Republican or Democrat on Nov 7th?

Automatic Washer - The world's coolest Washing Machines, Dryers and Dishwashers

Help Support AutomaticWasher.org:

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.
 
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?
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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
 
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". ;-)
 
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.
 
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."
 
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...
 
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?
 
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.
 
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?
 
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.
 
Primarily a Democrat vote for me this time around. For governor in this state, I refused to vote for Arnold based on his role in the ultimately fraudulent result in Ohio in 2004. But I couldn't vote for his Democratic challenger either, so I ended up voting Libertarian. It's a lost cause as Arnold is going to skate to a landslide victory.

Elsewhere on my ballot it was Democrat across the board. Throw the bums out is what I say. The Republicans are out of control. Actually, they are under contol--of the religious ultra right hypocrisy machine.

Whoever stated above that Santorum is toast, I hope you are correct. This guy is another ultra-right whack job who needs to be tossed out on his ass.

Anybody of the "pry my gun out of my cold stiff hands" line of thought who posts here can't be reasoned with so nobody should even bother to try.

Don't get me wrong, I don't want the pendulum swinging all the way in the other direction, but we need some common sense in congress, which has been sorely lacking since November of 2000.

If anybody caught "Hacking Democracy" on HBO this week, that should give us all cause for concern about the accuracy of vote tallies in this age of electronic voting. Just look at the clearly messed-with results in Ohio back in 2004 and you have to wonder if we won't see the exact results the Bush regime is hoping for on Tuesday.
 
Well, I am new, and I hope nobody thinks I'm here to stir any pots up. When I first started posting, someone started a thread regarding illegal immigration, and I responded forcefully to it, because I have strong opinions on the subject. The webmaster wound up taking the whole thread down, because he felt there WAS content on the thread that could be construed as offensive. As someone who posted a lot on that thread, that certainly didn't paint me in a favorable light....but I certainly didn't throw a tantrum and leave over it.

Then I got embroiled about an anti-smoking diatribe. Again, I took an unpopular opinion, and it was a train wreck...but what was I to do? I felt outrageous statements were being made.

Now, when what I'd really like to do is ask where the original Maytag Neptune was built and whether a Staber would be the washer of my dreams, I'm getting vortexed into quoting Alex Jones and Noam Chomsky on geopolitics....initially because I was feeling in my heart that some people are way too apathetic about these issues, and don't remember how history repeats itself (and in some cases, outdoes itself...)

I feel weird being the lynchpin for controversial statements, especially since I'm new....but isn't it worth it, ultimately?

As I said, the thread is clearly marked. I saw threads around 9/11 that I took extreme offense to, but I kept quiet, because I recognized these people needed to express themselves.

Were you so opposed to those threads at the time?

They were overtly political.

Are such threads only favorable in your eyes if they represent feel-good, reverential, self-indulgent sentiments, and everyone can walk away with warm fuzzies?

Well, some of us are looking for change, and what exactly is wrong with that?
 
Well, just speaking for myself, I think it's a topic to generally be avoided altogher on a site like this, warm, fuzzy or otherwise. To this very day, and if you read my words closely, have never made a political statement on this website, ever. There are plenty of political websites all over the Internet that are specifically set up for, and encourage, political debate. There aren't a hell of a lot of vintage appliance communities, though.

I'm politically informed. I follow politics closely. I can talk a blue streak on politics with anyone any day of the week. But I don't. I don't think this is the place for that. I didn't enter an opinion on the illegal alien thread but I voted to shut the thread down. I didn't say anything in the smoking thread, etc. etc.

There's absolutely nothing wrong with you wanting a change or being excited about this election. But let's be honest. There is no truth seeking here. No one's mind will be changed. No one has been or will be enlightened. No votes will be changed. They never are. Let's at least be honest here. So is it ultimately worth it? When it gets personal or some people take offence and leave for good, is that worth it when no minds were changed anyway?

Remember this: Just because you have the right to say something doesn't mean it's right to say it.
 
Political Subject Matter

. . . will probably drop sharply here after election day. Even on politically-based blogs it gets pretty dead after an election and doesn't pick up until a month or so prior to the next one.

Hopefully this site will be back on track with the type of subject matter that lured us here before too much longer, but I still feel the need to put my $.02 in re: political posts when I see an opposing view with an arrogant tone. Ideology has no place in elective office at any level, and I'll do my part to eradicate it. Hopefully that task will be on its way to being accomplished tomorrow.

What I hope the Dems do if they gain control is to make a statement that nobody should expect a complete turn-around in two years, that we will need to do this again in 2008 with a focus on the Executive Branch. We still need to get "that craven coward taking up space in the White House" (quoting a letter to the editor in the SF Chronicle a couple of years back) out of there before we can really work towards getting this country back on track, domestically and internationally.

OK, that's $.04 now so I'm over budget.
 
I think the dominance of the politically-themed threads will wane a few days after the election. Mike, you're right---it would be a shame for this website to degenerate into a continual battle of Republican vs. Democrat (or any number of other labels). On the other hand, we all have opinions and many of us are extremely frustrated by the political powers that be. The politically-themed threads have certainly had--by far--the most traffic at the site.

I just hope this doesn't lead to punch-ups at future Wash-Ins! Or if it does, that Jason is there with his video camera, LOL.

Let's all remember what it is about AW.ORG that first brought us together---no matter how things shake out tomorrow, OK?
 
MIke you are so right!

I have watched the "political discussions" go back and forth on various threads for the last few weeks. While I am not opposed to true political debate (of which there has been some), much of the dialogue has been an attempt at "verbal bullying". Let me tell you folks, most people have their minds already made up and, no amount of personal attacks and hostile remarks will make them change it.

For those that feel the need to rant and insult to the point of red faces and bulging eyeballs, my suggestion is to go find a nice political forum and shriek away.
 
Anybody of the "pry my gun out of my cold stiff hands&q

Are you a moron or what? That really doesn't even deserve a response.

I spent the weekend at my hunting cabin w/ no phone, electricity, etc., just relaxing. I was really suprised to see this thread still going and the turns that it has taken. Yes, politcal discourse is great. But, with some folks on here, if you disagree, look out. I'm not leaving the site. I enjoy what I see & read here too much and I've met quite a few good people through aw.org.

I see so much conspiriacy theory stuff on here, it's amazing. I'm looking out my windows right now for black helicopters hovering above. Oxydol, Versatronic was right, watch out for those websites. They'll fill your head with a lot of bad information. I thought this was funny...."If you find truthseeking and political awareness personally offensive, you're quite able to avoid it entirely." But earlier you had posted on another thread...and I quote...
"Has anyone heard that Baghdad is under siege?

Google-Video-US Army Ammo Dump Attack

Did anyone see coverage of this on CNN?

Rumor has it over three hundred soldiers were killed.

I'm going to go research this, but this is not good.

I'm just trying to get some accurate info on this...

Update: apparently the dump that went up tonight had nothing to do with an attack at a "Falcon" base on 10/10. It has been said that over 300 were killed there, but, of course, there is no way to verify this."""

Come on back to earth, man. We're a tolerant bunch. We'll welcome you back. LOL.

Vers, I agree w/ you. Great posts.
 
How about a hovering black Kelvinator?

Seriously, I DID follow that post up by saying it was probably unsubtantiated. I don't think that's quite fair. If anything, I believe such things are actually probably happening....we just don't have access to accurate information regarding the Bush war.

This is not Vietnam, where correspondents are in theater, reporting. If they will not allow the coffins to be photographed, what is there to count?

What you SHOULD be asking yourselves is why so many of us have such a fundamental distrust of Republicans, and why we believe virtually nothing you (they) try to tell us.

We want a change. We want an end to carnage.

We want to be able to exhale again.

Are we wrong to want this for the country?

Argue the ISSUES, and stop blaming the media and the messengers.
 
Wow

Man, you are tenacious. I'll give you that. Where in this thread has anyone blamed or even mentioned the media? Hell, all the media outlets are owned by big business and complicit with the Bush crime syndicate.

OK, let's start with issue number one. Obviously, Bushco masterminded 9/11 so he could frighten the U.S. public and have the cover he needed to set up a police state. Psychops, the oldest trick in the book. Create a crisis and then tell the lemmings that if they don't do what they're told, there will be no protection from the bad guys. For crying out loud, anybody can see that the towers came down from controlled explosions.

The Bin Ladens and the Bush's have a long history together and pulled off one of the biggest hoax's of all time. Bin Laden in a cave? Yeah, more like living in a palace somewhere except when the chimp needs a new "Boogie Man" video to trot out to the American people.

Well anyway, here's my question. What do you think Bush will do after his next two years are up? I'm thinking since he'll be out of the picture, then suddenly Bin Laden turns up dead, for the legacy thing, but not really dead, but somebody will be trotted out as Bin Laden to show that he slayed the dragon.

I don't know. How do you think he's going to play it? And what's next? I mean, there's no way that he put all this in motion and then like in two years, poof, it's over. Another Bush steps up to the plate to continue the movement toward a facist state? Two years from now, how does it play out? What's the next step in the New World Order if you had to guess?

Oh, and one last thing, but this is more of a statement than a question. I hear people saying that Bush is an idiot, Bush is a dimwit, blah blah blah. Don't believe it, nobody could be as stupid as he is and pull all this stuff off. He's not just Rove's puppet. I'm convinced of that. Well, I said that was more of a statement, but do you agree?
 
Back
Top