Text 3051, 183 rader
Skriven 2006-06-29 11:06:00 av Robert E Starr JR (3524.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: <om96a2pidir5l02jve3pk201rrvhbobvkf@4ax.com>
@REPLY: <646m829g7bnop29r7nik0veo9k3irc04k5@4ax.com>
On Wed, 28 Jun 2006 02:40:33 +0000 (UTC), "Dennis \(Icarus\)"
<ala_dir_diver@yahoo.com> wrote:

>
>"Josh Hill" <usereplyto@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:mfp2a2hi14albocj4kub5a4q6252a3cgka@4ax.com...
>> 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
>
>That wasn't all there was, Josh.

It's what I remember.

>> 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.
>
>Liberals have been painting conservatives with a broad brush
>"racist, anti-immigrant, stupid, starve your children, etc" for decades.

They have?

>> ><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.
>
>As do they all.

Again, I haven't noticed. Whether I agree or not, the Democratic
campaign missives that come my way tend to be on the level. The
Republicans, OTOH, lie a lot. They have to, because if they told the
truth they'd only get the votes of some multi-millionaires.

>> >> >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 . . .
>
>Ok....
>
><snip>
>> >> 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."
>
>Should be easy for you to prove then, right?

Dude, do a search on "Tom DeLay." Or "Enron tapes." Or "Cheney energy
committee." Or "corruption Iraq rebuilding effort." Or "Carl Rove
smear." Or "Swift Boat." Or "energy industry contributions." Or
"Indian tribe contributions." I could go on, but . . . once you've
done this, ask yourselves whether these people have your interests in
mind.

>> 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
>
>Yeah....the NYT - puppydog-like.

What does the New York Times have to do with the "television press"?
The New York Times and the Washington Post are read by a few million
in the elite. Most people don't even read the local newspaper anymore
-- and that's a big part of the problem, because even when it had
teeth and was allowed to devote time to hard news television newscasts
were never more than a headline service. And these days, even the
people who watch television news are in the minority . . .

>> longer reading the newspaper and Republican smears and propaganda the
>
>Look at whats been done to Michael Steele.

Not sure who he is.

>> 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
>
>Seems to be doing pretty well.

What is, the country?

Interesting thing, that -- the Bush Administration keeps pointing to
positive statistics, and people keep pointing to their lives . . .

-- 
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)