Title: OK, so a new forum opens and I posted these two articles without comment, and immediately got banned. WTF? Source:
[None] URL Source:[None] Published:May 10, 2008 Author:me Post Date:2008-05-10 13:46:57 by Jethro Tull Keywords:None Views:4694 Comments:203
Here's the thing - Obama uses the Saul Alinsky Ju-Jitsu for his arguments. It is very much akin to Church Recruiting.
That kind of argument produces a visceral reaction in people who don't blame others for their unhappiness OR who have had horrible experiences with religious twits.
For me, that's part of my loathing of Obama. The man's method of laying it out tickles me the wrong way.
robin, on the other hand, bought into it completely.
Obama learned this as a community organizer. Alinsky's "Rules for Radicals" is required reading and is the standard handbook for a lot of Democrat candidates.
For people who believe in self-sufficiency, the thought of "Blame someone else then go git 'em!" is anathema.
And she used christine's dime and PM system to plan and execute her strategy. This is a person of high moral standing? Typical of the left.
Well, I'm trying to figure out what is going on -- with multiple issues.
robin bought into the Alinsky Ju-Jitsu entirely. That much I've figured out. She accepted the "You have a problem/you are miserable. I am the only solution" stuff.
On the other hand, that kind of rhetoric completely repels me which explains why I react so violently to most leftist thought. Since they tend to use the same tactics and operate from the same playbook, it repels me entirely. Nobody tells me that I'm miserable and nobody tells me I have a problem and that they are the only solution to it.
Thus, I never get "organized".
Obama learned this as a community organizer. His campaign is based on simply expanding the methods nationally as opposed to working locally.
It may also explain his negatives; a lot of people don't like Church Recruiting methods which operate along similar lines where you "create a need" for the Church with someone and then fill the need.
Quite simply, if most forms of advertising and marketing don't work on you, you won't be attracted to Obama's campaign. In fact, you're likely to be repelled from it.
That's where I'm at with the analysis so far. Next up is to get a copy of _Rules for Radicals_ and compare what it has to say with what I'm seeing.
I'm willing to bet that is precisely what irks me about the Ferret. He uses many of the same strategies and ends up repelling me from his arguments as a result.
One of Alinsky's methods is something I use at times and is something Obama uses constantly. That method is to inform people they don't live up to their own standards. Then you sell them yourself or your organization as a solution.
I don't sell myself as a solution so I don't quite go that far, but I've got no problems in saying "If you don't like regime change in Iraq, then how can you advocate for it anywhere else, like Rhodesia or South Africa?"
Obama also uses rapid-fire Socratic debate to initiate this as a one-way dialog with people to bring them over. Church recruiters do similar things and over time I've trained myself to respond to missionaries not with answers but with questions if they don't take "No thank you, go away" for an answer.
The way to deal with someone involved in firing off a Socratic Debate with you is to respond in kind. Typically, they aren't prepared for it and aren't expecting it. Thus, you end up using their own tactics against them to a win.
Its very slick, but the Alinsky tactics do not work on all people, especially if their target has been exposed to recruiting methods of religious groups that try to suck them in and have fended them off.
Next up is to get a copy of _Rules for Radicals_ and compare what it has to say with what I'm seeing.
mirage,
This didn't just come on all of a sudden as it might appear IMO.
One thing perhaps as an observation, is that comparing the 'debate' or lack thereof, to Obama's style of discussion, stands out. He never quite answers a direct question. This tactic was conveniently used through and buffered by the use of the bozo feature.. where answering a question or addressing issues, could be ignored, through the ease of just not 'seeing' it. As though ignoring it made it disappear.
As such, the discussion began with the same 'stump speech' every day. A cultish oddity, like door knockers.
All one has to do is, "read" one of his speeches after the fact and like most politicians, it turns out to be 98 per cent BS.
Oratory is the key to mesmerizing the sheep. Hitler was a master at it. Read his speech instead and it was totally flat.
Sheep love to follow their idol while grazing. Give two people the same speech to use on two different audiences and you will find the key.
That is a great example cyni.
That may explain the inability of his flock to defend his words. If we could only hear his 'music', we'd get it. How frustrating. We scrutinized his policy positions, votes, to his words, and when it did not square, we refused to humm along.
All one has to do is, "read" one of his speeches after the fact and like most politicians, it turns out to be 98 per cent BS.
Oratory is the key to mesmerizing the sheep. Hitler was a master at it. Read his speech instead and it was totally flat.
Sheep love to follow their idol while grazing. Give two people the same speech to use on two different audiences and you will find the key.
That is a great example cyni.
That may explain the inability of his flock to defend his words. If we could only hear his 'music', we'd get it. How frustrating. We scrutinized his policy positions, votes, to his words, and when it did not square, we refused to humm along.
Nicely put - the both of you.
As a student of logic and rhetoric I long ago learned to automatically look at an analyze what is actually being said.
When you have a speaker who relies upon demgogic speech and vague assertions they have standard schticks that they rely upon.
There are goodly number of posters on this forum, present company included, who don't just swoon over a candidate mouthing the right platitudes. I don't think Robin liked that because Oh'bummer was mouthing some of her favorite platitudes - like Goobermunt Controlled Hellthcare.
There are goodly number of posters on this forum, present company included, who don't just swoon over a candidate mouthing the right platitudes. I don't think Robin liked that because Oh'bummer was mouthing some of her favorite platitudes - like Goobermunt Controlled Hellthcare.
I have had the opportunity to watch Hillary and Robert Kennedy "work" a crowd and it was disgraceful.
Both times I asked women leaving after the speech what the two had to say and the result was the same, "I dont what they said, but they said it nice"...
As a student of logic and rhetoric I long ago learned to automatically look at an analyze what is actually being said.
When you have a speaker who relies upon demgogic speech and vague assertions they have standard schticks that they rely upon.
There are goodly number of posters on this forum, present company included, who don't just swoon over a candidate mouthing the right platitudes. I don't think Robin liked that because Oh'bummer was mouthing some of her favorite platitudes - like Goobermunt Controlled Hellthcare.
Thank you OI.
Perhaps she just heard what she wanted to, but so many know her history and intellect to rise far above such platitudes, that true concern and confusion set some extreme intervention into motion. And it was NOT invited.