How to Talk Right - Lesson #1 The Right Vocabulary

[Joel W.]

ONCE AGAIN, you have no proof that libs do not use these tactics.

The proof is in the words used often on this site by the right., See the root of all evil thread, the global warming thread, proof of concept thread, the what to do about Iraq thread for proof of these facts..

I am not ignorant, especially in comparison to you, thus that is not what I was apologizing for. I was apologizing that I had to shatter your wet dream that libs are perfect and that they have come to save the world from W, or whatever the hell you may believe about your mixed up party.

I am not saying all liberals are good people, but most do not use these evil tactics...

And I personally doubt I will have any problem understanding what you say, but I can't imagine agreeing with it if it is the same kind of shit you've posted above.

Again, read those previously mentioned threads, the proof is in the pudding..:icon_razz

Anyway, I don't have time to waste in a pointless, onesided flamewar when you ignore the fact that the other side blatantly does the same thing. If it is within your capability to bring anything meaningful to this thread, PM me and I'll come back and read it. But for now, this thread is pointless. I'm out.

ok, bye bye then...

 

[Supracentral]

That's a lot of bullshit to come up with a way to speak.

How about we cut through all the rhetoric and narrow it all down a bit?

Liberals favor government action to promote equality.
Conservatives favor government action to promote order.

How about trying "as much liberty as possible" and "as little government as necessary" on for size?

It's a philosophy that allows everyone to live without a need for 101 page guides on "how to speak bullshit".

You know, a different approach since both current mainstream parties seem to have lost their way?

 

[Joel W.]

Yes, it is a lot of bullshit, but it is also very effective in manipulating people..

Here is more info on that Newt Memo
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article4443.htm
http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=0094LY
http://www.subgenius.com/bigfist/FIST2004-1/feb2005/x/LanguageXAKeyMechanismofControl.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newt_Gingrich


A major part of Gingrich's legacy as a politician has been in achieving the effective use of language and the news media to further political goals.

Gingrich took the chair of the Republican political action committee GOPAC in 1986 and transformed it into an effective vehicle for electing conservative candidates to office. This was accomplished in significant part by establishing and promoting a consistent language and theme for use by Republicans at all electoral levels. This theme, in Gingrich's own words, was that of "a conservative opportunity society replacing the liberal welfare state", emphasizing "workfare over welfare" and promoting the idea that "we are the majority". GOPAC training tapes containing advice on "Newtspeak" were sent out to rising GOP political candidates throughout the country.

Similarly, GOPAC distributed a memo to freshman Republican House members. Entitled "Language: A Key Mechanism of Control," it listed a number of "optimistic positive governing words" that candidates could use when campaigning in order to "speak like Newt," (movement, opportunity, passionate, e.g.) and a parallel list of contrasting words, such as "bureaucracy, cheat, coercion, etc.," which it advised the candidate to apply to their "opponent, their record, proposals and their party."[11][12]

At the start of the Republican Revolution, Gingrich and GOPAC's efforts had succeeded in dictating the theme of national political debate at the time.

 

[rakkasan]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Gingrich resign almost ten years ago? If so, what does this have to do with the cost of tea in China? Does this mean that Nixon's past can be brought up as well?

This whole thread just seems to be a waste, but maybe I'm missing something...

 

[Facime]

Except for the fact that liberals in that sense don't exist. The same for true conservatives. What you have today is liberal, democrat and leftist being synonamous to each other. With a straight face and a sincere heart, look at Hilary Clinton , Howard Dean, John Kerry, Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, Bill Clinton, Al Gore, Joe Biden... (the list goes on) and tell me that the above defines them

I never said it defines "THEM", I said it defines me...so liberals that fit that description DO exist...Im living proof of it.

what I wa trying to say is that both sides of the arguement throw out labels as though they were insults. Im only saying that, on me, the insult is lost.

 

[Joel W.]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Gingrich resign almost ten years ago? If so, what does this have to do with the cost of tea in China? Does this mean that Nixon's past can be brought up as well?

This whole thread just seems to be a waste, but maybe I'm missing something...

Yes he did, but the tactics he designed in that memo are still in use today, even on this forum... Not many people realize this... The point of the thread is to show that anytime someone disagrees with Bush, it does not make that person "Un-American" like I have been referred too many times in here by Adjuster and his "Newtspeak" tactics..

It's your time, use it how you want to...

 

[rakkasan]

Yes he did, but the tactics he designed in that memo are still in use today, even on this forum... Not many people realize this... The point of the thread is to show that anytime someone disagrees with Bush, it does not make that person "Un-American" like I have been referred too many times in here by Adjuster and his "Newtspeak" tactics..

It's your time, use it how you want to...

Both side do it, it's called politics. Frankly, I'm tired of it...

 

[Joel W.]

Both side do it, it's called politics. Frankly, I'm tired of it...

I do not "do it".. You are wrong here..

Bye bye..

To disagree with the president is un-American.

To oppose the president’s decision to invade Iraq is un-American.

To point out flaws in the administration’s intelligence reports is un-American.

To ask the president or his administration to provide evidence for their claims is un-American.

To question the president’s war record is un-American.

To insist on a separation of church and state is un-American.

To advocate gun control is un-American.

To ask where the money went is un-American

To question why the president has spent 20 percent of his term in office on vacation is un-American.

To show photographs of coffins containing soldiers who died removing weapons of mass destruction from a country that had no weapons of mass destruction is un-American.

To go back and quote what the administration said before is un-American.

To call for the firing of a right-talking senior advisor just because he revealed the name of a CIA operative in a right-talking effort to squash opposition to the right wing is un-American (even if the president once said he would fire anyone caught compromising the integrity of the United States).

To point of pork in bills is un-American.

To refuse to vote for bills the administration wants is un-American.

 

[rakkasan]

I do not "do it".. You are wrong here..

Bye bye..

Huh? Am I kicked out of the thread or something?

I'm not wrong, both PARTIES do it. I didn't say the people did....

 

[Joel W.]

Huh? Am I kicked out of the thread or something?

I'm not wrong, both PARTIES do it. I didn't say the people did....

Not at all. Your always welcome, It just sounded like you were leaving...

 

[rakkasan]

Not at all. Your always welcome, It just sounded like you were leaving...

I said I'm tired of it, meaning I'm tired of having to vote for someone from the two most ineffective groups of self serving shit heads ever assembled. I'm tired of the finger pointing, name calling, back stabbing, feather ruffling, et al. Just give me someone that cares about what he does for me and not what he can do for himself, and I'll be content.

 

[Joel W.]

I said I'm tired of it, meaning I'm tired of having to vote for someone from the two most ineffective groups of self serving shit heads ever assembled. I'm tired of the finger pointing, name calling, back stabbing, feather ruffling, et al. Just give me someone that cares about what he does for me and not what he can do for himself, and I'll be content.

Sorry, my bad. I misunderstood you..The people are getting tired also and his time is almost up...I hope he goes to jail for his crimes..

 

[Supracentral]

I said I'm tired of it, meaning I'm tired of having to vote for someone from the two most ineffective groups of self serving shit heads ever assembled. I'm tired of the finger pointing, name calling, back stabbing, feather ruffling, et al. Just give me someone that cares about what he does for me and not what he can do for himself, and I'll be content.

http://www.lp.org/article_85.shtml

 

[Joel W.]

I wish a third party could be elected, but it will not happen. We just need a good democrat that does not act like Hillary Clinton to run for office and all will be well again...

 

[JustAnotherVictim]

I said I'm tired of it, meaning I'm tired of having to vote for someone from the two most ineffective groups of self serving shit heads ever assembled. I'm tired of the finger pointing, name calling, back stabbing, feather ruffling, et al. Just give me someone that cares about what he does for me and not what he can do for himself, and I'll be content.

That is truth.

http://www.lp.org/article_85.shtml

:biglaugh:

 

[Supracentral]

I wish a third party could be elected, but it will not happen. We just need a good democrat that does not act like Hillary Clinton to run for office and all will be well again...

Listen, I know where this conversation goes.

Eventually someone says "well a 3rd party can't win, so every vote for them is wasted..."

I call bullshit.

Every vote for a Democrat OR a Republican is wasted. They are both going to fuck you over.

At least vote for someone you believe in, then at least you tried. And I'm not saying vote for the LP candidate (although I think it's the right one, it's your choice), vote for one of Nick's Constitution folks if you like, or someone else who maches your beliefs better. Just get these existing jackasses out.

If we all do that, you might be suprised who gets elected.

 

[Nick M]

My votes have very little to do with political promises, and much more to do with political history.

I wish a third party could be elected, but it will not happen. We just need a good democrat that does not act like Hillary Clinton to run for office and all will be well again...

The DNC was hijacked by the far left. The days of JFK and Harry Truman are long gone. Those people are now in the Republican party, posing as conservatives.

 

[SupraDerk]

Here is the full link from Wiki and not just that one skewed paragraph...:icon_razz No spin for you..

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

Liberalism is an ideology, philosophical view, and political tradition which holds that liberty is the primary political value.[1] Liberalism has its roots in the Western Enlightenment, but the term now encompasses a diversity of political thought.

Broadly speaking, contemporary liberalism emphasizes individual rights. It seeks a society characterized by freedom of thought for individuals, limitations on power, especially of government and religion, the rule of law, free public education, the free exchange of ideas, a market economy that supports relatively free private enterprise, and a transparent system of government in which the rights of all citizens are protected. [2] In modern society, liberals favor a liberal democracy with open and fair elections, where all citizens have equal rights by law and an equal opportunity to succeed[3].

Many liberals advocate a greater degree of government interference in the free market, often in the form of anti-discrimination laws, civil service examinations, universal education, and progressive taxation. This philosophy frequently extends to a belief that the government should provide for a degree of general welfare, including the dole for the poor, housing for the homeless, and medical care for the sick. Such publicly-funded initiatives and interferences in the market are rejected by modern advocates of classical liberalism, which emphasizes free private enterprise, individual property rights and freedom of contract; classical liberals hold that economic inequality, as arising naturally from competition in the free market, does not justify the violation of private property rights. However, modern advocates of classical liberalism do advocate a heavier taxation on the corporation, as opposed to the current trend of the burden of income tax resting on the shoulders of the individual worker, as did the early classical liberals.

Liberalism rejected many foundational assumptions which dominated most earlier theories of government, such as the Divine Right of Kings, hereditary status, and established religion. Fundamental human rights that all liberals support include the right to life, liberty, and property. Liberalism has its roots in the Western Enlightenment, but the term now encompasses a diversity of political thought, with adherents spanning a large part of the political spectrum.

Liberals are the ones who created this country you love so much...

And how was my paragraph skewed? And that is not the link I got from wiki. I would kindly like to ask you to not speak FOR me. Here is the link: Leftist

Oh what's the very first paragraph you see there?? It's the one I quoted...in no way shape or form skewed.


And anyway, my point was that you can't use the term "liberal" defined in it's cute fluffy puppy way and then define conservatives as right wing. If you are going to call conservatives right wing, then the only fair comparisson is to call liberals left wing...in which case you have a philosophy that is NOT open minded, that does NOT tolerate their opponent's opinions, and that IS narrow or contracted in mind

 

[Joel W.]

I agree with you Mike, It just seems to be the case when it comes to US politics..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_party_(United_States)

Third parties in the United States are secondary political parties that participate in national and state elections. Historically, America has a two-party system. Some have suggested the Electoral College with its "winner take all" award of electors in Presidential elections has, over time, created the two-party system. Another contributing factor is the division of the government into three separate branches which differs from the parliamentary system.



Although third parties rarely win elections, they play an important role in democratic government. Third parties draw attention to issues that may be ignored by the majority parties. If the issue finds resonance with the voter, one or more of the major parties may adopt the issue into its own party platform. Also a third party may be used by the voter to cast a protest vote as if in a referendum on an important issue. Third parties also helps voter turnout by bringing more people to the polls.


Other obstacles to success by third parties in the U.S.
Aside from the mechanics of winner-take-all, the Electoral College, and the use of primaries, third parties are hampered by restrictive ballot access laws that force them to spend the bulk of their resources just to get on the ballot. Such obstacles include the requirement in several states that third party candidates obtain thousands of signatures of registered voters in order to get their candidates listed on the ballot. If they manage to get on the ballot, third party candidates are often not allowed. Socialist Party leader Morris Hillquist said in 1910 that America's presidential system has a role in hurting third party chances even further down the ticket.

In the United States the ticket handed to the voter contains the names not only of candidates for state legislature or congress, but also for all local and state officers and even for President of the United States. And since the new party rarely seems to have the chance or prospect of electing its candidate for governor of a state or president of the country, the voter is inclined in advance to consider its entire ticket as hopeless.

The fear of 'throwing away' the vote is thus a peculiar product of American politics, and it requires a voter of exceptional strength of conviction to overcome." (Ibid 202) Because of the difficulties third parties face in gaining any representation, third parties tend to exist to promote a specific issue or personality, often an issue which either or both of the major parties may eventually end up co-opting.

As a counterexample, H. Ross Perot eventually founded a third party, the Reform Party, but he apparently intended it to exist solely as a vehicle to support himself and his agenda and never intended it to field any Congressional or Governatorial candidates.

In 1912, Theodore Roosevelt made a spirited run for the presidency on the Progressive Party ticket, but he never made any efforts to help Progressive congressional candidates in 1914, and in 1916 he supported the Republicans. The next third party candidate to win a major portion of the popular vote was independent Ross Perot, who won 18.87% of the popular vote in the 1992 Presidential election.

There have been few third party governors in the past few decades. The last was Jesse Ventura, a member of the Reform Party and later the Minnesota Independence Party, who governed Minnesota from 1999-2003.

 

[Joel W.]

And how was my paragraph skewed? And that is not the link I got from wiki. I would kindly like to ask you to not speak FOR me. Here is the link: Leftist

It was skewed because you typed in "left wing + liberal" for the definition of "liberal".. :dunno:. I was not putting words in your mouth, but I was clearifying the true definition of liberal for you..

Left wing.. WTF was that for??

And anyway, my point was that you can't use the term "liberal" defined in it's cute fluffy puppy way and then define conservatives as right wing. If you are going to call conservatives right wing, then the only fair comparisson is to call liberals left wing...in which case you have a philosophy that is NOT open minded, that does NOT tolerate their opponent's opinions, and that IS narrow or contracted in mind

Hillary Clinton is a left wing liberal...imo..