RE: Could we kindly cut the Nazi/communist crap? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message


DomKen -> RE: Could we kindly cut the Nazi/communist crap? (8/31/2009 4:12:05 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth

quote:

Thank you...I bet you that those poor victimised rightwingers are completely ignorant of it
(Application of Rule #5)
Don't qualify for any of those labels, however I too am grateful for the post Ken. It confirms my position that both political parties have learned and apply "Alinsky-ist tactics"; to serve their agenda.

I think the most telling of the two positions is that Firm doesn't remove one political party from the accusation while you require it be Republican Party specific. I guess that points to you at least being more dedicated to following the Alinsky tactics to serve your agenda.

quote:

Thank you for the brilliant and concise history summary
You even got a Rule #6 head-bob!

Perhaps a head-bob of my own - I've got to say Firm; you provided a nice crib-note to apply to any agenda based political position.


Try reading what I responded to. Firm claimed that somehow the Democratic party had made those tactics intergral to the party. I just showed that it first long predated Alinsky, despite Firm's claim otherwise, and that it began with and was the sole domain of the GOP for at least 30 years.

As a matter of fact the use of such tactics still arouses a great deal of debate inside the Democratic party, see for instance HRC's attacks on Obama and the outrage it created in the party faithful, to the blase response by republicans to the Bush campaign's smear tactics against McCain in 2000, the 2002 Chambliss campaign ad, the 2004 SBVT ads and the Sarah Palin stump speech of 2008.

To argue that the Democratic party has integrated such actions into their leadership ranks flies in the face of available evidence while denying the evidence that it is the GOP that has integrated such actions into the core of the party's leadership.




ThatDamnedPanda -> RE: Could we kindly cut the Nazi/communist crap? (8/31/2009 4:15:03 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth
I think the most telling of the two positions is that Firm doesn't remove one political party from the accusation while you require it be Republican Party specific. I guess that points to you at least being more dedicated to following the Alinsky tactics to serve your agenda.



I'm afraid I have to disagree with that. He's using his typical passive aggressive doubletalk, acknowledging that while republicans may do this sort of thing, the democrats did it first and did it worst, so it's really the democrats' fault. That's his modus operandi; pretending to be fair and balanced and somehow always winding his way back to where he has no choice but to blame the democrats, much as he hates to have to do it. Same old same old from Firm.




Mercnbeth -> RE: Could we kindly cut the Nazi/communist crap? (8/31/2009 4:30:57 PM)

quote:

To argue that the Democratic party has integrated such actions into their leadership ranks flies in the face of available evidence while denying the evidence that it is the GOP that has integrated such actions into the core of the party's leadership.


DK,
Granted, I came late to the debate and haven't read every word. However, if you are both stipulating that the practice was used, and is being used, by both political parties, and in the pursuit of both the 'liberal' and 'conservative' special interest agendas; I am in complete agreement.

There is no doubt that it speaks to the lowest common denominator of intelligence, which is getting much more common. For that reason alone there is no doubt it will continue to be used.

quote:

first and did it worst,
This determination I'll leave for the history book writers. However whoever is determined "first" and "worse" will be tempered by my skepticism best referenced by Churchill's use of Orwellian dogma; "History is written by the victors."

Putting out the tactic as viable based upon the positive results generated from both sides still begs the question. As someone said earlier - now what?




mnottertail -> RE: Could we kindly cut the Nazi/communist crap? (8/31/2009 4:36:36 PM)

yeah, the tu quoque argument is not valid on its face.

America was founded by beer hall arguments in the first place, in that respect we ALL are like nazis, and I doubt that you will change the american politik from drunken brawls, no matter if everyone wishes it, it is too ingrained.

Ron




DomKen -> RE: Could we kindly cut the Nazi/communist crap? (8/31/2009 4:52:03 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth
Putting out the tactic as viable based upon the positive results generated from both sides still begs the question. As someone said earlier - now what?

I've said it before and I'll say it again. If the GOP stops teh Dems will certainly stop. Our base hates it. Every election cycle Democrats fight over whether the majorityof voters have learned and sticking to the high road is the way to go. Certainly Obama's victory gives credence to those on my side who say we're better than this sort of crap and shouldn't do it. However every time an Atwater or Rove trots out a SBVT ad and the Democrat loses then it becomes a lot harder to argue that the high road is where we should stay.

If McCain had run a moderate campaign, choosing someone other than Palin as VP, and done well enough to at least make it possible that the fiscal conservative socially moderate GOP would again be the dominant force in the party. we could have been looking at the end of this cycle right now. But alas McCain bowed down to the far right of the GOP. Maybe just maybe in 2012 or 2016 Romney or similiar will run a good clean campaign and either win or come close enough that the GOP leadership will find a way to back off the brink and consign the far right to the fringes for another generation or two. However if the 2012 and 2016 nominees are people like Gingrich or Palin who sling hate almost reflexively I shudder to imagine where this nation could wind up.




FirmhandKY -> RE: Could we kindly cut the nazi/communist crap? (8/31/2009 4:54:03 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: philosophy

.......i agree, but the idea that only one side needs to be civil isn't my argument. i thought that what i was arguing for was the idea that both sides need to lose the partisanship and seek common ground.

I would like this. I just no longer expect it. I think the pendulum has swing too far.


quote:

ORIGINAL: philosophy

Seems to me that this is the core of the issue this thread is about. The willingness or not to seek that common ground. i like to think that you and i have actively tried to do this in our debates. Doesn't stop us disagreeing, doesn't mean either of us have to compromise our core principles. Just means that instead of demonising the other we try to remember that the other is arguing in good faith.

Philo, we have entered into some really good discussions, even knowing that neither of us are likely to change the other's mind. But we didn't start out that way, did we?

I remember clearly when our dynamic changed. I'll not review it here, as I'm sure you remember what you posted to me, my response and now you see the result.

The key is respect, and the toleration of disagreement.

But the problem is that it takes both sides to come to the same realization. It takes both sides to be willing to either take that first step, or to accept someone who offers the olive branch.

When one side extends an olive branch, it's accepted, and then the branch is used to beat them about the head and shoulders, it's unlikely (and not rational) to continue to seek peace.

We can still do this on a personal level, here on the boards (sometimes), but my prognosis is that by the time this administration is out of office the damage to trust will be so damaged that both sides will be firmly entrenched and distrustful that no easy accommodation will be possible.

Death spiral indeed.


quote:

ORIGINAL: philosophy

Somehow i doubt that Ann Coulter would allow a hypothetical discussion with me to be so civil.

Ann Coulter makes absolutely no bones about the fact that she attacks the left the same way that the left attacks the right. She is indeed working Alinsky tactics.

And she's pretty successful isn't she? And pretty damn funny if you are on the right.

Of course, as a right leaning political humorous, she still is in the minority. Think about the political oriented "humorist" on the left who have been doing this for years: George Carlin (RIP), Bill Maher, Jon Stewart (to a lesser extent), Janeane Garofalo (who is never funny), David Letterman, Lewis Black, Al Franken etc, etc, etc. I'm sure that others can add more.


quote:

ORIGINAL: philosophy

There's another dimension to this. In my view, it doesn't matter who starts a fight as much as it matters who ends it. Let's say i agree with your analysis of Alinsky (i'm not sure i do, but let's table that for now). By your own admission those on the right are no longer (if they ever were) innocent of those same tactics. Both sides are now as bad the other. We're past the point of identifying the causes, we ought to be looking for solutions. In my view, the part of the solution within our grasp is to take on the point the OP was getting at.......lose the name calling, stop this useless demonising. No one side can win using this aggressive approach. It's a death spiral.

Identifying the causes is always important, even if only for historical reasons when the next government and political system is forged on this continent.

I also disagree that the right is "as bad" as the other. As I said in another thread to tazzy, that is simply a method to excuse the guilt on both sides.

I do think there is still a large reservoir on the right of people who do not want to be involved in the BS. That's why the more independents tend to identify themselves as "conservative" rather than "liberal". People who do not condone Alinsky tactics are self-selecting themselves out of both parties and the political process as this Alinsky culture of political "diss-coarse" increases.

It's why so many people are saying that it's time for a third way.

On the flip side, this dynamic is tending to leave the type of people in both political parties who have no problem with using Alinsky tactics, and therefore causing both parties to become just two hands of the same beast, with people without desire to compromise or compunction about using the worst techniques (You always run the risk of become who you fight).

Politics has often been accused of having no honor, and no morals, but (in the US at least), that's generally been a statement of hyperbole. Not so much any more.

And I'm pretty pessimistic that any change is possible.

Firm




Mercnbeth -> RE: Could we kindly cut the Nazi/communist crap? (8/31/2009 5:10:02 PM)

quote:

Every election cycle Democrats fight over whether the majority of voters have learned and sticking to the high road is the way to go. Certainly Obama's victory gives credence to those on my side who say we're better than this sort of crap and shouldn't do it.


DK,
Please help me from taking those two sentences as non sequitur.

Obama ran on a very vitriol filled, almost exclusive 'anti-Bush' platform. Even his "CHANGE!" pointed to a change in Washington, not in results where, to date, little if any change has taken place. In some respects he's still running the campaign. Even his re-statement of his Administration's own deficit projections came with the "we didn't know it was this bad" disclaimer.

Help me change my perspective by pointing to one "It's me!" accountability statement from this Administration to date. At the same time, deliberate or coincidental, much of the Alinky 'play-book' is obviously in play on the Health-care issue. Or is Speaker Pelosi's reference of "disruptors" not representative of her Party?

Again, not that I blame the Democratic Party - it worked for their election and put them in the position of having a filibuster-proof plurality. My question is how you can distinguish them so clearly from the Republican counterparts?

What exactly sets the confident foundation for "your side" which enables you to represent it currently holier than the other?




FirmhandKY -> RE: Could we kindly cut the Nazi/communist crap? (8/31/2009 5:18:00 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: ThatDamnedPanda

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth
I think the most telling of the two positions is that Firm doesn't remove one political party from the accusation while you require it be Republican Party specific. I guess that points to you at least being more dedicated to following the Alinsky tactics to serve your agenda.



I'm afraid I have to disagree with that. He's using his typical passive aggressive doubletalk, acknowledging that while republicans may do this sort of thing, the democrats did it first and did it worst, so it's really the democrats' fault. That's his modus operandi; pretending to be fair and balanced and somehow always winding his way back to where he has no choice but to blame the democrats, much as he hates to have to do it. Same old same old from Firm.


And I disagree with your comments.

I'm just being openly honest in my assessment. I certainly don't expect agreement and kudos from everyone, especially from the left.

*shrugs*

I do challenge you to find a similar philosophical figure comparable to Alinsky that has spread his concepts so widely on the right. Any philosophical figure whose tactics and techniques of are the basis of "aggressive organizing" that has such unhealthy results as Alinsky tactics.

As an aside, aren't we now having the very type of discussion that you and other's on the left said was impossible? This thread is no longer a free-for-all, free association BS thread, even if some wish it were.

I'm sure I've offended some with my ideas. But that's the accepted danger of joining into a discussion and debate.

Firm




Brain -> RE: Could we kindly cut the Nazi/communist crap? (8/31/2009 6:40:50 PM)

I think it would be good for the country if the Republican and Democratic parties each split and let the extreme factions create new political parties with one moderate Democrat and Republican Party in the center. It’s too bad people didn’t vote for Ralph Nader .

It would appear Richard Nixon’s health-care reform was better than Barack Obama’s. That just shows how bad it has gotten that I am now holding my nose and missing Richard Nixon.

There was once an era when "leading figures in both parties were capable of speaking rationally about policy, and in which policy decisions weren’t as warped by corporate cash as they are now"
Missing Richard Nixon
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/31/opinion/31krugman.html?_r=5&ref=opinion






Arpig -> RE: Could we kindly cut the nazi/communist crap? (8/31/2009 8:02:01 PM)

quote:

But the problem is that it takes both sides to come to the same realization. It takes both sides to be willing to either take that first step, or to accept someone who offers the olive branch.

When one side extends an olive branch, it's accepted, and then the branch is used to beat them about the head and shoulders, it's unlikely (and not rational) to continue to seek peace.
How about doing it simply because its the right thing to do? Isn't that what statesmanship is all about?




FirmhandKY -> RE: Could we kindly cut the nazi/communist crap? (8/31/2009 8:15:34 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Arpig

quote:

But the problem is that it takes both sides to come to the same realization. It takes both sides to be willing to either take that first step, or to accept someone who offers the olive branch.

When one side extends an olive branch, it's accepted, and then the branch is used to beat them about the head and shoulders, it's unlikely (and not rational) to continue to seek peace.
How about doing it simply because its the right thing to do? Isn't that what statesmanship is all about?

I agree. I attempt to do so in my personal life, and on the boards.

I just think in the wider political debate of ideas has turned into something else, and I see little hope for it to turn around. Sure, I can hope. People such as you and philo are great examples of what I considered principled liberals worth engaging. And both of you are Canadian.

But I don't think it's going to turn around by appealing to many politicians "better nature", because fewer and fewer of them have one. On either side. The ones who do have a better nature, and try to reach across the aisle end up becoming the useful idiots of the other side.

His (or her) replacement ends up figuring out that there's no odds in being non-partisan. "Gotcha" rules.

Firm




FirmhandKY -> RE: Could we kindly cut the Nazi/communist crap? (8/31/2009 8:17:13 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Brain

I think it would be good for the country if the Republican and Democratic parties each split and let the extreme factions create new political parties with one moderate Democrat and Republican Party in the center. It’s too bad people didn’t vote for Ralph Nader .

It would appear Richard Nixon’s health-care reform was better than Barack Obama’s. That just shows how bad it has gotten that I am now holding my nose and missing Richard Nixon.

There was once an era when "leading figures in both parties were capable of speaking rationally about policy, and in which policy decisions weren’t as warped by corporate cash as they are now"
Missing Richard Nixon
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/31/opinion/31krugman.html?_r=5&ref=opinion




Obama has lost Krugman?

Damn.

Firm




Vendaval -> RE: Could we kindly cut the nazi/communist crap? (8/31/2009 8:26:50 PM)

Word up, Arpig!




DomKen -> RE: Could we kindly cut the Nazi/communist crap? (8/31/2009 8:47:11 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth

quote:

Every election cycle Democrats fight over whether the majority of voters have learned and sticking to the high road is the way to go. Certainly Obama's victory gives credence to those on my side who say we're better than this sort of crap and shouldn't do it.


DK,
Please help me from taking those two sentences as non sequitur.

Obama ran on a very vitriol filled, almost exclusive 'anti-Bush' platform. Even his "CHANGE!" pointed to a change in Washington, not in results where, to date, little if any change has taken place. In some respects he's still running the campaign. Even his re-statement of his Administration's own deficit projections came with the "we didn't know it was this bad" disclaimer.

Help me change my perspective by pointing to one "It's me!" accountability statement from this Administration to date. At the same time, deliberate or coincidental, much of the Alinky 'play-book' is obviously in play on the Health-care issue. Or is Speaker Pelosi's reference of "disruptors" not representative of her Party?

Again, not that I blame the Democratic Party - it worked for their election and put them in the position of having a filibuster-proof plurality. My question is how you can distinguish them so clearly from the Republican counterparts?

What exactly sets the confident foundation for "your side" which enables you to represent it currently holier than the other?

Very vitriol filled? The harshest attack he made against McCain was that McCain voted with GWB's position 90% of the time which happened to be true. Did Obama make clear he was a break with GWB? Of course he did but I didn't see any vitriol. Certainly nothing like 'palled around with terrorists' or chants of traitor.

As to your perception that little change has taken place I will point out that that is simply your perception. From my POV a lot has changed in 8 months.

As to Pelosi's comments I am not terribly happy with her comments but understand her frustration. The GOP is using lies and fear mongering to whip up a misplaced frenzy to prevent a health care reform law from being passed despite the fact that out of control health care costs are damaging American competitiveness in the world economy.

As to my confidence it isn't that my side is 'holier' but that my side holds higher ideals. We truly believe that in a dispassionate honest discussion of the issues we'll convince the majority.




DomKen -> RE: Could we kindly cut the Nazi/communist crap? (8/31/2009 8:48:57 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY
I do challenge you to find a similar philosophical figure comparable to Alinsky that has spread his concepts so widely on the right. Any philosophical figure whose tactics and techniques of are the basis of "aggressive organizing" that has such unhealthy results as Alinsky tactics.

Lee Atwater
Karl Rove




ThatDamnedPanda -> RE: Could we kindly cut the Nazi/communist crap? (8/31/2009 9:43:10 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

As an aside, aren't we now having the very type of discussion that you and other's on the left said was impossible? This thread is no longer a free-for-all, free association BS thread, even if some wish it were.


Honestly, I don't see anything remarkable about the discussion you and I are having. The way I look at it, you've constructed a false and divisive  argument on a foundation of misrepresentations - specifically your outrageous misrepresentation and demonization of Saul Alinsky as some sort of radical leftist machiavelli - and used it to stir up a minor shit storm to provide an opportunity for you to pick fights and browbeat liberals, which for some reason seems to give you a great deal of satisfaction.

Aside from your blatant misrepresentation of Alinsky, you made a couple of explicit untruthful assertions, which i called you on and asked you to substantiate, but you ducked the questions and tried to shift the argument to some other focus in search of something you wouldn't be so easily called on.

In other words, pretty much par for the course for you. You may have enjoyed it, but I consider it a waste of keystrokes and a textbook example of why I rarely even bother trying to debate anything with you anymore.

Sorry, man. I do like you personally, believe it or not, and would love to kick back with a beer or spend an afternoon at the pistol range with you; but as for debating you... no, I don't get much out of it. If you do, more power to you. I'm out.


quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY
I'm sure I've offended some with my ideas. But that's the accepted danger of joining into a discussion and debate.


It's not that your ideas offend. It's that the way you debate disappoints.




philosophy -> RE: Could we kindly cut the Nazi/communist crap? (8/31/2009 10:24:07 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

As to my confidence it isn't that my side is 'holier' but that my side holds higher ideals. We truly believe that in a dispassionate honest discussion of the issues we'll convince the majority.


...sorry DK, but i think lines like the one i've quoted are part of the problem. i've met right wingers who believe exactly the same....that their argument can stand on its own merits, that in an honest discussion they will win. Problem is, an honest discussion is hard to find. Positions have become entrenched, views horribly polarised. 
Debaters on both sides have to accept the possibility of being wrong so they can listen to what the other side says with both ears. The chap Firm referred to earlier in the thread, Buckley, realised he was wrong about something.  In 1957 he supported segregation in the southern USA. By the mid 1960's he changed his mind. i can see why Firm admires the man. It takes courage to shift a position in the face of evidence that doesn't support your original position. (one reason why i'm not a fan of the idea that flip-flopping in the political sense is a bad idea).

The holy grail of any political debate ought to be the truth, not the supremacy of one particular view.




rightwinghippie -> RE: Could we kindly cut the Nazi/communist crap? (8/31/2009 10:31:10 PM)

Dom ken says,

"Firm claimed that somehow the Democratic party had made those tactics intergral to the party. I just showed that it first long predated Alinsky, despite Firm's claim otherwise, and that it began with and was the sole domain of the GOP for at least 30 years. "

Rules for Radicals came out (at the end of Alinsky's carreer) in 1971. Which is indeed longer than 30 years ago. Posts like this just make me laugh.




rightwinghippie -> RE: Could we kindly cut the Nazi/communist crap? (8/31/2009 10:43:24 PM)

Panda, you must not be aware that Alinsky himself compares himself to Machiavelli. Your accusation in post 176 is nonsense. I expect better from you.

"In Rules for Radicals (his final work, published in 1971 one year before his death), he addressed the 1960s generation of radicals, outlining his views on organizing for mass power. In the first chapter, opening paragraph of the book Alinsky writes, "What follows is for those who want to change the world from what it is to what they believe it should be. The Prince was written by Machiavelli for the Haves on how to hold power. Rules for Radicals is written for the Have-Nots on how to take it away."[4]"


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saul_Alinsky

Saul was a radical, and a revolutionary and a leftist in his own words, not Firm's. Thats what his career was. HE was proud of it.
Incidently the book (rules for radicals) was dedicated to Lucifer the "greatest of all revolutonaries".

I am surprised that you are not familliar with Alinsky and his work. Also his deep connections to our Current President (which is certaily the leadership of the Democratic Party).

Going back I could not find any of your unansered questions about Alinsky. I will be glad to answer them if you felt they were ducked. Please re state them.




rulemylife -> RE: Could we kindly cut the nazi/communist crap? (8/31/2009 10:44:07 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: rightwinghippie

Who wants to tear down a 75 year old War memorial? Like I said before, Liberals make themselves look bad, with no help from the Right at all.

The cross has been there for Generations.


Seventy-five years constitutes generations?

Damn, I'm older than I thought.












Page: <<   < prev  7 8 [9] 10 11   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
6.347656E-02