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.
In a stealth campaign, groups such as the Christian Coalition target low-turnout local races and promote their candidates, covering up any organizational ties. The voters are thus presented with a seemingly harmless secular candidate. Once placed in office by the combination of conservative Christian support and widespread voter apathy, the candidate then abruptly and vehemently pushes the agenda of the Religious Right. In this manner, the Coalition and its allies fool the voters into electing candidates based on partial truths.
www.digitas.harvard.edu...
Originally posted by FredT
The time has come for the moderates of the party to retake control. This is not what the party of Abraham Lincoln and Theodore Roosevelt founded. This is no longer the party that talks about welcoming everybody under the Republican umbrella. The only resolution if the moderates fail to steer the party back to its true roots is a break off to a more moderate third party that will have the ability to challenge both parties on its own merits. This party would be much more in line with the progressive and foreword thinking of the moderates of the party. The Religious Right wing conservatives would now command a party free of interference and would be able to fail or prosper on the merits of their value and teachings. However, even the most hardened ultra right winger realizes that if the party loses the moderates, they will look like and be perceived as a John Birch Society clone of sorts.
Originally posted by FredT
I developed an insight into the workings of the party and I have managed to maintain many contacts within. It is a fear of this relentless swing right that has me and many other Republicans worried. Now while I have no doubt than many of you respond with a typical “But you voted for Bush" or ‘I told you so” etc., given the choice of candidates, many of us had no choice. But did anyone really?
Originally posted by onlyinmydreams
Again,
Are you guys not getting the point of all of this? You're talking about a 'revolution' when it is clear that many of you have gotten what you wanted: A society where human beings are valued based on their 'utility' and 'quality of life' alone. Bush and the 'religious right' lost. The population -- and many on ATS -- seem to think that human beings do not have inherent value. In Florida we have a situation where a woman is being put to death because some people -- other than herself -- have decided that her life is no longer valuable. That, my friends, is a clear triumph for those who hate the religious right. It is a clear triumph for those who think that a human's value is a matter of taste instead of innateness.
So why do you want a 'revolution'? Your side won. The courts, apparently, are filled with people who do not believe in the sanctity of human life. You would only be revolting against them... people whom you apparently agree with. Don't you get it? The american people believe that it's ok to starve someone to death if it is judged that their life is no longer valuable. The american people think that it's ok to create embryos solely for the sake of experimentation. The american people think that anyone who believes in human value is a 'religious nut'.
Don't you get it? Your side won. The sanctity of an innocent human being -- and with it, human rights -- are a matter of debate, now.
And, sorry, you guys are not fighting for rights or freedom. By denigrating human life you are, in the long run, conceding your own rights.
You'll realize that when some doctors gas most of you for being 'mentally deranged' conspiracy nuts.
Originally posted by onlyinmydreams
(I copied this over from a letter I wrote to a friend. That's why the columns are weird)
I also find it disturbing that the same people who
base their entire political platform on rights --
liberals -- have apparently decided that it's ok for
some judges to decide to put a woman to death who has
committed no crime. Apparently their adherence to the
pro-choice side of the abortion debate is so strong
that they cannot bring themselves to defend innocent
life in any form. I wonder if, down the road, they
will realize that the rights they love so much are
based on the notion that human beings have special
value? I wonder if, when it is too late, they will
realize that no human will have rights when all humans
have been reduced to the level of mindless animals or
soul-less machines?
Ultimately, the road from embryo harvesting and forced
euthanasia to eugenics and slavery is not long.
Unfortunately... we're already half way down it.
Call me a "kook" if you want.
Originally posted by LazarusTheLong
it will be in an invaluable precident when the controllers of our country when the baby boomers are all in nursing homes sucking up medicare and living in much the same situation that Terry is...
t will be so much easier to have a precident to "unplug them" and save all that money...
just my thought...
Originally posted by onlyinmydreams
Let me put it this way:
The logic behind starving this woman to death is a logic that says that a human being is only valuable if they can perform some sort of utility or experience pleasure. People who are against this act are those who think that -- no matter the circumstances -- an innocent human being has value and a right to live.
Take Bush, the NWO, the rich, etc, etc out of it for a moment.
So.... do you really want to live in a society where human's have no inherent rights? Where human rights are based on the degree to which authorities value individuals?
You should think about that... because that's what you're getting. If you guys are really afraid of the 'NWO' I suggest that you might want to walk away from this notion that the courts have the right to decide whether some innocent person is valuable or not. If you don't... you will have brought the nightmarish 'NWO' to power, not the religious people.
Originally posted by onlyinmydreams
Let me put it this way:
The logic behind starving this woman to death is a logic that says that a human being is only valuable if they can perform some sort of utility or experience pleasure. People who are against this act are those who think that -- no matter the circumstances -- an innocent human being has value and a right to live.
Take Bush, the NWO, the rich, etc, etc out of it for a moment.
So.... do you really want to live in a society where human's have no inherent rights? Where human rights are based on the degree to which authorities value individuals?
You should think about that... because that's what you're getting. If you guys are really afraid of the 'NWO' I suggest that you might want to walk away from this notion that the courts have the right to decide whether some innocent person is valuable or not. If you don't... you will have brought the nightmarish 'NWO' to power, not the religious people.
Originally posted by onlyinmydreams
and Fred, I hate to break it to you, but.... the GOP rose to ascendance on the backs of the "religious right".
Originally posted by RANT
That the fundamental beliefs of certain extremist religious people have been cynically manipulated by the strategy masters of the GOP (and their pulpit mouthpieces) over the past 30 years is the on-going discussion that everyone but those extremists has been having since the election. Welcome to the conversation, and the realization most of us had months ago... you got punked along with the rest of us.
IIf you didn't get what you thought you voted for, vote the bums out.
Lots of payback to go around. Everybody get yours.
[edit on 26-3-2005 by RANT]