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:2435 Comments:203
And she used christine's dime and PM system to plan and execute her strategy.
She didn't do that with me. She contacted me out of the blue through my regular email account - which she has had for five years or so. And I don't think she's been on since she said "bye". But the logs should show this in less than a minute. So there is no need to make accusations that she's skulking about on the PM. The logs will show when she came on and what she did while she was here.
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.
Change doesn't always make things better. Often times, it makes things a heck of a lot worse.
Not only do people like Obama because he manipulates them with dark psychology, but Obama also has an atomic mind control ray. It emits from the television during cat food commercials and ensnares anyone who stares on the cat on screen. Notice how more and more commercials have black cats in them?
Well I won't be visiting. My small government views would not be deemed appropriate there.
I wasn't invited. LOL! I'm not surprised.
I'm shocked!
I wasn't invited either.
I am deeply wounded.
I wonder if could be that I am not a big fan of Goobermunt Hellthcare? ;-)
The name kind of gives it a certain panache: "The People's Forum".
Kind of like: "The People's Republic".
"The difference between an honorable man and a moral man is that an honorable man regrets a discreditable act even when it has worked and he is in no danger of being caught." ~ H. L. Mencken
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.
Already robin is banning people as being disruptive.
Wherever you have people with strong opinions you are going to have conflicts, and not everyone was schooled by Amy Vanderbuilt and the Marquis des Queensbury would cause them to go: "Say what?"
Robin, Gentle Robin, is going to find out quickly that "Wilbur Milquetoast" does not have the nerve to post on a forum and that people with strong opinions will strongly defend them.
"The difference between an honorable man and a moral man is that an honorable man regrets a discreditable act even when it has worked and he is in no danger of being caught." ~ H. L. Mencken
As such, the discussion began with the same 'stump speech' every day. A cultish oddity, like door knockers.
Hmm? Reminds me of "Young Frankenstein".
"The difference between an honorable man and a moral man is that an honorable man regrets a discreditable act even when it has worked and he is in no danger of being caught." ~ H. L. Mencken
"The difference between an honorable man and a moral man is that an honorable man regrets a discreditable act even when it has worked and he is in no danger of being caught." ~ H. L. Mencken
Put it this way, this rupture did NOT happen over nite. Such events take orchestration.
I would tend to agree. I would think that there were hints of it in advance now looking back with the clarity of 20-20 hindsight.
"The difference between an honorable man and a moral man is that an honorable man regrets a discreditable act even when it has worked and he is in no danger of being caught." ~ H. L. Mencken
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.
This didn't just come on all of a sudden as it might appear IMO.
No, it didn't, but this answer just hit me so its new to me and not something that I had considered before.
What I'm mostly curious about is ... am I even on the right track here? It all seems to line up too perfectly which makes me wonder if there is a flaw in my analysis.
Change doesn't always make things better. Often times, it makes things a heck of a lot worse.
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.
"The difference between an honorable man and a moral man is that an honorable man regrets a discreditable act even when it has worked and he is in no danger of being caught." ~ H. L. Mencken
Put it this way, this rupture did NOT happen over nite. Such events take orchestration.
It occurs to me, upon further cogitation, that what Robin appears to want is not a forum but an echo chamber.
"The difference between an honorable man and a moral man is that an honorable man regrets a discreditable act even when it has worked and he is in no danger of being caught." ~ H. L. Mencken
When we the unwashed white trash...READ... what he had to say about small town Americans, it carried the message to us he intended. He was looking down his long elite nose at us. To those in attendance listening to the ...ORATORY... it went over their heads that he was walking on we white trtash Americans.
No, it didn't, but this answer just hit me so its new to me and not something that I had considered before.
What I'm mostly curious about is ... am I even on the right track here? It all seems to line up too perfectly which makes me wonder if there is a flaw in my analysis.
I'm not familiar with Alinsky, so I couldn't say. But the tactic you describe, sounds like it lines up so far.
There is definitely something at work, and it is more than coincidental that a group of people decide at the exact same moment to peel off in a completely different idealogical direction, with the exact same fervor, and essentially adopt the same debate 'style'.
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"...
There is definitely something at work, and it is more than coincidental that a group of people decide at the exact same moment to peel off in a completely different idealogical direction, with the exact same fervor, and essentially adopt the same debate 'style'.
It is also very VERY strange that people who were fervent Ron Paul supporters would pull an ideological 180-degree turn and start supporting a Socialist so fervently.
Something doesn't add up in that. You don't go from limited government and libertarianism to massive Government Control and Socialism overnight unless something SERIOUS got tickled.
More research is needed. Tomorrow I'll get a copy of Rules for Radicals and thumb through it, comparing to some of Obama's videos and post back to you what I find.
Change doesn't always make things better. Often times, it makes things a heck of a lot worse.
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.
When we the unwashed white trash...READ... what he had to say about small town Americans, it carried the message to us he intended. He was looking down his long elite nose at us. To those in attendance listening to the ...ORATORY... it went over their heads that he was walking on we white trtash Americans.
I see it. It was overt and will not be forgotten. He intended to send that message.
Sadly, agreed. P.T. Barnum was an optimist - although a good judge of human nature.
I wish I could argue otherwise but there are just too many people who will not look and will vote for any politician who says nice things and offers to give them things bought with other people's forcibly extracted labor.
"The difference between an honorable man and a moral man is that an honorable man regrets a discreditable act even when it has worked and he is in no danger of being caught." ~ H. L. Mencken
It is also very VERY strange that people who were fervent Ron Paul supporters would pull an ideological 180-degree turn and start supporting a Socialist so fervently.
Something doesn't add up in that. You don't go from limited government and libertarianism to massive Government Control and Socialism overnight unless something SERIOUS got tickled.
Well, that's the same rock I've been beating my head against as well.
More research is needed. Tomorrow I'll get a copy of Rules for Radicals and thumb through it, comparing to some of Obama's videos and post back to you what I find.
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.
I suspect so. Sometimes even intelligent people will allow one issue to override their good sense. The single issue "Abortion Voters" (on both sides) stand out as an example. I can even recall the comment made to me by one of the hard core pro-lifers (and I am pro-life myself) that "Abortion is not AN issue it is the ONLY issue". For Robin her issue appears to be government run healthcare, which she tries to insist will not be government run, and that overrides all other issues or considerations. She appears to so want to "believe in" the goodness of the "Single Payer" chimera that she will see no other consideration even though backed with sound reasoning. She has her mind made up and "does not want to be confused with the facts".
"The difference between an honorable man and a moral man is that an honorable man regrets a discreditable act even when it has worked and he is in no danger of being caught." ~ H. L. Mencken