Text 2934, 158 rader
Skriven 2006-06-27 16:52:00 av Robert E Starr JR (3407.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: <mfp2a2hi14albocj4kub5a4q6252a3cgka@4ax.com>
@REPLY: <qAXgg.132479$F_3.98391@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net>
On Tue, 27 Jun 2006 02:41:42 +0000 (UTC), "Dennis \(Icarus\)"
<ala_dir_diver@yahoo.com> wrote:

>"Josh Hill" <usereplyto@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:on01a2dag7inj7pj8d7u2bn1q3lt9qve78@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 13 Jun 2006 00:24:28 +0000 (UTC), "Dennis \(Icarus\)"
>> <ala_dir_diver@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>

>> >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."
>
>And liberals have done the same - where does the term "borking" come from?

From the politically-motivated disclosure that Judge Bork had smoked
marijuana at parties, which is to say that while regrettable in and of
itself it has nothing to do with the broadbrushing of liberals and
broad segments of the American population. In any case, the comment
that "liberals have done the same" is a distortion of the truth,
equating as it does one man's parking ticket with another's murder
rap.

>> >> 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:
>
><snip>
>>
>> Need I point out the ludicrous lies and distortions here?
>>
><snip>
>
>And you'll find similar lettrs from all stripes.

Not that I've seen. I mean, you'll find campaign letters, sure, that
tell you that if the other party is elected, so and so will get such
and such a position and that he'll do this and that. But I'm not
complaining about that aspect of Hastert's letter. Rather, I was
providing a convenient example per your request of the in-your-face
lies and the patently obvious demagoguery and truth twisting to which
I referred above. Evidence to support my assertion that "Republicans
seem to fall for the most obvious spin and vote for people who want to
exploit them" and that "much of what [the Republican leadership says]
is complete and utter bollocks." And I didn't even have to try very
hard -- this just happened to be in my in box.

>> >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.
>
>So you think its a fair portrayal?
>Should be easy to verify its an accurate portrayal of how Bush sees folks.
>:-)

I dunno, because I don't know exactly what it represents and I don't
know what Bush thinks . . . 

><snip>
>> >
>> >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.
>
>I dont think they are trumped up or phoney.

Exactly the problem I'm referring to.

How would you feel if a slick con man was laying something on your
brother and when you tried to persuade him not to sign over his
fortune he insisted that not only was the con man a decent fellow but
that you were the enemy yourself? Because of course one of the things
the con man is going to do -- create distrust of those most likely to
thwart his designs. And when you say to your brother "This guy is
pulling the wool over your eyes," the con man is going to say "Your
brother is pulling the wool over your eyes because he wants to get his
hands on your fortune. He's an elitist snob who thinks he's better and
smarter than you are, who thinks you're dumb and can't make your own
business decisions."

That's the game, and we don't know how to counter it, because what
with the television press reduced to puppy-dog docility and people no
longer reading the newspaper and Republican smears and propaganda the
dialog has been reduced to attack ads, sound bites, and spin, and
these media don't allow the public to distinguish between lies and
truth. So we're stuck with the painful process of watching the
Republicans dig their own grave at the country's expense. Oh, the
people will wake up eventually -- you can't fool all of the people all
of the time -- in fact, in the case of Dubya, most of them already
have. But it comes too late. The idea is to ward off the harm /before/
it's done, before we have to deal with a failed war, an unprecedented
deficit, outsourcing and deindustrialization, a shrinking middle
class, energy dependence, eight precious years lost in the fight
against global warming, a new and scary pattern of in-your-face
executive lawlessness, a massively corrupt Congress and executive
branch, a health care fiasco, a demoralized Federal bureaucracy that's
been reduced to incompetence and ineffectuality, yada. And you'll
probably have to do it without the comfortable supermajority that
would allow you to override the lobbyists and pass meaningful
legislation like health care reform.

-- 
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)