oxydolfan1
Well-known member
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2006
- Messages
- 1,764
Incidentally, I asked no one to leave.
Republican or Democrat on Nov 7th?
- Thread starter sudsdudeshane
- Start date
Help Support :
Versatronic
Well-known member
- Joined
- Sep 6, 2005
- Messages
- 825
Oh, the death camps
Dude, why didn't you say you were talking about the death camps? Yeah, alright, that might be something to get worked up about. For the record, I am against the incineration of the tens of thousands of Americans that is happening right under our nose. It's wrong and if any politian supports this, I would be angry and not vote for them. You should have said this is what you were so steamed about. Sorry. I am angry about that. That's not nice.
I know you didn't ask anyone to leave. And I was merely telling you I wasn't offended.
Dude, why didn't you say you were talking about the death camps? Yeah, alright, that might be something to get worked up about. For the record, I am against the incineration of the tens of thousands of Americans that is happening right under our nose. It's wrong and if any politian supports this, I would be angry and not vote for them. You should have said this is what you were so steamed about. Sorry. I am angry about that. That's not nice.
I know you didn't ask anyone to leave. And I was merely telling you I wasn't offended.
oxydolfan1
Well-known member
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2006
- Messages
- 1,764
Well, it's the easiest thing to denounce out of hand as just another conspiracy theory, but maybe it's a little more difficult to explain the existence of FEMA camps in the first place?
Versatronic
Well-known member
- Joined
- Sep 6, 2005
- Messages
- 825
I didn't say it wasn't a conspiracy
No, I'm with you on this one. But here's what I'm thinking. Since we already spent the money to get these up and operational, instead of tearing them down, let's use them for real emergencies. Like, say if an area has a catastrophic natural diaster, hordes of volunteers will come into the area to help. Why don't we use these camps to house the voluteers so they have a cot to sleep on, a place to take a shower, get a warm meal. Or maybe even use them for temporary housing for displaced victims. I'm just thinking out-of-the-box here. If there's one thing I hate to see, it's government waste. We could turn lemons into lemonade, perhaps. I'd support that.
No, I'm with you on this one. But here's what I'm thinking. Since we already spent the money to get these up and operational, instead of tearing them down, let's use them for real emergencies. Like, say if an area has a catastrophic natural diaster, hordes of volunteers will come into the area to help. Why don't we use these camps to house the voluteers so they have a cot to sleep on, a place to take a shower, get a warm meal. Or maybe even use them for temporary housing for displaced victims. I'm just thinking out-of-the-box here. If there's one thing I hate to see, it's government waste. We could turn lemons into lemonade, perhaps. I'd support that.
The people who bought you the "death camp" story are the same people that theorized that the Amtrak shops in Beech Grove were being converted to gas chambers. They aren't - they're just old as hell (having been inherited from the Pennsylvania RR) and creepy looking.
That conspiracy gave me a chuckle. I am a big Amtrak supporter, but if there is some plan to take everyone to meet their maker via Amtrak, we are all safe.
That conspiracy gave me a chuckle. I am a big Amtrak supporter, but if there is some plan to take everyone to meet their maker via Amtrak, we are all safe.
Versatronic
Well-known member
- Joined
- Sep 6, 2005
- Messages
- 825
I disagree
I never feel safe riding Amtrak. Do you know what their safety record is like????!!
Time to drink some beer and shoot some pool. It's very relaxing.
I never feel safe riding Amtrak. Do you know what their safety record is like????!!
Time to drink some beer and shoot some pool. It's very relaxing.
Actually, I know Amtrak's safety record quite well. Don't make me go there, because I will DROWN you in my transportation wonkiness. ;-)
Never underestimate my ability to bore the bejezus out of people by talking about varying modes of transport. They love me over at railroad.net LOL
Never underestimate my ability to bore the bejezus out of people by talking about varying modes of transport. They love me over at railroad.net LOL
irishwashguy
Well-known member
(D)!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Beech Grove shops were not Pennsy, was NYC. A real railfan would know that.
Voting Democrat on most officials.
Voting Democrat on most officials.
Actually, Mrsalvo, We're BOTH wrong. It was constructed by The Cleveland, Cincinnati, Chicago and St. Louis Railway (aka the Big Four Railroad), then operated by NYC after their purchase of the Big Four, then Penn Central after THAT merger, and finally Amtrak. Slip of the mind there.
One of the many reasons I am NOT a "railfan". ;-)
One of the many reasons I am NOT a "railfan". ;-)
oxydolfan1
Well-known member
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2006
- Messages
- 1,764
But WHY do they need concentration camps in the FIRST PLACE?
Versatronic
Well-known member
- Joined
- Sep 6, 2005
- Messages
- 825
Let's get Nancy Grace on it
I doubt very much that FEMA is setting up concentration camps so that they can systematically exterminate Americans.
One thing about the information revolution and the Internet is that kooks who used to stand on buckets on street corners and yell "The end is near!" now have their own websites. It's easier to get disinformation out to the masses. When you start taking these outrageous conspiracy theorists seriously, you are in trouble. That will poison your mind. You want to be clear headed and not filled with paranoia. If there's any conspiracy that I might buy into, it's that people will prey on some people's inclinations to get wrapped up in conspiracy theories and use it for their own purposes. If they can scare the hell out of you they can manipulate you to their own end. That's about the only conspiracy theory that I would entertain.
I'm amazed at the amount of paranoia, hatred, and vitriol going on these days. There is nothing going on to warrant any of this. There's no theocracy. The government is not going to march gays off to FEMA death camps and exterminate them. Your rights are not being taken away. There is no police state. That's just not rational thinking. Generally, when people not given to these over-the-top, ludicrous assertions, hear people ranting about this stuff, they completely dismiss them as paranoid lunatics. I guess if I fear anything, I fear that the people who fill people's mind with this stuff have some devious ulterior motive.
Oxydol, I'm only suggesting that you try not to get caught up in all these the-sky-is-falling websites. There are a lot of crazies out there. And after a while, I'm sure it can really mess with your head and you don't know what to believe anymore.
I doubt very much that FEMA is setting up concentration camps so that they can systematically exterminate Americans.
One thing about the information revolution and the Internet is that kooks who used to stand on buckets on street corners and yell "The end is near!" now have their own websites. It's easier to get disinformation out to the masses. When you start taking these outrageous conspiracy theorists seriously, you are in trouble. That will poison your mind. You want to be clear headed and not filled with paranoia. If there's any conspiracy that I might buy into, it's that people will prey on some people's inclinations to get wrapped up in conspiracy theories and use it for their own purposes. If they can scare the hell out of you they can manipulate you to their own end. That's about the only conspiracy theory that I would entertain.
I'm amazed at the amount of paranoia, hatred, and vitriol going on these days. There is nothing going on to warrant any of this. There's no theocracy. The government is not going to march gays off to FEMA death camps and exterminate them. Your rights are not being taken away. There is no police state. That's just not rational thinking. Generally, when people not given to these over-the-top, ludicrous assertions, hear people ranting about this stuff, they completely dismiss them as paranoid lunatics. I guess if I fear anything, I fear that the people who fill people's mind with this stuff have some devious ulterior motive.
Oxydol, I'm only suggesting that you try not to get caught up in all these the-sky-is-falling websites. There are a lot of crazies out there. And after a while, I'm sure it can really mess with your head and you don't know what to believe anymore.
Where to begin...
Let's start with theocracy. Cornell university seems to believe it's worth watching out for.
Let's start with theocracy. Cornell university seems to believe it's worth watching out for.
"Your rights are not being taken away."
But the American Library Association has a few issues with the USA Patriot Act:
But the American Library Association has a few issues with the USA Patriot Act:
And the paranoia is coming from?
The President.
Using Our Fear
The Washington Post
By Eugene Robinson
Friday, January 27, 2006; A23
Once upon a time we had a great wartime president who told Americans they had nothing to fear but fear itself. Now we have George W. Bush, who uses fear as a tool of executive power and as a political weapon against his opponents.
Franklin D. Roosevelt tried his best to allay his nation's fears in the midst of an epic struggle against fascism. Bush, as he leads the country in a war whose nature he is constantly redefining, keeps fear alive because it has been so useful. His political grand vizier, Karl Rove, was perfectly transparent the other day when he emerged from wherever he's been hiding the past few months -- consulting omens, reading entrails -- and gave the Republican National Committee its positioning statement for the fall elections: Vote for us or die.
Democrats "have a pre-9/11 worldview" of national security that is "deeply and profoundly and consistently wrong," Rove said. The clear subtext was that Americans would court mortal danger by electing Democrats. Go forth and scare the bejesus out of them, Rove was telling his party, because the more frightened they are, the better our chances.
To cultivate fear for partisan gain is never a political tactic to be proud of, but Rove's prescription of naked fearmongering is just plain reprehensible when the nation faces a shifting array of genuine, serious threats. This is a moment for ethical politicians -- and, yes, these days that seems like an oxymoron -- to speak honestly about what dangers have receded, what new dangers have emerged, and how the imperatives of liberty and security can be balanced.
From the likes of Rove, I guess, we shouldn't expect anything more noble than win-at-all-costs. But we do have the right to expect more from the president of the United States, and while Bush gives off none of Rove's Sith-lord menace, he has made the cultivation of fear a hallmark of his governance.
At his news conference yesterday, Bush was asked again about the domestic surveillance he has ordered the National Security Agency to conduct without seeking warrants -- a program that seems to violate the law. In his meandering answer, the president kept throwing in the phrase "to protect the American people." I suspect that's a line that tests well in focus groups, but it doesn't really say anything. The fact that we expect any president to protect us does not obviate the fact that we expect any president to obey the law.
Bush mentioned the new tape from Osama bin Laden that surfaced the other day, calling it a reminder that we face "an enemy that wants to hit us again." That's certainly true, but the warning would carry more gravitas if Bush and his administration didn't brag so much about how thoroughly al Qaeda has been routed and decimated. Is anybody keeping track of how many "No. 3" or "No. 4" al Qaeda lieutenants U.S. forces claim to have eliminated?
And Americans would be better able to measure the threat from bin Laden if Bush and the rest of his administration didn't argue -- when it gives them an edge -- that Iraq is the "central front in the war on terrorism." If Iraq is the main event, then bin Laden, huddled in some cave in northern Pakistan, must be just a sideshow, right? But of course he's not a sideshow, he's the author of the Sept. 11 attacks, so what does that make Iraq? The answer seems to depend on whether, at any given time, Bush believes that cultivating fear of bin Laden or stoking fear of a terrorist spawning ground in Iraq would better help his administration achieve its ends.
The thing is, fear works. The administration successfully invoked the fear of "mushroom clouds" to win support, or at least acquiescence, for the invasion of Iraq. By the time it was clear there were no weapons of mass destruction, the fear of losing to terrorists on the "central front" had been given primacy. We stopped hearing the name bin Laden so often -- no need to bring attention to the fact that he remained at large -- until reports emerged of secret CIA prisons, torture and domestic spying.
Bin Laden does remain a threat. He would hit the United States again if he could. We do expect the president to protect us. But a great wartime leader rallies his citizens by informing them and inspiring them. He certainly doesn't use threats to our national security for political gain. He doesn't just point at a map and say "Boo."
The President.
Using Our Fear
The Washington Post
By Eugene Robinson
Friday, January 27, 2006; A23
Once upon a time we had a great wartime president who told Americans they had nothing to fear but fear itself. Now we have George W. Bush, who uses fear as a tool of executive power and as a political weapon against his opponents.
Franklin D. Roosevelt tried his best to allay his nation's fears in the midst of an epic struggle against fascism. Bush, as he leads the country in a war whose nature he is constantly redefining, keeps fear alive because it has been so useful. His political grand vizier, Karl Rove, was perfectly transparent the other day when he emerged from wherever he's been hiding the past few months -- consulting omens, reading entrails -- and gave the Republican National Committee its positioning statement for the fall elections: Vote for us or die.
Democrats "have a pre-9/11 worldview" of national security that is "deeply and profoundly and consistently wrong," Rove said. The clear subtext was that Americans would court mortal danger by electing Democrats. Go forth and scare the bejesus out of them, Rove was telling his party, because the more frightened they are, the better our chances.
To cultivate fear for partisan gain is never a political tactic to be proud of, but Rove's prescription of naked fearmongering is just plain reprehensible when the nation faces a shifting array of genuine, serious threats. This is a moment for ethical politicians -- and, yes, these days that seems like an oxymoron -- to speak honestly about what dangers have receded, what new dangers have emerged, and how the imperatives of liberty and security can be balanced.
From the likes of Rove, I guess, we shouldn't expect anything more noble than win-at-all-costs. But we do have the right to expect more from the president of the United States, and while Bush gives off none of Rove's Sith-lord menace, he has made the cultivation of fear a hallmark of his governance.
At his news conference yesterday, Bush was asked again about the domestic surveillance he has ordered the National Security Agency to conduct without seeking warrants -- a program that seems to violate the law. In his meandering answer, the president kept throwing in the phrase "to protect the American people." I suspect that's a line that tests well in focus groups, but it doesn't really say anything. The fact that we expect any president to protect us does not obviate the fact that we expect any president to obey the law.
Bush mentioned the new tape from Osama bin Laden that surfaced the other day, calling it a reminder that we face "an enemy that wants to hit us again." That's certainly true, but the warning would carry more gravitas if Bush and his administration didn't brag so much about how thoroughly al Qaeda has been routed and decimated. Is anybody keeping track of how many "No. 3" or "No. 4" al Qaeda lieutenants U.S. forces claim to have eliminated?
And Americans would be better able to measure the threat from bin Laden if Bush and the rest of his administration didn't argue -- when it gives them an edge -- that Iraq is the "central front in the war on terrorism." If Iraq is the main event, then bin Laden, huddled in some cave in northern Pakistan, must be just a sideshow, right? But of course he's not a sideshow, he's the author of the Sept. 11 attacks, so what does that make Iraq? The answer seems to depend on whether, at any given time, Bush believes that cultivating fear of bin Laden or stoking fear of a terrorist spawning ground in Iraq would better help his administration achieve its ends.
The thing is, fear works. The administration successfully invoked the fear of "mushroom clouds" to win support, or at least acquiescence, for the invasion of Iraq. By the time it was clear there were no weapons of mass destruction, the fear of losing to terrorists on the "central front" had been given primacy. We stopped hearing the name bin Laden so often -- no need to bring attention to the fact that he remained at large -- until reports emerged of secret CIA prisons, torture and domestic spying.
Bin Laden does remain a threat. He would hit the United States again if he could. We do expect the president to protect us. But a great wartime leader rallies his citizens by informing them and inspiring them. He certainly doesn't use threats to our national security for political gain. He doesn't just point at a map and say "Boo."
Versatronic
Well-known member
- Joined
- Sep 6, 2005
- Messages
- 825
Hmmm
Do you really think that posting long politically slanted opinion pieces is appropriate on a hobby website? Isn't this about members discussing things among themselves? Anybody can search the Internet for opinion pieces if they cared to. If there has to be political discussion, which I think is a bad idea to begin with, I think people whould rather hear from members themselves.
You know what they say about opinions...
Do you really think that posting long politically slanted opinion pieces is appropriate on a hobby website? Isn't this about members discussing things among themselves? Anybody can search the Internet for opinion pieces if they cared to. If there has to be political discussion, which I think is a bad idea to begin with, I think people whould rather hear from members themselves.
You know what they say about opinions...
oxydolfan1
Well-known member
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2006
- Messages
- 1,764
Versatronic, what is your interest in trying to suppress open discussion regarding politics on any website, the day before a major election?
You don't seem to be reticent about poohpoohing issues that the vast majority of Americans are intensely interested in-rather, you seem quite aggressive about urging members to stick their head back in the sand.
Unfortunately, many of us have lived through the consequences of what you are urging now.
The webmaster has already expressed concerns regarding the unrestrained spread of political subject on this site, but simultaneously seems to be sensitive to the fact that this is a politically charged season for us, and that we should have means of expression-as long as we work to keep it to specific threads.
This thread is clearly labeled. If you find truthseeking and political awareness personally offensive, you're quite able to avoid it entirely.
I have to wonder, what exactly is it that you so fear?
You don't seem to be reticent about poohpoohing issues that the vast majority of Americans are intensely interested in-rather, you seem quite aggressive about urging members to stick their head back in the sand.
Unfortunately, many of us have lived through the consequences of what you are urging now.
The webmaster has already expressed concerns regarding the unrestrained spread of political subject on this site, but simultaneously seems to be sensitive to the fact that this is a politically charged season for us, and that we should have means of expression-as long as we work to keep it to specific threads.
This thread is clearly labeled. If you find truthseeking and political awareness personally offensive, you're quite able to avoid it entirely.
I have to wonder, what exactly is it that you so fear?
Versatronic
Well-known member
- Joined
- Sep 6, 2005
- Messages
- 825
Offended?
I'm not trying to suppress any political discussion at all. That's not my place to do that. It's not my site. I was just wondering if copying and pasting outside opinion pieces was appropriate. Wouldn't you rather hear what people here think in their own words? That's all. I'd rather hear what you have to say than some newspaper's opinion columnist.
Again, I am not offended.
I'm not trying to suppress any political discussion at all. That's not my place to do that. It's not my site. I was just wondering if copying and pasting outside opinion pieces was appropriate. Wouldn't you rather hear what people here think in their own words? That's all. I'd rather hear what you have to say than some newspaper's opinion columnist.
Again, I am not offended.
oxydolfan1
Well-known member
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2006
- Messages
- 1,764
If you are "not trying to suppress any political discussion at all", then why did you feel compelled to mention, "if there has to be political discussion, which I think is a bad idea to begin with" as a clarifier?
Versatronic
Well-known member
- Joined
- Sep 6, 2005
- Messages
- 825
Here's why
Thanks for asking. Before I joined aw.org, I was at a wonderful hobby site. Everyone got along famously. It was a load of fun. I hung out there for years. But then there was a person who felt that she had the right to insert her inflammatory opinions onto the site constantly. Soon people got tired of it and started shooting back. And actually, one person would paste an opinion piece by Greg Palast. Then in retaliation, someone would paste an opinion piece by Ann Coulter.
Friends became enemies. People started leaving the site. The fighting escalated and got nastier and nastier and nastier until finally the webmaster couldn't take it anymore and shut down the site. Poof. Gone.
This is my favorite place on the Internet. Everyone shares a common interest and mostly everybody is friendly regardless of politcal persuasion, sexual proclivity, race, etc etc. I have seen other website communities devastated by political bickering. What do I fear? I fear that that will happen here and this awesome website will not be awesome anymore. I fear that people that I think are great people will leave because they are sick of it. That's what I fear.
I have had people from this site email me and say "Who are all these new people and why have they taking over the site with all this political crap?"
Politics is the one sure fire way of making enemies of friends. I won't mention it again. I just hope that after Tuesday, this doesn't go on and on. I'm not easily offended by much of anything. That's just me. But I know of people that have already made their last post on this site. I think that is sad.
Thanks for asking. Before I joined aw.org, I was at a wonderful hobby site. Everyone got along famously. It was a load of fun. I hung out there for years. But then there was a person who felt that she had the right to insert her inflammatory opinions onto the site constantly. Soon people got tired of it and started shooting back. And actually, one person would paste an opinion piece by Greg Palast. Then in retaliation, someone would paste an opinion piece by Ann Coulter.
Friends became enemies. People started leaving the site. The fighting escalated and got nastier and nastier and nastier until finally the webmaster couldn't take it anymore and shut down the site. Poof. Gone.
This is my favorite place on the Internet. Everyone shares a common interest and mostly everybody is friendly regardless of politcal persuasion, sexual proclivity, race, etc etc. I have seen other website communities devastated by political bickering. What do I fear? I fear that that will happen here and this awesome website will not be awesome anymore. I fear that people that I think are great people will leave because they are sick of it. That's what I fear.
I have had people from this site email me and say "Who are all these new people and why have they taking over the site with all this political crap?"
Politics is the one sure fire way of making enemies of friends. I won't mention it again. I just hope that after Tuesday, this doesn't go on and on. I'm not easily offended by much of anything. That's just me. But I know of people that have already made their last post on this site. I think that is sad.
Similar threads
