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: 7
6
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 5 2006 @ 08:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by semperfortis
Just taking a cursory glance around some of the replies is illuminating, very illuminating.

1. "Has no place in a truly thinking person"

false statement, dont worry about the people who make attacks, they just make their arguement weaker everytime.


2. I am accused of saying "What are you illiterate." Can't find that anywhere.


since I am the one who said this so I will address it. Stop taking everything so personal, if I was talking to you I would have said. "people like semperfortis saying things like 'what are you illiterate' is uncalled for" I dont do that, Im not into the subliminal attacks, I will address YOU if I am talking to you. Notice at the begining of the post that it goes for both liberals and conservatives equally, that I am tired of hear the insults from both sides. If I say something that sounds insulting, tell me so I can try to not do it again, don't attack back and insult me. this is the internet, so I might not always notice if your insulted by something, so by all means come out and say it if I do say something insulting.



3. "You are not a conservative nor a patriot."


Im not sure if this was me, but if it was, Im pretty sure I was addressing the die hard bush supporters who think they are patriots and everyone else is unamerican. By the way I said I don't consider conservatives and bush supporters in the same category anymore. Mainly because bush doesn't have as many Conservative views as you think.


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.


since Im running low on characters we are combining these three haha. Right wing doesnt support education as much is what I think was meant to be said, not that they are stupid or something. Traditional Values do have an alpha male type dominance to it, not insulting right, just saying traditional values did have that. The "lets get this crap off here" is too out of context to address. I have no idea what neener neener neener is either.



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.


finding those people by bashing liberals was definately not the way to go.



Arguing a point is one thing, but assuming the other participant is illiterate, unpatriotic or an anti-intellect is not debating.

agreed.



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.


believe me the right is not more in the right per say then the left is. Ive seen members from both sides literally insulting eachother and watched threads go straight to PTS, when it should have been a good topic.



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.


which is exactly why opinion shouldn't be part of a debate. yet low and behold I see it constantly, and even sometime get caught up in it as well.



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.


I understand you are supportive, I just can't understand why. Its hard for me because in my eyes hes just a profitier look to get him and his friends rich. As most politicians are similar, which is why I dont support the democrats any more then bush.



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.


thats just a shame. I hope that you research the 3rd parties before voting as well though because I would hate to know that your not looking into any other parties other then republican.



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.


yep, very true. I never saw you as evil or menacing though, I see bush that way haha. I dont think I could possibly understand why you support him, so its better to not even try and just keep it on facts rather then our opinions and morals.


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.


there were a couple times where they sounded pretty inflammatory. The fact that you bunched up everyone as liberals is what pissed me off the most though. Just because I dont agree with most the stuff you say, in no way makes me a liberal, its not that clean cut. I may still believe in the same outcome, just not the same means to getting there.



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.


a bit confused but I think you meant they fear it so they dont want people to read it. I just think it was inflammatory and rude to bunch us all up as liberals if we dont follow hardline republican bush supporting ideas.



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.(...)Anyway thanks for the postings and allowing me to voice an opinion, just remember it is just that, an opinion and it is mine.


Though opinion can be good, I think we should all work toward eliminating it in our discussions. When we do this, we can focus more on the facts, and less on eachother. We cna get the most accomplished if we stick to that agenda rather then our own agenda.




posted on Jun, 5 2006 @ 08:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by semperfortis

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.


Semper go back and read yours and tommys (among others) attacks on me in the cracks in the facade thread before you start self righteously accusing others of doing the exact same thing you yourself are guilty of.



posted on Jun, 5 2006 @ 11:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
This comment warrented a warn from me.

ATSNN threads are for the discussion of issues and debate points not attacks at individual members. We always have, and always will try to be more strict about these types of posts within the ATSNN forum.

Please, stick to the issues.


Hummm, let me get this straight.... So as long as liberals, or anyone who oposes blindly anything and everything about the present administration, insult, demean, and belittle Republicans, which is disguised as "free speech" around here, but when a Republican responds to one of those people who hate the present administration blindly it suddenly becomes "an attack on a member"?.... What i said in that response is not even an insult, and let me make my point, and let me put it in bold so that you have time to read the insults that "appear to be alright as long as the member making those insults, and belittling comments, opose blindly anything and everything Republican". The following is an excerpt from one of the threads "op/ed" made by Grover.



And this includes even those few in their own party who listen to their own consciences. They are fanatics.

It is a fanaticism with obsessive religious imagery, and an enforced lock step political message. A fanaticism that hysterically attacks anyone that questions it. A fanaticism that practices a militant my-country-right-or-wrong jingoism that is passed off as patriotism.
A fanaticism whose minions in the media manipulate the news in its favor and suppress opposing viewpoints. And, a fanaticism that rejects science in general and especially any science that questions its religious assumptions about the world. It is a fanaticism that borders on fascism, or at the very least, it expresses the type of party politics at more home in an authoritarian system, than in ours.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Then you get some members like ceci2006 who in order to make her point has to excerpt quotes and claims which are nothing more than insults, belittling comments, and patronizing rhetoric, such as.


Bush/GOP supporters and the phenomenon of delusion

First, the overwhelming ignorance of the facts is a primary factor in this collective psychosis.

www.abovetopsecret.com...


Both popular culture and conservative pundits had suggested for years that, after the collapse of communism, terrorists like these would be our great foe. Even more fortunately for Bush, this threatening cultural vision was embodied in an organization, al Qaeda, which sounded like a paranoid’s worst nightmare: a shadowy network of fanatics who had infiltrated Western nations and would stop at nothing to destroy innocent Americans.

www.abovetopsecret.com...


Bush supporters are not merely disinterested in seeing that they are in denial of reality; on the contrary, they actively don’t want to look at this, which is to say they resist self-reflection at all costs. Bush and his supporters perversely interpret any feedback from the real world which reflects back their unconsciousness as itself evidence that proves the rightness of their viewpoint. All of Bush’s supporters mutually reinforce each other’s unconscious resistance to such a degree that a collective, interdependent field of impenetrability gets collectively conjured up by them that literally resists consciousness.





The situation is very analogous to when seemingly good, normal, loving Germans supported Hitler, believing he was a good leader trying to help them. The German people didn't realize that the virulent pathogen malignant egophrenia had taken possession of Hitler and was incarnating itself through him. By not seeing this and supporting Hitler, They became agents used by this non-local, deadly disease to propagate itself. This was a collective psychosis, and this is what is taking place in our country right now.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

So, to sumarize Republicans or anyone who disagrees with the "opinion of the left" is a religious fanatic, psychotics who "propagate a non-local disease", Nazis, perverse, have a "virulent pathogen maligna egophrenia", and are paranoid. But of course, as long as they hide all those insults, the belittling rhetoric and patronizing comments, these people are "expressing their freedom"... Yet a Republican tells a member to "grow up" and he is immediately "warned"..

After all of that you want us to believe that you have no bias when you gave that warning to me, yet overlooked worse offenses by other members?

You have only proved my point SO with that warning. You are one of the people who claims "there is opresion of opinions done by the present administration" yet you are doing exactly what you claim the administration has done... You talk about "the government spying on citizens without their approval" but how many times have you and other staff members "traced member's ips without their knowledge and searched high and low to see who they are and from where they are posting from"?

[edit on 5-6-2006 by Muaddib]



posted on Jun, 6 2006 @ 01:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by semperfortis
All of these questions beg for answers and if possible, to meliorate the entire situation. A little over six years ago we were all privy to a president that did more to lower the respect and prestige of the office of President then any in history.


You know, 60-70% of Americans were not in favor of impeaching Clinton. His impeachment was purely politically motivated and had nothing to do with a higher calling for justice that many republicans claim it had.

More on this later...


We all became the laughing stock of the entire world...


And now we've become the hated enemy of the entire world for having a policy of pre-emptive warfare.


as he struggled to define the meaning of the word “Is.”


As he struggled to define the meaning of the word "sex."


We all suffered through as he explained that oral sex was not adultery.


I don't think he ever said that it wasn't adultery (though I might be wrong), I think he said that it wasn't sex, as in sexual intercourse. When someone talks about having "sex" what they mean is sexual intercourse. If I were to say that I had sex with someone you would understand it to mean that I had sexual intercourse with them. If I only had (given or received) oral sex with them, saying that I "had sex" with them would be a lie to most people. If the person that you had oral sex with found out that you were telling people you "had sex" with them they would probably be angry at you for lying.


President Bush has been criminalized for what? Reading a book to some children PRIOR to the events of 9/11. The fact that he is not psychic eliminates his ability to have foreseen the event, yet some criticize his actions on that day to the rest of our bewilderment.


Well, he was quoted as having said that he watched the first plane hit the WTC on television but the only known footage of the first plane hitting was in the Naudet brothers documentary and that footage was released long after the first plane actually crashed into the WTC.

How do you explain that? I know, I know... Slip of the tongue. After all, this president is a little bit slow and doesn't have the greatest eloquence or vocabulary.

His actions that day don't confirm his guilt, though they do support it. But one thing you can't explain away is building 7.


How about the Iraq war? Reading and rereading the speeches leading up to the war, it is profoundly apparent that WMD’s were only a minor concern, that the violations of the UN sanctions and the crimes against humanity were the actions that precipitated President Bush’s actions and the subsequent invasion.


If violations of UN sanctions and crimes against humanity were such a huge concern for this administration do you think they would assert that they have the right to detain people (even U.S. citizens) indefinitely without due process, or that they have the right to torture in direct violation of the Geneva conventions? Attorney general Alberto Gonzales has even referred to the Geneva conventions as "quaint."


So the President authorizes the interception and monitoring of overseas phone conversations that have key words and indications of terrorist connections. Had the President not done this and failed to prevent another attack such as 9/11, then all of the liberals would be screaming bloody murder that he was not doing his job. Somewhere, sometime, the Liberals need to understand that you can not have it both ways. 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.


In 1978 following the abuses of the Nixon administration congress passed a law known as the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. This law requires that any and all surveillance on US citizens be done with a warrant through the FISA court. The purpose of the FISA court is to prevent surveillance abuses by a president by ensuring that any time a president wants to spy on his citizens there will always be judicial oversight. This court has never once rejected a president's request for a warrant and has even been ridiculed as the "rubber stamp" court...

[edit on 6-6-2006 by ShakyaHeir]



posted on Jun, 6 2006 @ 01:25 AM
link   
George W. Bush following 9/11 passed the patriot act which radically expanded the power of the executive branch, and one of the things it did was expand the powers of the president in regards to FISA. But regardless as the law still stands, even ammended by the patriot act, you still have to request a warrant from the FISA court. Shortly after September 11th president Bush secretly ordered the NSA to begin conducting wiretaps on American citizens without a warrant. He also ordered them to begin amassing a database on ALL calls within the United States. All in direct violation of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

So plain and simple, president George W. Bush broke the law.

He not only broke the law but he has consistently lied about it to the American people for the last five years.

Now back to the Clinton impeachment... More than seven years ago a president was impeached for lying (and did he really lie?) about oral sex.

Shouldn't we impeach a president that lies about illegal surveillance that he is conducting on American citizens? Or at the very least impeach him for using ILLEGAL SURVEILLANCE?


Liberals use fear tactics... [emphasis added]



So the President authorizes the interception and monitoring of overseas phone conversations that have key words and indications of terrorist connections. Had the President not done this and failed to prevent another attack such as 9/11... [emphasis added]


Who uses fear tactics?

I'm trying to imagine the sad state of mind that would cause you to believe all this nonsense. My only advice to you: stop watching Fox News.

[edit on 6-6-2006 by ShakyaHeir]



posted on Jun, 6 2006 @ 06:10 AM
link   
Don't try and misquote me muddip or take me out of context this is what I actually wrote:

They have smeared the good names of politicians, journalists, generals, diplomats and others who have dared to question their right to rule, their policies and their actions. And this includes even those few in their own party who listen to their own consciences. They are fanatics.

It is a fanaticism with obsessive religious imagery, and an enforced lock step political message. A fanaticism that hysterically attacks anyone that questions it. A fanaticism that practices a militant my-country-right-or-wrong jingoism that is passed off as patriotism. A fanaticism whose minions in the media manipulate the news in its favor and suppress opposing viewpoints. And, a fanaticism that rejects science in general and especially any science that questions its religious assumptions about the world. It is a fanaticism that borders on fascism, or at the very least, it expresses the type of party politics at more home in an authoritarian system, than in ours.


There is not enough room on hear to list the number of people the bush administration (or their lackeys) have smeared on their way to power but a sample would have to include the race baiting smear campaign launched against John McCain (a republican who actually served his country as opposed to party in the national guard) in south carolina in 2000 when mailings were sent out suggesting that his adopted daughter from bangladesh was actually the product of an affair with a black woman, prostitute i believe was what was suggested. Matter of record mud...

Go a. point out the lies and I will find you the sources to rebute your assertions.



posted on Jun, 6 2006 @ 06:22 AM
link   
How many of you personally know of someone that has run foul of the Pat. Act?

I'll bet no one.

I have my guns, I ain't scared.

Just to point out, " the news media is not your friend"!

Roper



posted on Jun, 6 2006 @ 07:05 AM
link   
BTW I think I have repeatedly said, including on this thread that I am fully aware that there are plenty of good and decent republicans, conservatives and evangelics out there and that I respect them even though i throughly disagree with them and that what they cannot seem to appericate or accept is the fact that their party has been taken over by extremists and it is those extremists that I paint a portrait of in "Cracks in the Facade", not all conservatives or republicans...I have also said repeatedly that every single discription I have used of them has come from either personal conservation, local letters to the editor and talk radio and i have not made up or elaborated a thing...if you don't believe me or assume I am making things up then thats your problem mud, not mine.



posted on Jun, 6 2006 @ 08:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by grover
Don't try and misquote me muddip or take me out of context this is what I actually wrote:


Misquote you?... I did not misquote you grover, nor did i take your op/ed out of context. You obviously were talking about "Those people, including Republicans that don't agree with your views and support anything the present administration has done".... You called all those people, which includes me, fanatics, religious fanatics, etc, etc....



posted on Jun, 6 2006 @ 08:58 AM
link   
As the mod said:

"ATSNN threads are for the discussion of issues and debate points not attacks at individual members."

While someone can toss out a shoe and you're certainly free to claim it fits, I think that critical and insulting generalizations are not the same as say, me replying to someone and insulting them directly.



posted on Jun, 6 2006 @ 09:11 AM
link   
And to reply to another topic in this thread:

It's annoying to me when people assume that I, or anyone, simply has to be critical of the current administration because of party divide.

In my particular case, I haven't always agreed with our political figures, but my outrage at the current administration is simply that and has nothing to do with party affilation. On a nearly daily basis I have seen the direction of this country and the acts of those in office shock, sicken and appall me. I always considered myself a moderate of sorts, but we've stepped so far to the right that it's ridiculous. I can't find the middle ground here anymore.

I will like or dislike the next president, on his own merits, and on the actions of those he is responsible for. As I have this one. And if my judgement isn't yours, don't do yourself and me a disservice by discounting it with the blanket accusation of 'partisianship'. It's becoming an all too common way of self-justification.



posted on Jun, 6 2006 @ 11:13 AM
link   
Grover and Muaddib, take your childish games to PTS if this is what you want to post. Secondly, grover, if you're going to type a members username, do it properly. M'kay?



posted on Jun, 6 2006 @ 11:32 AM
link   
Bravo to this. I used to come around here fairly often but of late maybe once a month or so. Why, you may ask? Because of the overwhelming left lean. I get tired of reading about how all conservatives are idiots or zealots no different than islamic extremists. I got tired of reading how in addition to being incompetent and stupid that the president has also somehow masterminded the complete takeover of the world. I liked this site a lot back in the old days when it was focused more on more global conspiracies and theories. Everything is so hate filled and polarized around here now that I rarely even visit anymore.



posted on Jun, 6 2006 @ 11:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by Muaddib

Originally posted by grover
Don't try and misquote me muddip or take me out of context this is what I actually wrote:


Misquote you?... I did not misquote you grover, nor did i take your op/ed out of context. You obviously were talking about "Those people, including Republicans that don't agree with your views and support anything the present administration has done".... You called all those people, which includes me, fanatics, religious fanatics, etc, etc....



You most certianly did misquote me...the passage read:

They have smeared the good names of politicians, journalists, generals, diplomats and others who have dared to question their right to rule, their policies and their actions. And this includes even those few in their own party who listen to their own consciences. They are fanatics.

and in your post you edited to read:

this includes even those few in their own party who listen to their own consciences. They are fanatics.

Yes that is what I said BUT without the preceeding passage it reads as if I am saying that even conservatives and republicans who listen to their own consciences are fanatics AND THAT IS NOT WHAT I SAID BY A MILE.

You also chose to ignore that I have consistantly said that I can respect conservatives nad republicans even though I disagree with them and it is the extremists (yes in my viewpoint) that have taken over the GOP that I object to...and that I have also said that both the party and the country would be better off if republican moderates were able to wrest control of their party back.



posted on Jun, 6 2006 @ 12:22 PM
link   
Opinions are what debate is all about. When two (or more) people are exposed to the same set of facts yet reach different conclusions based on those facts then you have a difference of opinion and the basis of a decent debate. In other words, opinion occupies a central role in debate.

An opinion is one thing, an attitude is quite another. An attitude is nothing more than an opinion colored by an emotion. It is when attitudes get brought into a debate that the debate is degraded.

For Nygdan--just because someone has nothing they care to post does not mean they have nothing to contribute or say. They may merely not desire to post comments within the current, particular climate of a specific thread or to present their comment(s) to what they perceive to be the current audience.

[edit on 6-6-2006 by Astronomer70]



posted on Jun, 6 2006 @ 12:27 PM
link   
I suggest you take the World's Smallest Political Quiz and take a Load off.

Everybody looks so Tense to me in here.

Why doesn't nobody actually read what others have to say?

Actually I was point at my post in this thread - since it looks like nobody actually read it.

Hello?

Maybe This Article will give you some informaton about "Liberals"?

No?

Well let me just say, that IF there is a Republica or Democratic president they ALWAYS have to go to the same Boss in the end, if you know what I mean?

They are BOTH CONTROLLED BY THE SAME GLOBAL ELITE!

Same Face - TWO MASKS!

You want to know who?

David Rockefeller, Zbigniew Brzezinski, Henry Kissinger, Prince Philip, the Rothschild's, the Bilderbergs and the rest who make up the Cream of this World - well more the CRAP of this World.


The biggest con: Democrats & Republicans work together to destroy America

America is being destroyed by enemies within and with the help of a corrupted Congress and dumbed down (through public education and the corporate media), apathetic, indifferent and lazy public. The window for action to reverse the fascist trend of the last 50 years is fast closing and only an awake and vigilant citizenry can begin to comprehend and take action against the coming totalitarian devastation we have allowed to manifest in our country.

September 11, with the perpetrators in the shadow government and clandestine operations, signaled the final stages from the NWO (New World Order) cabal that they are now in a flight forward end game. The elders in this ‘open conspiracy' for global totalitarian control of the planet, its peoples and resources, David Rockefeller, George H.W. Bush, Zbigniew Brzezinski, Henry Kissinger, Prince Philip, the Rothschild's, and the rest are pushing for some major advancement in their diabolical agenda before their mortal demise.'

And as I said befor - they CREATED this Divide among the People!

IT IS ARTIFICIAL!

It is just here to keep the people divided, in conflict among each other (like you here in this post) and most imporant - CONTROLLED.

I am sorry to be the bringer of Bad News, but somebody has to!

Basicly America is a ONE Party State. Can't you see through the Looking Glass? The Oppsition between the Reps and Dems is just a Show, an Illusion, a Spectacle for the PEOPLE. There is NO left and NO right in todays politics - They all have ONE SAME BOSS.

M O N E Y !

Can you PLEASE think about it?




posted on Jun, 6 2006 @ 12:34 PM
link   
"You have voted semperfortis for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have two more votes this month."

Wow proof of the edge of the razorblade........................Just look at the long list of "banned" members..............many, many were "conservative".........

Semperfortis your fuse has been lit..........only a matter of time..........but based on this one article ..............death with honor............



posted on Jun, 6 2006 @ 12:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by grimreaper797

Originally posted by semperfortis
Just taking a cursory glance around some of the replies is illuminating, very illuminating.

1. "Has no place in a truly thinking person"

false statement, dont worry about the people who make attacks, they just make their arguement weaker everytime.






Semperfortis, misquoted me and distorted what I actually said.

What I actually said was "Partisanship, dogma and ideology have no place in a truly thinking person." I just wanted to clear that up. Thanks



posted on Jun, 6 2006 @ 02:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Roper
How many of you personally know of someone that has run foul of the Pat. Act?

I'll bet no one.


I wonder if you'd be saying the same thing if our government were to completely abolish the Bill of Rights?

"Even though the Bill of Rights has been abolished how many people do you actually know that have been wronged by the government?"

It's about the principle of the issue. We have a government that by design prevents tyranny and oppression by our leaders. We have no right to throw away what the founding fathers fought so hard for. I ask you this: If the terrorists are the ones that hate our freedoms so much why is the American government the one that is taking our freedoms away?

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -- Benjamin Franklin



posted on Jun, 6 2006 @ 02:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by thermopolisWow proof of the edge of the razorblade........................Just look at the long list of "banned" members..............many, many were "conservative".........


And many were -*gasp*- "liberal"!!!


Call a spade a spade man..



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join