Holy @$#!

Holy @$#!

Postby 4tees » Fri Apr 13, 2007 11:29 am

AC130 Driver actually posted this on the Topix forum in a response thread to an article about interracial marriage (I often read the ACT online during lunch at work)

These couples have no right to produce children who are then shunned by both races and suffer their entire lives


I was frankly shocked and astonished to see such a comment from one of WNC Talk's (currently inactive) members
Don't be a sheeple
User avatar
4tees
 
Posts: 841
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 10:17 pm
Location: 3250 ft in Beautiful WNC

Postby willard » Fri Apr 13, 2007 12:55 pm

Why should such statement be a shock to anyone. The source must be considered. There are a few bully bloggers on this list. They all write just to produce "shock".

Does AC's statement apply to all marriages? Does that mean that Irish and English shouldn't marry. There was a time when that was true (or something like that). I remember many years ago dating a Jewish girl. After three dates, I was told by her father never to call or return to see her. She was to marry a respectable Jew not a gentile. Was a shock to me. My first hand experience with "prejudice".

Perhaps AC130 has gone off to greener pastures so to speak. Wouldn't bother me at all. He was a best a very cheap O'lielly or Imus imitation. I think that many have had it with that type of jerk.

Here's a question:

FOX claims it's the most watched news (over CNN or MSNBC etc). However, if the majority of Americans don't agree with the current stupidity of the presidunce and his cronies, where are they getting their "fair and balanced" thoughts from. Somebody is wrong. Seems to me the 2006 elections proved which side has the momentum. All of the presidunces speeches have not made the war anymore popular (except maybe with AC130, Hunter and others of that ilk).

Of course it could be that less and less are watching the "news" because it is all corporate bought and paid for and doesn't actually reflect the 4th estate. Is that why corporate news wants control over the internet? :roll:
willard
 
Posts: 87
Joined: Mon May 08, 2006 8:39 pm
Location: burnsville,nc

Postby Yellow_Dog » Fri Apr 13, 2007 1:07 pm

As for Faux's claim to be the most watched, I take everything that Faux says with a grain of salt.
Yellow_Dog
 
Posts: 804
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 9:51 pm
Location: Economic wasteland of Bush's follies

Postby 4tees » Fri Apr 13, 2007 1:12 pm

I was shocked because I don't recall or believe he ever said (or would dared have said) such a thing on this forum. Shows the importance of a good Admin :D

I don't know the statistics, nor do I care enough to look it up; but what Fox News claim likely means is that they have more viewers of their single news channel than any other SINGLE news channel; not more than others combined.
Don't be a sheeple
User avatar
4tees
 
Posts: 841
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 10:17 pm
Location: 3250 ft in Beautiful WNC

Postby admin » Fri Apr 13, 2007 3:19 pm

I'm surprised as well. Based on AC130's posts on this forum, that seems out of character.
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 779
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 5:10 pm
Location: North Georgia Mountains

Postby etowah » Sat Apr 14, 2007 11:17 pm

admin wrote:I'm surprised as well. Based on AC130's posts on this forum, that seems out of character.


Unfortunately, no. One of his last posts he was making denigrating
and rude comments about Cindy Sheehan.
He who keeps on dropping the ball doesn't
want to be in the game.
etowah
 
Posts: 1132
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 9:15 pm
Location: Florida

Postby S » Sun Apr 15, 2007 6:07 am

To me AC represents the ultra conservative, militaristic mindset that thrives on the thrill of the kill. He seems to play the mercenary soldier rather than the citizen soldier like some of us do and have. It is not so much AC himself, he is what he wants to be, I think it's nice of him to keep us of informed of the same. We find it shocking because of its discord with our seemingly shared set of moralities.
"Though all the maps of blood and flesh are posted on the door. There is no one yet who has told us what Boogie Street is for." Leonard Cohen
User avatar
S
 
Posts: 272
Joined: Mon Apr 17, 2006 8:03 pm
Location: Downtown Asheville

Postby 4tees » Sun Apr 15, 2007 1:15 pm

I think it was especially shocking to me because AC served in the Air Force like I. The Air Force is hypocritical, misleading, or false about many things; but in my experience the Air Force and its leaders truly stand behind its stated policy of intolerance of racism in any form within and amongst its members (sadly homosexual bashing, and to a much lesser extent sexism, still occur). That means AC must have lied about his racial bigotry to those he worked with and around while he served. It is very likely he would have been made to separate (basically getting kicked out) if any racial bigotry was shown or expressed.
Don't be a sheeple
User avatar
4tees
 
Posts: 841
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 10:17 pm
Location: 3250 ft in Beautiful WNC

Postby willard » Sun Apr 15, 2007 2:55 pm

There's been much discussion concerning AC, but the problem exists with others too. Some have been identified here ie Hunter, but there are some new ones on the ACT letters to Ed. 1911 gov't is a handle that's new to me. It seems that they want to be shock jocks like Imus, Oliely, Coulter etc but appear in the guise of a Walter Cronkit. Its quite perplexing.

I am - as a Viet Vet - confused as to why many Viet era guys are so militaristic. We lost a damn war (sorry it really wasn't a war more of a police action). So what. Explain to me exactly how that loss has hurt us. (Come on rather than the obvious loss of life and treasure) We won the Cold War and lost the sideshow. What was more important? And we did the former w/o firing a shot. Now in Iraq we're firing shots and losing - again.

To my way of thinking they should be mad as hell about sending people into a war (Iraq) that was based on lies, distortion and ultimately went after the absolute wrong person. (We were forced into a similar situation)In the mean time they are happy to avoid talking about OBL who is the real antagonist. They try to make Iraq the radical Islam area when it wasn't - but may be coming to that now?

Maybe I'm the one who needs therapy.
willard
 
Posts: 87
Joined: Mon May 08, 2006 8:39 pm
Location: burnsville,nc

Postby 4tees » Sun Apr 15, 2007 4:27 pm

Today I'm truly a pacifist as far as war is concerned, and a "left leaning" Independent (believe it or not I started "adult life" as a "Regan Republican"), yet I will have served almost 21 years in the military. I often look back upon those years and am surprised myself that I made it to retirement. Fortunately my military job has always been far far more about preventing war than fighting it. I have never understood people who lust for war and conflict. I also believe many of them are the worst kind of hypocrites. I've first hand witnessed several "hawks" try to squirm their way out of an assignment to one of the several conflict zones over the years. Yet when my turn came (after 2 other higher ranking hawks squirmed out of it) I stepped up to the plate truly scared, but without a single complaint or gripe. Fortunately for me the war started 3 days before I was supposed to go, so my mission was cancelled.

Like many of you I find it criminal that our ?leaders? have comparatively ignored OBL in their quest to enrich their friends and avenge daddy in Iraq. The logic and reasons for the invasion of Iraq were not a mistake; they were a premeditated and intentional lie.

Radical Islam, like almost all radical movements, is a threat to civilization and progress. However, the actions of this administration (and several before it) are only fueling the fires of radicalism throughout the world.

Americans need to stop listening to the fear based propaganda spewed forth by most of those in power in the world. I don?t live my life fearing terrorism, yet I have had 2 extremely close scrapes with it. First, my wife, son, and I were booked and scheduled on the very flight of PAN AM 103 that was bombed. We were bumped off the flight a few weeks prior because we were using frequent flyer tickets my father had sent us. Secondly, I rode to work with a fellow airman in his truck every day for the last month before returning to the US. Shortly after I left, that poor guy was blown up in that very truck on his way to work by a bomb placed in the truck by a terrorist group.

You don?t need therapy Willard, the war mongers and corporatists of the world and our nation do.
Don't be a sheeple
User avatar
4tees
 
Posts: 841
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 10:17 pm
Location: 3250 ft in Beautiful WNC

Postby Yellow_Dog » Sun Apr 15, 2007 5:01 pm

willard wrote:
I am - as a Viet Vet - confused as to why many Viet era guys are so militaristic. We lost a damn war (sorry it really wasn't a war more of a police action).
I am a Viet Nam Era Vet also, and I don't understand their thinking either.


Cause they are still in denial about the View Nam war. The true militaristic neocons like AC and many Nam vets will scream in utter indignation, that the US did not loose the war, but we were defeated by the leftists and pacifists in our own country. The truth is, we were defeated because we were in the wrong war, and our leaders underestimated the enemy, and mismanaged every aspect of that war. Now as history repeats itself they have clearly learned nothing, or even know the history of that folly.

If AC130 just retired, he is too young to be a Nam Vet, even if he served 30 years. Perhaps he has an unfilled need to "kill, kill, kill" and never had the opportunity in his assignments. The frustrated impotent warrior syndrome.
Yellow_Dog
 
Posts: 804
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 9:51 pm
Location: Economic wasteland of Bush's follies

Postby admin » Tue Apr 24, 2007 11:56 am

Congress abdicated its responsibility to be the sole declarer of war in Vietnam, just like it has in every war that the US has been involved in since World War II. War is a dirty business that shouldn't be entered lightly. It shouldn't be up to the President to make this decision. Article I Section 8 of the Constitution clearly states that it is Congress' responsibility to declare war. It is also Congress' responsibility to begin impeachment proceedings - something that should have been done each time a president dragged us into what was in reality a war without an act of Congress to back it up.

1.8.11 To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 779
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 5:10 pm
Location: North Georgia Mountains

Postby willard » Tue Apr 24, 2007 9:42 pm

I've thought for a long time that the situation has changed. It was one thing when we were separated by large oceans from our enemy to take the time to deliberate thoughtfully on the process of war making. Now, with instant commincations and low flying missles etc the whole war paradigm has changed.

Everthing since ww2 has been on the level of a police action (even tho we called Vietnam a war). We all know that this current Iraq fiasco was shoved down our throats with lies and distortions. Further, we all know that any serious debate was stiffled and broadly categorized as "unpatriotic". This is especially true coming from the two most unpatriotic bastards of them all Bush/Cheney. We know that these two cowards avoided service; one by getting five deferments and the other by AWOL.

If I am even close to right on this, there may be enough precedent now to give congress a serious look at how to handle these "new" situations. The other mix added to this is the UN. Once Americans realize the damage that the bush/republican con artists have done to that institution they will rethink our support.

For example: Sadam was being controlled by UN/US before 9-11 at the cost of a billion a year. What is it costing us now to oversee this disaster? 4 billion a day.

I have been thinking that there may not be any "big" wars like ww1 or 2 in our lifetime - but with one exception. That exception is the rightwing christian nuts who have infiltrated our government and military. They are convenced of armageddon and they will drag us into one for "christ". (Let's do it for the gipper!) if they can. I think we need to get those nuts out of government and the miltary. The latter has enough trouble w/o trying to fight God too.
willard
 
Posts: 87
Joined: Mon May 08, 2006 8:39 pm
Location: burnsville,nc

Postby 4tees » Sat Apr 28, 2007 10:10 am

Most of those "right wing Christian nuts" are no more a Christian than their anti-Christ himself. They intentionally falsely proclaim religious belief to assist in their deception and destruction of America and its People. I am no fan of organized Christianity; but I do believe the world would be a far better place if people truly follow the teachings of Christ. Instead today?s church and its powerful elite ?members? propagate twisted, misconstrued, hypocritical, and frankly contrary beliefs to those of Christ. Christ would be rolling in his grave if one could do such a thing.
Don't be a sheeple
User avatar
4tees
 
Posts: 841
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 10:17 pm
Location: 3250 ft in Beautiful WNC

Postby admin » Sat Apr 28, 2007 12:02 pm

4tees wrote:I am no fan of organized Christianity; but I do believe the world would be a far better place if people truly follow the teachings of Christ.


I agree. As I recall, Christ wasn't a fan of organized religion either.
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 779
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 5:10 pm
Location: North Georgia Mountains

Next

Return to Religion, Science and Morality

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron