[quote]groo wrote:
But the status quo isn’t. Always. Or even often necessarily. The moral position.
[/quote]
No, not at all. But using immoral means to get away from an immoral status quo, doesn’t make the immoral means suddenly moral.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]Legionary wrote:
You are aware that there are quite a few “legends, mythologies, and history” that predates the conception of Lucifer, aren’t you?[/quote]
Pretty sure Alinsky was aware of this. You’re missing his (Alinsky’s) message.
As to his rules: it is the total lack of ethics and morals that gets me. Yes these work and work well (See Bam, B. Obam). The rub comes in with the price tag. Price tag, no integrity, no moral code, no ethics…
[/quote]
I’ve never understood this particular claim. How have Obama’s political machinations differed substantively from those of every other ideological stripe?
In other words, I see exactly nothing better or worse about about Obama’s two national campaigns (with regard to those of his opponents). Unless you’ve studied his earlier history,of which I know very little.
I’m not arguing, I’m curious.[/quote]
There is a lot here, too much for me to answer. You’d have to do some serious reading.
The left and moderates worship this guy, that is why it all seems so normal and common place. You have to look at the fact that Alinsky took the Frankfurt School from boring intelectual thinking and turned it into actions, that are inspiring if the ends are described correctly. [/quote]
Believe me, I know why you have policy-related issues with the guy. And I know how frustrating it is when a dissident has to go up against devout acolytes.
But if we’re talking Alisnky, we’re talking political tactics. And my question is–what about Obama’s political tactics are any more or less offensive than anybody else’s? Frank Luntz, for example.
I’d also point out that Obama’s national campaigns were not devised and executed by he himself, but by Axelrod and Messina. And they are really nothing more than extremely effective establishment political operatives.[/quote]
There are literally books on this subject… I mean I can’t break it all down in this thread.
And no, he isn’t the only one to use them, but if you don’t see how he is using them, you’re not paying enough attention. [/quote]
I’m looking for like, one example.
The tactics that the left and right use are generally exactly the same. The message is a little different, but you could interchange all of the political operatives of either party and barely notice any kind of difference at all.[/quote]
rule 5: Countless examples, but for one: Binders, and the OFA/Scoial Media push. The “birthers” jokes and “Skeeters” comments
rule 13: Rush[/quote]
Wait. Most of the binders ridicule came from the media–in fact, did Obama’s campaign make a big deal of it at all? And even if he did–I’d hardly call it out of the ordinary for a campaign to seize upon an awkward phrase uttered by its nemesis.
Jokes about the “birthers” seemed like a pretty damn good way to brush off an unbelievably stupid charge leveled by the dumbest section of the electorate. If anything, the tactic of denying that your opponent is American even after you’ve seen his birth certificate is the one that is suspect. Scratch that, it’s not suspect, it’s downright sinister (with a healthy dose of near-mental-retardation thrown in for good measure).
Rush Limbaugh…did everything to himself. The Obama campaign never had to lift a finger to ostracize that fat dunce. He called a college kid a slut. He defended Iraqi prisoner abuse. He called Iraq war veterans who spoke out against the war “phony soldiers.” The catalog of psuedo-racist comments he’s made is nine inches thick. I find it difficult to believe that you consider Obama to have used dirty tactics against Rush Limbaugh.
Anyway, all of these things are run-of-the-mill political tactics. There is nothing here that Republicans don’t use when it suits them. In fact, that’s it–the first rule of presidential politics is that you use everything you can to undermine your opponent’s message, all the time.
And finally, the two worst political tactics in the past decade have come from the right: the Swift Boat Campaign and the birthers. Each of those is just a hair above the popular Southeast Asian tactic of accusing your political opponent of violating sodomy laws.
My point being that Obama’s national campaigns have been no cleaner or dirtier than any others in recent memory, regardless of party or creed.
[quote]smh23 wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]Legionary wrote:
You are aware that there are quite a few “legends, mythologies, and history” that predates the conception of Lucifer, aren’t you?[/quote]
Pretty sure Alinsky was aware of this. You’re missing his (Alinsky’s) message.
As to his rules: it is the total lack of ethics and morals that gets me. Yes these work and work well (See Bam, B. Obam). The rub comes in with the price tag. Price tag, no integrity, no moral code, no ethics…
[/quote]
I’ve never understood this particular claim. How have Obama’s political machinations differed substantively from those of every other ideological stripe?
In other words, I see exactly nothing better or worse about about Obama’s two national campaigns (with regard to those of his opponents). Unless you’ve studied his earlier history,of which I know very little.
I’m not arguing, I’m curious.[/quote]
There is a lot here, too much for me to answer. You’d have to do some serious reading.
The left and moderates worship this guy, that is why it all seems so normal and common place. You have to look at the fact that Alinsky took the Frankfurt School from boring intelectual thinking and turned it into actions, that are inspiring if the ends are described correctly. [/quote]
Believe me, I know why you have policy-related issues with the guy. And I know how frustrating it is when a dissident has to go up against devout acolytes.
But if we’re talking Alisnky, we’re talking political tactics. And my question is–what about Obama’s political tactics are any more or less offensive than anybody else’s? Frank Luntz, for example.
I’d also point out that Obama’s national campaigns were not devised and executed by he himself, but by Axelrod and Messina. And they are really nothing more than extremely effective establishment political operatives.[/quote]
There are literally books on this subject… I mean I can’t break it all down in this thread.
And no, he isn’t the only one to use them, but if you don’t see how he is using them, you’re not paying enough attention. [/quote]
I’m looking for like, one example.
The tactics that the left and right use are generally exactly the same. The message is a little different, but you could interchange all of the political operatives of either party and barely notice any kind of difference at all.[/quote]
rule 5: Countless examples, but for one: Binders, and the OFA/Scoial Media push. The “birthers” jokes and “Skeeters” comments
rule 13: Rush[/quote]
Wait. Most of the binders ridicule came from the media–in fact, did Obama’s campaign make a big deal of it at all? And even if he did–I’d hardly call it out of the ordinary for a campaign to seize upon an awkward phrase uttered by its nemesis.
Jokes about the “birthers” seemed like a pretty damn good way to brush off an unbelievably stupid charge leveled by the dumbest section of the electorate. If anything, the tactic of denying that your opponent is American even after you’ve seen his birth certificate is the one that is suspect. Scratch that, it’s not suspect, it’s downright sinister (with a healthy dose of near-mental-retardation thrown in for good measure).
Rush Limbaugh…did everything to himself. The Obama campaign never had to lift a finger to ostracize that fat dunce. He called a college kid a slut. He defended Iraqi prisoner abuse. He called Iraq war veterans who spoke out against the war “phony soldiers.” The catalog of psuedo-racist comments he’s made is nine inches thick. I find it difficult to believe that you consider Obama to have used dirty tactics against Rush Limbaugh.
Anyway, all of these things are run-of-the-mill political tactics. There is nothing here that Republicans don’t use when it suits them. In fact, that’s it–the first rule of presidential politics is that you use everything you can to undermine your opponent’s message, all the time.
And finally, the two worst political tactics in the past decade have come from the right: the Swift Boat Campaign and the birthers. Each of those is just a hair above the popular Southeast Asian tactic of accusing your political opponent of violating sodomy laws.[/quote]
Good post.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]groo wrote:
But the status quo isn’t. Always. Or even often necessarily. The moral position.
[/quote]
No, not at all. But using immoral means to get away from an immoral status quo, doesn’t make the immoral means suddenly moral.
[/quote]
Well I’ll suppose that the rules are immoral for the sake of this point…its not something I’d actually concede as I think many of the positions follow along the lines of Civil Disobedience…as well as I do think violence is certainly necessary to right some injustices…sometimes moral rules conflict and in those cases its ones personal morality that decides which action must be taken. If the status quo is very entrenched in a very immoral position and a less immoral action will change that position or change society then I’d argue that not only should that action be taken its immoral not to. Its hard to argue in these hypotheticals though. Which rule is the most immoral and you think would be too immoral to use in any case? I
[quote]florelius wrote:
Good post.[/quote]
LOL, yeah, good at showing how effective the tactics are.
[quote]smh23 wrote:
Wait. Most of the binders ridicule came from the media–in fact, did Obama’s campaign make a big deal of it at all? And even if he did–I’d hardly call it out of the ordinary for a campaign to seize upon an awkward phrase uttered by its nemesis.[/quote]
You have no idea what OFA or the truth squad is and what they do, do you?
And I should have said “romnesia”.
I will address the rest later, I am leaving.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
Wait. Most of the binders ridicule came from the media–in fact, did Obama’s campaign make a big deal of it at all? And even if he did–I’d hardly call it out of the ordinary for a campaign to seize upon an awkward phrase uttered by its nemesis.[/quote]
You have no idea what OFA or the truth squad is and what they do, do you?
And I should have said “romnesia”.
I will address the rest later, I am leaving. [/quote]
A 501 c 4? Are you kidding? What about OFA is unique to Barack Obama’s campaign?
“Romnesia?” Again, I’m inclined to think you’re joking. You’re talking about ethically dubious political tactics and you bring up “Romnesia?”
By “truth squad” do you mean the “truth team?” Because that’s a banal, establishment political strategy.
I’m not saying any of this is high-road stuff. I’m saying it’s exactly what everybody does, all the time. There is nothing especially morally bankrupt in anything you’ve mentioned.
And again, Obama can’t hold a candle to the Swift Boaters/birthers when it comes to dirty to tactics.
How about straight up lying? That’s surely worse than creating a silly portmanteau? Because I can show you every presidential candidate since the advent of television telling a lie to the camera.
[quote]smh23 wrote:
A 501 c 4? Are you kidding? What about OFA is unique to Barack Obama’s campaign?
“Romnesia?” Again, I’m inclined to think you’re joking. You’re talking about ethically dubious political tactics and you bring up “Romnesia?”
By “truth squad” do you mean the “truth team?” Because that’s a banal, establishment political strategy.
I’m not saying any of this is high-road stuff. I’m saying it’s exactly what everybody does, all the time. There is nothing especially morally bankrupt in anything you’ve mentioned.[/quote]
You are missing the point. And, in a nut shell proving how effective these tactics are.
How is “romnesia” not rule 5? Really?
[quote]And again, Obama can’t hold a candle to the Swift Boaters/birthers when it comes to dirty to tactics.
How about straight up lying? That’s surely worse than creating a silly portmanteau? Because I can show you every presidential candidate since the advent of television telling a lie to the camera.[/quote]
Look, my use of Bam as an example was never to say he was the only one that played dirty, just that he uses the Alinsky model. Again, there are entire books about this model.
[quote]smh23 wrote:
Rush Limbaugh…did everything to himself. The Obama campaign never had to lift a finger to ostracize that fat dunce. He called a college kid a slut. He defended Iraqi prisoner abuse. He called Iraq war veterans who spoke out against the war “phony soldiers.” The catalog of psuedo-racist comments he’s made is nine inches thick. I find it difficult to believe that you consider Obama to have used dirty tactics against Rush Limbaugh.[/quote]
First off, Fluke is older than you and knew damn well that Georgetown was what it was when she went to school there. Secondly, if Maher can call political figures a “cunt” and the world isn’t up in arms, Rush can call some nanny state moron a slut and get the same treatment as Maher, which is applause from the left.
As for a “psuedo-racist” crap, I’ve heard that over and over again from the left, and McNab being the only example even close to holding water is the one used. So, can you provide any further evidence to this?
Third, I cannot fathom that you don’t see how Bam’s use of 13 with Rush. Rush has be targeted and labled the “spokesman for conservatism” when in reality he is no such thing. He is a dude that talks on the radio, and entertainer. Again, see Maher. The left doesn’t hold itself to its own standards.
I’ve never listend to Rush, and don’t plan to. But I have a feeling some of what you are charging him with here is taken out of context. Which if that is the case, would be funny, because we’ve gone back and forth many time about Bam’s context in a few different speeches.
[quote]Anyway, all of these things are run-of-the-mill political tactics. There is nothing here that Republicans don’t use when it suits them. In fact, that’s it–the first rule of presidential politics is that you use everything you can to undermine your opponent’s message, all the time.
And finally, the two worst political tactics in the past decade have come from the right: the Swift Boat Campaign and the birthers. Each of those is just a hair above the popular Southeast Asian tactic of accusing your political opponent of violating sodomy laws.[/quote]
You’re largely missing the point. The point isn’t “well everyone plays dirty”. The point is, these tactics are so effective you have, in like 3 different posts, defended them. Here is an outline showing how politicians use you as a sheep, as a voting stock, and you are happy about it. So happy about it, a proclaimed MArxist cheer leading your posts defending these tactics.
And lol @ “birthers” being a political stratgy. When convenient for your narrative, these people are morons & retards, a sub section of the electorate. But when needed to make a point they are smart enough to be a stratgy for success, their opinion spread and stapled to the whole of the party…
[quote]smh23 wrote:
There is nothing especially morally bankrupt in anything you’ve mentioned.
[/quote]
This is bullshit and I hope you know it. If you don’t know, you will soon. You’re too smart not to see it at least eventually.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
There is nothing especially morally bankrupt in anything you’ve mentioned.
[/quote]
This is bullshit and I hope you know it. If you don’t know, you will soon. You’re too smart not to see it at least eventually. [/quote]
Let me clarify something: the operative word here is especially. What I mean to say is that there is nothing in what we’ve been discussing that is extraordinary–as in, out of the ordinary. It just so happens that what is “ordinary” in contemporary politics is distasteful.
And I’m not defending his tactics. I’m saying they’re run-of-the-mill.
A couple other points:
–Regarding Rush, and this is off the top of my head, he once told a caller who was obviously black to take the bone out of his nose or something of the sort. Not a cardinal sin, but not exactly not racist either, eh? Also the Patterson thing. Those two are far worse than the McNabb comment.
–Bill Maher calling Palin a “cunt” is as objectionable as anything we’re talking about. He deserves the disdain he’s earned…just like Rush deserves the mountain of disgust that he’s earned. And here’s the larger point: when conservatives denounced him for that comment, did you think of it as some kind of Aliskyite tactic? Of course not. It’s politics 101–if one of your ideological opponents says something he shouldn’t, you attack and you hope like hell that it stays in the news cycle for as long as it possibly can. Same goes for Maher or Limbaugh or anybody else. That such a universally-employed tactic falls vaguely under a platitudinous rule laid out by some guy decades ago matters very little. And it doesn’t change the fact that we’re talking about a tactic that is ideologically agnostic–it isn’t unique to liberals or conservatives or Democrats or Republicans, and certainly not to Barack Obama.
The most insidious element of national politics today is the tolerance of inaccuracies. Go through the debates and you’ll see that both Obama and Romney said things that literally weren’t true. The Swift Boaters…lied, and in a way that far far worse than anything that happened during the 2012 election. Go through Politifact and see how many ads–not off-the-cuff comments, but scripted, premeditated ads–are rated as complete bullshit. Now we’re talking moral bankruptcy. And it’s got nothing to do with Alisnky. It’s simply this: politics today is about getting away with exactly as much as you can. The only bad attacks are ones that backfire. The only bad lies are ones that people don’t believe.
[quote]smh23 wrote:
What I mean to say is that there is nothing in what we’ve been discussing that is extraordinary–as in, out of the ordinary. It just so happens that what is “ordinary” in contemporary politics is distasteful.
And I’m not defending his tactics. I’m saying they’re run-of-the-mill.[/quote]
No doubt, they have been used over and over since the 60’s when they were developed and the 70’s when he wrote them down.
Having become run of the mill is part of the issue too. Some blame critical theory, some blame the systematic and deliberate destruction of the “bible’s” influence, but either way we’ve come to a play where such things are common place, and accepted enough as they ahve become the status quo they were once employed to destroy.
Did the called say he was black? Because otherwise how the hell is someone “obviously” black, when all you have to go on is a voice on a phone over the radio?
Depends on the context of the statement. If he was telling someone to stop acting like a primative baffoon, then no it isn’t racist at all really.
Unless the FLinstones are racist too…
IS this even worth me looking up?
Right, but denouncing Maher for being ignorant isn’t the same as POTUS standing on stage and singling out Rush as some sort of beacon for the right. I literally had someone say “the GOP needs people like Rush to quite down.” I asked her if Stewart or Maher needed to quite down. She said no. I said, okay if they don’t speak for you why do you think Rush speaks for me?
And that is the point.
People don’t care as long as their side is winning. The bulk of voters are under-informed. Shit look at “upworthy” and the facebook page “being liberal”. They are litterally populated and promoted by the least informed people I’ve ever seen. Actual post: “These rich bastards can afford to pay accountants to find all the loop holes. The government should send out booklets telling you how to find them.” She apparently didn’t realize the 1040 comes with instructions…
It is a sad state of affars but the GOP is lossing the culture war to idiots who are getting their miss-information from other idiots.
As for OFA, in its current form it is Bam’s perminant camp team, awesome. Before it was just a bunch of low information voters pushing stupid meme’s and bullshit on facebook, google+ and twitter. Now those people are perminant. There are some here, and they are easier and easier to spot the more I read. They use 1, 5 & the threat tactic constantly, over and over.
And again, I’m not saying this is any sort of news, but just pointing out ways he ises the tatics.
^ Can you point me to the instance you’re referring to in which Obama painted Limbaugh as a spokesman for the right?
Here’s the last mention of Limbaugh I can find:
“I think if you talk privately to Democrats and Republicans, particularly those who have been around for a while, they long for the days when they could socialize and introduce bipartisan legislation and feel productive. So I don’t think the issue is whether or not there are people of goodwill in either party that want to get something done. I think what we really have to do is change some of the incentive structures so that people feel liberated to pursue some common ground.
One of the biggest factors is going to be how the media shapes debates. If a Republican member of Congress is not punished on Fox News or by Rush Limbaugh for working with a Democrat on a bill of common interest, then you’ll see more of them doing it.
I think John Boehner genuinely wanted to get a deal done, but it was hard to do in part because his caucus is more conservative probably than most Republican leaders are, and partly because he is vulnerable to attack for compromising Republican principles and working with Obama.”
That is neither dirty not unfair. And, by the way, I don’t think what you’re describing is a “morally bankrupt” tactic, even if he did it. Limbaugh is the highest-rated talk-radio host in history. He gets 14 million listeners/week. Rubio called into his show last week. This isn’t some fringe extremist with a following that be counted on one hand. Is it perfectly fair for Obama to act like Limbaugh speaks for conservativism? No. But is it anything close to an extraordinarily dirty political tactic? No. Not at ALL.
For that, refer to Swift Boat and birtherism. I will reiterate that those two are infinitely worse than anything Obama has said or done. And yet everybody around here seems to believe he’s the dirtiest player in Washington.
And your problem with OFA is what exactly? They use social media and you disagree with them?
CB, if that passes as “morally bankrupt politics” for you, you have a lot to read about.
I really mean this–I haven’t been presented with a single noteworthy example yet.
[quote]smh23 wrote:
^ Can you point me to the instance you’re referring to in which Obama painted Limbaugh as a spokesman for the right?
.[/quote]
To find the specific example I have in mind I have to fish through a kindle book I lost my book marks in when my daughter last dropped my phone…
So yes, but not right this moment.
Give me a few to collect my thoughts on the OFA post.
[quote]smh23 wrote:
CB, if that passes as “morally bankrupt politics” for you, you have a lot to read about.
I really mean this–I haven’t been presented with a single noteworthy example yet.[/quote]
I’m going to make a longer post addressing this, but you are making the same jump to the wrong conclusion that my mention of Bam was in some way to say he was better/worse than any other scumbag politician. I’m not, nor did I intend to show him as any worse in my statement, simiply that he was a student of the stupid book. Shit hilary wrote her thesis on Alinsky I believe.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
CB, if that passes as “morally bankrupt politics” for you, you have a lot to read about.
I really mean this–I haven’t been presented with a single noteworthy example yet.[/quote]
I’m going to make a longer post addressing this, but you are making the same jump to the wrong conclusion that my mention of Bam was in some way to say he was better/worse than any other scumbag politician. I’m not, nor did I intend to show him as any worse in my statement, simiply that he was a student of the stupid book. Shit hilary wrote her thesis on Alinsky I believe. [/quote]
I still don’t think the book or that part of it anyway is morally at issue. Lets say a politician is/was a true populist. And recognized he would never gain backing from individuals with large chunks of wealth…this isn’t Obama so don’t freak out that I am saying that…it would behoove that populist to follow rules like this or a similar set to get elected or to effect change.
Its not wrong at all to say that power in a society can come from the people…and to think that it should come from the people. The sixties antiwar protestors were probably using a similar set of rules. However the establishment(for lack of a better word) has gotten smarter. It controls what we see. Compare the narrative we saw in Vietnam to what we see in our current ongoing conflicts. Or the OWS street protestors. They got coverage but it was sort of look at the freakshow kinda thing. As well the police even in cases that are likely using excessive force are the little sisters of the poor compared to the sixties where you could have a protest surrounded by guardsmen with bayonets. Stuff like that will never hit the news again.
Its harder to arouse the people and make them effective and if someone manages it to have it called immoral that people work for things they believe in because it is in opposition to the status quo well that seems not reasonable.
Its not immoral to try to change society in ways you think might make it better.
[quote]smh23 wrote:
And your problem with OFA is what exactly? [/quote]
HEre you have a man with RockStar status and a cult like draw to young people.
-
He goes on shows like “the Daily Show” and “The View” because he knows he’ll get softball questions, his balls washed, and come away looking like more of a stud than ever, and the hardest question he’ll have to answer is “what song is on your iPod?”
-
He shuns the actual press for lapdogs that won’t ask him tough questions anyway.
-
Hope & Change
-
He is black. So, this leads armies of young white kids that have been programed in school and on TV for the last 20 years to feel guilty for the sins of others, and that minorities get special treatment because racist… So all these young white liberals, because they are super more tolerant than the right, particularly those backwoods evil icky chirstians, just love Obama, because supporting him proves, just proves they are one of the good white people.
-
Hollywood and the media has also programed these people into believing “conservative” is a nasty dirty word, and only evil ignorant whites and/or evil rich whites are conservative. They’ve also been conditioned to believe any mention of anything agaisnt any group is racist if it comes from a conservative. A republican bitches about welfare, they must be racist, even though more whites are on foodstamps than other minorities.
-
Obama’s team is good, damn good at mirco targeting and feeding those targets what they want to hear. Younger women tend to be pro-life so the abortion rhetoric is toned down in ads and pitches to them. He tells latinos he’ll fix immagration, sits on his hands for 4 years, signs DREAM, and then lies to them again.
So you have a group of young, impressionable kids that don’t even know who they are worshiping, just that is is cool to worship him, and he has to be right, because he is a liberal.
Then Stephine Cutter and Debbie Wash-your-mans-shorts feed these kids talking points and point them in the direction of the masses. They use these kids to create and solidify a narative. The stifle conversation by calling anyone and everyone they can a racist, even though it is okay to hate Allen West, anyone that hates Obama is a racist. They report back to “home base” anyone that talks out against the Bam Narrative, and gather more and more talking points to toss out there.
So you have a small army of uninformed zombies worshipping everything Bam does, no longer protesting War, okay with Drones, and claiming a bunch of shit they don’t understand let alone half of it being true.
How is this immoral? Some won’t see it as immoral, using young impressionable kids to spread disinformation on social media to other dumb kids who, as a whole, think they are a whole lot smarter than they really are. It isn’t like these people advertise who they are “orgainizing” for or that they are litterally playing the “if you say it enough times it becomes true” game.
They don’t want people to think, and they prevent conversation.
[quote]groo wrote:
Its not immoral to try to change society in ways you think might make it better.
[/quote]
No, and I never said it was.
What I have said is the ends dont’ always justify the means.