Wow!

[metalman]

Real astroturf's objective is to look like a grass roots campaign. It is usually run by a professional PR company with a sizable staff. Reusing the same name over and over would be the opposite of what is desired - to make the position seem like a popular position you would use many names and many writers.

This lack of sophistication leaves me thinking it's a zealous individual.

"Ellie" is Barrack's nickname for Michelle Obama. Barrack Obama has refered to his wife in the past as his "Light".

The "L.E." theory I would actually buy - this one about Michelle is a stretch.

The individual is Samatha Powers,
who won an "Ellie" award, and just like "Ellie Light" is very fond of the phrase "wave a magic wand" used it in numerous interviews.

She uses the pseudonym "Ellie Light" because it connects her "Letters to the Editor" campaign to "Obama the Lightworker"

It even connects to Saul Alinsky's book "Rules for Radicals" which was dedicated to Lucifer. Lucifer translates as "bearer of light" from Latin.

So, so clever

 

[faethor]

Obama supporters "letters to editor" campaign shows tremendous support for Obama!!

:roflmao:

Sounds like a fan who is just exercising her right to free speech. The fake address subterfuge was what she likely thought necessary to get the letter carried and she is probably right.

I suspect it is a single person .

faethor a/k/a "Ellie Light"

:roflmao:

 

[FluffyMcDeath]

"Obama the Lightworker"

Oh puleez!
[attachment=1:14aq8gpp]obamamessiah.jpg[/attachment:14aq8gpp]
differs from
[attachment=0:14aq8gpp]Bush halo.jpg[/attachment:14aq8gpp]
by how?

It even connects to Saul Alinsky's book "Rules for Radicals" which was dedicated to Lucifer. Lucifer translates as "bearer of light" from Latin.

I have that book. Also The Prince and Art of War among others. All classics, and all have been read by "our leaders" so it's worth seeing what's in them.

Lucifer in Latin refers to the morning star. It is also the sense it is given in Latin translations of the bible. It is commonly held to mean the devil by modern Christians, but quite frankly, they don't know much about much as a rule.

 

[metalman]

"Obama the Lightworker"

Oh puleez! differs from by how?

Both photos are propaganda, the difference is the "Obama's lightworker images" are displayed to invoke a positive image by his supporters, "Bush's halo images" were used to invoke a negative image by his detractors.

It even connects to Saul Alinsky's book "Rules for Radicals" which was dedicated to Lucifer. Lucifer translates as "bearer of light" from Latin.

I have that book. Also The Prince and Art of War among others. All classics, and all have been read by "our leaders" so it's worth seeing what's in them.

Lucifer in Latin refers to the morning star. It is also the sense it is given in Latin translations of the bible. It is commonly held to mean the devil by modern Christians, but quite frankly, they don't know much about much as a rule.

Lucifer derives from the Latin term "lucem ferre", "bringer, or bearer, of light." the name the Romans gave to the morning star (Venus).

Lucifer in the bible is a mistranslation of the Hebrew text of "Babylonian king Helal, son of Shahar," of closer translation would be "Day star, son of the Dawn." (similar to King Louis XIV of France "The Sun King").


The point is the name "Ellie Light" links Barrack Obama, Michelle Obama, Alinsky book, and Letters to the Editor together in a "clever pseudonym", an inside joke to the author of the letters.

 

[FluffyMcDeath]

Both photos are propaganda, the difference is the "Obama's lightworker images" are displayed to invoke a positive image by his supporters, "Bush's halo images" were used to invoke a negative image by his detractors.

Wow. Did you write that with a straight face? Did you hit "submit" by accident?

Sure, both photos are propaganda and the only real difference is that while Obama can be photographed looking serene Dubya was only capable of looking malevolent or simian.

Other than that the images and their use was exactly the same. Both were taken to use the same psychological trick of the halo to appeal to religious iconography to give the impression of wisdom and divine just power.

Both were promoted by supporters and lambasted by detractors. that site you linked to is not a supporter site, it is a GOP boogieman site designed to scare their religious base into voting for anyone but Obama. The whole Obama as false messiah thing is designed to freak out the uber Christians and infuriate them.

 

[Glaucus]

"Obama the Lightworker"

Oh puleez! differs from by how?

Both photos are propaganda, the difference is the "Obama's lightworker images" are displayed to invoke a positive image by his supporters, "Bush's halo images" were used to invoke a negative image by his detractors.

Huh? You mean when you linked to the Light Worker images website you were actually supporting Obama at that time? I think you invalidated your own statement here, these images can be used as propaganda by both sides. Republicans I'm sure are repulsed by the idea of Obama as Messiah, hence why you keep bringing it up.

 

[FluffyMcDeath]

Just a thought -
how is it in any way OK for companies to take profits which rightfully belong to shareholders and spend that money on political campaigns? Isn't that a tax on the shareholders of the company? Shouldn't that money be distributed to the shareholders so that they can spend it as they wish instead of having the corporations spend it for them?

 

[Glaucus]

Just a thought -
how is it in any way OK for companies to take profits which rightfully belong to shareholders and spend that money on political campaigns? Isn't that a tax on the shareholders of the company? Shouldn't that money be distributed to the shareholders so that they can spend it as they wish instead of having the corporations spend it for them?

Good point, but would a CEO require shareholder approval for a marketing campaign? Isn't buying off a politician usually a good investment for the company and ultimately the share holder? Helping elect the governor who will lower corporate taxes or pass laws that will help raise your stock value isn't likely to upset most shareholders as they're likely to want the same thing. Now if that means the country also gets screwed in the process, well, that's just business as usual. :wink:

I could however see them get upset if the CEO decides to back a politician who isn't likely to help the shareholder's bottom line. I'd imagine such a CEO would find himself unemployed really soon.

 

[FluffyMcDeath]

but would a CEO require shareholder approval for a marketing campaign? Isn't buying off a politician usually a good investment for the company and ultimately the share holder?

Yes, but they don't like to say it that way. How about a simple little law that states that all expenditures of a company can only be made for the business purposes of company. Sure, "sponsorship" would be impacted, but it would certainly make the expenditure much more transparent. Buying politicians for profit versus speech.