Home     Contact Us    
Main Board Job Seeker's Board Job Wanted Board Resume Bank Company Board Word Help Medquist New MTs Classifieds Offshore Concerns VR/Speech Recognition Tech Help Coding/Medical Billing
Gab Board Politics Comedy Stop Health Issues
ADVERTISEMENT




Serving Over 20,000 US Medical Transcriptionists

Just more scare-tactics propaganda. nm

Posted By: oldtimer on 2008-10-26
In Reply to: Obama/Odinga... - SM

.


Complete Discussion Below: marks the location of current message within thread

The messages you are viewing are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select the boards given in left menu


Other related messages found in our database

Mostly just scare tactics
...
Can you say scare tactics? sm
I knew you could.

I hope your dad's phone has caller ID and that he reports this call to the authorities and to the telephone company.
More like a voice of scare tactics.
XX
More scare tactics...just in a rhyme!
Go Obama!
C'mon, GP.....maybe not scare tactics....
maybe honest concern. Just because Obama won, you think that all disappears? Of course not. Had Obama lost, would all your concerns about McCain just magically disappear? I would think, based on your posts, you could be a little more charitable about it. Your guy won. Don't expect the rest of us to embrace him immediately. We have a trust issue and it is up to him to work his way out of that. Being sniped at by his supporters does not help us in that journey. :-)
No scare tactics. Just pointing out that we don't live
If we don't start talking with some of these countries, and trying to find a way to get them thinking of other things to do with their artillery than aim it at us, then sooner or later, our little plastic bubble could get blown to bits. We're not invincible.
Republican Mantra - Scare Tactics
You better vote for John McCain or the Boogeyman is going to get us. McCain couldn't even keep himself free from the enemy, how is he going to keep the entire United States free from them? Oh, I know, he is going to send Sarah Palin after the Boogeyman...she'll protect us!
Scare tactics!! Ohhh, be afraid, be very
afraid.  You rightwingers are such wimps!  Well, as Roosevelt once said and as Barack Hussein Obama repeats, "We have nothing to fear but fear itself."  The rightwingers have surely gotten to the skittish.  I, for one, am very afraid of McPalin.  Now there's reason to fear them. They have nothing to offer, just more of the same old politics and power-hungry greed.  Get away from me!  If you want to base your decisions on lies, then you all deserve whatever comes from McPalin, but the thing is that our country will be stuck in the mire for another four years.  So big deal, McCain was shot out of the sky...so were hundreds of others, others have given their lives for this country but McCain votes against any bill that will cost anything to help them....some leader he will make.  Makes me wanna puke!  Country First...doubt it!!
Scare tactics or stern warnings.....sm
Just got to thinking about this after ExMQMT made the statements she did below about being scared. Now, I know there was an element of sarcasm in her post, and I can appreciate the dark humor of it.

However, I think people really should look at the big picture here and understand that, with all of the findings (and yes, they are documented) of Obama's associations and religious upbringing, he could very possibly be a threat to our nation in a lot of ways. When the Russians were "loaded for moose" back in the 1950s, people were warned about the danger, but a lot of them chose to call it scare tactics. Granted, Russia never blew us off the map, but knowing that they could and that they were a threat to our country made our citizens more aware that there was more to life than what was going on in their own secure back yard. Saying that Obama is a threat to us because of his associations and religious beliefs (Muslim or Wright-brand religion) is not a scare tactic to coerce people into voting for him. It is a stern warning that this man is a wolf in sheep's clothing and that we need to be aware of the implications of electing someone who is such a person.
Scare tactics? If it was supposed to be scary....it wasn't...
it is just odd that the combination of the names worked out that way. Freaky, yes. Scary...not hardly. It it was meant to be scary it was lost on this Independent.
I need to change tactics...

I should probably refrain from any dialogue and perhaps just correct posts that are obviously erroneous (like the one about poverty in the U.S.).  Correcting factual errors on their posts would probably be a full time job.  Besides I enjoy the research and learn lots!!


Thanks for reading and thanks for your comments.


I like what McCain said about the tactics not
allowing media to always be right on the scene and privy to knowledge they needn't have are that our enemies can retrieve the same info they feel the American public should know and anticipate our next moves. There are some things that should be kept quiet but media in this day and age seem to feel nothing is off limits. I agree with McCain on that point. As for "promising" to find bin Laden, I have only read that McCain says he knows how to find him and will follow him to the Gates of HeII to do so. Not saying he didn't promise it elsewhere, but I only read the above.
Smear tactics?
Obama was asked this question, one of a few journalist with some integrity, as to why he allowed these women to be removed? After all, he knew it but didn't stop it. He stumbled and fumbled and fumbled and stuttered for words because he is so used to having no one ask him the hard questions, he didn't know what he should say because anything at that point would have been back peddling and he knew it.

Obama out of his own mouth, not made up stuff like you want to believe, said he had gotten himself a little 'ole Muslim liason to help smooth things over, because the last people he wants to offend are the Muslims, Heaven forbid he offends the Muslims. The heck with offending the taxpayer by insinuating they are too dumb to handle their own lives, so he'll handle it for ya by providing all your needs.
Why don't you research the tactics and find
out what's true. If you still don't care, then that's just on you.
sounds like intimidation tactics...
I am the original poster and I stick with my original post and my opinion.

it was called as I saw it. it was 'questionable' to me and something I WILL consider when time to make that choice.

this country is full of children whose parents are too busy working or attending to their own needs. schools not only provide lunches for children anymore, they provide breakfast, and even dinners for some. more and more children are being pawned off as the responsibility of those other than the parents, babysitters, government, day care, on and on, and more and more are left to the horrors of predators, on-line, off-line, in their schools, in their playgrounds.

I was looking for some sign of what kind of mother this person is and I was not happy with what I saw, period.

no one was trying to put anyone back to barefoot and pregnant, or whatever you wrote. BUT if they wanted that it is their business.

frankly, I have always envied women who did not have to work and could stay home and raise their beautiful children. that was a luxury I never had nor did my children.

that is my opinion.
desperate smear tactics. nm
.
I don't take pride in underhanded tactics to win
%%
Sounds a bit too much like Bush's tactics.
x
Didn't say I agree with his tactics.....
Just noticing how poster doesn't seem to care for anyone protesting against gays.

It wouldn't matter if it were ANYONE from ANY church, poster would have a problem with that too!

I think Rev Phelps needs to do a little more Bible reading. His methods are sickening.
not scare of her

Disturbed by her misrepresentation of her activities.  disturbed about the way her far-far right beliefs could damage our country if given access to power.


 


Oh please, not another scare
The chance he could live well past his presidency is a possibility too.
channel 2 reported on recruiters tactics
Channel 2 did a bit on their nightly news.  I believe it was a college paper reporter who went undercover and told the recruiters he had done drugs and other things that would have disqualified him and the recruiters were salivating at the thought of signing him up and told him ways to get into the service even though. These recruiters would take a dead man if his body was still warm, for pete sake.  I say, you need people in the military, check out the people in the administration, ask if their children will join for the *better good of all to bring democracy to the world*.
Yes, they scare the holy
and I consider myself a Christian. I just don't see the Christian in a LOT of what these people advocate. Looks, smells, and feels more like a political power grab.

This is a good one:

Bush and the Bible: A Letter to George Bush

Dear President Bush,

Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from you and understand why you would propose and support a constitutional amendment banning same sex marriage. As you said in the eyes of God marriage is based between a man a woman. I try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination... End of debate.

I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some other elements of God's Laws and how to follow them.

1. Leviticus 25:44 states that I may possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanness - Lev.15: 19-24. The problem is how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

4. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is, my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

5. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2. clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself, or should I ask the police to do it?

6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination - Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this? Are there 'degrees' of abomination?

7. Lev.21:20 states that I may ! not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle- room here?

8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die?

9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev.19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? Lev.24:10-16. Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair, like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)

I know you have studied these things extensively and thus enjoy considerable expertise in such matters, so I am confident you can help.

Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.

then again, they ALL scare me - all the candidates
       
I wasn't trying to scare you but if it does, I
--
I am still scare of BUSH
He still has enough time to do a lot of damage.


Disgusting! Pure racism and fear tactics. nm
.
Will Palin Scare the Jews?
We think the conventional wisdom, now, is that Sarah Palin is a cynical appeal not to Hillary voters but to the Republican "base," which means religious white people. It's a last-ditch effort to win just one more with George W. Bush's coalition, not to bring in those moderates John McCain supposedly appeals to most. But here's the risk: the old, conservative Jewish vote McCain's had in the bag since day one? They might not like this lady so much. As you can see in this clip (attached below), even Ben Stein—the Nixon speechwriter so happy to pretend to be something other than an educated East Coast elitist that he'll hop in bed with creationists—is insulted and shocked by the Palin pick. This is just the beginning. The New York Sun, that probably doomed organ of intellectual Zionist conservatism, seemingly also can't quite believe this selection. Allow them to tell you about Sarah Palin's grand plans for The Jews!

The disclosure that last month Governor Palin's church hosted the executive director of Jews for Jesus, who told congregants that violence against Israeli Jews is God's punishment for their failure to accept Jesus, is going to be the next club that Mrs. Palin's leftist critics pick up against her. The Jewish Telegraphic Agency quotes Mrs. Palin's pastor at Wasilla Bible Church, Larry Kroon, as saying that he doesn't believe Jews for Jesus are deceptive. "Look at Paul and Peter and the others — they were Jews and believed in Jesus as the messiah," he told JTA. "There's gentile believers and there's Jewish believers that acknowledge Jesus as messiah. There's Swedish believers."


They go on to half-assedly defend Palin by mentioning Jeremiah Wright and how there's no "religious test" for the presidency, but the Jews For Jesus are far outside the mainstream even for practicing evangelicals. Jewish Defense League Anti-Defamation League [I do know the difference! Whoops!] head Abe Foxman is pretending it's not a big deal by invoking the Spanish Inquisition (done by Catholics, not Protestants!) but his own organization has a longer, richer history of warning people about the deceptive and offensive tactics of the Jews for Jesus.


Sarah Palin's Jews for Jesus setting up shop in Wasilla, Alaska almost reminds us of Michael Chabon's charming The Yiddish Policeman's Union, his detective novel set in an alternate universe in which Americans settled Jewish WWII refugees in Alaska and Israel died before it was born. The incongruous idea of a Jewish settlement in far-off Sitka gives the book much of its uneasy atmosphere, especially in the mentions of the current fictional President of the US, an evangelical Christian promising to finally kick those Jews out of the pristine frontier, "pledging to restore Alaska for Alaskans, wild and clean."


The Democrats more or less handed Florida over to the Republicans when they selected (sorry, we'll say it) a black man without a rich history of pro-Israel hawkishness (even though he saw the light and came around pretty dam quick). This, though, might actually put it back in play.


They scare me, as well, on a very dangerous level.

Nope. The only way to get them to confess is scare
nm
I repeat...religious fanatics scare me!
I don't care what religion they are. If they are fanatic about their chosen religion, they are not independent thinkers, and I find that frightening.
I think Palin IS a scare tactic. She & her fellow
believe in FREEDOM.

Freedom of Speech.
Freedom of/from Religion.
Freedom of Association.
Pursuit of Happiness.

Marching in lock-step with America's religious Nazis somehow just doesn't fit with what our forefathers had in mind when they wrote the Constitution.
It's a good way to scare other democrats from seeing the truth nm
x
This lame scare tactic is aimed at
twisting both the free choice of English language usage and the Bible verse/word of Jesus (who you claim is your Savior) to support the claims of a snarky cult. Back in the Puritan times, that was considered blasphemy and the ONES who chose to do this could be burned at the stake.

You make me ashamed to be associated with the Christian faith.
Nah, propaganda?
They're just on a roll for stupid remarks. Check out the Repug from Iowa's dignified, intelligent line of thinking. What a jerk; obviously King prefers anemic blonde bimbos who spew out the same garbage he does.


http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1002726435

Iowa Congressman Apologizes for Rude Helen Thomas Reference

By E&P Staff

Published: June 22, 2006 2:00 AM ET

NEW YORK Rep. Steve King, a Republican from Iowa, apologized to Helen Thomas on Wednesday for disparaging comments he made about the veteran White House correspondent.

Last Saturday, Rep. King, while discussing the death of terrorist leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi at the state Republican convention, said, What occurred to me that morning is something that I imagine a lot of you have thought about and he's probably figured it out by now. There probably are not 72 virgins in the hell he's at and if there are, they probably all look like Helen Thomas.

The remark drew wide laughter and applause.

A spokeswoman for the two-term congressman said King has apologized to Thomas, 85, now writing a column for Hearst newspapers.

King is running for re-election this fall.

Joyce Schulte, King's Democratic opponent in November, said
Mean-spirited remarks are beneath the dignity of any self respecting congressperson, and remarks about another person's appearance are even lower. I hesitate to even use Helen Thomas' name in the same document with so vile a wretch as al-Zarqawi. But I want her and the world to know that Iowans are not insensitive buffoons who make fun at someone else's expense.




because it is propaganda

due to the upcoming election.


 


Propaganda goes on. n/m
x
That is taken from the PROPAGANDA

link, which I already explained, and when you click on the red "require" link, it takes you directly to OBAMA'S PLAN, which does NOT SAY THAT.  The original link IS A LIE.


It was cleverly worded, intended to promote the propaganda that's attractive to predisposed Obama haters, who apparently are known to NOT click on the "supporting" link which, in this case, DOES NOT support their assertion.  I agree it worked with some, and that's sad.


Word, semantics, when socialist doesn't scare...sm
people enough, it gets elevated to communist and nazi just being inflammatory. We are Americans first, democrats and republicans second, period.
Conservatives Scare More Easily Than Liberals, Say Scientists

http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/09/fearmongering-h.html


A quick look at some of the posts on this board would seem to corroborate the above.


Watch that propaganda now!
It's simply not true that Cindy Sheehan had "nothing but praise" for Bush and has now done a 360-degree turn. It's Drudge and Limbaugh nonsense with quotes taken out of context and spun to try and seem....what? It's nothing if not illogical. Aren't those intent on smearing her loudly proclaiming that she has been anti-Bush and anti-war since long before her son was killed? Then why would she fall all over herself praising him AFTER her son was killed? It makes no sense at all, but the attackers aren't really big on making sense apparently. They just throw all the garbage at the wall and see what might stick, that's how they operate.

What I really don't get is what the attackers are meaning to say. Even if it were true that Ms. Sheehan "did a 360" - point please? So what? So perhaps she was trying to make the best of a bad bad situation and least be respectful toward the president in consideration of his meeting with her and other family members - but since then, as she says herself, we have had the Downing Street proof, we have learned there were no WMDs at the time we invaded, we have learned all sorts of unbelievably horrible things - why SHOULDN'T anyone let those things change their views?

Now she just wants to know what this "noble" cause is that the President keeps referring to, and she wants to ask him to stop using the dead to justify making more unnecessary dead. But oh no, she must have an AGENDA! - well seems like that's it, isn't it? She wants to know and she wants him to look her in the eye and explain himself. And why shouldn't he? Or more precisely, why can't he seem to be able to do it? If he is sincere in his beliefs and committed to the cause, considering he's such a straight-talking nice guy, what's the problem? What is the big deal? It could all be over with in an hour. Why won't he just do it?
I agree. Probably over-the-top propaganda. sm
The more she hawks that film, the less interest I have in viewing it. I'm guessing it has more creative editing and special effects than a Hollywood movie, with plenty of lies and misinformation thrown in for good measure.

I like to find objective sources of information whenever possible, and that sure ain't gonna come from sam on this topic, IMO.
propaganda when convenient to you.
nm
Why do you say its racist propaganda
I just watched the video and there is nothing racist or of any propaganda. Whoever made the video took actual clips of Obama talking and talked about Obama's ideologies and mentors. Nothing racist involved. Is it your just upset because the truth about Obama is coming out and you dont want anyone to know what he is like?
That's pure propaganda

Right down to the music that is being played in the background.  Anyone can take bits and pieces of articles and flash them on the screen.  Those aren't facts. 


The democrates did not cause the financial crisis. Here are some real facts:


Since 1960 the nation's deficit has risen during every republican administration and dropped during every democratic administration. 


The standard of living and income has improved for everyone in the country during every democratic administration since 1960, EVEN for the top 1% of the country.  It has gotten worse for everyone in the country during every republican adminstration EXCEPT the top 1%. 


While Nixon and Ford were in office interest rates for mortgages had ballooned to 11%-13% and many people in this country could not afford to buy a home.  Carter brought those rates down so that more people in this country could afford to buy homes. 


What caused this mess is not the people who were extended credit.  Here is part of what caused it:  Banks issued subprime mortgages to people at a rate they could initially afford but which would increase to an inflated rate after a period of time.  Those banks then immediately sold those mortgages at the inflated rates to other banks. First-time home buyers were especially targeted.  A lot of them didn't understand what they were getting into because it was misrepresented to them.  They didn't know, for example, they could not refinance for a period of time without huge penalities.  Then the market started to decline and many of those homeowners found themselves upside down on their loans and they were unable to refinance.  Their interest rates had ballooned to rates they could no longer afford.  As homeowners lost their homes the banks who were sold the loans at inflated prices were no longer able to collect on those loans.  But the banks (and the CEOs) that initated those loans walked away with a great deal of money. 


It was because of greed.  And the deregulation that the republicans passed allowed it to happen. 


 


More Republican propaganda s/m

If you had been alive or old enough to remember, things like this were not that uncommon.  The hippie cult was rampant, especially in California and most of them were drug crazed, LSD I believe was the drug of choice, haven't heard of that in years..  The Viet Nam War was even more controversial than the Iraq War.  Soldiers came home from Viet Nam and were spit on by these kinds of radicals.  It was on the news daily.  Anyone else remember?  These people now have grandsons and granddaughters in Iraq and I can tell you first hand that at least some of them regret what they did and said in the 60s.


Now, considering this was back in the 60s and there is absolutely no proof that Obama was best buds with Ayers in the first place, why not let it go?  Apparently Ayers is a respected professor today.  How many of you who are of a ripe old age like myself would like to be judged on what you did when you were in your 20s?  I wouldn't.


 


Propaganda can be destructive to us ALL


by: Robert Parry, Consortium News


photo
Republican Whip Eric Cantor meets with his staffers. (Photo: Doug Mills / The New York Times)




    Today's Republicans are thumbing through Newt Gingrich's worn playbook of 1993 looking for tips on how to blunt President Barack Obama's political momentum and flip it to their advantage. In doing so, they also appear to have dug in to what might be called the secret appendix.

    The official history of what happened during Bill Clinton's difficult first two years - which ended in a sweeping Republican congressional victory in 1994 - focuses on the GOP's united resistance to his economic plan and Hillary Clinton's failed health care reform. But there was a darker side to the political damage inflicted on the early Clinton administration.


    Republicans and their right-wing allies disseminated what - in a covert operation - would be called "black propaganda." Some exaggerated minor scandals, like the Travel Office firings and Clinton's Whitewater real-estate deal, while other key figures on the Right, such as the Rev. Jerry Falwell, spread ugly conspiracy rumors linking Clinton to "mysterious deaths" and cocaine smuggling.


    Sometimes, these multiplying "Clinton scandals" built on themselves with the help of their constant repetition in both the right-wing and mainstream news media. For instance, overheated accusations about some personnel changes at the White House Travel Office pushed deputy White House counsel Vincent Foster into a deep depression.


    Then, on July 30, 1993, a distraught Foster went to Fort Marcy Park along the Potomac River and shot himself. The Right quickly transformed the tragedy into a new front in the anti-Clinton psychological warfare, with Foster's death giving rise to a cottage industry for conspiracy theorists and a new way to raise doubts about Clinton.


    Talk radio host Rush Limbaugh, among others, popularized the notion that Foster may have been killed elsewhere, with his body then transported to Fort Marcy Park. Repeated official investigations confirmed the obvious facts of Foster's suicide but could not quell the conspiracy rumors. [For the fullest account of the Foster case, see Dan Moldea's A Washington Tragedy.]


    The "mystery" around Foster's death also bolstered the "mysterious deaths" list, which mostly contained names of people who had only tangential connections to Clinton. The effectiveness of the list was the sheer volume of the names, creating the illusion that Clinton must be a murderer even though there was no real evidence implicating Clinton in any of the deaths.


    As the list was blast-faxed far and wide, one of my right-wing sources called me up about the list and said, "even if only a few of these are real, that's one helluva story." I responded that if the President of the United States had murdered just one person that would be "one helluva story," but that there was no evidence that Clinton was behind any of the deaths.


    Other dark Clinton "mysteries" were spread through videos, like "The Clinton Chronicles" that Falwell hawked on his "Old-Time Gospel Hour" television show. Plus, salacious tales about the personal lives of the Clintons were popularized via right-wing magazines, such as The American Spectator, and the rapidly expanding world of right-wing talk radio.


    The Right also generated broader conspiracy theories about "black helicopters" threatening patriotic Americans with a United Nations takeover. The paranoia fed the rise of a "militia movement" of angry white men who dressed up in fatigues and went into the woods for paramilitary training.


    By fall 1994, Clinton's stumbling performance in office and the public doubts created by the black propaganda opened the way for a stunning Republican victory. Recognizing the influence of talk radio in spreading the Clinton smears, House Republicans made Rush Limbaugh an honorary member of the GOP caucus.


    However, the forces that the anti-Clinton psy-war campaign set in motion had unintended consequences. In the months after the Republicans gained control of Congress, one pro-militia extremist, Timothy McVeigh, took the madness to the next step and blew up the Murrah federal building in Oklahoma City on April 19, 1995, killing 168 people. [See Consortiumnews.com's "The Clinton Coup d'Etat?"]


    Reprising the Smears


    Now, 16 years since the start of Clinton's presidency, the Republicans and their right-wing allies are again on the outside of Washington power and are back studying the lessons of 1993-94. Only a month into Obama's presidency, there are some striking similarities in the two historical moments.


    In both cases, the Democrats inherited recessions and huge budget deficits from Republican presidents named Bush. In both cases, congressional Republicans rallied against the economic package of the new President hoping to strangle the young Democratic administrations in their cradles.


    And, as congressional Republicans worked on a more overt political level, their media allies and other operatives were getting busy at subterranean depths, reviving attack lines from the campaigns to sow doubts about the two Democratic presidents - and trying to whip up the right-wing base into a near revolutionary fervor.


    So far at least, the Republicans are experiencing less success against Barack Obama than they did against Bill Clinton. According to opinion polls, Obama remains widely popular with an American public that favors his more activist agenda for reviving the American economy and confronting systemic problems like energy, health care and education.


    Though Republicans scored points inside the Beltway with their opposition to Obama's $787 billion stimulus bill - and their complaints that Obama "failed" in his bipartisan outreach to them - the GOP tactics appear to have backfired with the American people.


    Gauging public opinion one month into Obama's presidency, polls found that most Americans faulted the Republicans for rebuffing Obama's gestures of bipartisanship, and a New York Times/CBS News poll discovered that a majority said Obama "should pursue the priorities he campaigned on … rather than seek middle ground with Republicans." [NYT, Feb. 24, 2009]


    But the Republicans seem incapable of coming up with any other strategy than to seek Obama's destruction, much as they torpedoed Clinton. The three moderate Republican senators who supported the stimulus package - Susan Collins, Olympia Snowe and Arlen Specter - were widely denounced by the right-wing media as "traitors."


    Indeed, the Republican Party arguably has become captive to the angry right-wing media that the GOP conservatives did so much to help create in the late 1970s, after the Vietnam War defeat and Richard Nixon's Watergate debacle.


    This Right-Wing Machine proved useful in protecting Ronald Reagan during the Iran-Contra scandal; undermining Clinton in the 1990s; dirtying up AL Gore in 2000; and wrapping George W. Bush in the protective garb of a full-scale cult of personality after 9/11.


    But the machine wore down in its defense of Bush's multitude of disasters and ultimately could not generate enough suspicions about Obama to elect John McCain. Still, it remains a potent force in the country and particularly among the Republican "base."


    It is also a machine that can run only on the high-octane fuel of anger and hate. If it tried to down-shift to a more responsible approach to politics, it would stall out, losing its core audience of angry white men who feel deeply aggrieved by their loss of status.


    In turn, Republican leaders can't disown the right-wing media infrastructure that has advanced their interests for so long. In the first month of Obama's presidency, the congressional Republicans fell in line behind Rush Limbaugh's openly declared desire for Obama to fail.


    Now, the Republicans may see little choice but to bet on the ability of their Right-Wing Machine to continue spreading doubts and hysteria about Obama.


    More books and DVDs can be expected soon, recycling the 2008 campaign's rumor-mongering on Obama - that he wasn't born in the United States, that he's a secret Muslim, that he's in league with 1960s radical Bill Ayers, etc.


    Rumbling Insurrection


    Much like the Clinton-era militia movement's fear of "black helicopters," there already are rumblings about the need for an armed uprising to thwart Obama's alleged "communist" agenda.


    Ironically, right-wingers who defended George W. Bush when he mounted a radical assault on the Constitution - seeking to establish an imperial presidency while eliminating habeas corpus and other key freedoms - are suddenly seeing threats to the Constitution from Obama.


    Fox News, in particular, has been floating the idea of armed rebellion. On Feb. 20 - the one-month anniversary of Obama's inauguration - Glenn Beck hosted a special program called "War Room" that "war-gamed" various scenarios including the overthrow of an oppressive U.S. government when "bubba" militias rise up and gain the support of the American military.


    The segment featured former CIA officer Michael Scheuer, retired U.S. Army Sgt. Major Tim Strong, and Gerald Celente, a prognosticator who began pitching the idea of an armed rebellion on Fox News shortly after Obama's election last November.


    "This is going to be violent," said Celente, founder of Trends Research Institute. "People can't afford it [taxes] anymore. The cities are going to look like Dodge City. They're going to be uncontrollable. You're going to have gangs in control. Motorcycle marauders. You're not going to have enough police or federales - just like Mexico - to control the situation."


    Beck envisioned the uprising - theoretically set in 2014 - starting "because people have been so disenfranchised" leading to a "bubba effect" touched off by federal agents from the ATF or FBI arresting some rancher in Texas or Arizona who has taken the law into his own hands in defending his property.


    "That's totally possible," ex-Sgt. Strong said. "You've got people who are going to do the right thing to truly protect the interests of the United States, to include their own. … Your second and third orders of effect are going to be your bubbas hunkering down and being anti-government."


    Beck, who was a longtime fixture on CNN's Headline News before moving to Fox, then expanded on the justification for the bubba uprising against a federal government that was "coming in and disenfranchising people over and over and over again - and having the people say please listen to us."


    According to Beck, these oppressed Americans "know the Constitution. They know the writings of the Founders and they feel that the government - or they will in this scenario and I think we're on this road - the government has betrayed the Constitution. So they will see themselves as people who are standing up for the Constitution."


    Beck then turned to ex-CIA officer Scheuer and asked, "So how do you defuse this, Michael, or how long even do we have before this becomes a crazy real scenario?"


    "I don't think you'd want to defuse it, Glenn," Scheuer responded. "The Second Amendment is … at base not about hunting or about a militia, but about resisting tyranny. The Founders were very concerned about allowing individual citizens weaponry to defend themselves as a last resort against a tyrannical government."


    As the discussion edged toward advocacy of violent revolution, Beck sought to reel it back in a bit.


    "Don't get me wrong," the host said. "I am against the government. And I think they've just been horrible. I do think they are betraying the principles of our Founders every day they're in office. But I have to tell you this scenario scares the living daylights out of me because it is shaking nitroglycerine."


    Beck then got back to the point: "Do the soldiers come in and do they round up people or do they fight with the people for the Constitution? What does the Army, what does the military do?"


    Scheuer answered: "I don't think the military is ever going to shoot on the American people, sir. I think the military - of all people - read the Constitution every year, right through."


    Beck then suggested that Obama's stimulus package might lead to this back-door federal tyranny.


    "We just had in our stimulus package a way for if your governor says no to the money, the legislature can go around the governor and go right to the Feds," Beck said. "It's this kind of thing that would make the federal government say, ‘You know what? We can call up the National Guard. We don't need your governor to do it.'"


    Such insurrectionist musings on Fox News are not likely to be taken seriously by most people. Indeed, many Americans may find it amusing that Fox has developed a heartfelt concern about disenfranchising voters after its enthusiastic embrace of Bush's undemocratic "election" in 2000 or that Fox now feels a sudden reverence for the Constitution after eight years of defendin Bush as he trampled it.


    But this sort of Fox chatter runs the risk of feeding the well-nursed grievances of angry white "bubbas" and possibly inspiring a new Timothy McVeigh.


    More significantly, today's Republican leaders - finding themselves with little new to offer - appear to have turned to the well-worn pages of this earlier GOP playbook to choose the same game plan that set the nation on a dangerous and destructive course 16 years ago, a course that only now, finally, may be playing out.


    -------


    Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories in the 1980s for the Associated Press and Newsweek. His latest book, Neck Deep: The Disastrous Presidency of George W. Bush, was written with two of his sons, Sam and Nat, and can be ordered at neckdeepbook.com. His two previous books, Secrecy & Privilege: The Rise of the Bush Dynasty from Watergate to Iraq and Lost History: Contras, Cocaine, the Press & 'Project Truth' are also available there. Or go to Amazon.com.


»


Propaganda - whatever spin they need
We also have socialized K-12 schools and libraries; how is it that big business missed that chance for profit?  Never turned me into a Bolshevik.  But somehow, if we had free health care, it would corrupt us completely.
NOT propaganda - FACT
But I rather doubt people like yourself are interested in distinguishing between the two..

As to independent thought? when is the last time (or the first!) that you ever tried to follow up on a concept that you initially REJECT?

You can't slam the other side if you never consider it's point of view.

Fortunately some of us stopped being robots a long time ago and do our own research...
propaganda - see message

Could those of you who label some posts as having a less than credible news source share your techniques for finding and recognizing purely factual unbiased news and also how you keep from adding your own perspective in order to relay such incredibly unalloyed information to us? 


Palin really seems to scare the loony lefties and mainstream media
One has to wonder why they continue to expend so much time and effort on trying to villify, ridicule and harass this woman - who isn't running for any office at the moment.

Personally, I think it's highly unlikely that Palin would be nominated or run in 2012, but why are the Democrats already worrying about the next presidential race? Hmmmm? Passing strange, if you ask me, considering what we've got on our plate to deal with right now.