SpinnerofTales
Posts: 1586
Joined: 5/30/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY
Alinsky rule 5 and rule 12.
RULE 5: "Ridicule is man's most potent weapon." There is no defense. It's irrational. It's infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions.
RULE 12: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it." Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions.
Let me assure you, Firm, that I did not write that letter saying "Oh, I am so glad I read Alinsky. Now I can use ridicule to freeze it, personalize it and polarize it." And given the "people hurt faster than institutions" quotation, I will say that it is not nor ever was it my intention to hurt you in any way. If I have, please excuse me for playing this political debate game too roughly.
That said, let me move from your claim of Alinskyism to a far older concept. Truth is absolute and complete defense against defamation. For example:
quote:
Me:
Last time you put citations up on a subject, we found out that Obama was bipolar, that his friends were admitting that he actually wanted "government death panels" and that our president was planning on making every American sign a "loyalty oath".....not to mention coining the the charming phrase Obamunist.
Firm:
Utterly false.
Is this a lie on your part, a fabrication, or a lame attempt at hyperbole?
Back your claim up with a cite, please, or apologize like the man you claim to be.
Very well....let me back up my claim.
On page four of the Bill Mhar thread, you posted the following link to prove your assertion that the White House was sending "Union goons" to commit violence against the conservative counter protesters: http://oregonionvideo.blogspot.com/2009/05/seiu-obama-stimulus-corruption.html. While showing you the respect of checking your sources, I found the following "News Headlines" along the side: Now, let's see....we have the loyalty pledge, we have the Bipolar thing, and we have the term "Obamunist". Now what was it I said you accused of being lies? I believe it was that your chosen website to cite on your claim said that Obama was bi-polar. sought loyalty oaths and used the term "Obamunist". So far I seem to be three for three.
In the same posting listing your citations, you posted this link:
http://www.collarchat.com/m_2745790/mpage_6/key_seiu/tm.htm#2748484
On inspection of this site's homepage, I found this headline
Obama’s Friends ‘Out’ the Death Panels
by Jennifer Rubin
These aren't links I made up. This isn't ridicule and mockery. This is simple rip and read. Given your challenge above, I would be tempted to challenge you to show any of these citations of the sort of reportage that these two sites provide false or "apologize like the man you claim to be".
I could go on and on pointing out cut and paste examples of the caliber of sites you choose to cite as authorities but if these aren't enough to back up the fact that these aren't enough to point out a) that these sites said exactly what I claimed they did and b) that they do not lead to the level of credibility enjoyed even by such organizations as Fox News, nothing will.
So let's get to the next topic of discussion:
quote:
Play ball, or go fish. I had believed that it was possible that you were a person with enough intelligence and honor to be able to discuss and debate, once you realized that I don't fall for your tricks. To me, this post is a watershed, in painting you as nothing more than a dyed-in-the-wool partisan
Again let me quote you: quote:
Firm"But suppose that Bush and Cheney attempted something like this in order to "build support for important issues of the day, such as the fight against terrorist and the war in Iraq".
Couldn't you just hear the screams all across the land, in almost every newspaper, and on every television station?
DailyKos would have gone ballistic"?
I would suggest your seeming inability to bring up any subject without the twin themes of "Obama is bad" and "Bush/Cheny was so picked on by your liberals and the MSM (main stream media for those don't spend their time on sites claiming Obama is the anti-Christ) makes your charges of my being partisan at the very least a case of the pot calling the kettle "a cooking utensil of color"
As long as you continue to use as citations far right, agenda driven, conspiracy theory shouting sources that are not worth the time it takes to click them off the screen, I'm going to feel free to point them out. When I cite an article about, say, the conservatives trying to block healthcare reform purely to see Obama fail so they can regain power, look at my citations. If the associated content includes things like "Republicans make secret deal to allow Panamanian drug lords to sell legal heroin in public schools in exchange for promise to assassinate Obama", I will understand completely if someone does the same to me.
.
quote:
Please prove me wrong.
On anything.
Firm
Please review the above citations. You have been proved wrong. Truth is the best and absolute defense against charges of defamation.
< Message edited by SpinnerofTales -- 9/9/2009 4:46:10 PM >
|
RE: Federal Propaganda Ministry? - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread