So many similarities between Bush admin (and supporters) and repression

[conjur]

Originally posted by: daveshel
Don't you think it would be more productive to list some reasons why a comparison to the Viet Nam era is not a valid comparison rather than to just take pot shots at other posters? Crap and wank fest adds nothing to the discussion.

But that would require actual thought. That's a bit too much to ask, apparently.

 

[DealMonkey]

Made me stop and consider the tactics on the other side of the aisle. While it's readily apparent that conservatives/neocons will bring out the "unpatriotic" label if you don't support their ill-conceived wars (e.g. Iraq), or their attempts to reign in civil liberties (e.g. Patriot Act), yet what do liberals do? I honestly can't think of a similar tactic used by the left. Am I just missing it?

 

[bozack]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: daveshel
Don't you think it would be more productive to list some reasons why a comparison to the Viet Nam era is not a valid comparison rather than to just take pot shots at other posters? Crap and wank fest adds nothing to the discussion.

But that would require actual thought. That's a bit too much to ask, apparently.

looks like this was slightly premature there conjur....trollin trollin trollin....keep at it though ya hack, maybe something decent will come out of you yet.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: daveshel
Don't you think it would be more productive to list some reasons why a comparison to the Viet Nam era is not a valid comparison rather than to just take pot shots at other posters? Crap and wank fest adds nothing to the discussion.

But that would require actual thought. That's a bit too much to ask, apparently.

It's hard work.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Made me stop and consider the tactics on the other side of the aisle. While it's readily apparent that conservatives/neocons will bring out the "unpatriotic" label if you don't support their ill-conceived wars (e.g. Iraq), or their attempts to reign in civil liberties (e.g. Patriot Act), yet what do liberals do? I honestly can't think of a similar tactic used by the left. Am I just missing it?

Political correctness. To me, that's a bane of the left.

 

[bozack]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

It's hard work.

Here comes the LDF again...gotta watch out.

 

[daveshel]

Originally posted by: bozack

Originally posted by: daveshel
Don't you think it would be more productive to list some reasons why a comparison to the Viet Nam era is not a valid comparison rather than to just take pot shots at other posters? Crap and wank fest adds nothing to the discussion.

Dave, to even respond to someone like yourself with anything substantive would be a waste of my time as you are about a biased as conjur is, you have your uber liberal blinders on so no matter what I say will be dismissed and most likely a rip reference will come into play....I could go off and say that the striking and most obvious difference between now and the nam era is that then we had a mandatory draft period and there was a "real" push to keep moral high vs now with a volunteer or at will service and also dissent amongst the media and or individuals is fair game...sure liberal nutjobs like yourself and this author will cry that the man is trying to keep you down, but the plain fact is that if this were the case movies like F9/11 would never hit the shelves...plain and simple.

There will always be a market for films like F9/11 as long as there are people who remember. I was coming of age as the Viet nam war was winding down, not long before you were born, and I remember having to face the question of whether I would get drafted.

And I recall that the government was then taken aback at the public's reaction to having the killing brought into their homes in living color by the media, and once or twice things got ugly when there was violent supression of dissent. I grew up 50 miles from Kent State and later went to school there.

I can't tell what point you are making re moral high - I wonder if you mean morale?

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: bozack

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

It's hard work.

Here comes the LDF again...gotta watch out.

It's a tough job and there's a lot of people workin' real hard like. Even comin' in on Saturdays. Hard work, people.

 

[Corn]

Originally posted by: bozack

Originally posted by: conjur
This is news?

Now you're simply trolling. Trying to mock my post from Garuda's troll thread.

Sorry...doesn't wash here.

Now, ah heck off. I think it's past your bedtime.

Like for like eh conjur? doesn't wash here but instead it should be accepted in Garuda's thread when you post it...quick run to the mods and rat me out, maybe I will get another vacaton for doing exactly what you do on a regular basis....[/quote]


Conjur is the Mod's pet. This very thread is proof that the rules against personal attacks do not apply to Conjur.

It's pathetic and a joke.........but most ironically it mirror's the OP's points about Bush.

 

[bozack]

Originally posted by: daveshel
There will always be a market for films like F9/11 as long as there are people who remember. I was coming of age as the Viet nam war was winding down, not long before you were born, and I remember having to face the question of whether I would get drafted.

And I recall that the government was then taken aback at the public's reaction to having the killing brought into their homes in living color by the media, and once or twice things got ugly when there was violent supression of dissent. I grew up 50 miles from Kent State and later went to school there.

I can't tell what point you are making re moral high - I wonder if you mean morale?

Market or not, the current thread and the article linked are focused on the alleged repression of anti war sentiments, yet as I pointed out F911 along with many other pieces have come out which directly question this war and or the actions of the president. With your experience and or draft eligability I fail to see how that has any bearing on the discussion at hand unless you are willing to draw personal correlations between the actions of the govt now and those of the past specifically with regards to media and the information presented.

and yes with morale I dropped the e, it was a typo something which I generally don't bother with correcting on these boards but as of lately you libs have gotten to nitpicking on format and structure, I will have to keep a mental note so that I can also do the same.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Corn

Originally posted by: bozack

Originally posted by: conjur
This is news?

Now you're simply trolling. Trying to mock my post from Garuda's troll thread.

Sorry...doesn't wash here.

Now, ah heck off. I think it's past your bedtime.

Like for like eh conjur? doesn't wash here but instead it should be accepted in Garuda's thread when you post it...quick run to the mods and rat me out, maybe I will get another vacaton for doing exactly what you do on a regular basis....

Conjur is the Mod's pet. This very thread is proof that the rules against personal attacks do not apply to Conjur.

It's pathetic and a joke.........but most ironically it mirror's the OP's points about Bush.

[/quote]

Welcome back Corn. I'd say more, but I can't... ironic isn't it?

CsG

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: daveshel

Originally posted by: bozack

Originally posted by: daveshel
Don't you think it would be more productive to list some reasons why a comparison to the Viet Nam era is not a valid comparison rather than to just take pot shots at other posters? Crap and wank fest adds nothing to the discussion.

Dave, to even respond to someone like yourself with anything substantive would be a waste of my time as you are about a biased as conjur is, you have your uber liberal blinders on so no matter what I say will be dismissed and most likely a rip reference will come into play....I could go off and say that the striking and most obvious difference between now and the nam era is that then we had a mandatory draft period and there was a "real" push to keep moral high vs now with a volunteer or at will service and also dissent amongst the media and or individuals is fair game...sure liberal nutjobs like yourself and this author will cry that the man is trying to keep you down, but the plain fact is that if this were the case movies like F9/11 would never hit the shelves...plain and simple.

There will always be a market for films like F9/11 as long as there are people who remember. I was coming of age as the Viet nam war was winding down, not long before you were born, and I remember having to face the question of whether I would get drafted.

And I recall that the government was then taken aback at the public's reaction to having the killing brought into their homes in living color by the media, and once or twice things got ugly when there was violent supression of dissent. I grew up 50 miles from Kent State and later went to school there.

And not just suppression of dissent but similar mindsets such as that of current Attorney General Ashcroft and the Patriot Act:

http://www.bugsweeps.com/info/new_line.html

The Omnibus Crime Control Act of 1968 expressly legalized electronic eavesdropping for the first time in investigations of such serious crimes as treason, robbery and murder-provided the authorities first obtain a court warrant. During his presidential campaign, Richard Nixon said that he would take full advantage of the new law-a promise that raised fears of a massive invasion of privacy...

...Mitchell's assurances were not entirely convincing. It has long been common knowledge that the Government listened in regularly on the telephone conversations of Teamsters Boss Jimmy Hoffa and a wide assortment of Mafia chieftains. But recently the public has also learned that the FBI indulged in eavesdropping on Negro Leaders Martin Luther King Jr. and Elijah Muhammad, as well as such white radicals as David Dellinger and Jerry Rubin. Not even Capitol Hill is immune, according to Democratic Senator Ralph W. Yarborough of Texas and Republican Senator Carl T. Curtis of Nebraska, who contend that congressional telephones have also been subjected to bugging.

If anything, the Nixon Administration has been less than apologetic about the practice. Last month, in a memorandum filed during the Chicago trial of eight men charged with conspiring to incite acts of violence during the Democratic National Convention, the Justice Department claimed the inherent right to bug or wiretap-without court orders-any time it felt that the "national security" was in jeopardy. As authority for this broad power, the Government cited the President's oath to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution" from domestic subversion as well as foreign enemies. Contending that every President since Franklin Roosevelt had permitted such wiretaps, the Government went on to imply that they were even more important now because of the growing violence and rioting in the nation's cities and on its campuses.

So, instead of adjusting policies to meet a compromise, the government prefers to spy on dissenters and squash that dissent before it can grow. If the threat of violence is so severe, then a court order should be rather easy to obtain. To me, that's exactly why those portions of the Patriot Act ring of Orwell.

 

[bozack]

Originally posted by: conjur
http://www.bugsweeps.com/info/new_line.html

LOL, this is considered a credible source??? wow, wish I bookmarked some of your responses to Rip and his questionable sources.

Time to get that padded room ready cause conjur might need it ...images of mike meyers wearing a helmet and tethered to a jungle gym suddenly come to mind

 

[daveshel]

Originally posted by: bozack


Market or not, the current thread and the article linked are focused on the alleged repression of anti war sentiments, yet as I pointed out F911 along with many other pieces have come out which directly question this war and or the actions of the president. With your experience and or draft eligability I fail to see how that has any bearing on the discussion at hand unless you are willing to draw personal correlations between the actions of the govt now and those of the past specifically with regards to media and the information presented.

and yes with morale I dropped the e, it was a typo something which I generally don't bother with correcting on these boards but as of lately you libs have gotten to nitpicking on format and structure, I will have to keep a mental note so that I can also do the same.

I couldn't tell what the point about morale was: I'm not nitpicking if it was unclear.

The correlation is that I recognize patterns with the administration reacting by growing more authoritarian as they are cast in a dim light by protesters and the media. In 1970 the National Guard quelled dissent with rifles not long after the campus ROTC building was burned during a demonstration. (And a conversation between Nixon and Ohio Gov. Rhodes was reported in which they agreed that the protests were out of hand and that they would have to do what needed to be done.)

Similarly, it could be theorized that the securuty surrounding attendance at Bush rallies is a backlash to the public's acceptance of the message of F9/11 - once again reacting be growing more authoritarian.

 

[bozack]

Originally posted by: daveshel
I couldn't tell what the point about morale was: I'm not nitpicking if it was unclear.

The correlation is that I recognize patterns with the administration reacting by growing more authoritarian as they are cast in a dim light by protesters and the media. In 1970 the National Guard quelled dissent with rifles not long after the campus ROTC building was burned during a demonstration. (And a conversation between Nixon and Ohio Gov. Rhodes was reported in which they agreed that the protests were out of hand and that they would have to do what needed to be done.)

Similarly, it could be theorized that the securuty surrounding attendance at Bush rallies is a backlash to the public's acceptance of the message of F9/11 - once again reacting be growing more authoritarian.

The point with morale was that in Vietnam you had drafted soldiers and families of drafted soldiers, last thing you want (From the govts perspective) is too much anti war sentiment getting out as then not only is there the potential for the soldiers to catch wind but also their family to get into the frey...then you have more soldiers dying as many are distraught on the battlefield and what not...while I also see that possibly happening in this war, I don't see it as being as much of a factor as most over there are in the service of their own volition.

With your other parallel, namely the Bush rallies...I could possibly sympathise if what you mention happened at other events as well, but Bush rallies are just that, bush rallies....from what I have read they have all been by prescreened attendance only, IMHO stark contrast to what you describe in 1970.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: bozack

Originally posted by: conjur
http://www.bugsweeps.com/info/new_line.html

<BS trolling snipped>

Try reading before you dismiss the content.

BTW, what do you think the Watergate scandal was all about? Hmmm? Have *any* sort of clue?

 

[etech]

Originally posted by: bozack

Originally posted by: conjur
This is news?

Now you're simply trolling. Trying to mock my post from Garuda's troll thread.

Sorry...doesn't wash here.

Now, ah heck off. I think it's past your bedtime.

Like for like eh conjur? doesn't wash here but instead it should be accepted in Garuda's thread when you post it...quick run to the mods and rat me out, maybe I will get another vacaton for doing exactly what you do on a regular basis....[/quote]

Don't expect unbiased moderation in this forum.

It's obvious that the lefties are in charge here.

So be it, there are better places to discuss politics where people aren't banned because the mods don't like their politics.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: etech
Don't expect unbiased moderation in this forum.

It's obvious that the lefties are in charge here.

So be it, there are better places to discuss politics where people aren't banned because the mods don't like their politics.

I fail to see how your post has anything to add to this thread.

Oh wait. Are you thread-crapping?

Got a problem with a thread, PM a mod.

Otherwise, either contribute or crawl back under your bridge.

 

[etech]

Still giving orders Conjur?

Typical lefty.

Have a nice life.

 

[cwjerome]

What an interesting topic. I just learned that Bush (and his supporters) are similar to facists. He (and his supporters) are like Joseph McCarthy. He (and his supporters) parallel the actions of Hitler. He (and his supporters) are evil. I am told that Bush (and his supporters) are more dangerous than Japan in WWII, the Soviets during the Cold War, and the issue of slavery and the Civil War was. His (and his supporters) actions are compared to the Crusades.

I am astonished that nobody speaks up. People tear into Bush like he's the anti-christ himself, comparing him to the most evil, dangerous, and wrong-headed people and actions in history. This is rational discusion? I can't believe there is such intolerant, hateful, bone-headed extremism... and it's just accepted. Never in my wildest dreams would I say such over-the-top things about someone I disagreed with politically. I thought Clinton has some bad ideas and leadership/character issues, but I do believe he's a patriot and wanted to help America. A lot of people don't care for Kerry, but I'm not hearing them say he's the evil spawn of satan... they're just saying he's wrong.

Such insanely vicious statements are not only obviously false, but it totally undermines any real, logical arguments that do exist. It demeans the presidency, it de-values the greatness of this country, and assaults tens of millions of decent people who have an honest difference of opinion with you. The fact that people can casually sit back and make the most outlandish claims is disturbing and shameful. Thankfully, average and normal people will see it for what it is: disgusting lies from hateful people.

 

[etech]

Still giving orders and bashing people Conjur? I don't expect that you will ever get banned for anything though.

Typical lefty.

Have a nice life.

 

[daveshel]

Originally posted by: bozack

The point with morale was that in Vietnam you had drafted soldiers and families of drafted soldiers, last thing you want (From the govts perspective) is too much anti war sentiment getting out as then not only is there the potential for the soldiers to catch wind but also their family to get into the frey...then you have more soldiers dying as many are distraught on the battlefield and what not...while I also see that possibly happening in this war, I don't see it as being as much of a factor as most over there are in the service of their own volition.

OK, both are wars in which there is a good deal of public sentiment that the government is not being honest about our reasons for being there. In Viet Nam, the media's capabilities to bring the killing into our living rooms caught the government by surprise. Have they learned nothing? And I believe you are trying to advocate keeping the truth from our soldiers so as to keep them committed to their mission. By now it should be clear that the truth is going to come out, thanks to a vigilant media. Don't you think a better strategy to keep morale high in the military would be to tell the soldiers the truth rather than to attempt to supress it?

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: etech
Still giving orders Conjur?

Typical lefty.

Have a nice life.

The option is yours, etech.

Contribute or stay out of the thread.

It's very simple, really.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: etech
Don't expect unbiased moderation in this forum.

It's obvious that the lefties are in charge here.

So be it, there are better places to discuss politics where people aren't banned because the mods don't like their politics.

First, welcome back. Second, while I studiously avoid comments about the moderation here -- it's their sandbox and we're all freeloaders, so they can do whatever they please -- you have piqued my curiousity. Can you point to any cases where someone was vacationed solely because of their politics and NOT because of the way they chose to express them? In every case I can think of, the vacation was prompted by particularly nasty personal attacks, incessant blatant trolling, and other similar offenses.

 

[bozack]

Originally posted by: daveshel
OK, both are wars in which there is a good deal of public sentiment that the government is not being honest about our reasons for being there. In Viet Nam, the media's capabilities to bring the killing into our living rooms caught the government by surprise. Have they learned nothing? And I believe you are trying to advocate keeping the truth from our soldiers so as to keep them committed to their mission. By now it should be clear that the truth is going to come out, thanks to a vigilant media. Don't you think a better strategy to keep morale high in the military would be to tell the soldiers the truth rather than to attempt to supress it?

Honestly I am advocating nothing of the sort, merly saying that I can understand why the govt during vietnam or any war would want to reduce critical comment...is it wrong? sure...but do I see it happening this go around? nope...especially not with movies like F911 and all of the other critical pieces comming out. I am more curious as to what influence the media has on the public and if pushing an agenda effects the populations sentiments, remember Katie Couric cried...