I actually read the article by Morgan that was linked in Gieger's blog. I barely made it through without vomiting.
My concern is that the right and the far right seem to be very mobilized with their church phone trees and such.
It seems that so many people are so unwilling to think for themselves and actually do research on some of the outrageous claims made. I tend to read and buy on only to that which has source documentation to prove it. I watch congress and hearings with my own eyes, read transcripts, read bills (I really am a freak.)
I just am so disgusted with the laziness and blind-zombie-jump-on-the-bandwagon crap that these people seem to grab hold of and then pass on and I would like to do whatever to combat it that I can; I often feel powerless.
I, as I did here, often will read some of their propaganda so that I might combat it - I just don't know where to combat it.
Any ideas?
Posted by Anjha at December 4, 2005 01:01 PMHlrs hw lfts cntnd tht nyn wh wll nt cnfrm t thr prncs pp s nt thnkng fr thmslvs.
[Editor: ignore=off]Was this an attack on me personally or lefties in general?
Either way, I have experienced it to be far more the truth, than not. In my experience most of the arguments to support the policies of this administration are hollow and easily disproved. In addition, many people decide to just hide in religious dogma rather than use their brains and supporting documents.
Look at 'left' sites and 'right' sites. Left sites have enormous amounts of source documentation. I do not see this on right sites, just a bunch of blah, blah, blah that is reported as fact with no source documentation.
How can someone claim to think for themselves when there is substantial evidence refuting their arguments and they do not change their minds or even consider that there might be a different solution.
Your leader Dubya is exactly the same way. Stubborn, cares nothing about public opinion (oh BTW, HE WORKS FOR US - this is a Democracy, he works for the people - period) and he will not take advice from hundreds of people who actually have great ideas. He does not seek outside opinions and solutions.
When I do not know how to do something or am not certain of the correct way to proceed, I solicit advice. Mature people do this.
Posted by Anjha at December 4, 2005 02:22 PMFrom a post on http://www.warandpiece.com/blogdirs/003192.html
"...weeding out critics of the Bush administration's Iraq policy..."
Why in the world would I appoint someone to represent me if, in fact, they were not in agreement with my policies?
My Lord, what will keep you lefties out of the Whitehouse is fundamental stupidity! Thank God.
Posted by Bagley at December 4, 2005 04:34 PMExcuse me - if you read the article it is not people to represent 'the president' it is anyone, for any speaking engagement, on any subject manner, who are rejected for not supporting the president's policies in Iraq mainly, and any disagreement with the administration.
Senator Obama was supposed to go to speak about 'diversity'. How can a talk about diversity at all affect dubyas precious image (oh, that's right, he does everything that he can to squash diversity and squash any hope to people outside of his elitist circle.) Sorry, I misspoke about a talk about diversity not affecting W.
You want to know the kicker - the state dept did not even tell Obama about the request and the controversy.
Linked text
Read the article before you make a quick assessment on a half-truth.
Posted by Anjha at December 4, 2005 04:54 PM"Read the article before you make a quick assessment on a half-truth."
I did.
Consider the graph
"The State Department has been using political litmus tests to screen private American citizens before they can be sent overseas to represent the United States..."
And again
"...before they can be sent overseas to represent the United States..."
That is, before the State Departmet (as in official capacity) send someone overseas.
And your point?
Posted by Bagley at December 4, 2005 04:59 PMActually I posted the original article from Knight Ridder.
What is not OK is a continual control of what information 'gets out'. What is not OK is censuring people. What is not OK is feeding misinformation to people. What is not OK is lying.
Our Democracy can only be a Democracy if there is transparency.
Secrecy like this - a desperate attempt to only present one image to the world - is disgusting. This is not Democracy.
Lets take it just a little step further. Now, it is not only not OK to disagree with the president overseas - now it is not OK to disagree with the president here, in America. This is already starting: see calling any one with any dissenting opinion a 'traitor' a 'coward' and 'unpatriotic'. Do you not see this as the start of a country where dissent can lead to imprisonment? Do you not know that at any moment - because of the NON-Patriot Act - that this administration can decide that you are an enemy combatant and take you away to Gitmo or any of the secret European prisons and you will have no right to contact anyone and no attorney? Do you not know this?
That is MY POINT.
Posted by Anjha at December 4, 2005 05:09 PM"That is MY POINT."
I am sorry, your point was lost in your original post.
Posted by Bagley at December 4, 2005 05:18 PMWow, you are really difficult to have a discussion with - you bounce back and forth.
My original point was that the article written by Morgan and was disgusted by it because she had no source information to prove her allegations and that many people will jump on her bandwagon just believing what she claims as the gospel without doing any of their own research. That was my original point.
Then you changed the subject.
Posted by Anjha at December 4, 2005 05:25 PM"Then you changed the subject."
Huh?
In my original post I was addressing an article quoted by Laura at http://www.warandpiece.com/blogdirs/003192.html
Why is it that I should then move to address your "linked text." That would be changing the subject.
Posted by Bagley at December 4, 2005 05:30 PMvery first post; beginning of this thread
Posted by Anjha at December 4, 2005 05:34 PMAnjha, Bagley is not capable of understanding the rationale behind your thinking. He is incapable of seeing dissent leading to imprisonment. He cannot understand that Hitler begain the long dissent into hell by stifling dissenting voices by calling them traitors, enemies of the state, etc. The sad part is that Bagley is not concerned at all, but he/she should be. It's that old belief that they will never come for me, until there is a knock at the door.
Posted by Judith at December 4, 2005 05:35 PMHow bizarre to not be concerned and not see the direct correlation between what is happening here and what happened in Nazi Germany.
Posted by Anjha at December 4, 2005 05:37 PM"very first post; beginning of this thread..."
My post concerned the original post on the LeftCoaster. Simple, actually.
Judith,
My condolences on the loss of your sanity. (Do you actually think that we would be having this cross-posting discussion if what you post was true.)
Posted by Bagley at December 4, 2005 05:40 PMAfter reading the story, I am left speechless.
Posted by Judith at December 4, 2005 05:40 PMBagley, you make no sense, but I am not interested in making sense out of your post. It is irrelevant in my world.
Posted by Judith at December 4, 2005 05:44 PMJudith, we absolutely cannot afford to be speechless; this is all that we have left. Our voices are our most valuable asset.
Posted by Anjha at December 4, 2005 05:45 PM"Bagley, you make no sense, but I am not interested in making sense out of your post. It is irrelevant in my world."
And, Judith, would be having this cross-posting discussion if what you post was true?
"It is irrelevant in my world."
Ummmm.....
Posted by Bagley at December 4, 2005 05:50 PM...and now for something completely different!
(...and maybe just a bit OT, too, or maybe not, it's difficult to know.)
I just ran across a link to this old article, from back in October of 2003, in which both Michael Ledeen and Manucher Ghorbanifar are interviewed and claim to have info about smuggled uranium in Iraq.
Ledeen blames the CIA for a "missed opportunity." Seen from today's perspective, with all that is known now, the article seems really pretty odd. eriposte, I am posting it for you because you appear to be the Master Connector of Dots as far as this story is concerned. I am not certain exactly what to make of it; maybe it will provide some worthy material for you. I realize you may already have it, if so I apologize, but nonetheless, here it is:
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/10/20/213705.shtml
Enjoy!
If they're screening out any reps who've been critical of the bush regime, they must have run out of candidates already.
Posted by BiteyDog at December 5, 2005 05:33 PM