OP/ED: Cracks in the Facade

I will say it again, I wrote this piece several weeks back in an attempt to articulate my outrage at the depradations of this deeply corrupt and amoral administration. These things need to be discussed if we are to have any hope at restoring some sort of civil public discourse in this country. Muaddib is entitled to his opinion as I am but I am amused to note that he put "evidence from different sources" in quotes because that is all they are. He assumes that his "evidence from different sources" are the accurate ones and everybody elses who contradict him are false. Thing is the evidences of Bushes lies are a matter of public record (when they have been exposed) and I don't need to go running around screaming factsfactsfacts. The fact is I could dig up sources to back up every single one of my claims quite easily but I have other things to do in my life than to argue with fanatics. I tend to think that the primary reason Muaddib and the others refuse to write a coherent rebutal instead of shrieking LIBERALHATREDLIBERALHATRED (a rather juvenile response if you ask me) is that they deep down realize how deeply destructive this administration is and can't bring themselves to face the fact that they have been had. A common response. So all I have to add is to thank you Muaddib, Tommy, Semperfortis and the others, as i said earlier, "There is nothing like a good health speciman to prove the existance of a spieces", and you have certianly proved my thesis for me for which I applaud you.

I thouroughly agree with a previous poster, SOMEBODY who supports Bush, should do a thread as to where we, Liberals, are wrong and all the wonderful things Bush has done.

Does anyone feel up to that awesome task? I would love to see it posted, in the wake of Rove & Cheney's possible indictiments (probable) it would be a good reminder to us, who are soooo wrong.

Anyone feel up to it? An Op/Ed would be even better.

G'head!

I have a few questions regarding this thread and some of the replies here:

Until there are some well-thought out answers to why people continually support Bush or unless someone takes the time to write an op/ed piece in order to refute grover's work, I will continue to think there is a pathology overtaking our society. On my part, I will continue to post more work examining this "cultural phenomenon" taking place in America.

Since when is a difference in opinion a pathology? grover is entitled to his opinion, others are free to support or disagree with that opinion.

Or is the goal here to make everyone think the same way? If one disagrees, then one is "pathological" or part of a "cultural phenomon"?

People here have challenged others for "an OP/ED piece explaining why you continue to support Bush". Given the personal attacks flyin' around here, I can see where people would be reluctant to do so.

I agree with the person who wrote that ATS is going downhill fast, esp. in the area of quality, but more importantly, the area of tolerance.

Yes, jsobecky, I do agree that tolerance is something that ATS needs. But not for your reasons.

I do find that the rampant denial of the 29 per-cent who still support Bush after all this time borders on pathological reasons. Mainly so, because despite all the evidence, they continue to support the POTUS and their mind is not open to any other reasoning.

I find it a pathology whenever there is a post that calls out "Liberal" and "Bush Bashers" without missing a beat. And then, the repetition of the same propaganda from FOX that is constantly disproven.

It is a pathology in the nation where there is a segment of people who embrace nationalism and use it as a shield for their own issues--especially when it has to do with xenophobia and class.

Not to mention that there are segments of people who blindly support and employ the seeds of fascism to silence dissent, to accuse others of being un-American and to especially use the excuse of wrapping themselves in the flag in order to prove to others that they are more "American" than the rest of us--without just reason or cause.

And it is a pathology when others who support Bush have been repeatedly asked over and over on many a thread to explain themselves and they cannot articulate their reasons. Instead, they have to insult other people's opinions and play the victim at the same time. This, I find totally hypocritical in the worst way. They first call people the most horrible names. And then, they claim that nobody will tolerate their point of view. I wonder how it is so when myself and so many others have listened to their rantings and ravings with no sane or just reason why Mr. Bush ought to be supported.

And when they demand, "Which side are YOU on?" They expect people to abandon their reason and openly declare wrongness and inepitude so that this segment of the population feels satisfied for bullying other people to embrace their type of nationalism. And then when others are not willing to give in to their demands, they say that it isn't an "intellectual" conversation and they must leave for greener pastures.

What else is it besides pathology? I would like someone to explain it to me.

I'm sorry but this is the straw that breaks the camel's back. Of course, there are those who would proclaim that something is not right with the board because they realize that others are not willing to capitulate in believing the hype anymore. Because people are actually reasoning out the problems of government instead of willingly believing the "Gospel according to Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter", they find that something is wrong with the Board.

And instead of talking it out like the rest of us, they seemingly attack every position that does not jibe with their own repeated reasonings. And then--as "true Patriots" would--hypocritically use the 1st Amendment as they deride and bash others for expressing their feelings about the government.

If we did capitulate to the demands of this segment of society, we would be giving into the McCarthyite, brow-beating that happens when people get punished for speaking out.

Forgive me. But, yes, it is intolerable when someone accuses you for many a post that your contributions don't mean anything to the thread. And yes, it is intolerable to be accused of deriding that "segment" of the community when they have little to answer for themselves.

That is why I have asked for a rebuttal if they are so worked up about us discussing grover's thread. And for this, I apologize if it seemed that I hijacked the last two pages. But I want answers instead of their rhetoric. That is why I stood my ground for those two pages and posted articles which discussed this particular type of phenomenon so that others can see that this behavior is recognized and discussed.

And I still have more articles. And I will continue to have the courage to post them until there is a reasonable answer to my question.

You must ask yourself why is there no rational explaination for their behavior? Because it is condoned and not questioned. Instead, people give in to the fear that has been rampant since 9/11 and refuse to look at what the government is doing.

That is the same reason why fascism and McCarthyism grows--both encouraged and nurtured by the "intolerance" you have so much disdain for.

And I ask, as Muaddib does, for intrepid to look over my work in this thread to see if my claims remotely demean him and his ilk. And if intrepid feels that I deserve a warn, I will have that warn as a badge of honor for helping people see the tide of "pathology" occuring in the American landscape as a warning about the rise of fascism and nationalism that seems to be at hand under the surface.


And again, I use Edward R. Murrow's words, "Good Night and Good Luck".




[edit on 15-5-2006 by ceci2006]

There is a tone to your response that does exactly what I stated is present here. That shows in this:

That is the same reason why fascism and McCarthyism grows--both encouraged and nurtured by the "intolerance" you have so much disdain for.

"Liberal" and "Bush-Basher" are pathological terms, while a condescending emphasis is not, eh?:shk:

Fine. Like I said in my post above, I will let intrepid be the judge.

You only think it's condescending because there is a recognizable size of work which examines the American psyche and none of it is good.

And perhaps, like you still support the Minutemen, I don't think what I've uncovered is condescending at all.

And here we are--a catch-22.

Back to the topic at hand, the issue of unemployment rates in the US is another example of the Bush mendacity as he/they fail to include unemployed individuals once their benefits dry up. I have no url to point to on this but rather heard it on a news program. Apparently, once they're off the benefits they simply don't exist for this administration.

I'll look for a link later. Gotta work.

Go Fitzgerald! Take down Rove!

Originally posted by seattlelaw


Go Fitzgerald! Take down Rove!

Oh, and Cheney too while you're at it.
I await in anticipation.

Originally posted by seattlelaw
Back to the topic at hand, the issue of unemployment rates in the US is another example of the Bush mendacity as he/they fail to include unemployed individuals once their benefits dry up. I have no url to point to on this but rather heard it on a news program. Apparently, once they're off the benefits they simply don't exist for this administration.

Mendacity? Do you think it is GWB who sits down with his calculator and figures this out?

Oh, and this:

as he/they fail to include unemployed individuals once their benefits dry up.

Why might that be, I ask you? Here's a clue:

Persons Not in the Labor Force (Household Survey Data)

About 1.3 million persons (not seasonally adjusted) were marginally at-
tached to the labor force in April, down from 1.5 million a year earlier.
These individuals wanted and were available for work and had looked for a job
sometime in the prior 12 months. They were not counted as unemployed because
they had not searched for work in the 4 weeks preceding the survey. Among
the marginally attached, there were 381,000 discouraged workers in April,
about the same as a year earlier. Discouraged workers were not currently
looking for work specifically because they believed no jobs were available
for them. The other 928,000 marginally attached had not searched for work
for reasons such as school attendance or family responsibilities. (See
table A-13.)
www.bls.gov...

Here's another site for you to peruse at your leisure:
www.bls.gov...

Both sites can provide you with information regarding labor statistics, etc., instead of having to resort to claims of "mendacity". But, you must read in order to get that info.

Before you resort to calling any admin liars, understand who releases the figures. Anyone who tries to twist those facts would be easily exposed.

[edit on 15-5-2006 by jsobecky]

[edit on 15-5-2006 by jsobecky]

Jsobecky,

No wonder i'm upset:

Barnstable (Cape Cod)

2006 Mar 124205 116360 7845 6.3

6.3 unemployment in March 2006

Thanks for the link.
I guess the rest of the country is ok.

Originally posted by dgtempe
Jsobecky,

No wonder i'm upset:

Barnstable (Cape Cod)

2006 Mar 124205 116360 7845 6.3

6.3 unemployment in March 2006

Thanks for the link.
I guess the rest of the country is ok.

Yeah, well, check back in with us in early August, Dgtempe, after all the tourists have poured over the 2 bridges. I'd like to see that same statistic then.....

I think this time the few tourists that will come will be peddaling their bicycles over here for some fun in the sun.

In the meantime, i have a friend of a friend who has promised me a job this summer at Craigville Beach. No brain work at all, Lots of money, get a good tan and i could use my bike to get there. Restaurant waitress.

I'll be the sexy grandma there. Those are the types of jobs here, and now they are few and far between-

Originally posted by dgtempe
Jsobecky,

No wonder i'm upset:

Barnstable (Cape Cod)

What Pyros said.

I'll be the sexy grandma there. Those are the types of jobs here, and now they are few and far between-

You should have the fathers attract some light industry that would employ year round. Say, a windmill farm?


Anyway, if this rain keeps up, the Cape may just wash away.

[edit on 15-5-2006 by jsobecky]

Actually, with the global warming (a.k.a. climate change) that Bush claims doesn't exist sea levels are expected to rise enough to cover Florida by the next century. I suppose Martha's Vinyard and the Cape will be gone too. But most of us won't be around to miss those lands, so what the heck, screw higher cafe standards and Kyoto. Those coal plants can fire up without any scrubbers at all. Burn baby, burn.

Originally posted by jsobecky

Originally posted by dgtempe





Anyway, if this rain keeps up, the Cape may just wash away.

[edit on 15-5-2006 by jsobecky]

So let me post all i want for now before i drown.

Put up with me.
I speak the truth.

P.S: I think even CNN has been silenced.

How much reporting can you do in one day about gators in Florida?

Originally posted by grover
I will say it again, I wrote this piece several weeks back in an attempt to articulate my outrage at the depradations of this deeply corrupt and amoral administration. These things need to be discussed if we are to have any hope at restoring some sort of civil public discourse in this country. Muaddib is entitled to his opinion as I am but I am amused to note that he put "evidence from different sources" in quotes because that is all they are. He assumes that his "evidence from different sources" are the accurate ones and everybody elses who contradict him are false. Thing is the evidences of Bushes lies are a matter of public record (when they have been exposed) and I don't need to go running around screaming factsfactsfacts. The fact is I could dig up sources to back up every single one of my claims quite easily but I have other things to do in my life than to argue with fanatics. I tend to think that the primary reason Muaddib and the others refuse to write a coherent rebutal instead of shrieking LIBERALHATREDLIBERALHATRED (a rather juvenile response if you ask me) is that they deep down realize how deeply destructive this administration is and can't bring themselves to face the fact that they have been had. A common response. So all I have to add is to thank you Muaddib, Tommy, Semperfortis and the others, as i said earlier, "There is nothing like a good health speciman to prove the existance of a spieces", and you have certianly proved my thesis for me for which I applaud you.

I will say it again, I write this piece now in an attempt to articulate my outrage at the depredations of this deeply corrupt and amoral liberal agenda. These things need to be discussed if we are to have any hope at restoring some sort of civil public discourse in this country. Grover is entitled to his opinion as I am but I am amused to note that he put "no evidence from any sources" in quotes because that is all they are. He assumes that his "comments" are the accurate ones and everybody elses who contradicts him are false. Thing is the evidences of Bushes lies are a matter of public conjecture (when they have been reported on the liberal media) and I don't need to/can't go running around screaming factsfactsfacts. The fact is I could not dig up sources to back up every single one of my claims quite easily but I have other things to do in my life than to argue with fanatics.(name calling)
I tend to think that the primary reason Grover and the others refuse to write a coherent rebutal instead of shrieking CONSERVATIVE HATE (a rather juvenile response if you ask me) is that they deep down realize how deeply destructive this liable is and can't bring themselves to face the fact that they have been had.
A common response. So all I have to add is to thank you Grover and the others, as i said earlier, "There is nothing like a good health speciman to prove the existance of a spieces", and you have certianly proved my thesis for me for which I applaud you.

Here is some more food for thought to think about regarding the phenomena of a certain segment of the population. Their belief could be symptomatic of larger issues within the American citizenry:

Political Floodwaters
More importantly, from the first morning, Bush could focus on a villain. At its broadest, the threat was Islamic Fundamentalism—which Bush carefully distinguished from Islam more generally (a distinction perhaps not terribly important to the Christian fundamentalists who comprise the most loyal core of Bush’s supporters). Both popular culture and conservative pundits had suggested for years that, after the collapse of communism, terrorists like these would be our great foe. Even more fortunately for Bush, this threatening cultural vision was embodied in an organization, al Qaeda, which sounded like a paranoid’s worst nightmare: a shadowy network of fanatics who had infiltrated Western nations and would stop at nothing to destroy innocent Americans. The term “sleeper cells” reminds us that, like a virus, they could be anywhere among us and strike at any time. Finally, the organization had its personification in Osama bin Laden, as concrete and photogenic as the network was amorphous. The best possible ingredients were available for creating a villain.

Even so, it took considerable work for Bush to create such a monstrous villain that the American population and political community would favor two invasions of stable, if odious regimes. (To me, so many Americans’ eagerness to link Saddam Hussein to al Qaeda suggests that they do not carefully distinguish among Muslims.) Anger, outrage, hatred, and perhaps a little shame have to be reworked into a vision of the world where revenge is worth it, especially for a culture that prefers to see itself as idealistic and moral rather than self-interested. Americans like to assume the role of sleeping giant, minding its own business until an evildoer needs to be punished. To the extent that the 9/11 fatalities were innocent victims, and bin Laden a nasty villain, to make the plot complete George Bush became the avenging hero, able to protect American citizens.

There is an interesting article from the Christian Science Monitor about trends in the American population:

State of a changed union: Bush's five years

The five years of George W. Bush's presidency have been a time of tumult - the 9/11 attacks, the Afghan and Iraq wars, massive natural disasters, gas and oil shocks - some of his own doing and some a result of outside forces. Americans have grown more isolationist and concerned about immigration. Five years ago, there was no gay marriage or iPods or "American Idol." But of all the changes over which President Bush has presided, the biggest is probably the "hopelessly polarized country we live in today," says independent pollster John Zogby.

Next, he says, comes the degree to which the nation hasn't changed. "Though Americans expect the next terror attack and nothing is left to the imagination, it's amazing the degree to which we carry on with our lives."

Elements of the "9/11 effect" - the sense of national unity, including near universal support for Bush, willingness to put civil liberties aside in the name of security, trust in government and the media - lasted maybe five or six months. By the middle of 2002, pollsters reported that America was "back to normal" when various social indicators had fallen to pre-9/11 levels, such as trust along racial lines and the numbers of people who said they were troubled by government eavesdropping and reading of e-mail. Scandals involving Enron Corporation and the Catholic Church brought back old suspicions toward large institutions.

And during a rebuttal of Mr. Bush's policies in the American Prospect, comes this small, telling passage about the American populace:

All the President's Lies

More distressing even than the president's lies, though, is the public's apparent passivity. Bush just seems to get away with it. The post-September 11 effect and the Iraq war distract attention, but there's more to it. Are we finally paying the price for three decades of steadily eroding democracy? Is Bush benefiting from the echo chamber of a right-wing press that repeats the White House line until it starts sounding like the truth? Or does the complicity of the press help to lull the public and reinforce the president's lies?

One thing is clear: If a Democrat, say, Bill Clinton, engaged in Bush-scale dishonesty, the press would be all over him. In the spirit of rekindling public outrage, here are just some of the president's lies.

Originally posted by ceci2006
Fine. Like I said in my post above, I will let intrepid be the judge.

You only think it's condescending because there is a recognizable size of work which examines the American psyche and none of it is good.

And perhaps, like you still support the Minutemen, I don't think what I've uncovered is condescending at all.

And here we are--a catch-22.

intrepid is most probably not going to do anything even if you, grover and others bleed your hearts out calling Republicans "Nazis" "warmongers" "religious fanatics", etc, etc.

Recognizible size of work?....

You only posted excerpts from a site which uses rhetorical comments, with not one inch of proof to back any sort of argument, but instead those excerpts only degrade, demean and make derogatory insults to Republicans....and then you have the balls, or are naive enough to demand for Republicans to show proof that all that rhetoric is false, and also expect for those people you indirectly insulted to respond in a civil manner......

What a piece of work, I wouldn't expect any less from a liberal...

BTW, ask any other liberal around, time and time again several of us have posted evidence that destroys most of the arguments you people make yet those who don't agree with Republicans try to dismiss all the evidence and claim "that was made up by the U.S. government" or some other nonsense.... you are the ones in denial....

The U.S. government might not be perfect, there are no perfect governments or nations, anywhere, but then there are those people who want to exagerate and even lie trying to sell their anti-U.S. agenda to others.

[edit on 15-5-2006 by Muaddib]

Really now? I engaged in parlay with you last night, Muaddib. But I'm not going to entertain you tonight. You'll just have to find some other audience.

I'm still going to post my excerpts for people to read. And you will just have to put up with that fact.

Unless....you or another person writes an op/ed piece. Nothing more. Nothing less.

And I'm not kidding. I am waiting for intrepid's response. Or any other mod that is willing to judge what I said as condescending or not. And if any think as such, I will take my punishment.


[edit on 15-5-2006 by ceci2006]