Obama has suspicious number of letter-writing fans named

History repeats itself or so they say !
Nixon= i will end the war in vietnam, sends MORE troops !
Obama= i will end war in afghanistan, er u know the rest !

Nixon Liar
Obama Liar

Its history repeating !

reply to post by ProRipp


History repeating isn't the problem. People know these things go on, people know the government lies. And they will continue to get away with it as long as people go along with it, simply assuming it is the way things are.
People have become too passive, thinking they can do nothing to thwart the government. They forget that WE pay their bills, WE do their work, WE buy the products/food/etc that they want us to, WE fight their wars, WE buy into their propoganda, WE vote them back in.

Without our support, the government is impotent. and THAT is why they keep us divided and indoctrinated. They only have the power to opress, when we make the choice to submit.

reply to post by joesomebody


lol u talk as if ats was a threat. Dont make me laugh, ats members dont have a clue of whats really going on in the world and so cannot possibly be a threat. At best there are a bunch of laughable and pathetic paranoid freaks. Just look at the different threads, people here are confusing their opinions with reality, that cant work

Dont worry if u told that thinking u "werent" ignorant anymore, u were #ing wrong.

reply to post by Vilkata


That sounds a LOT like Black Propaganda.

You know, release info that will be found out to be a lie, then it discredits the other side.

For some reason people on this thread have begun to say propaganda is okay.

I wonder why that is? Can you say hypocrisy? Or how about blinders.

Vilification of the 'political' regime aside; this speaks volumes about the integrity of the Newspapers, no?

For some reason they are like putty in the hands of the 'political' manufacturers of consent... or are they one and the same?

Either way, the question becomes not one of freedom of expression, not one of 'politicized' media, nor even monopolized media ownership, but one of the diminishing likelihood that dissent will get airtime.

Eventually, if every 'major' newspaper reports it, it becomes perceived as truthful, honest, genuine, and trustworthy.... somehow, that strikes me as precarious.

Sort of like how all the major news blithely accepted that the Himalayan glacier was doomed.... everybody was ready to believe it....

So this common apologetic message is disseminated nation-wide, some will be 'OK' with it.... others will decry the insincerity, all focused on the administration and the political showmanship and marketing ingenuity of the information wizards..., and the one thing that supposed to safeguard us from such abuse, the Press, again fails to be held accountable for the whorish nature it has nurtured over the last century or so.

Is there something illegal about what this woman did? She's trying to get a message out and so she contacts all the papers she can find to post a letter to the editor, which is opinion. Are papers obligated only to print letters from their own areas?

Just wondering.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


Oh BH, do not go there.

Fox or Faux news, was vilified that they were able to get away on that lawsuit, regarding the dissemination of falsehoods, regarding the reporters that were whistleblowers.

Both sides need to come together and state that patent falsehoods are a detriment to free speech.

A minimum of a first page retraction in the boldest of fonts, needs to be a forefront of cases such as this.

I would call for legislation that when a falsehood has been exposed, that the disseminator of said falsehood, needs to post it 50 times the coverage of previous lies.

What say you?

Who even READS newspapers any more? I thought they were just used to keep the dogs and cats from messing up the kitchen floor. Oh, I forgot- they're also good shredded up as mulch for your garden, and when I go fishing, I wrap the fish guts up in newspaper, preferably the NY Times, because it smells worse than the fish. When I throw it in the garbage, the garbage collectors just think it's the NY Times, smelling things up.

reply to post by endisnighe


I agree thats another possibility, equally likely. However, either way, it is known, that either way, the government is using shifty tactics for propoganda purposes. So, in either regard, the course of action for those of us who catch on to these tactics is to spread the word, and help people see through them.

Edit while writing, I just realized I assumed who you were saying was using Black Op tactics. I figured you were saying that Obamaites were using this so they could discredit us as grasping at straws to attack his administration. It also occurred to me that this could also be someone else's attempt to discredit Obama by attempting a propoganda campaign that would be easily seen through on his behalf. Say, for example, something the Republicans might do. Either way, there is propogandistic disinfo being spread, and THAT is what matters, not the perpetrator. Whoever did it in this case, they are all equally guilty of using the same tactics.

just my opinion - but i have to agree with the notion that its either :

a - a genuine person who has a right to hold and opine the views expressed

b - a more sinister false flag - created by the people who are complaining the loudest about it the abominable cliche ` thou doth protest too much ` springs to mind

because as pointed out - a single person - of reasonable inteligence could very easiliy type out ten such short letters deliberatly using different styles / manerisms etc etc

reply to post by joesomebody


I like how every time someone expresses an opinion it's deemed propaganda by someone.

Fox poses as right wing = Propaganda

MSNBC takes a left leaning stance = propaganda.

So any opinion on television, the media, even someone using a pseudonym and writing into newspapers and such is now deemed propaganda.

Look most of us here on ATS are wise to the fact that Left and Right are run by the same people, we understand the illusion at work here and this should come as no surprise especially with how heated the Obama thing has been from day 1. Remember the wild rumors and allegations before the election? And on the other "side" (two sides of the same coin) a lot of people thought Obama was a magic genie who would erase all the evils of the world. People got delusional before the election, we should have expected the same post-election attitudes.

That's one of the things politics has in common with religion, fanaticism. So Ellie Light is either an employee or just Obama's biggest fan, makes no difference really.

reply to post by joesomebody


very interesting.

Ellie Light...

El-light...

Elite.

coincidence?

Originally posted by endisnighe
Oh BH, do not go there.

I'm not going anywhere. I'm asking real questions, examining this with a critical eye. I know that's not a popular thing to do around here, but it's what I do, and proudly so. Was what this woman did illegal? Or is she just a liar?

Fox or Faux news, was vilified that they were able to get away on that lawsuit, regarding the dissemination of falsehoods, regarding the reporters that were whistleblowers.

I am unfamiliar with the lawsuit, but FOX news is not an individual citizen. They have liabilities and responsibilities to the public. Ellie Light is not a reporter. This is a letter to the editor. An opinion piece.

Both sides need to come together and state that patent falsehoods are a detriment to free speech.

The freedom to lie IS free speech. Those who would quash the speech of others, just because they don't like it, in the name of free speech are living in a twisted reality. She gave her opinion about Obama. She lied about where she lived. I don't want to live in a country where I can be jailed for lying.

A minimum of a first page retraction in the boldest of fonts, needs to be a forefront of cases such as this.

That's what I'm asking. Are papers liable for the factual content of the letters to the editor that they choose to print? I don't think they are, but I'm not sure.

I would call for legislation that when a falsehood has been exposed, that the disseminator of said falsehood, needs to post it 50 times the coverage of previous lies.

What say you?

So, you would hold papers responsible for the factual content of their letters to the editor. That must mean it isn't already a law. So, basically, you're just upset that this woman lied about her address and got away with it. Sounds like a simple case of sour grapes, to me.

Coincidence? Propaganda? Boredom/obsession?

Last I knew, letters are selected by hand to be printed in the newspaper. Not every letter sent gets printed. Hence the suspicion regarding these nearly identical letters in more than a dozen papers. What are the odds of getting featured in all of these papers??

Something stinks!!

reply to post by jibeho


You must have missed the fact that they weren't printed in all the papers to which she sent them...

The Plain Dealer asks letter writers for a phone number for verification purposes. The newspaper did not publish Light's letter in its print edition or online.

Ellie Light Responds

[edit on 25-1-2010 by Benevolent Heretic]

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


You must have missed this.

All told, 42 newspapers had fallen for Light, and on the very day that the Cleveland paper broke the story, USA Today had just printed their own version. It is absurd that three weeks passed with no one catching on.

and this

In recent weeks, Light has published virtually identical "Letters to the Editor" in support of President Barack Obama in more than a dozen newspapers. Every letter claimed a different residence for Light that happened to be in the newspaper's circulation area.

Read more: newsbusters.org...


Read more: newsbusters.org...


[edit on 25-1-2010 by jibeho]

reply to post by jibeho


And you must have missed this: From her response.

Light said she didn't submit her letter to all the outlets that published it, and said many carried it after it was cited several weeks ago by Politico's Ben Smith.

So, of those she contacted, there's at least one paper that didn't run it and many that she didn't even contact picked it up from politico.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


God bless you for believing this "woman's" contrived story.
I prefer to remain skeptical of this story.

It walks like a duck and sounds like a duck...

Originally posted by jibeho
God bless you for believing this "woman's" contrived story.
I prefer to remain skeptical of this story.

I have no reason not to believe it. I'm open to any shred of evidence or proof that she's not who she says she is. If her letters were extolling the virtues of Sarah Palin, Ron Paul or someone you liked, you'd be defending her right to free speech. And so would I.

Fact is, many people feel the way this woman feels. They may not be in abundance here on ATS, but they certainly exist in the country. The fact of their existence should be no surprise and does not indicate evidence of a "conspiracy". The fact that they she had an idea for a letter-writing campaign (as dishonest as she was about her address) is no indication whatsoever that she is a government shill. In fact, I believe the government would have done a MUCH better job.

So, yes. Until there is evidence to the contrary, I find this woman's story very believable.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


Perhaps she didn't send ALL of the letters.
I said in my first post that something stinks.

Newspapers pulling letters off of a website and publishing them as letters to the editor stinks. Changing the name and location of the letter writer also stinks.

Someone or something stinks!!

If the letter wasn't actually sent then the papers should not publish it as a letter sent to the paper.