What Makes People Vote Republican?

Post Reply New Topic

@ Ace of Spades

A Saul Allinsky style attack is where someone can't win on the merits and instead tries to win by charecter assassination of the person they are debating in an attempt to isolate that individual. They continue to do this in an attempt to get people to think that the victim of the attacks has no credibility, much like the many sites all funded by the same sources attempt to do to Glenn Beck. Thing is the left got caught doing it when journ'O'list was discovered by the Daily Caller if I remember correctly. They were coordinating smear attacks against Palin. Yeah, I am saying they were coming up with anything they could negative, whether it was true or not (more often it wasn't true) and how they could report it to best demonize her. Thing is one of their members leaked it or got sloppy and it ended up in the hands of the Daily Caller which published the thing.

Places like huffington post, politico, etc. all had "reporters" that were members of that site and those people all still work for those agencies. Which tells you something of their credibility.

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

Looking to be the new fad label in PPR...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignoratio_ ... ed_herring

Alinsky described his plans in 1972 to begin to organize the White middle class across America, and the necessity of that project. He believed that what President Richard Nixon and Vice-President Spiro Agnew called "The Silent Majority" was living in frustration and despair, worried about their future, and ripe for a turn to radical social change, to become politically-active citizens. He feared the middle class could be driven to a right-wing viewpoint, "making them ripe for the plucking by some guy on horseback promising a return to the vanished verities of yesterday." His stated motive: "I love this goddamn country, and we're going to take it back."


Sounds like a stand up kind of guy. Dunno why anyone would have something against him.


Also impressive how he predicted the coming of Dubya.

He favored the miserable Poor over the productive Rich. Alinsky was an egalitarian, the worst sort of human possible. To see my point, study the legend of Procrustes.

If the likes of Alinsky succeed the knuckle dragging proles would have looted the property of their betters.

I think the workers are revolting. Do you agree?

ruveyn

I see unrealized potential encouraged to remain undiscovered.

No law prevents them for succeeding.

ruveyn

You know you can try to succeed or you can just sit there and whine about people trying to keep you down when the only person keeping you down is yourself.

"No law prevents them..." If people are, in a society of total abundance, told that they must occupy themselves with bare survival just so some plutocracy can have enough filthy lucre to buy the government and subvert the constitution, then laws certainly are preventing them. Not everyone can accept a stacked deck - and the loss of their contribution is a loss to all. You may wag your fingers as these people for not being "strong" enough to overcome the obstacles put in their place and that they deserve their fate but wider society also will not make use of their contributions. More inefficiency just so a bunch of fat cats can have enough money to commit treason.

@ xenon13
There isn't a total abundence in society, and even if there was, it wouldn't be sustainable unless people kept working.

I hate to break this to you but the socialist welfare nanny state that you worship is not sustainable.

Oh, but there is. You right wing people are pretending that we're Europe circa 1315 on the brink of the Great Famine. It's not true! There's no need to throw people overboard to survive. Economist Michael Hudson likes to mention how if someone from our time was to go back to 1945 and tell them of our technological advances, they'd conclude that we'd all be living lives of leisure. They wouldn't believe that people have to work two or three jobs and have two income families and struggle like they are as there's a massive Reserve Army of Labour. Futurists actually believed that the rich would reach a point of saturation where they'd be see themselves as set and not try to grab any more. What they forgot was that they want power and that money they grab is done to take power and usurp power from sovereign authorities, capturing government and setting up tyranny in the name of freedom!

@xenon13

If that were the case Andrew Carnegie would never have spent so much for local libraries.

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

Oh he also started out dirt poor.

There goes your theory that the rich are evil.

Do you have anyone in the last 10 years who was born dirt poor?

Another time, another place, different technologies and availabilities.

Quit living in the past like as if 1900 is the same as 2010.

It is relevant because it completely and utterly destroys xenon13's and your worldview. Here is a rich guy helping people by giving them the means to become educated, so that they can pull themselves up out of poverty. You can attempt to dismiss it all you want, but a capitalist donated his money to libraries so that the poor could learn to read and end up getting out of poverty on their own.

The rich aren't out to keep people poor, it is just another lie made by liberal progressives in an attempt to promote class warfare.

Indeed. These days it takes money to make money.

Uh then how did Bill Gates manage to become one of the wealthiest men on the planet?

Oh it also looks like George W. Bush has been vindicated thanks to wikileaks.

You seem to be ignoring my question in another thread, so I will post it here. Inuyasha, do you think it is right or fair that there is a much greater gap between the super rich and the rest of society than at any other time in human history (several orders of magnitude bigger, we're talking exponential here), and that this gap is getting bigger? What do you think is causing this gap if not for the super rich using their gains to make it even bigger by buying governments and rewriting laws to favor themselves at the expense of everyone and everything else? And how is it ethically possible for anyone first of all to get that much wealth and then secondly to use it for those purposes? If any of the reasons for your political beliefs are religious, specifically Christian, how do you reconcile your political beliefs favoring the rich with what Jesus said about rich people?