Text 2894, 236 rader
Skriven 2006-06-26 20:26:00 av Robert E Starr JR (3367.babylon5)
Ärende: Re: Atheists: America's m
=================================
* * * This message was from Josh Hill to rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.m * * *
         * * * and has been forwarded to you by Lord Time * * *         
            -----------------------------------------------             

@MSGID: <on01a2dag7inj7pj8d7u2bn1q3lt9qve78@4ax.com>
@REPLY: <gPIgg.39019$4L1.7650@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com>
On Tue, 13 Jun 2006 00:24:28 +0000 (UTC), "Dennis \(Icarus\)"
<ala_dir_diver@yahoo.com> wrote:

>"Josh Hill" <usereplyto@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:llar82lic8aiu79e59sr6h8af1l7tfq4ad@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 12 Jun 2006 03:51:05 +0000 (UTC), "Dennis \(Icarus\)"
>> <ala_dir_diver@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>

>> From mainstream politicians and commentators? I can't recall any --
>> most of what I read is defensive or analytical.
>>
>> As for the rest of us -- just read this exchange on Usenet:
>>
>> Democrat:
>>
>> >Nope. It's much more simpler than that: I hate
>> >liars, I hate maliciousness, I hate incompetence,
>> >and I hate corruption;
>>
>> Republican:
>>
>> Then you should be blowing up the DNC and butchering all the leftists
>> in DC.
>
>I'd like to see a bit more of the exchange.
>Heck, if need be I can send you links of conversations I';ve had swith
>liberals - one of whom chastised me fornot speaking up when segregationw as
>legal, even after I made it clear that I was busy gestating in 1965.
>All sorts of other occassions where the lib went personal VERY quickly.
>
>Hey, we'll combine stories, and find that each side is being attacked
>equally ;-)

Hard to establish numbers, since we're talking personal here. It
certainly isn't what I've seen on Usenet. But what really bothers me
is that the conservative establishment has been running a systematic
campaign of slurs against liberals and moderates and Democrats of
every stripe, whom they broadbrush as liberals. And against a whole
portion of the country that's portrayed as elitist, un-American and
un-Christian. That's been the case ever since Nixon and Agnew
originated the tactic with their homilies to "Middle America" and
their attacks on "effete snobs."

>> I wish I could say that that was unique, but it could characterize any
>> number of discussions I've had/seen with Republicans on Usenet. (Not
>> all, of course -- just a significant percentage.) Add to that the fact
>> that Republicans seem to fall for the most obvious spin and vote for
>> people who want to exploit them, and the well-known fact that the more
>> educated one is the more liberal one is apt to be, and maybe a dash of
>> not believing in the evolution, and, well, the fact that much of what
>> they say is complete and utter bollocks, and that that's obvious to
>> anyone who does a bit of research and reads the paper  . . . what it
>> looks like is a bunch of largely uneducated people who don't keep up
>> with the news and lack the insight to see through transparent
>> propaganda.
>
>Well, would that count as an example? :-)

How's this? It's from a Hastert for Congress campaign letter someone
forwarded to me this morning:

----

Dear Fellow American: 

Imagine for a moment this nightmare scenario, the six words no
conservative wants to hear: 

"Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi"

Sound scary to you? If the liberals at MoveOn.org have their way, that
nightmare may very well become reality. If we're going to keep our
Republican majority and keep Nancy Pelosi out of the Speaker's chair,
I'm going to need your help. 

Please join my campaign today and contribute $35, $75, $150, $500 or
even more to continue conservative Republican leadership and help me
stop Ms. Pelosi and her liberal Democrat friends from taking control
of the House of Representatives. 

During my tenure as Speaker of the House, Americans have benefited
from more than $2.1 trillion in tax relief, spurring the economy to
create over 7.6 million jobs and leading to record homeownership
rates. House Republicans have brought conservative reforms to
everything from bankruptcy to medical malpractice to healthcare,
producing such innovations as Health Savings Accounts. Republicans
have continually been President Bush's partners in the War on Terror
and in defense of traditional marriage and American family values. 

Most recently, House Republicans have made a clear statement that we
must secure our borders as the first step in addressing the issue of
illegal immigration. While this may not be popular with everyone, it
is the right thing to do for the security of the American people.
Unfortunately, if Nancy Pelosi and her liberal friends controlled
Congress, many of these accomplishments would be endangered. Just who
are Nancy Pelosi's friends? And what kind of power would they have if
the Democrats took over the House? 

John Murtha - who has irresponsibly called for a complete pull out of
our troops from Iraq - would suddenly have control over the country's
defense budget as chair of the Appropriations Subcommittee for
Defense. You would think our troops would have the strongest support
of a decorated war veteran like Murtha, yet he continues to hurt our
bravest soldiers by claiming that we are "losing in Iraq." 

Charlie Rangel - who led the charge against personal retirement
accounts in Social Security - would be chair of the Committee on Ways
and Means. Someday, when our children are retired and are struggling
to pay the bills, they can remember it was Rangel who had the chance
to help but refused for his personal, political gain. 

John Dingell - who voted against lower gas prices - would be chair of
the Energy and Commerce Committee. Dingell also voted AGAINST making
tax cuts permanent - once again leaving it to the taxpayer to figure
out how to pay the bills. 

Henry Waxman - no friend of Republicans - would be chair of the
Government Reform Committee, where he could lead all sorts of
unfounded investigations against Republicans. Already, Waxman has
called for congressional hearings against President Bush's closest
advisors, including Karl Rove. 

Barney Frank - who was recently named one of the most liberal members
of Congress - would be chair of the Financial Services Committee.
Frank received a pathetic 4% approval rating from the American
Conservative Union. 

John Conyers - who starred in Michael Moore's ultra-liberal Fahrenheit
911 - would be chair of the Judiciary Committee. 

David Obey - who recently called the federal marriage amendment
"ridiculous" - would be chair of the powerful Appropriations
Committee. 

-----

Need I point out the ludicrous lies and distortions here?

>> >> >> And check out this conservative newspaper cartoon:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> http://www.gocomics.com/glennmccoy/2006/06/07/
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Note that the liberal is a pot smoking tie-dyed hippie with a lava
>> >> >> lamp and love beads, and that he's laughing with glee at the news
>that
>> >> >> marines killed civilians. Again, imagine what would happen if a
>> >> >> mainstream liberal cartoonist did the same.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> This is pure poison, and yet it's become an integral part of the
>> >> >> conservatives' message.
>> >> >
>> >> >Not nearly as bad as, say, the cartoons portraying Secretary of State
>> >Rice
>> >> >as racial stereotypes.
>> >>
>> >> I've /never/ seen such a cartoon, and I can't believe such a cartoon
>> >> would be published in an American newspaper today. Or have I
>> >> overestimated developments in the south? The worst I've seen
>> >> cartoonists do is make fun of her teeth. And Pat Oliphant,
>> >> appropriately enough, portrays her as a parrot -- "Yes, boss! Yes
>> >> boss! Awrkk!"
>> >
>> >http://www.iwf.org/articles/article_detail.asp?ArticleID=699
>>
>> Did you actually read this stuff? The Oliphant link didn't work, and
>> neither did the Trudeau. It seems that the complainers missed what I
>> would have thought was a very obvious -- and very appropriate --
>> reference to a famous scene in Gone with the Wind. A description of
>> the Trudeau strip suggests that criticism of it is even more
>> unwarranted: it depicts /Bush/ making a racist comment about Rice, the
>> point being that he is using the same tactics against Rice that he
>> used against Richard Clarke.
>
>Yeah, I did - the links didnt work but it does describe 'em fairly well.
>So you think its ok, and other folks think that they're racist.
>Differing opinions & all.

Nah. See my other post, and Amy's. This is just the sort of distortion
I'm talking 'bout. Unless I've missed some kind of connection between
parrots and black people, there was no racial stereotyping whatsoever
in the portrayal of Rice, and Trudeau portrayed /Bush/ as racist. You
can IMO argue about the third cartoon: the analogy was apt, but I
think it much more important to avoid any non-critical use of
traditional fictional stereotypes.

>> >> >Still, it would not surprise me in the least if there are some folks
>who
>> >are
>> >> >glad when US troops are killed by the enemy, glad when they're accused
>of
>> >> >doing something horrible. It'd reinforce their presumption that the US
>is
>> >in
>> >> >the wrong.
>> >>
>> >> No doubt, but there are always some people who want to do just about
>> >> anything if you scrape the bottom of the barrel, and I don't think you
>> >> do the truth any service by convincing voters that the other party is
>> >> like that. And, really, that seems to be what the majority in the red
>> >> states believe. Or as a friend put it of relatives down south, they
>> >> hate Democrats and they hate Yankees, and the rest be damned . . .
>> >
>> >Not the party, not - just those in leadership positions.
>>
>> Maybe, but why?
>
>Near-irreconcilable differences on policy?

Are they, though? That, above all, is what we Demcrats find puzzling:
on most every measure, the Dems are closer to the American public, and
that includes most of the public; and the policy differences that are
used to drive a wedge between the Democrats and the Bible Belt are
generally trumped-up phony ones, very obviously so.

-- 
Josh

"I love it when I'm around the country club, and I hear people talking about
the debilitating
effects of a welfare society. At the same time, they leave their kids a
lifetime and beyond
of food stamps. Instead of having a welfare officer, they have a trust officer.
And instead
of food stamps, they have stocks and bonds."

- Warren Buffett
                    
--- SBBSecho 2.11-Win32
 * Origin: Time Warp of the Future BBS - Home of League 10 (1:14/400)