• 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

iliveonramen said:
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.
Click to expand...


Hey, it is still America, you are free to think that anyone has it right no matter how foolish that person is. But, what do you think the America would look like in a Noam Chomsky world?

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.
Click to expand...

Libertarians would do well to focus on the sane. Then maybe their views would gain traction.

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.
Click to expand...

Actually, I did vote for Perot. It is a shame that his message was clouded by the sheer nuttery of things like his VP choice.

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.
Click to expand...

Now listen, I remember being at Tea Party events when someone with Arian, or repugnant views showed up, and you know what happened?? They were surrounded, and ushered out of the event. You can not say that the group doesn't at least condone these anti semitic, or in some cases racist views when they do nothing at all to refute them.

If that guy actually in his passion let spittle fly that hit Cleaver when he passed, then he should have restrained himself better, but to paint it as intentional as the liberal MSM did in order to paint the Tea Party as some racist mob is every bit as offensive and wrong.

j-mac
 
Hey, it is still America, you are free to think that anyone has it right no matter how foolish that person is. But, what do you think the America would look like in a Noam Chomsky world?
Click to expand...
You do know that he's actually pretty "conservative" in the American sense that he's very distrustful of Government. I don't think he's foolish at all, the guy is brilliant I just don't agree with all his views or conclusions.
Actually, I did vote for Perot. It is a shame that his message was clouded by the sheer nuttery of things like his VP choice.
Click to expand...
I agree with a lot that Perot stood for and I think with a proportional system you would see like minded people actually have some clout in Washington.
Now listen, I remember being at Tea Party events when someone with Arian, or repugnant views showed up, and you know what happened?? They were surrounded, and ushered out of the event. You can not say that the group doesn't at least condone these anti semitic, or in some cases racist views when they do nothing at all to refute them.
Click to expand...
Good for those Tea Partiers. Like I said though, one person does not make the group anti-semitic. Judge the group on their anti- income inequality anti-crony capitalism stance. If you disagree with those two then you're judging them fairly. To point out some dofus to paint everybody in that crowd and even claim they condone it is wrong.

If that guy actually in his passion let spittle fly that hit Cleaver when he passed, then he should have restrained himself better, but to paint it as intentional as the liberal MSM did in order to paint the Tea Party as some racist mob is every bit as offensive and wrong.
Click to expand...

I agree with you completely. I cringe anytime I hear Bill Maher or someone else make generalities about the Tea Party. Attack their policies, but smearing them by calling them "xxx" or "yyy" is ridiculous. I think we agree here.
 
j-mac said:
Exactly, but those marching and chanting 'Down with Capitalism', and 'Capitalism must end' seem to be wanting something closer to a Venezuelan model, no?



Such as?



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?



You do realize that we are NOT a democracy right?



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
Click to expand...

Allinsky is SOOO 1970s.

Its a Luntz and Lakoff world now.
 
Ockham said:
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...

Sounds EXACTLY like that guy with the obvious illegal immigrants and the signs in spanish.
 
What if...? said:
Sounds EXACTLY like that guy with the obvious illegal immigrants and the signs in spanish.
Click to expand...

Or the balloons the can be made into funny shapes an all.
 
Ockham said:
Or the balloons the can be made into funny shapes an all.
Click to expand...

C'mon.

One white guy, with signs from a group whose website says nothing about a OWS presence, and a bunch of signs in spanish carried by PERFECT STEREOTYPES of illegal immigrants, right down to one of them carrying his lunch box.

Sounds identical to the alinsky example used.

The group he allegedly represented is a tenants rights group, not an immigrants rights group. Didn't even see anything that indicated they were particularl9 interested in immigrants TENANT rights.

Id really like to know what those signs actually said.
 
What if...? said:
Allinsky is SOOO 1970s.

Its a Luntz and Lakoff world now.
Click to expand...

Although rules for radicals is dated in so far as the times in which it was dedicated to Satan, it is what appears in more cases than not what liberals, and progressives employ as strategy in today's debate.

Now you can certainly make the case that Luntz for the right, or Lakoff (rhymes with) for the left distorts today's political landscape, the fact remains that Allensky is transparent as the playbook gone to most by todays radicals.

j-mac
 
What if...? said:
C'mon.

One white guy, with signs from a group whose website says nothing about a OWS presence, and a bunch of signs in spanish carried by PERFECT STEREOTYPES of illegal immigrants, right down to one of them carrying his lunch box.

Sounds identical to the alinsky example used.
Click to expand...
Could be... then we get to the evidence portion. And then we have to ask ourselves --- are there some people who are really that stupid? I think both are possible, certainly.



What if...? said:
The group he allegedly represented is a tenants rights group, not an immigrants rights group. Didn't even see anything that indicated they were particularl9 interested in immigrants TENANT rights.

Id really like to know what those signs actually said.
Click to expand...
I wish I could tell you but I don't speak spanish.

Edit:

I just looked at the video again and caught two things:
1.) The guy who initially is talking has wrathofmcgrath.com at the bottom of his sign. I went to that site and it seems like a legit dude (the guy who was speaking - it's him) and he's described as a Democratic Peace Now Party member. I read a bit of his blog --- it seems very anti big bank and pro UHC, though not much since 2010 apparently.
Here's a few snippits:

wrathofmcgrath.com said:
Real solutions for Real Health Care: Vote for the Grayson Bill, or, go the way of World Finance: Broke!

Picketing Wall Street and Big Bank USA

Some of us picketed against Wall Street and Big Bank USA in January (2010 - ed.) along with representatives of The Catholic Worker in New York City. We plan to do so again on April 28 with Big Labor and allied groups and other times over the weekend. We invite any others and/or their organizations to join us.
....

To our friends in Greece: Beware Goldman bearing gifts in sacks!
Click to expand...

2.) The Google Translation of the signs in Spanish (all the signs said the same thing) in a literal sense was:

Escucha wall St.
escuchen bancos grandes
Deuuelue nuestro dinero

which translates into

Listen to Wall St.
major banks listen
Hurt our money



It doesn't on the surface seem to me to be an Alinsky like trick as I described the one in 1972. Perhaps you will have some luck finding evidence to support your claim - but I did not.
 
Last edited:
What if...? said:
C'mon.

One white guy, with signs from a group whose website says nothing about a OWS presence, and a bunch of signs in spanish carried by PERFECT STEREOTYPES of illegal immigrants, right down to one of them carrying his lunch box.

Sounds identical to the alinsky example used.

The group he allegedly represented is a tenants rights group, not an immigrants rights group. Didn't even see anything that indicated they were particularl9 interested in immigrants TENANT rights.

Id really like to know what those signs actually said.
Click to expand...

Not that many didn't try and disparage the Tea Party with this same kind of stuff. Did you?
 
TurtleDude said:
taxing the rich more and whining about corporations is reactionary. It has its roots in those who whined about "Papist immigrants" and Jewish "bankers" more than a century ago.

its losers blaming their failures on idiotic conspiracy theories perpetrated by the winners
Click to expand...

ah yes, label those who disagree with you "anti-Semites" and "Conspiracy theorists", rather than having the integrity to attack their actual views and ideas. that's real big of you.
 
1Perry said:
Not that many didn't try and disparage the Tea Party with this same kind of stuff. Did you?
Click to expand...

Nope.

I don't agree with much of anything they have to say, but I have spoken up repeatedly about the racism brush being applied to the group based on the actions of some of its members.

I have been (annoyingly) acknowledging sneaky deceptive **** from the left here pretty regularly. Deceptive persuasive messaging is my whole thing. I don't like it when anybody does it, and in order to maintain credibility I have to acknowledge it when it costs my "side" points. I don't want "my" side to win by these tactics. I want to render these tactics moot through education.

I want everybody to start being more honest.
 
What if...? said:
Nope.

I don't agree with much of anything they have to say, but I have spoken up repeatedly about the racism brush being applied to the group based on the actions of some of its members.
Click to expand...

O.K. good, I couldn't recall.

I have been (annoyingly) acknowledging sneaky deceptive **** from the left here pretty regularly. Deceptive persuasive messaging is my whole thing. I don't like it when anybody does it, and in order to maintain credibility I have to acknowledge it when it costs my "side" points. I don't want "my" side to win by these tactics. I want to render these tactics moot through education.

I want everybody to start being more honest.
Click to expand...

I would hope that this causes many to realize this. I have my doubts though. It does give you insight into who really wants change and who simply are pimping for the political party of their choice.
 
Ockham said:
Could be... then we get to the evidence portion. And then we have to ask ourselves --- are there some people who are really that stupid? I think both are possible, certainly.



I wish I could tell you but I don't speak spanish.

Edit:

I just looked at the video again and caught two things:
1.) The guy who initially is talking has wrathofmcgrath.com at the bottom of his sign. I went to that site and it seems like a legit dude (the guy who was speaking - it's him) and he's described as a Democratic Peace Now Party member. I read a bit of his blog --- it seems very anti big bank and pro UHC, though not much since 2010 apparently.
Here's a few snippits:



2.) The Google Translation of the signs in Spanish (all the signs said the same thing) in a literal sense was:

Escucha wall St.
escuchen bancos grandes
Deuuelue nuestro dinero

which translates into

Listen to Wall St.
major banks listen
Hurt our money



It doesn't on the surface seem to me to be an Alinsky like trick as I described the one in 1972. Perhaps you will have some luck finding evidence to support your claim - but I did not.
Click to expand...

Thanks.

So it looks like we're back to a knucklehead who hired a bunch of illegals to carry signs.

Somebody who missed their Alinsky, Luntz AND Lakoff.
 
Bardo said:
They weren't occupying an area around the clock. They were gathering for a few hours to listen to their republican candidates and then they left with their pre-made, glossy signs as a souvenir.

Is this accurate?
Click to expand...

I've seen a few nice glossy signs out of the OWS guys as well (my bet would be they concentrate where the union guys are), but generally both movements were dominated by the hand-made variety; and the Tea Party folks were about as likely to rail against Republicans as for them.

That being said, you are correct that the Tea Party did not try to occupy anything for weeks, instead having rallies that lasted a day, picking up their trash, and then going home.

Because most of them had to go back to work being productive members of society the next day.
 
Ockham said:
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.
Click to expand...

Ok, so you seem to actually believe what you are posting. Amazing.
 
Last edited:
megaprogman said:
Ok, so you seem to actually believe what you are posting. Amazing.
Click to expand...

And I believe you really have no idea what I'm talking about.... just as amazing.
 
Ockham said:
And I believe you really have no idea what I'm talking about.... just as amazing.
Click to expand...

As far as I can tell, you seem to think I am practicing some formal or informal debate method rather than simply stating what I think.
 
j-mac said:
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?



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?




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



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.



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.



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.



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
Click to expand...

I'm gonna have to go with "Two wrongs don't make a right".
 
Ockham said:
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.

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.

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.

Well I am very cynical at times that's very true.

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...

Actually, the KKK thing is just a variation on agents provocateur. Donning the trappings of your enemy and doing things that will make them look bad.

I need to read that one, actually. But I bet he's only building on history and the works of previous propagandists. Maybe with a little early cognition influence.
 
megaprogman said:
As far as I can tell, you seem to think I am practicing some formal or informal debate method rather than simply stating what I think.
Click to expand...

Since I'm too lazy to re-hash this I'll simply refer you to the Redress conversation.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/2012-...ich-pair-would-you-vote-2.html#post1059852123


The only difference here is instead of the comment being made about socialism, it's made about Alinsky. The purpose was and is the same. Do you deny the purpose of your statement was dismissive and designed in order to evade discussion of Alinsky? If you say it wasn't I'm fine with that.... however, I've been on enough forums to know and read how and why dismissive comments are made and have seen enough debate about the definition of something to know when it's an attempt at misdirection. Perhaps you were just unaware - which is also just fine. No worries.
 
Ockham said:
Since I'm too lazy to re-hash this I'll simply refer you to the Redress conversation.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/2012-...ich-pair-would-you-vote-2.html#post1059852123


The only difference here is instead of the comment being made about socialism, it's made about Alinsky. The purpose was and is the same. Do you deny the purpose of your statement was dismissive and designed in order to evade discussion of Alinsky? If you say it wasn't I'm fine with that.... however, I've been on enough forums to know and read how and why dismissive comments are made and have seen enough debate about the definition of something to know when it's an attempt at misdirection. Perhaps you were just unaware - which is also just fine. No worries.
Click to expand...

Ok, so you think you are the victim of some sort of conspiracy then?

The entire premise of my dismissive attitude is that I think you are being silly. There is nothing deeper here.
 
Ockham said:
I think I clearly stated in the thread I provided what I think.

That's fine.
Click to expand...

:blink:

Well this thread went weird.

Anyway ... moving on ...

What was the topic?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom