• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Rep. Maxine Waters says "Tea Party can go straight to hell"

some of them might be, but the majority of them are liberals
I'd like to say that I see it as 50/50 to be fair but If I'm being honest I have seen probably twice as many whiny conservatives.
 
Stupid is as stupid does... in this case it's not even an accusation it's just a pejorative statement.

And we see lots of it. We can either get upset over all of it and spend all out time upset, or we can laugh at those who use it and move on. If we create a thread every time some one says something negative about the other party, we will have dozens of threads a day on just those.
 
Is there some kind of alternative, scenic route to hell? Has anyone ever been told they can go meandering generally in the direction of hell?
 
You're incorrect Redress.

We have two classic cases



Shocker, people have a need to speak out about bad behavior more when its being done by people they don't like.

And some people recognize that trivial **** is trivial ****.
 
Hey Maxine, you first!
 
And some people recognize that trivial **** is trivial ****.

Yep. Politicians says or does things that excite their base and raise their fervor towards defeating the opposition. In other news water is wet.

Do I think what she said is stupid? Yes. But its nothing to make a big deal out of. At most its something to remember so as to point it out at some other point when people claim its only one side that's throwing out "heated" or "over the top" rhetoric. But beyond that, is rather pointless.
 
Ok, and how does that compare with a man that wrote a theme specific playbook that liberals have been using to usher in something other than what this country was founded on?

j-mac

J, you and others use this as an excuse to not listen, and thus get many, many things wrong. I also think you and others largely misrepresent Alinsky. Here's an overview:

Saul Alinsky - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


IN any case, he is but one person representing only himself. Efforts to move it beyond that are illogical and a tactic in and of itself, worthy of what you rail against.
 
J, you and others use this as an excuse to not listen, and thus get many, many things wrong. I also think you and others largely misrepresent Alinsky. Here's an overview:

Saul Alinsky - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


IN any case, he is but one person representing only himself. Efforts to move it beyond that are illogical and a tactic in and of itself, worthy of what you rail against.

I'd forgotten how outdated Rules for Radicals is. Completely predates cognitive neuroscience.
 
Ok, and how does that compare with a man that wrote a theme specific playbook that liberals have been using to usher in something other than what this country was founded on?

j-mac

A list of talking points and conceptual positions is distributed to conservatives every year, so they can stay "on message".

Alinsky has been dead for since 1973.
 
Isn't Waters the nutter socialist who wants to nationalize oil exploration?

How is it that a nutter on one side of the aisle excuses one on the other?

The biggest reason for the dysfunctional state of the federal government is the climate of hyper partisanship that exists.
 
As are liberal progressive talking points for the same purpose.



How is that relevant?

Alinsky is SO 1960's. The science of persuasion is MUCH more potent today than it was 40 years ago.

And the Dems are WAY behind in this area. Like a minor league team compared to World Series contenders.

Them catching up is NOT something I'm looking forward to. Nor will they escape my wrath.
 
Alinsky is SO 1960's. The science of persuasion is MUCH more potent today than it was 40 years ago.
Tactics never grow old. Sun Tzu's "Art of War" is so 1st century BC but it's still relevant and still read. Tactics don't go out of style, they're just modified.

And the Dems are WAY behind in this area. Like a minor league team compared to World Series contenders.

Them catching up is NOT something I'm looking forward to. Nor will they escape my wrath.
Dunno what you read, but here on DP, there's no indication to me Dems are way behind anything. The amount of spin, misinformation, outright lies and propaganda are staggering.
 
Yeah and the Democrats too!:mrgreen:
 

Well, here we have it...The more civil tone....When Gov. Perry says something that liberals don't like the call is all about civility, yet Maxine Waters, the socialist can say whatever she wants.....Pure Allensky.

j-mac

Alinsky?

1234
 
She's right. It's a tough ball game. That's why Republicans are playing hard ball as well.
 
Tactics never grow old. Sun Tzu's "Art of War" is so 1st century BC but it's still relevant and still read. Tactics don't go out of style, they're just modified.

Dunno what you read, but here on DP, there's no indication to me Dems are way behind anything. The amount of spin, misinformation, outright lies and propaganda are staggering.

Quantity is not the same as quality. Dem messaging is all over the place, and lacks 30 years of preparatory groundwork.

Its in the monolithic uniformity of message, throughout the conservative media, that the Repubs have the Dems beat.

The Dems aren't ideologically anywhere near as uniform as Republicans are in the first place. So it is more difficult to craft messages for them.

I'm not going to argue with you when you point out Dem abuse of these methods. See the Schultz/Perry thread.

I've been trying to get people to engage in deconstruction of deceptive persuasive messaging since I got here.

Doesn't matter whose to me, as consideration of the subject itself is of great importance at this point in time.

If nothing else it'll help people enjoy the upcoming CU election better. Cuz its gonna be EVARYWHERE!
 
Last edited:
Quantity is not the same as quantity.
You're right, one is capitalized and the other isn't.

Dem messaging is all over the place, and lacks 30 years of preparatory groundwork.
I don't know enough about it to disagree or agree. However, just plain observation of media outlets shows the messaging is quite tight in my view. I thought the "Journolist" scandal was quite interesting a few years ago showing just how tight and manipulative the messaging was.

Its in the monolithic uniformity of message, throughout the conservative media, that the Repubs have the Dems beat.

The Dems aren't ideologically anywhere near as uniform as Republicans are in the first place. So it is more difficult to craft messages for them.
Can you give some examples? Again... I don't know enough about how ideological monolithic Republicans are or are not.

I'm not going to argue with you when you point out Dem abuse of these methods. See the Schultz/Perry thread.

I've been trying to get people to engage in deconstruction of deceptive persuasive messaging since I got here.

Doesn't matter whose to me, as consideration of the subject itself is of great importance at this point in time.

If nothing else it'll help people enjoy the upcoming CU election better. Cuz its gonna be EVARYWHERE!
I don't mind ideological people as long as they are honest about it. What I see and I certainly can say I'm affected by my own political bias, is that the right seems to be more honest about their views and less apologetic and willing to explain why they believe what they believe. Whether or not it's based on fact or not is a different story and there are those who are manipulative though a minority. What I see at least here on DP is the rigorous defense of all the beliefs and the dishonesty - manipulations, fabrications, hypocrisy. Again, this isn't ONLY on the left but it certainly is more prevalent and I would say in the majority. The excuses and passing off of responsibility especially by the newest members is astonishing. Almost, a concerted and organized effort - or seemingly so.
 

Well, here we have it...The more civil tone....When Gov. Perry says something that liberals don't like the call is all about civility, yet Maxine Waters, the socialist can say whatever she wants.....Pure Allensky.

j-mac

I'm sure Maxine is very frustrated by the lack of assistance for her constituents from the Obama administration. I guess Joe Wilson was correct in more than one context.
 
support your government representative ...

throw a shoe
 
I mean, the Democrats were pushing for a more civil dialog for a while, but the Republicans and especially the tea party, told them to go **** themselves over and over and over. How long were they supposed to keep asking nicely? Obviously the GOP and tea parties delegations are way beyond reason or civil discourse at this point. They filibuster their own bills sometimes now. They threatened to destroy the country if they didn't get their way. At this point I don't see how we could continue to try to be civil with them. At this point all that can be done is to remove them from power before they do more damage.
 
I mean, the Democrats were pushing for a more civil dialog for a while, but the Republicans and especially the tea party, told them to go **** themselves over and over and over. How long were they supposed to keep asking nicely? Obviously the GOP and tea parties delegations are way beyond reason or civil discourse at this point. They filibuster their own bills sometimes now. They threatened to destroy the country if they didn't get their way. At this point I don't see how we could continue to try to be civil with them. At this point all that can be done is to remove them from power before they do more damage.

"They threatened to destroy the country"... you listening to yourself?
 
"They threatened to destroy the country"... you listening to yourself?

What do you mean? They threatened to force default. That is a declaration of bankruptcy... Yeah, that is threatening to destroy the country. I mean they didn't threaten to nuke the country, but about as close as you could possibly get to that in a political context.
 
What do you mean? They threatened to force default. That is a declaration of bankruptcy... Yeah, that is threatening to destroy the country. I mean they didn't threaten to nuke the country, but about as close as you could possibly get to that in a political context.
You need to buy into less of the hype. Nothing would have been destroyed, we'd still be here, no one would have gone into bankruptcy if we didn't dig the hole deeper by increasing the debt we already cannot pay.
 
Back
Top Bottom