• 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!

Owners of Zuccotti Park Say Conditions Unsanitary From Wall Street Protests

The majority of America's middle class, lower middle class and upper middle class politically and ideologically do not resonate with the message
Click to expand...

I disagree with this, I think as of now most Americans would agree somethign stinks in corporate America and government. The differences are what to do to change it. I think the overall message is agreed by most Americans.
According to you. Others may see an insurgent as nothing more than a terrorist. Iraqi's may have the opinion that what American's called "insurgents" were actually "freedom fighters". I understand your view and opinion - but do not think for a moment that there is consensus as to the definitions - there are not.
Click to expand...

Well, freedom fighter is definately a very subjective term. I agree with you as well. Freedom Fighter is very subjective. My only point is that there is a difference from say an insurgent/resistence fighter and a terrorists. I agree with the saying "one mans terrorists is anothers freedom fighter". I agree in what the saying conveys. I'm just pointing out, at the root there are differences in the terms and a lot of times they are mislabeled by one side or another. It seems we agree on this, I just was mentioning that it doesn't make the mis-use of the terms correct.
 
iliveonramen said:
That's great, you are definately a fan of liberty.
Click to expand...

I'm an Authoritarian. I have gone out of my way to state the FACT that I am no fan of Liberty as currently engendered in this country. I never have been and probably never will be.
 
Tigger said:
I'm an Authoritarian. I have gone out of my way to state the FACT that I am no fan of Liberty as currently engendered in this country. I never have been and probably never will be.
Click to expand...

Extreme authoritarianism is fascism isn't it?
 
Ockham said:
Extreme authoritarianism is fascism isn't it?
Click to expand...

Fascism requires other factors as well, or else you could have communism, despotism, monarchism, etc and still be authoritarian.
 
Sensibility said:
Will the MSM call that place "Obamaville"?
Click to expand...

No - that would be way to personal and cut against this President who they whole heartedly defend. I can't see that happening.
 
iliveonramen said:
Of course not, what would it be replaced by?
Click to expand...

Exactly, but those marching and chanting 'Down with Capitalism', and 'Capitalism must end' seem to be wanting something closer to a Venezuelan model, no?

If anything I would like major reforms
Click to expand...

Such as?

Americans are upset with the two party system and would like a more multiparty system but no
Click to expand...

How many fractionalized candidates would you like to see in our system? Is there some law, or provision that says that others outside the two parties can not run?

I would never want to get rid of Democracy
Click to expand...

You do realize that we are NOT a democracy right?

I disagree j-mac, posting a video of one individual and trying to pretend that represents the whole movement is no different than saying the Tea partier that spit on the black Democratic Congressman and called him a ni--- represents the whole Tea Party.
Click to expand...

Except that the whole John Lewis, Tea Partier spitting affair was a made up Alinsky tactic employed by the left to marginalize opposition to Obamacare which was being rammed through against the American peoples wishes. It never happened.

j-mac
 
Risky Thicket said:
Yes, but the point Councilman and the others are trying to make is that these people are unwashed hippies, bums, homeless people, and nutters who clearly don't care about themselves. They are the exact opposites of the pink, freshly scrubbed, privately pottied people of the American Dream. Republicans are clean. They all look like they work at Disneyland/World, perfect hair cuts for the gentlemen and ladies in dresses. Liberals are unkempt and earthy, dirty; they look like French people.

The inference:

"Do you want dirty people, French looking sumbitches, to get control of the nation? Or, would you prefer everyone to look like conservatives? God wants conservatives to run the country. God wants conservatives to control the world. Dirty, hippie, drug users who don't want to work, black people, homosexuals, Mexicans, braless tarts, most Europeans and Papists all smell like they sold their asses to the devil. Everyone knows that. Who does God want to prosper in America?"

:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Except for the braless tarts I guess I am going to have to go with the Conservative group.
 
Exactly, but those marching and chanting 'Down with Capitalism', and 'Capitalism must end' seem to be wanting something closer to a Venezuelan model, no?
Click to expand...
Of course, I don't think anybody would deny that when you're talking about elements on the left that you would get people chanting this. I don't think the majority of people want to see the end of capitalism they want to see the end of crony capitalism.
How many fractionalized candidates would you like to see in our system? Is there some law, or provision that says that others outside the two parties can not run?
Click to expand...
No, it's more of a structural issue. A first past the post system kind of forces a 2 party system.
I think it's obvious by the fact there's so many "independents" that people don't feel entirely represented by either of the two parties. They may identify with one party over another but they don't feel fully represented in their views. A multi-part system is much better in my view of representing people.

You do realize that we are NOT a democracy right?
Click to expand...
Of course, I used it loosely.

Except that the whole John Lewis, Tea Partier spitting affair was a made up Alinsky tactic employed by the left to marginalize opposition to Obamacare which was being rammed through against the American peoples wishes. It never happened.
Click to expand...
Really, because it happened on a national broadcast. How was it "made up"?
 
Except that the whole John Lewis, Tea Partier spitting affair was a made up Alinsky tactic employed by the left to marginalize opposition to Obamacare which was being rammed through against the American peoples wishes. It never happened.
Click to expand...
I'm actually pretty curious about this because this is how I see it regarding your John Lewis theory. This seems common now on the right. Glenn Beck or some pundit says "Read Alinsky and see the tactics that Alinsky wrote about. This turns writings by Alinsky into "this is the tactics the left uses". This then turns into "anything in the news "our side" does is an Alinsky tactic to discredit us".

Yes, do people use underhanded tactics? You'd be crazy to think otherwise. Does that mean anything that happens is some Alinsky tactic? You need to be able to prove it.
 
iliveonramen said:
I'm actually pretty curious about this because this is how I see it regarding your John Lewis theory. This seems common now on the right. Glenn Beck or some pundit says "Read Alinsky and see the tactics that Alinsky wrote about. This turns writings by Alinsky into "this is the tactics the left uses". This then turns into "anything in the news "our side" does is an Alinsky tactic to discredit us".

Yes, do people use underhanded tactics? You'd be crazy to think otherwise. Does that mean anything that happens is some Alinsky tactic? You need to be able to prove it.
Click to expand...
It's not difficult - Rules for Radicals outlines exactly what to do and how to do it. An example of that is in 1972 when George Herbert Walker Bush was campaigning as described in a biography of Alinksy.


Let them Call me a Rebel said:
Amazon.com: Let Them Call Me Rebel: Saul Alinsky: His Life and Legacy (9780679734185): Sanford D. Horwitt: Books


"Let The Call Me A Rebel" biography of Saul Alinsky"

"...in the spring of 1972, at Tulane University...students asked Alinsky to help plan a protest of a scheduled speech by George H. W. Bush, then U.S. representative to the United Nations - a speech likely to include a defense of the Nixon administration's Vietnam War policies. The students told Alinsky they were thinking about picketing or disrupting Bush's address. That's the wrong approach, he rejoined, not very creative - and besides causing a disruption might get them thrown out of school. He told them, instead, to go to hear the speech dressed as members of the Ku Klux Klan, and whenever Bush said something in defense of the Vietnam War, they should cheer and wave placards reading, ‘The KKK supports Bush.' And that is what they did, with very successful, attention-getting results
Click to expand...
 
iliveonramen said:
Of course, I don't think anybody would deny that when you're talking about elements on the left that you would get people chanting this. I don't think the majority of people want to see the end of capitalism they want to see the end of crony capitalism.
Click to expand...


Then I am sure you would apply the same restraint to paint with broad brushes, the Tea Party? Look, no one advocates crony capitalism, in fact when it happened with the Bush administration it was just as wrong as when Obama does it with Solyndra. Right?

No, it's more of a structural issue. A first past the post system kind of forces a 2 party system.
I think it's obvious by the fact there's so many "independents" that people don't feel entirely represented by either of the two parties.
Click to expand...

But that is my point, independents, Libertarians, Socialists, Communists, and any other group is able to get on the ballots by conforming to the rules that everyone else has to follow. There are plenty of alternatives if you look for them. However, if it is as you say a "structural issue" that would imply that you want to tear down that structure, and my question is replace it with what?


They may identify with one party over another but they don't feel fully represented in their views.
Click to expand...

Then they are not locked into voting for those two are they? I mean I already pointed out that other parties exist....

A multi-part system is much better in my view of representing people.
Click to expand...

We have that already. The fact that the two biggest dominate the political landscape is in no way demonstrative that others are not out there.

Of course, I used it loosely.
Click to expand...

Language means alot, and to date some of our language is being changed to mean something it is not. ie; democratic, or democracy in total, in today's speak has little to do with actual freedom.

Really, because it happened on a national broadcast. How was it "made up"?
Click to expand...

No, it was claimed on a National broadcast, by a media that largely has an anti Tea Party/Pro Obama agenda. Show me pics, or video of this happening, and then who was charged, arrested, or prosecuted for this.

Until then it is a lie.

The verdict in “Kelly’s Court” is in: the defendant is found guilty of “say it; don’t spray it.” Megyn Kelly debuted new video of a Tea Party protester confronting Congressman Emanuel Cleaver, who accused the man of spitting on him, and while the tape clearly shows the man screaming at the Congressman and the latter recoiling at a point, Kelly’s law correspondents see no evidence of intentional spitting.

No surprise in Fox News taking the side of the Tea Party protesters, but nonetheless both the video and defense seem shaky. The video clearly shows a protester yelling at the Congressman, but there is no obvious motion of spitting from the protester. Defense Attorney Mark Eiglarsh broke down the facts: yes, there was saliva transferred from the Tea Party protester to the Congressman; yes, the Tea Party protester is not happy with the Congressman– but “can you see conclusively that he was just yelling or that he intentionally spat?” Eiglarsh argues you can’t.

Fox News legal correspondent Arthur Aidala then notes that there is someone with a police uniform near him and spitting is “battery, that’s assault”– so why wasn’t there swifter action on the police’s part if there was actual spitting? “The guy is guilty of ‘say it, don’t spray it,’” he concluded.

Tea Party spitting video - Emanuel Cleaver - Fox News | Mediaite
Click to expand...

So there you have it, the media inflated this intentionally as some do today to generalize that all Tea partiers are racists, and spit on black caucus members...So why is again that I shouldn't do that concerning that jack ass verbally attacking the Jewish man at the OWS?

j-mac
 
It's not difficult - Rules for Radicals outlines exactly what to do and how to do it. An example of that is in 1972 when George Herbert Walker Bush was campaigning as described in a biography of Alinksy.
Click to expand...

Saying it happens and that anything that puts the Tea party or conservative protests in a bad light is Alinsky tactics is not the same thing.

Barring some sort of proof you can not just assume it's Liberals in the crowd spitting on the guy. If you could show where that's the case, sure I could believe it coming from a credible source.
 
iliveonramen said:
Saying it happens and that anything that puts the Tea party or conservative protests in a bad light is Alinsky tactics is not the same thing.
Click to expand...
It just so happens that Alinsky wasn't a Conservative - the intent of his writings and teachings were to push a very Progressive and socialistic agenda to then liberals - such that they can undermine Republican and Conservative ideals. It just so happens that some of Alinsky's teachings have become so mainstream and his tactics so common that they're not always attributed.

iliveonramen said:
Barring some sort of proof you can not just assume it's Liberals in the crowd spitting on the guy. If you could show where that's the case, sure I could believe it coming from a credible source.
Click to expand...
I'm not saying it's always used, but the tactics are certainly common enough. Do you have a specific instance in mind? I have my copy of Rules for Radicals and can review my highlights to see if it coincides.
 
It just so happens that Alinsky wasn't a Conservative - the intent of his writings and teachings were to push a very Progressive and socialistic agenda to then liberals - such that they can undermine Republican and Conservative ideals. It just so happens that some of Alinsky's teachings have become so mainstream and his tactics so common that they're not always attributed.
Click to expand...
I didn't say he was a conservative, I said making the assumption that anything that puts Conservatives in a bad light is someone using Alinsky tactics is not a reasonable approach. Like you mentioned, it can and is used by both sides of the aisle. To automatically say something is an Alinsky tactic without proof is incorrect. To say that you're critical of events like this because of the existence of such tactics is a reasonable approach.

I'm not saying it's always used, but the tactics are certainly common enough. Do you have a specific instance in mind? I have my copy of Rules for Radicals and can review my highlights to see if it coincides.
Click to expand...

I don't understand what you're asking me. I stated that assuming someone is using propaganda, or the "Rules for Radicals" in any instance that you don't like the message is faulty logic. Now if you are just in general cynical that's fine, I understand that because the world is full of spin. Like calling Tea party Racists....that's purely propaganda because it's a generality in order to discredit the group.

No different than using the term "mob" is to discredit the Wall Street protests.
 
iliveonramen said:
I didn't say he was a conservative, I said making the assumption that anything that puts Conservatives in a bad light is someone using Alinsky tactics is not a reasonable approach. Like you mentioned, it can and is used by both sides of the aisle. To automatically say something is an Alinsky tactic without proof is incorrect. To say that you're critical of events like this because of the existence of such tactics is a reasonable approach.



I don't understand what you're asking me. I stated that assuming someone is using propaganda, or the "Rules for Radicals" in any instance that you don't like the message is faulty logic. Now if you are just in general cynical that's fine, I understand that because the world is full of spin. Like calling Tea party Racists....that's purely propaganda because it's a generality in order to discredit the group.

No different than using the term "mob" is to discredit the Wall Street protests.
Click to expand...

Alinsky is like Soros, the Koch brothers, or Dick Cheney. He is the monster hiding in the closet to bring out when someone cannot use facts to explain something. That lack of evidence and speculative basis for using these evil boogie men also makes people look like conspiracy theorists.
 
iliveonramen said:
I didn't say he was a conservative, I said making the assumption that anything that puts Conservatives in a bad light is someone using Alinsky tactics is not a reasonable approach.
Click to expand...
What makes it unreasonable? In fact, it's much more likely as I've explained his tactics are very common place and are used by many different people of different political backgrounds. And I didn't say you said he was a conservative, I just pointed that fact out, that his tactics were created for liberal progressives to use against Conservatives.

iliveonramen said:
Like you mentioned, it can and is used by both sides of the aisle. To automatically say something is an Alinsky tactic without proof is incorrect. To say that you're critical of events like this because of the existence of such tactics is a reasonable approach.
Click to expand...
It depends, as always, on the context of the situation being discussed. At risk of being repetitive, since so much of his tactics are commonplace, many people may use the tactic without knowing where it originated or by whom.

iliveonramen said:
I don't understand what you're asking me. I stated that assuming someone is using propaganda, or the "Rules for Radicals" in any instance that you don't like the message is faulty logic.
Click to expand...
I was asking if you have a specific instance in mind in which case I can use my copy of R4R and see if the tactic is one mentioned.

iliveonramen said:
Now if you are just in general cynical that's fine, I understand that because the world is full of spin. Like calling Tea party Racists....that's purely propaganda because it's a generality in order to discredit the group.
Click to expand...
Well I am very cynical at times that's very true.

iliveonramen said:
No different than using the term "mob" is to discredit the Wall Street protests.
Click to expand...
I would guess... though "mob" may be a closer reality than "racist" when comparing. Now if it was "anti-semitic mob" it would be on par with calling the tea party racists.
 
megaprogman said:
Alinsky is like Soros, the Koch brothers, or Dick Cheney. He is the monster hiding in the closet to bring out when someone cannot use facts to explain something.
Click to expand...

That's a tactic designed to dismiss Alinsky and the damage that he left behind. I know liberals do not like it when others bring up Alinsky. The same type of tactic is used when someone uses the word "Communist" and everyone jumps all over the user saying "You don't know what communism is.. blablabla". You're doing the same thing, dismissing a very real and utilized Alinksy by dismissing it's use and saying "He's the monster hiding in the closet to bring out when someone cannot use facts to explain something."

Yes, let's all have a nice irrelevant discussion about Alinsky and not discuss the the other stuff... I already had this discussion with Redress - the tactic your using is the same Redress used... the result of which is the same as well; diversion and misdirection. :shrug:
 
Ockham said:
That's a tactic designed to dismiss Alinsky and the damage that he left behind. I know liberals do not like it when others bring up Alinsky. The same type of tactic is used when someone uses the word "Communist" and everyone jumps all over the user saying "You don't know what communism is.. blablabla". You're doing the same thing, dismissing a very real and utilized Alinksy by dismissing it's use and saying "He's the monster hiding in the closet to bring out when someone cannot use facts to explain something."

Yes, let's all have a nice irrelevant discussion about Alinsky and not discuss the the other stuff... I already had this discussion with Redress - the tactic your using is the same Redress used... the result of which is the same as well; diversion and misdirection. :shrug:
Click to expand...

I cannot tell if this is well disguised humor or just very sad.

But if its the latter, are you really trying to say my beliefs (that this alinksy stuff is just paranioa) are a tactic?
 
Last edited:
Then I am sure you would apply the same restraint to paint with broad brushes, the Tea Party? Look, no one advocates crony capitalism, in fact when it happened with the Bush administration it was just as wrong as when Obama does it with Solyndra. Right?
Click to expand...
Of course, anybody that thinks crony capitalism doesn't happen on the left is blind. I'm pretty sure you guys will go crazy over this since I know he's not popular with you guys but I agree with Noam Chomsky on the fact that we have less a two party system than a one bussiness party system.

But that is my point, independents, Libertarians, Socialists, Communists, and any other group is able to get on the ballots by conforming to the rules that everyone else has to follow. There are plenty of alternatives if you look for them. However, if it is as you say a "structural issue" that would imply that you want to tear down that structure, and my question is replace it with what?
Click to expand...

Proportional system. If 10% of voters are Libertarians then they get 10% of the seats in Congress. As of now, with a two party system, 10% of the population has to join one of the two major parties. The decision is to get some voice in matters or no voice. Libertarians are a great example, a lot of times their economic issues aligns with Conservatives and a lot of times their social issues aligns with Democrats. In a proportional system you would have 10% of Congress go to Libertarians. Those Libertarians would vote with Republicans on economic issues and Democrats on social issues where they disagree. Those 10% Libertarians are being accurately represented. I personally prefer that system.
Proportional representation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Then they are not locked into voting for those two are they? I mean I already pointed out that other parties exist....
Click to expand...
They are not by law but they are by the structure of the first past the post. Wouldn't you agree for example that if you voted Perot instead of Republican it's possible that you not only voted for a guy that never had the support to win, but you also didn't vote for a party that could win and represented a lot of your views? That's why everybody always talks about voting in the "lesser of two evils". Neither party represents fully it's voters.

So there you have it, the media inflated this intentionally as some do today to generalize that all Tea partiers are racists, and spit on black caucus members...So why is again that I shouldn't do that concerning that jack ass verbally attacking the Jewish man at the OWS?
Click to expand...

Sure, post the video, I don't care. I said that you can't judge a movement by one person. I don't care if the intentionally spit or not. The Cleaver recoiled as if hit with something and turns to the guy. The sides of his mouth are covered by his hands. It's obvious that the Fox News clip is more about trying to prove no spitting took place than trying to analyze the clip. What that clip tells me is that guy is a jerk and I'm sure you or I would want to punch him in the face, doesn't matter if the spit came out intentionally or not.

This is what I find interesting by what you're doing here. You're saying that the MSM intentionally misled viewers therefore it's fine for "your side" to mislead viewers. I disagree with your view that there's some poor guy out that unjustly attacked by the evil MSM but apparently you condone propaganda because you support it when your side uses it.
 
What makes it unreasonable? In fact, it's much more likely as I've explained his tactics are very common place and are used by many different people of different political backgrounds. And I didn't say you said he was a conservative, I just pointed that fact out, that his tactics were created for liberal progressives to use against Conservatives.
Click to expand...
Ok, so we agree for the most part. If you are cynical of any media that comes at you that can be rational. Now if you only apply it to to say someone spitting on a Congressman and not when it's coming from the "other side" that's just partisan blinders. Which is irrational.
It depends, as always, on the context of the situation being discussed. At risk of being repetitive, since so much of his tactics are commonplace, many people may use the tactic without knowing where it originated or by whom.
Click to expand...
I would say he may of penned some of the tactics but they were by no means new. I don't understand the fascination with the guy because propaganda has been used for a long time.

I was asking if you have a specific instance in mind in which case I can use my copy of R4R and see if the tactic is one mentioned.
Click to expand...
Death Panels, Death tax, both are propaganda. Use of the term "government controlled healthcare" over "single payer" because one polls negatively and the other is actually popular. In the last election Nancy Pelosi the "west coast Liberal" was used in campaign commercials from the west coast to the east coast in order to personalize the opposition. There's been this constant attack on "progressives" and "liberals" from the right for awhile now. They basically create these generalities of a "liberal" or a "progressive" in order to demonize the other side. Us for them, instead of focusing on policy you constantly can hear some form of "liberals are bad". Before Obama took office is was a socialist/facist/commie or some form or ignorant attack. Like I said, it's not hard to find the spin on the right and if you are truly going to be cynical of spin then your BS meter should be constantly going off.
I would guess... though "mob" may be a closer reality than "racist" when comparing. Now if it was "anti-semitic mob" it would be on par with calling the tea party racists.
Click to expand...

I disagree...mob is associated with lawlesness. It's a smear plain and simple. Just like labeling the whole Tea party racists is a smear.
 
Bardo said:
Well the tea party is a racist hate group. Generalizations, aren't they fun?

Also, many of them seem to misunderstand the loaded terms they throw around-

barack-obama-nation.jpg
Click to expand...

Only when they're accurate, which in this case, it's not.

Which is it, is he a fascist or a communist?
Click to expand...

A little bit of both, actually. I think he leans more toward facism, because he supports government control of privately owned businesses.
 
megaprogman said:
I cannot tell if this is well disguised humor or just very sad.

But if its the latter, are you really trying to say my beliefs (that this alinksy stuff is just paranioa) are a tactic?
Click to expand...

You made an excuse and dismissed the topic of Alinsky as invalid and only used when someone doesn't have facts. Sure it's a tactic - perhaps you didn't know that and just reflexively did it? Certainly possible.
 
If Avarice had a smell, you'd hardly notice the park at all.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom