This site is filled with Reactionaries

reply to post by sartre

Dear sartre,

Now you have me worried. At first, I thought the OP and the site was just heavy-handed marketing, a failure to "Know your audience." But I'm beginning to suspect something darker.

First, though, beezzer needs no defense from me, but you should know that he is one of the most highly respected people around these boards. Calling him names is a strategic error. I have to admit I like "delusional capitulator," though. It sounds like the name of my grandmother's vacuum cleaner. (or a dental tool) You've only lowered your standing with that ad hominem.

Discussions are meaningless without knowing the nature of the issues and action against the globalists.

Well, that's kind of the point of ATS, isn't it? Discussions and learning. It's rather difficult to discuss with, or learn from, an angry and agressive poster.

Wasting time and energy because feeling are hurt is foreign to my world.

And here you lose me, individually, completely. There is nothing in this world but people with feelings. If you believe that being concerned about them is "foreign to your world," then, unless I misunderstand you, I want nothing to do with your world.

With respect,
Charles1952

Originally posted by sartre
reply to post by beezzer

 

On Gandhi:

Civil Disobedience batr.org...

"By bringing together disaffected, alienated and desperate masses, he was able to apply the best kind of political pressure; namely, moral indignation. When the wrath of ordinary populace rally within their own communities, the potential for meaningful antagonism towards the ruling powers, has a practical chance to fundamentally alter the status quo."

Moral indignation. An emotion, perhaps? A "feeling"? You mean that Gandhi used emotions, hurt feelings to garner a response? Was Gandhi a "reactionary" or an "Actionary"?

It was rabidly liberal when Bush was president. Basically just expect the opposite of whomever happens to have been appointed president of the US. I have a working theory that conspiracy theories are lifelines to those who feel disenfranchised.

Liberals could also be termed "reactionaries" in a sense, at least according to the first definition you have provided at the outset of the thread. If you can coerce a liberal to act out who they really are, what they really believe, it is an eye-opening experience and at times a frightening one. Maybe that could be said for extreme extremists on both sides of the "aisle". I find that liberals seem to be more apt to modify or moderate how they feel or what they believe, using politically correct terms to mask what can really be a problematic ideology. Often enough, you will have to coerce them because they tend to modify their public views in order to gain wider acceptance. It seems conservatives tend to be more straightforward and direct in the presentation of what they really hold to be important. "Reactionary" is just another label, somewhat derogatory, but it has a more sophisticated, moderated bent to it. One could also refer to it as an underhanded and subtle way to give conservatives the finger, if you will. The term is indeed sufficiently reactionary in and of itself.

Originally posted by MsAphrodite
Interesting, now may I ask you a question?

What could possibly be more reactionary than a government that sets up a spying apparatus so extensive that the recent revelations of its existence have shocked the world? A pre-crime system.

All under the control of a "liberal" leader.

I'm not ignoring that it had its origins prior to this president, however clearly the current president has put this system on steroids.

I don't think there is an ideology within the current two party system that can claim the other side is more reactionary.

Spying on Americans is as old as America itself... I know I'm a broken record here, but if you think this is some modern turn then you're missing the point.

The same goes for secret courts ... FISA was put in place as a REACTION to Watergate... to try and keep the Executive at least vaguely accountable (and you have to admit, if Nixon had had to go to FISA before he spied on his political opponents, things would've worked out much differently).

reply to post by superannoyingreality


Old as America itself do you say? Please inform us how everyone was spied on prior to 1992.

As to accountability, the FBI and the NSA are refusing all information requests citing National Security.

Originally posted by MidnightTide
reply to post by superannoyingreality

 

Old as America itself do you say? Please inform us how everyone was spied on prior to 1992.

As to accountability, the FBI and the NSA are refusing all information requests citing National Security.

The vast majority of what Snowden reported on which was the targeting of data retained by law enforcement. The prerequisite for targeting is a 51% chance that one of the people communicating was from overseas.

In 1776 Ben Franklin, and two others, on a future Supreme Court justice, one a future state governor, secretly opened all mail from overseas and read it. Mail addressed to everyone, including diplomatic pouches.

Before FISA the government frequently targeted its own, from Martin Luther King Jr, to "communists" in Hollywood to political opponents.

This all came to a head in Watergate. The reaction to Watergate was the FISA court. To have some oversight for domestic and foreign intelligence.

This is not new.

PRISM in 1776

reply to post by superannoyingreality


To compare the amount of spying that took place in 1776 to today is a little far reaching don't you think?

Originally posted by Ghost375

Originally posted by beezzer
Any site that has an article calling Herman Cain an "Uncle Tom" has my immediate disdain.

But if you want to use a site that promotes racism as a source, then by all means, continue.

Way to intentionally misrepresent that...

I know I'm a little late to the party, so forgive my tardy appearance but how would Beezzer be misrepresenting the low value of your chosen source site? Lets see what the bunny found to be annoyed with, shall we? We wouldn't want it misrepresented...after all.

Herman Cain is the Uncle Tom of the Federal Reserve

Pretty rough title your source site has there... Hmm..

The drama being milked from the surprise Florida straw poll, that has Herman Cain on top, is just part of the media’s attempt to create another phony conservative to pacify mentally challenged GOP voters. The rush for a "politically correct" challenger to Barry Soetoro and his debauchery of the presidency, knows no bounds. The silly season is in full swing, especially for those Republican Party loyalists in the sunshine state. As any rap brother from Liberty City knows, Herman Cain is an oreo.

(Link above)

Nope...Beezzer doesn't appear to have misrepresented much. Your source for this thread did write that vile bit of trash. Lets see what else this source figures is news, huh?

The Irrelevance of the Republican Party

That's telling for editorial mindset...When they aren't looking at things from the other side, of course

That Republican 2010 Landslide and What It Means

At least they seem to hate everyone equally though. That's something...

Democratic Socialists vs. America First Populists

So basically, you picked one of the worst sources I've seen in months for real gutter level political hash and trash, where most of the "front page" articles are still blaring headlines that haven't been news since the 2012 primary season was in full swing....and seem to hate the right and left equally, depending on which day it may be and the mood of the staff there.

Perhaps better sources can be found to base such a one sided rant thread on? Just sayin'

Originally posted by MidnightTide
reply to post by superannoyingreality

 

To compare the amount of spying that took place in 1776 to today is a little far reaching don't you think?

No.

It's not about the scope... trying to make it about the scope misses the entire point of the thing.

Would you be OK with your neighbour being beaten up by a cop, because you weren't? Would you be OK with all BLACK people going to jail, because you're not black?

Look at this with open eyes:

The US government, from it's inception to right now has agreed that secret courts, propaganda, domestic spying, opening private correspondence, violating other countries sovereignty (remember those diplomatic pouches), all without oversight, is totally legal and constitutional.

This is NOT modern, this belief or this behaviour.

The TOOLS and the WAY we communicate has changed, meaning the same principles can be rolled out to the entire population, but the NSA is simply doing what Franklin did.With pretty much the same criteria.

I know it seems like it's apocalyptic, but it's not. We ALWAYS feel like what's happening NOW is hugely important, but it's not... it's the same old same old. This is why history books are so important.

Back when FISA came on stream it was a REACTION to concerns like yours.

FISA wasn't the cause, but seen as a remedy.

The solution is a BETTER FISA not getting rid of FISA.

If it wasn't a rubber stamp court, then we'd have the protections we need, more or less.

In the EU "metadata" is legally required to be stored (for as long as two years - depending on the country). Law enforcement sees that it's an invaluable tool to keep people safe and solve crime.

The concern I think is protecting privacy.

But c'mon, these companies, esp in the US, keep this data because they want to SELL to you. It had to be made law in the EU, because the companies trashed it for privacy.

You have to have some reasonable perspective on all of this.

Domestic spying is as old as America. It's not going to go away. Neither is data retention. The best outcome is mcuh better privacy protection, more accountable courts, and more transparency.... it's not as "2013" as screaming about how corrupt and fascist everyone is, but... it's a lot more realistic and achievable.

Ghost,
I will write your apology to ATS for you...
I sincerely apologize...I now realize how the citizenry of ATS cannot be labeled with polical terms.
Be assured that I have learned a huge lesson and promise to never repeat such a thread again.

Terrific post! I feel your views are spot on. I do more lurking than posting because of this. S&F for you.

reply to post by Ghost375


I agree. Its gotten more and more polarized (political views) since the internet. I remember when people had liberal views on some things and conservative views on others, and no one tried to catagorize them.If you found you disagreed with someone, you just shrugged and said "its a free country". In short people were allowed to disagree with each other becuase we realized that everyone had a right to their opinion. That sort of ingrained respect for our fellow citizens is long gone. Now you are either a conservative or a liberal, which is kind of ludicrous because no one is purely either thing.The worst moral indignation you can deliver to one of these extremists ( and I am talking about BOTH those on the left and the right) is to disagree with them, where they might accuse you of being a traitor or worse. There is no longer and real civility, Casual political discourse has become a fist fight on the Titanic so to speak. We are all arguing while the ship sinks. The views of both left and right have gotten more and more extreme on both sides of the isle, until now almost no one identifies with being a moderate. When in actuality moderates probably get the most done because they are able to work together. The polarization is paralyzing the political process and I hope at some point everyone comes back to their senses. Before its too late and we go the way of the Romans. I think we are well on our way.

Originally posted by Ghost375
I think we all knew this site has Conservative tendencies, but recently I realized this site houses a specific type of conservative, Reactionaries.
...
For government, they choose state's rights and individualism.
For Foreign policy, they are very American centered and oppose immigration.
For taxes, very anti-tax in all forms.
For education, they generally support homeschooling, and oppose the public school system.

edit on 5-7-2013 by Ghost375 because: (no reason given)

I consider myself a progressive liberal, although I was raised in and usually work in a conservative environment.
I will admit being a reactionary, because there isn't much that I am actually allowed to do or that most people that I know would accept. I choose state's rights and individualism, because that is the only chance of getting my causes furthered. Take GMO's or marijuana for example - some progress is being made on a state-by-state basis, but the federal government is loaded with obstructionists. I don't agree at all with current hypocritical American foreign policy and think we need to get along and accept other nationalities. Our taxes are very low compared with other "developed" countries, and they are very regressive in fact, if not in policy, and I don't mind higher taxes, but they need to go back to being progressive, and need to stop being used to prop up evil corporations and war mongering. For education, I have always disliked our public schools, because they support the status quo, teaching often false "facts" rather than the truth or how to evaluate things, and their methods are too rigid and don't suit me. In that respect, I think home schooling could be good, but too often leads to indoctrination of a different sort and doesn't teach how to deal with other people as well. So, there is plenty of room for improvement, but that won't be helped by removing their ability to improve.

So, do I fit? Only partly, like I will bet most people do.

Originally posted by Ghost375
reply to post by beezzer

 

see, all of your stances fall in the reactionary part of the chart

Don't worry. I'll answer the questions too. I gotta go somewhere for a few hours, but when I get back.

We're still waiting for this by the way. Or do you not want to be labeled by your peers now?

Originally posted by MsAphrodite
Interesting, now may I ask you a question?

What could possibly be more reactionary than a government that sets up a spying apparatus so extensive that the recent revelations of its existence have shocked the world? A pre-crime system.

All under the control of a "liberal" leader.

I'm not ignoring that it had its origins prior to this president, however clearly the current president has put this system on steroids.

I don't think there is an ideology within the current two party system that can claim the other side is more reactionary.

Calling Obama a "liberal" is a big joke. The fact that he is not officially a Republican doesn't matter. Objectively and reasonably Obama can be described as centrist or even rightist, who is pro-big business, pro-police state and pro-empire. He is clearly the hardest working Republican in Washington. I get sick of conservatives and Republicans calling him a liberal. Dennis Kucinich is a liberal, Obama clearly is not.

And yes, I'd say that Obama is a text-book fascist -- just as George W. Bush was.

@OP, Preach it, Casper!

So much for the zombie apocalypse theory. People still react. Even after chemtrails and flouride. Why do we persist?

Anyone here read that the new medical what ASTM or whatever has made most human action to be a disease, and that the only healthy people are dead or in a coma? I forget where I read that. So if you react you are ultra conservative. If someone pokes you with a stick, you will probably react. "Gee, I was comfortable before you were poking me with that stick." "Shut up, you are under arrest for responding. You are ultra conservative. How do we know you are not a terrorist. Here, try some pepper spray."

Oh, just give me some meds, I am ill and have a disease. Whaa. Give me a medication that is profitable for you, please. Poke me with a stick again.