This site is filled with Reactionaries

Originally posted by MrInquisitive

Originally posted by MsAphrodite
Interesting, now may I ask you a question?

What could possibly be more reactionary than a government that sets up a spying apparatus so extensive that the recent revelations of its existence have shocked the world? A pre-crime system.

All under the control of a "liberal" leader.

I'm not ignoring that it had its origins prior to this president, however clearly the current president has put this system on steroids.

I don't think there is an ideology within the current two party system that can claim the other side is more reactionary.

Calling Obama a "liberal" is a big joke. The fact that he is not officially a Republican doesn't matter. Objectively and reasonably Obama can be described as centrist or even rightist, who is pro-big business, pro-police state and pro-empire. He is clearly the hardest working Republican in Washington. I get sick of conservatives and Republicans calling him a liberal. Dennis Kucinich is a liberal, Obama clearly is not.

And yes, I'd say that Obama is a text-book fascist -- just as George W. Bush was.

@OP, Preach it, Casper!

Spot on.

Obama is centre-right on most things... not even vaguely liberal.... one of the biggest problems discussing these issues online is that no one knows what words mean... Fascist? Liberal? Anarchist? No one has any clue.

Originally posted by bigrex
Liberals could also be termed "reactionaries" in a sense, at least according to the first definition you have provided at the outset of the thread. If you can coerce a liberal to act out who they really are, what they really believe, it is an eye-opening experience and at times a frightening one. Maybe that could be said for extreme extremists on both sides of the "aisle". I find that liberals seem to be more apt to modify or moderate how they feel or what they believe, using politically correct terms to mask what can really be a problematic ideology. Often enough, you will have to coerce them because they tend to modify their public views in order to gain wider acceptance. It seems conservatives tend to be more straightforward and direct in the presentation of what they really hold to be important. "Reactionary" is just another label, somewhat derogatory, but it has a more sophisticated, moderated bent to it. One could also refer to it as an underhanded and subtle way to give conservatives the finger, if you will. The term is indeed sufficiently reactionary in and of itself.

edit on 7-7-2013 by bigrex because: (no reason given)

Here is such an example of someone coercing liberals to act out who they are:

California beach goers sign a petition showing support for Obama in his quest to repeal the Bill of Rights.

Note to self: Never make anti-conservative thread on ATS! goodbye Ghost!

Unless this counts as one!!

NoooO!!!

Originally posted by luciddream
Note to self: Never make anti-conservative thread on ATS! goodbye Ghost!

Unless this counts as one!!

NoooO!!!

Oh stop.


Last I heard there should be no "solicitation" from other Websites, such as the dribble in this thread.

Agenda anyone?

reply to post by luciddream

Dear luciddream,

if it's not too off-topic (and if it is, I hope the Mods will yank this), why do you think the problem that Ghost had was because the thread was anti-conservative? I would think the problem was the source article was unnecessarily divisive and objectionable on the grounds of stereotyping, political trolling, and name calling. That, coupled with a rather angry defense of it.

Certainly there is no shortage of threads here condemning conservatives and the conservative ideology. I'd be happy to discuss the failings of many conservatives with you, so would just about anybody on ATS.

Can we just agree that the article was not very helpful, things got out of control, and we should start again? Even in this thread if you'd like.

With respect,
Charles1952

reply to post by charles1952


I been here over a year and a half, but 70% of the time its Anti-democratic/Liberal threads popping out, almost always by the same 5-6 people. But once in a while, a Anti-conservative/republican thread pops up, and the user is mostly likely to get banned(assuming from all the "Alert" from the opposite party, which is ATS majority)...

But i will decline the offer for the argument. Just had to "vent" a bit... but it subsided now.

Sorry for Off-Topic.

Ghost ,
kudos for the enlightening epiphany cheers. I must be a reactionary maybe a Reactionary
but when it comes to the Bill of Rights i'm a Progressive, i'm progressively distilling that i
better get informed and wake up, before i wake up in a cage or worse by entrusting my political
aggrandiizing brothers.

Wow, I'm surprised Beez didn't U2U me to tell me this thread was going, I'm sure i'll have some really cool and thought out responses once i'm done readin the whole thread (which is hard as I'm laughing to death)

Originally posted by Ghost375

Originally posted by sonnny1

It could easily be said this site is filled with Radicalism, which is the political opposite of your Reactionary thread title, but that would be HIGHLY misleading, right?

I'll give a specific example since you brought up Bush. There was a thread awhile back that was very popular and had many views with people speaking out against a specific thing Obama did. Now this was something I knew for sure that Bush had done too. So I looked up threads about it. I found one, 2 page thread about it. In fact, I saw a person defending Bush about the topic, who was attacking Obama for the very same topic in the recent thread.

Am I saying everyone here is a reactionary or a conservative? Of course not. There are indeed many liberally minded folks. But I think, based on my observations, the majority is conservative. Not only that, but the specific type of conservative, Reactionaries.

I totally agree with your OP. I would add - why is it that when it comes to military intervention these voices speak so loudly for it, but would so rarely participate in it or even have their sons in uniform? It always bothered me about the Iraq war that they did this - "They spoke loudly and refused to pick up a stick" (reversing Teddy Roosevelt's sentiment).

I believe the OP article/site reflects anything other than furthering the conquer and divide. The term reactionary, in a vague sense can fit any political group. Ten again that is probabl moot now due to the way the thread played out.

More concerning...
I know I read in earlier ATS threads, during the Bush years, that it was claimed ATS was majority Liberal and that Conspiracy Theorists in majority swung that way. I think that's far from the truth. Same with people claiming it's more Conservative here now. The group of theorists is not limited, more now than ever because it's expanding, to one if any political following if there is belief in one. I've witnessed a lot on the net, certain sites draw political opponent posters who only visit to stir up trouble with the other side of the political spectrum under assumption that one group prevails. I would hate to see ATS, in the long run, become just that.

My observation with that no offense to anyone in particular, is what is deemed as political trolling which causes the banning is not limited to a certain group of political siding. Though, I do feel the certain group, when feeling they are in the minority, shout the loudest sometimes with ad hominem attacks which furthers the defensive bickering from both sides.

Originally posted by vkey08
Wow, I'm surprised Beez didn't U2U me to tell me this thread was going, I'm sure i'll have some really cool and thought out responses once i'm done readin the whole thread (which is hard as I'm laughing to death)

Didn't know if you'd think this coffee-worthy, ma'am.

I have only one label that I put on people, and that, simply, is 'sheep.'

My label is an all encompassing, equal opportunity label. It doesn't discriminate based on race, religion, age, gender, nationality, education, success, popularity, attractiveness, political affiliation, or any other factor that I can think of.

Anyone can qualify for this label, even you!

What are you waiting for? You can easily acquire your label! All you have to do is show a tendency for continuous thought processes that are generic, predictable, typical, unoriginal, politically correct, and which wholly and emphatically eradicate your right to be known as an individual -- someone who actually thinks for her or himself and doesn't just lazily promote the recycled mental farts of others.

Heck, you may already be a sheep and not know it! If ever in doubt about whether you are worthy of this distinction, just ask me to observe you for a little while; and I'll be glad to let you know.

reply to post by Ghost375


The party of "we can read it later" deserves knee jerk reactionaries.

Originally posted by Ghost375



That source has a chart that compares Reactionaries, Neocons, Progressives, and Fascists.
For government, they choose state's rights and individualism.
For Foreign policy, they are very American centered and oppose immigration.
For taxes, very anti-tax in all forms.
For education, they generally support homeschooling, and oppose the public school system.

I just love how "reactionaries" is given a capital letter and falls in on a list! A reactionary could be of any stipe and any political cloth. Like "Progressive Reactionaries" ect.

Should be know wonder that folks that just take it upon themselves to rewrite definitions get such a reaction. Well we can go with it just this once. Yes Reactionaries......the opposite end of the tax loving, government bootlicking, public school indoctrination and socialization center loving xenophobe phobic. lol

reply to post by Ghost375


back in the radical 1960s... when 'revolution' was in the air... and a few of our radical Reactionaries opted to go to the Chicago Democrat Convention (to get their heads busted by the Daley political machine...

our home base was DC, the DuPont Circle area.... and more specifically a Swann Street 'safe house' for the underground street paper ]Washington Free Press


radicals like Abbie Hoffman and scores of lesser notables were not thought of as Revolutionaries

... but rather as Reactionaries that only responded to tactics and policies of the Establishment & the Pigs
(nary a thought-out plan or manefesto...but ONLY in-your-face-confrontation for aggressions sake)



i don't know how the OP definition evolved... but the definition is a revision-of-history...

the SDS & dufuses like Abbie were Reactionary back then not the ultra conservatives of the modern era

Originally posted by luciddream
reply to post by charles1952

 

I been here over a year and a half, but 70% of the time its Anti-democratic/Liberal threads popping out, almost always by the same 5-6 people. But once in a while, a Anti-conservative/republican thread pops up, and the user is mostly likely to get banned(assuming from all the "Alert" from the opposite party, which is ATS majority)...

But i will decline the offer for the argument. Just had to "vent" a bit... but it subsided now.

Sorry for Off-Topic.

Go ahead and pump out as much anti-Republican as you want. To me they are as corrupt as the Democrats.

I consider myself a conservative Libertarian and I was very vocal during the last election about the ills of Romney. (as well as the other GOP flunkies)