are pointing out corruption, incompetence, and deception.

Noticing that the US has become a police state (and I don't personally agree that it has) is hardly invalid because you haven't presented in the same post a good plan for resistance.



posted on Jun, 5 2006 @ 10:46 AM
link   


I know that he and the the Republican Congress let the "Assault Weapons Ban" to sunset.


You seem to forget that Bush promised to sign it if Congress reenacted it.

As for the "slant" thing, frankly if you're far enough to the "right", everything seems biased to the left. If you're far enough to the "left", everything seems bised to the right.


df1

posted on Jun, 5 2006 @ 11:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky
Excuse me. Are you saying that the " so called 'conservative party line' " does not have any arguments to offer that are valid? That they are "weak" and destined to be "torn apart"?

The republican "conservative party line" does not exist and that is why it is "weak" and destined to be torn apart. Richard A. Viguerie, one of the leading republican political pundits is in agreement with this assessment.



I'd be glad to debate topics such as immigration control or Social Security reform, to nullify your conclusion that the conservative position is "weak".

You have no conservative position to debate, as the bush administration is not conservative.



Terms such as "police state" and "erosion of liberties" are thrown around to evoke an emotional response, without careful analysis. And, more often than not, there are no alternative solutions offered; all that are offered are raving attacks.

But it is ok with you for politicians to wrap themselves in the flag and to throw around phrases, such as, "patriot act" and "free speech zones", to evoke an emotional response. When we had liberties all of america was a free speech zone, but now police incarceration of political protesters behind fences is called a "free speech zone" in present day doublespeak. This is not conservative, it is completely unamerican.

The title of the "patriot act" legislation that gives greater power to the police and reduces individual rights & privacy should have been the titled the "police powers act". It was called the "patriot act" to evoke an emotional response and to psychologically influence people to support it by implying that failure to support it is unpatriotic. Still more unamerican doublespeak.

You are not a conservative and definitely not a patriot.



[edit on 5-6-2006 by df1]



posted on Jun, 5 2006 @ 12:35 PM
link   
Long thread, can't read it all... but:

I knew Jr. was a slimeball the minute I laid eyes on him six-seven(?) years ago, and have made no bones about it since. But then I don't expect everyone to have the same super-sensitive intuition as I do.

Clinton is said to have an aura of charisma about him that charms everyone who crosses his path. I never saw it, but just listening to the man speaks volumes on who's the better educated in all facets of life in this complicated world we live in. Jr.'s a phoney and always has been.

Then I found about about Turd Blossom and knew I was right all along. Every move they make is suspect and not for the good of the American people. But for Cronnies, Inc, Funnel, Inc, and BushCo. everything is hunkydoryland and all systems go.



posted on Jun, 5 2006 @ 01:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Muaddib

Right leaning? the main staff members are the same in the site as in 2004, and back then, at least in ATSNN, only reporters could make threads in ATSNN as "long as there wasn't any bias on the thread".... So i guess for you posting threads without bias is "right leaning"?.....

[edit on 5-6-2006 by Muaddib]


We have been talking about this site in general, not the qualifications of an ATSNN submittal. And, I wasn't making a judgement about who runs the forums, but rather, just commenting on those who populate it and the content of their posts.

There used to seem to be a loud pro-right, pro-Bush crowd here. A much larger presence than I have seen lately. I remember thinking to myself back in 2004 that I was a little intrigued to find the population of a UFO/Alien/Conspiracy bboard to be so dominately right wing.

Now, I didn't do any polling, nor is there anyway to accurately judge the balance of left versus right then, or even now. So, we're talking opinions here. It was my impression at the time. As it is my impression that the 'tone' has changed around here. Reflecting, as I said, possibly, a sample of society in general.



posted on Jun, 5 2006 @ 02:00 PM
link   
I find it highly hypocritical for members liberal or conservative to come out and say "o its wrong to attack or insult the other person" when I have seen those same people insulting another member in a thread. I have encountered more conservative members insulting people, but I think that has little relevence when it comes down to it. Everyone needs to stop the labeling and attacking.

Semper unfortunately this thread has done more damage then good. You go on bashing liberals through half of the OP/ED, then attempt to condemn bashing the right. How about this, never mention the mistakes or views of some one else who was wrong to justify anything.

Clinton was wrong, that doesn't make bush anymore right. Kerry was a complete idiot, that doesn't make bushes position any better or more worthy. Guess what, you may consider me liberal but I would never vote democrat, I would note vote before having to choose between democrat or republican. Neither represent me and it makes me aggervated to watch Bush supporters bunch people like me in that group when we dont even like it or relate to it.

Both conservative and liberal views have their pros and cons, and I guess you can call me a moderate then. Stop giving out labels, read your post before you decide to post something sarcastic or insulting, and let the "liberals" fall on their asses when they revert to name calling because it just shows how bad their position is. The moment you say something like "what are you illiterate?" you destroy your own credibility and fuel the fire to bash you.



posted on Jun, 5 2006 @ 05:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by df1

Originally posted by jsobecky
Excuse me. Are you saying that the " so called 'conservative party line' " does not have any arguments to offer that are valid? That they are "weak" and destined to be "torn apart"?


The republican "conservative party line" does not exist and that is why it is "weak" and destined to be torn apart. Richard A. Viguerie, one of the leading republican political pundits is in agreement with this assessment.

Well, that certainly was a convincing rebuttal. Nygdan says there is a "conservative party line" and you say there isn't one. Is that the extent of your argument?

And you are making a rookie mistake by confusing the terms republican and conservative.



I'd be glad to debate topics such as immigration control or Social Security reform, to nullify your conclusion that the conservative position is "weak".


You have no conservative position to debate, as the bush administration is not conservative.

I don't remember saying that I was defending Bush's views on this, so your argument is null and void at best, and specious at worst. I would be glad to present my views, however.



Terms such as "police state" and "erosion of liberties" are thrown around to evoke an emotional response, without careful analysis. And, more often than not, there are no alternative solutions offered; all that are offered are raving attacks.


But it is ok with you for politicians to wrap themselves in the flag and to throw around phrases, such as, "patriot act" and "free speech zones", to evoke an emotional response.

Those terms are much more frequently thrown around by leftists, so once again you are sadly confused.


When we had liberties all of america was a free speech zone, but now police incarceration of political protesters behind fences is called a "free speech zone" in present day doublespeak. This is not conservative, it is completely unamerican.

And what does that have to do with the discussion?


You are not a conservative and definitely not a patriot.

You, sir, have no right to judge me. I doubt that you know the meaning of the word conservative. I am certain that you have no idea what a patriot is.



posted on Jun, 5 2006 @ 05:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
Please take careful consideration of the context in which these "raving attacks" are delivered.

I am beginning to recognize the context. It consists of knee jerk rhetoric, terms such as "I feel", "I think", and "It seems to me", along with baseless claims of tyranny, that masquerade as valid rebuttals. And the fact that this is a "conspiracy site" does not make everything a conspiracy.

The easiest thing in the world is to wear a constant scowl on your face and automatically regurgitate the claim of "Conspiracy!" at every piece of news or op-ed one reads. That absolves one of the responsibility of critical thinking - or, for that matter, thinking at all.


This is because conspiracy theorists are skeptical, critical, and harsh of any party that occupies the oval office, house, senate, and anything else between there and your local school board.

Yes, but that's not what I'm seeing here. Instead, it is pure partisanship disguised as conspiracy theory.

I guarantee you that if the left wins the oval office, you won't see the same people criticizing the next president that are criticizing Bush.

I don't expect proof of every claim of conspiracy. But it is not too much to ask for people to think before they open their mouths.



posted on Jun, 5 2006 @ 06:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky
I guarantee you that if the left wins the oval office, you won't see the same people criticizing the next president that are criticizing Bush.

.




I will!!! I was just as critical of Clinton as I am of the President and I consider myself left of center.

Partisanship, dogma and ideology has no place in a truly thinking person.



posted on Jun, 5 2006 @ 06:24 PM
link   
I think many of us are on here because we are confused. We are looking for answers and on rare occasion find something of value in these debates. We often find idea's that had not occurred to us before.

The line between Democrat and Republican has been blurred as of late. Most of us are Moderates. Both of the main parties are broken beyond repair. One big problem is finding opinionated people who actually get off their collective duffs and vote.

Sometimes it just feels good to get it off your chest by throwing a fit. After a day of warnings of terrorist attacks and rising prices on top of more mundane stuff like how to pay the bills or put the kids through college; when someone says something outlandish it’s easy to loose control and post before thinking it through. I'm learning to overlook it and even understand it.

The lines are becoming more and more complex to follow. I am for the war in Iraq but I think Bush and company have totally screwed it up. I loved Clinton’s domestic policy but can not abide anyone who would cheat on their wife. If a person will do that to the most important person in their lives what would they do to others they care nothing about? I agree with the Libertarians regarding privacy and government but think they are overly naïve about other issues. I might end up voting for Hillary next time but I believe abortion on demand is murder and its proponents are murderers. Do I sound screwed up? Of course I do! The parties no longer represent the average person and only a fool would cast their lot with one party line. Take a look at their histories. The fact that both Kennedy and Reagan were supply side economists should tell you that it’s a big teeter totter. What is Republican today will be Democrat tomorrow.

Then there are those @$%&*%$###@ kids pretending to be adults who get there rocks off trying to piss people off and get a reaction out of you. They don’t believe anything they are saying. They have learned how to piss people off and get very adept at it. The subjects on this board hold no interest for them and they are here simply to get under your skin. Some of the ones that cause the most trouble probably work at Burger King spitting in our hamburgers.




posted on Jun, 5 2006 @ 06:28 PM
link   
Blaine91555, that was nicely put. One of the best replies to this thread yet.



posted on Jun, 5 2006 @ 07:57 PM
link   
Just taking a cursory glance around some of the replies is illuminating, very illuminating.

1. "Has no place in a truly thinking person"
2. I am accused of saying "What are you illiterate." Can't find that anywhere.
3. "You are not a conservative nor a patriot."
4. "Right wing is Anti-Intellect and Alpha-male dominate."
5. "Let's get this crap off of here."
6. And Finally Neener, neener neener, Whatever that means.

When I wrote this I knew there would be a lot of consternation and bickering against the post and it's contents. I was also hoping to reveal some posters that have no wish to debate, only to degrade that opinion they do not subscribe to and apparently according to the quotes listed above, I have been successful.
Arguing a point is one thing, but assuming the other participant is illiterate, unpatriotic or an anti-intellect is not debating. If the assumption is not there and the words are only meant to intimidate or belittle, then the one poster that describes some on there as children, must be right. A lot of posters seem to be stuck on telling one side or another that their opinion is wrong, or misguided, even corrupt. I do not believe that an opinion can be any of those things. An opinion is what it is, an opinion is subject to all of the environmental and societal influences of the person making it. As such, an opinion can be neither right nor wrong, simply different from mine.
I understand the animosity some on here have expressed towards the current administration, what I do not understand is their complete lack of acceptance that some are supportive.
Stating that the two party system is corrupt and most only vote their conscious is fine, I can even hope that more and more people are beginning to feel that way. However the 2 big levers are there and will be for the next short while anyway. Most of America will pull one or the other of those levers. Whether out of convenience or ignorance, the result is the same.
However my original concept is still standing strong and more and more validated by the posting going on here. An opinion in support of President Bush is not evil, only different from yours. I am sorry that some saw my using examples of Liberal agenda and actions as being inflammatory. They were simply stated as actions from the left. I can quote you several hundred on here doing the same to the right. Yet somehow I was wrong in doing it. I guess because I am an anti-intellect it will be difficult to understand the difference for me.
I am satisfied by the confirmation of my post through calls to have this removed, moved and invalidated. There can be no greater compliment to a writing then to have someone wish it not read. So thank you all for that.
I would love to see more and more actual debate on these threads, this is a wonderful forum and I have not seen anything from the Mods, or the Administration that takes from this. I have heard their opinions and I value them as I do all of the members, yet they only state their opinions and do not flex their muscles except to keep the thread on topic, clean and moving along.
Anyway thanks for the postings and allowing me to voice an opinion, just remember it is just that, an opinion and it is mine.

Oh and is being an Alpha Male a compliment, or not?



posted on Jun, 5 2006 @ 08:34 PM
link   
I also think that the "perceived left bias" of ATS is merely a correction thats occured since the no votes were removed from the ATSNN voting pallette. Now that stories cant be downed by people who dont like the content we are seeing a broader range of subjects being voted up.

I had my suspicions for quite a while that there was a group of members who would call themselves "right wing" that voted any story down that did not fit their ideals. That ability is now gone and those once downed stories are surviving. Perhaps this is where this sentiment is coming from?




top topics



 
6
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join