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.

 

We Must Be Civil

page: 2
14
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 08:05 AM
link   
reply to post by Thepreye
 


reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan
 


Thanks for the thoughts...your answers made think it through further. I asked this question because at the back of my mind I realize that forced civility is actually part of the definition (or maybe the word is criteria) of society and socially acceptable behavior. Those who can't stay civil are typically shunned by or not allowed to stay in polite society. I still think it's a good thing they've exposed themselves for what they are. And that they and those who responded "in kind" check themselves from now on.




posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 08:07 AM
link   
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan
 


Extremism is not a trait that should be condoned, applauded, accepted, tolerated, OR forgiven.

It should be hated, despised, loathed, ridiculed, and shunned.

The people pictured in my post above, aren't what is good about America, they are the worst of us. They represent intolerance, bigotry, hatred, tyranny and oppression.

And as it's said, do unto others as you would have them do unto you. As they have done, so should their treatment be, it's obviously how they want to be treated.

Who should be in charge? In my opinion it should be the moderates of this country, who should we elect? It the moderates, people who love all aspects of this country and not just the portion of this country that represents a political flag.



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 08:47 AM
link   
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan
 


S&F ...I agree - civility is more than important. Civility is what separates civilized people from fascist mobs.

But I disagree with the way you remember history:



an entire “Kill Bush” meme that spread like wildfire among the populace,


Wha...?????

The way I remember it, I was one of the very few posters here who even dared questioned Bush' policies: The Bankruptcy Act that set people up to be screwed in the (planned) "Global Financial Crisis"; the Executive Order that prevented scientists from talking about prions, even at the International AIDS conferences; and a whole lot more. And the way I remember it, I was attacked viciously, without quarter and with truly vicious vitriol, every time I posted any kind of criticism.

I maintained my own civility in the face of the violent verbiage, and developed a label in self-defense, "Bush Bullies." ...I saw the same dynamic all over the Net - packs of Bush Bullies took over previously great websites, trashed great threads and virtually destroyed the Free Net. ...He even sent the FBI to England to confiscate Indymedia's main frame.

The toadies didn't let go of his coattails except to question the Patriot Act - too little, too late.

Maybe I live a protected life, but I NEVER heard any call, EVER, to "Kill Bush." ...Granted, he did try to create that kind of pathos and even funded a phony movie about a phony assassination attempt - but it was all PR and marketing. The truth is, most of his critics laid low in fear of losing their freedom through most of his tenure. ..I got away with shooting my mouth off because I wasn't living in the USA at the time - a fact used with great vitriol by the Bush Bullies as ammunition to try and destroy my credibility.

So let's back up a bit here. Yes, we all have to take responsibility for our "national psyche" of violence - but attempting to re-write history and blame blameless victims ain't gonna do the trick.


imho - The Global Corporate Elite tricked a bunch of honest Libertarians into consecrating and sanctifying the Global Corporate Government's last push, fronted by Bush. Good job. Now Obama is left holding the bag. We all knew a woman or a black would inherit Bush' legacy - AND take the flack.



edit on 15/1/11 by soficrow because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 08:52 AM
link   
reply to post by soficrow
 



There's no need to pull up the images. They are peppered all over ATS over the last few days as each side has tried to justify their behavior. I bet you can google "Bush" and look at the images...you will see what i mean.

shortly after 9/11 the anger died down, but it resumed by the time we rolled into Baghdad.



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 09:08 AM
link   
reply to post by whatukno
 


You know, it would be pretty easy to go back and dig up pics or quotes of people saying equally bad things about Bush Jr. Are they forgotten or forgiven?

Likewise the same could be found for Clinton, Bush Sr, Reagan.. how far back to old grudges have to be clung to because someone said something dumb about the other side??

The Civility Project recently ended because out of 585 members of Congress and Governors only 3 would sign a simple pledge promising to be civil.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Anyone craving civility and unsure where to start just needs to get up and look in a mirror. That is where it starts. With each person, having the will and self control to be civil and not rising to the bait to become uncivil when your opponents take the argument into the gutter.



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 09:20 AM
link   
reply to post by Frogs
 


Apparently it stops with Bush Jr, we aren't allowed to blame him for anything that happened during his presidency, so I guess the cutoff date is January 20, 2009. When Obama took office.

If Bush can't be blamed for anything that happened during his presidency, then logic dictates that any leftist extremism must also be ignored.

Otherwise, it's hypocritical.



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 10:26 AM
link   
Attempting to pass bills that are thousands of pages long by telling people "we have to pass it to find out exactly whats in it" puts a serious strain on civilty, as well as using language like "if they bring a knife, we will bring a gun".

Attitude reflects leadership.

What I see changing is the level of divisive politics and the rhetoric used to demonize individuals or segments of the population we disagree with(rich/poor, atheist/religious, pro gun/anti gun, pro life/pro choice et al).



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 11:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by whatukno
reply to post by Frogs
 


Apparently it stops with Bush Jr, we aren't allowed to blame him for anything that happened during his presidency, so I guess the cutoff date is January 20, 2009. When Obama took office.

If Bush can't be blamed for anything that happened during his presidency, then logic dictates that any leftist extremism must also be ignored.

Otherwise, it's hypocritical.





And this displays the core problem. Quit worrying about Bush. He is gone, thankfully. We can put him out of our head.

What is that saying about objects in the rearview mirror appear larger than they really are?



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 11:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by whatukno
I am sorry, I can understand being civil, and being civil is fine.

But people shouldn't confuse civility with just forgiving and forgetting that the last two years of highly violent rhetoric and pretend it never happened.

I think honestly that some would like others to forget that there were people on the national mall with signs like this:

Dude...you missed the best protest sign ever:



and as to the thread, I'd say it is about time to take a good hard look at who exactly is fomenting all this grief. Let them feel the fury.
Start by looking at the ones making all the noise.



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 05:33 PM
link   
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan
 


Right, nothing happened at all between January 20, 2001, and January 19, 2009. Every problem we have started after that void in human history. Earth must have went through a wormhole or something during that period of time.

Boy revisionist history must be fun.



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 07:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by whatukno
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan
 


Right, nothing happened at all between January 20, 2001, and January 19, 2009. Every problem we have started after that void in human history. Earth must have went through a wormhole or something during that period of time.

Boy revisionist history must be fun.


OK, see, now we have an example of uncivil behavior. You have put words in my mouth by using "exclusives" in the interpretation of my words. I think you know better than to infer exclusives, but choose to infer it to position what i said in an untruthful manner.

I never said nothing at all happened. Never once. For the sake of todays climate (and this thread) we pick up in 2001. Before that most of the vitriol was from elected officials trying to politicize CLintons adultery. It wasn't people so much, and the internet didn't provide the ready and easy communication with literally millions of people at one time.

Civility starts with honesty, Wuk.



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 07:26 PM
link   
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan
 


You are the one who claims we cannot blame Bush (or more correctly the previous administration) for any of the problems today, therefore, logically, we cannot blame the detractors of that administration no matter how vitriolic for the political atmosphere of today. Therefore we must act as if the previous 8 years never existed at all. Which we both know that our society didn't just take an 8 year long nap.

So, therefore, in order for anyone to make the claim that the detractors of the previous administration in any way added to the current political atmosphere, one must also admit that the previous administration holds some responsibility for the current state the country is in.

Now, obviously, the previous administration is not responsible for everything wrong in this country today. To think so would be obviously delusional.



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 07:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by whatukno
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan
 


You are the one who claims we cannot blame Bush (or more correctly the previous administration) for any of the problems today, therefore, logically, we cannot blame the detractors of that administration no matter how vitriolic for the political atmosphere of today. Therefore we must act as if the previous 8 years never existed at all. Which we both know that our society didn't just take an 8 year long nap.

So, therefore, in order for anyone to make the claim that the detractors of the previous administration in any way added to the current political atmosphere, one must also admit that the previous administration holds some responsibility for the current state the country is in.

Now, obviously, the previous administration is not responsible for everything wrong in this country today. To think so would be obviously delusional.



See, since i never said you couldn't blame bush for his mistakes, it would seem that you have some key misunderstandings in my message.

To help clarify: this thread is about the calls for being civil, and how people do not seem willing to do so. It is about how people will focus on the wrongs they select and choose to focus on, ignoring that which doesn't support their hate. How, no matter how much you think the other side has wronged you, your side has wrong them just as much. How you must admit your own wrong before you can forgive and forget. I hope you can get the point.



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 07:56 PM
link   
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan
 


I understand your argument, basically what you are saying is that you believe that in order for us to return to a civil discourse, you believe that we should forgive and forget all that has happened over the last decade.

I however believe that we can be civil, but we don't have to forgive anyone anything, nor do we have to forget what has happened.

Those that cannot remember the past, are doomed to repeat it after all.

When the right calls for civility, I personally find it disingenuous, I believe that the only reason the right has agreed to a call of civility is that they don't want the same treatment of their people that they dolled out in spades on the left.

And before you start in with the "false left/right paradigm" stuff I am talking about the people not the politicians. I believe trusting that the people who attended these TEA Party events these last two years to be civil is akin to trusting a rattlesnake to not bite you again after biting you repeatedly.



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 08:06 PM
link   
I remember watching a segment on FOX news around September/October 2008. The two talking heads, I believe one was the Uber handsome Chucky Krauthammer, were discussing many of the reasons that we are in trouble because of policies put in place by Bill Clinton. It did not even really strike me as odd because, they were actually talking about current policies that were a result of actions taken by Bill Clinton. Just because he left office, did not mean that things he did in office were not still impacting us. It would have been strange to pretend that anything he did just vanished when he left office.

Get what I said? They were criticizing Bill Clinton in late 2008. FOX news was. And it made sense at the time.

Just a few months later was the first time I heard "Bush is not president anymore, get over it." That was in response to something I had said about the initial military actions after 9/11. Presidents have actions that outlast their term in office. I understand that people do not want to hear "Bush this" and "Bush that" anymore but he is still relevant. Look at all the talk about the tax cuts. Bush did that. I think we can be perfectly civil without turning a blind eye to the lasting impact of each and every president after he leaves office.

Just my 2 cents on that.
edit on 15-1-2011 by Sinnthia because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 09:53 PM
link   
reply to post by whatukno
 



A political rally will draw the most extreme of any group. You are judging an entire ideology on the actions of their most extreme. In the end, the TEA party is nothing but "GOP Redux".

It is like thinking that all Muslims are terrorists. The brush is just too broad.
edit on 15-1-2011 by bigfatfurrytexan because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 10:22 AM
link   
From an article i wrote on August 20, 2010:


Er, did I miss something here?

During an interview on “Fox News Sunday,” which was filmed after Saturday’s rally, Beck claimed that Obama “is a guy who understands the world through liberation theology, which is oppressor and victim.”

“People aren’t recognizing his version of Christianity,” Beck added.

…snip….

Beck made the remarks in answer to a question about his previous accusation that Obama was a “racist” who has “a deep-seated hatred for white people.” He contended that that statement “was not accurate” and that he had “miscast” Obama’s religious beliefs as racism.

…snip….

Beck, on his Fox News show Tuesday, said that liberation theology is at the core of Obama’s “belief structure.”

“You see, it’s all about victims and victimhood; oppressors and the oppressed; reparations, not repentance; collectivism, not individual salvation. I don’t know what that is, other than it’s not Muslim, it’s not Christian. It’s a perversion of the gospel of Jesus Christ as most Christians know it,” Beck said.

Now, I am no Beck fan. His mannerisms are obnoxious, at best, and he tends to say some really, really stupid things. Even so, he tends to hit the nail on the head on occasion, and I can follow a majority of his more conspiratorial stuff.

Having said that, whether he is right or wrong here is irrelevant. Why does the “brand of Christianity” matter? This is reminds me of how everyone was worried the Vatican would have a proxy puppet in JFK (no, I was not alive, but I have read the history).

Now, I often speak about how I will no longer be shouted down for calling things truthfully and with good intention. I do not believe questioning Obama is racism, I see it as patriotism. However, this whole “Muslim” attack meme is an act of racism disguised in anti-Muslim fervor. For example:


This is not productive dialogue, and will only serve to get out a less informed voter: the bigot.

I fully believe it was racism that won the election for Obama. It is a shame. It would be a further shame if it were racism that got him removed from office.

This man has performed fairly miserably, while being given an impossible hand to play. Yes, as a senator he was part of the problem…but repairing it was something I am unsure anyone could do.

Regardless, he could have made a good start by just living up to his campaign promises.

Now, I want you to notice that I just gave a reasonably well informed monologue for the pro’s and con’s of our POTUS, while not mentioning his religion, race, or sexual actions. It is a rare thing to find such dialogue in politics today. However, each of you can help by demanding the dialogue to rise above the petty and meaningless.

I am fortunate to be a part of two separate forums where people are, for the most part, civil to each other and provide solid and well thought out reasons for their positions. Perhaps the whole nation can find such discourse.


That Muslim Obama



posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 12:48 PM
link   
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan
 


Nice article. Constrained, reasonable. S&


I applaud you on your restraint.



posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 02:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Sinnthia
 


GW has lots of things to blame him for. To be honest, i have always wondered if it was even him, or if there was some mind manipulation that happened. For example, the following video clip:



Now, why did he stand at attention? He barely had military service, way back in his "younger days". Why would he, when stumped and confused, return to an attention stance? It just screams "Manchurian Candidate" to me. Which kind of supports my suspicions in the first place, with daddy being a major player in the CIA, and a major mover in world affairs, and all the allegations of the occult.

But my little tangent aside, what has to be remembered is there was a continuation of the policies that put us in debt under Bush. While I may blame Bush for what he did, I cannot allow Obama the same luxury as he has just continued the Bush policies. Not one thing different, unless you think ramping up military action is a Change You Can Believe In.

To go a little further, what Bush DID is in the past. What Obama is doing, by continuing the Bush policies, is what is relevant.



posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 09:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
To go a little further, what Bush DID is in the past. What Obama is doing, by continuing the Bush policies, is what is relevant.


Respectfully, I do not agree. Presidents do things that far outlast their term in office. All of them do. I just read a thread where people were arguing over the lasting effects of moves made by FDR. The president of the United States is a job with lasting effects no matter who holds the seat. After Obama leaves office, there will still be repurcussions from many of his decisions long after he leaves office. I cannot turn a blind eye to things that are happening now just because they came about 3 years ago.



new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join