Liberals/Progressives do not allow open debate against their false views

Remarkable inside view of the debate scene and how the Progressives refuse to be debated. They instead set up situations which only make them look good.

reply to post by FreeMason


Oh come on.....
Dont' both sides do the same thing?

reply to post by FreeMason


You might not realize it but you just proved the opposite of your intended point. Rather forcefully I might add.

Most folks want to hear something confirming their own biases. Intellectually dishonest pandering really. is that still a surprise?

Maybe you should look up some of the words before you step in it again. Unless you think dictionary.com is a liberal conspiracy funded by George Soros.

progressive
Liberal
Conservative

InverseLookingGlass
reply to post by FreeMason

 

You might not realize it but you just proved the opposite of your intended point. Rather forcefully I might add.

Most folks want to hear something confirming their own biases. Intellectually dishonest pandering really. is that still a surprise?

Maybe you should look up some of the words before you step in it again. Unless you think dictionary.com is a liberal conspiracy funded by George Soros.

progressive
Liberal
Conservative

So you mean the self proclaimed liberals arent reallly progressives after all?

Your post is substanceless and has nothing to do with the accusations made.

grey580
reply to post by FreeMason

 

Oh come on.....
Dont' both sides do the same thing?

Well no, Monckton isnt aafraid to debate anyone. But yhe other sside is.

Most "progressives" I know do not want to be bothered by little things such as facts. No matter the actual topic, most use the standard tactics such as race, outdated constitution, and other playground basics. I get the fact that advancement and more knowledge improves the world, but most use manifesto guidelines that history shows to be failures, but do not see what is in plain sight....

reply to post by FreeMason


There is Alinsky's Rules for Radicals
You are addressing rules two and three. Fighting fair has never been the objective.

...Some of these rules are ruthless, but they work. Here are the rules to be aware of:

RULE 1: "Power is not only what you have, but what the enemy thinks you have." Power is derived from 2 main sources - money and people. "Have-Nots" must build power from flesh and blood. (These are two things of which there is a plentiful supply. Government and corporations always have a difficult time appealing to people, and usually do so almost exclusively with economic arguments.)

RULE 2: "Never go outside the expertise of your people." It results in confusion, fear and retreat. Feeling secure adds to the backbone of anyone. (Organizations under attack wonder why radicals don't address the "real" issues. This is why. They avoid things with which they have no knowledge.)

RULE 3: "Whenever possible, go outside the expertise of the enemy." Look for ways to increase insecurity, anxiety and uncertainty. (This happens all the time. Watch how many organizations under attack are blind-sided by seemingly irrelevant arguments that they are then forced to address.)

RULE 4: "Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules." If the rule is that every letter gets a reply, send 30,000 letters. You can kill them with this because no one can possibly obey all of their own rules. (This is a serious rule. The besieged entity's very credibility and reputation is at stake, because if activists catch it lying or not living up to its commitments, they can continue to chip away at the damage.)

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. (Pretty crude, rude and mean, huh? They want to create anger and fear.)

RULE 6: "A good tactic is one your people enjoy." They'll keep doing it without urging and come back to do more. They're doing their thing, and will even suggest better ones. (Radical activists, in this sense, are no different that any other human being. We all avoid "un-fun" activities, and but we revel at and enjoy the ones that work and bring results.)

RULE 7: "A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag." Don't become old news. (Even radical activists get bored. So to keep them excited and involved, organizers are constantly coming up with new tactics.)

RULE 8: "Keep the pressure on. Never let up." Keep trying new things to keep the opposition off balance. As the opposition masters one approach, hit them from the flank with something new. (Attack, attack, attack from all sides, never giving the reeling organization a chance to rest, regroup, recover and re-strategize.)

RULE 9: "The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself." Imagination and ego can dream up many more consequences than any activist. (Perception is reality. Large organizations always prepare a worst-case scenario, something that may be furthest from the activists' minds. The upshot is that the organization will expend enormous time and energy, creating in its own collective mind the direst of conclusions. The possibilities can easily poison the mind and result in demoralization.)

RULE 10: "If you push a negative hard enough, it will push through and become a positive." Violence from the other side can win the public to your side because the public sympathizes with the underdog. (Unions used this tactic. Peaceful [albeit loud] demonstrations during the heyday of unions in the early to mid-20th Century incurred management's wrath, often in the form of violence that eventually brought public sympathy to their side.)

RULE 11: "The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative." Never let the enemy score points because you're caught without a solution to the problem. (Old saw: If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem. Activist organizations have an agenda, and their strategy is to hold a place at the table, to be given a forum to wield their power. So, they have to have a compromise solution.)

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. (This is cruel, but very effective. Direct, personalized criticism and ridicule works.)...

reply to post by FreeMason


American farmers found the USDA employing [the] Delphi Technique

...I believe it must come something of a surprise to find out not only did we read the bills, we printed them off…went over them line by line and realized NAIS, Premises ID and the fake food safety bills were nothing less than a coup meant to destroy and overtake the agricultural system in the US, replacing it with corporate industrialized farming and concentrated animal operations. We aren't about to let that happen.

As with any unelected bureaucracy, USDA decided all on its own that NAIS, Premises ID was a done deal. Oh! The arrogance of these little agency dictators in waiting

To make sure (they thought) they could limit the commenting, limit the statements and prevent most of the audience from participating at all the USDA employs the Delphi Technique. This is the technique of dividing and conquering. Simply put, every one who attended the [sic] Harrisburg meeting was handed a folder with a colored dot on it. When the break-out sessions started……anyone attending was more than likely separated from those they came with and sent to a room with a corresponding color coding.

The break-out sessions are nothing more than the Delphi Technique revisited and a means to divide the attendees and diffuse the conversation. Who ever might be in opposition to the conclusions, policies, or programs the facilitator is advancing is quickly singled out and actively shunned.

The biggest goal of the facilitator is for him/her to be perceived as part of the group. Once this is done, the facilitator asks for ideas and opinions, leading the group carefully to the pre-determined conclusions and leaving them believing it was all their idea. Only it didn't work this time. The farmers and ranchers, the cattlemen and horse people stood their ground. The only people shunned and shut out of the meetings were the facilitators.

It would seem we are not all quite as stupid as the USDA wants to believe we are...

Of Course the International Ag Cartel won anyway by putting Animal ID into the Food 'Safety' Modernization Act of 2009.... AFTER they doubled the food borne illnesses in the USA and the bankster controlled media pushed horror stories.
HACCP'S Disconnect From Public Health Concerns

...In several public hearings and during intensive industry training prior to HACCP’s implementation, FSIS personnel described HACCP in the following manner:
* Under the HACCP umbrella, FSIS’ involvement would be “Hands Off”.

* FSIS would no longer police the industry, but the industry must police themselves.

* FSIS would dissolve its previous command and control functions, to which all plants responded “Alleluia!”

* Each plant must write its own HACCP Plan, since no two plants are exactly alike.

* FSIS will not have the authority to tell plants how to write their HACCP Plans. Since national standards would be eliminated, the agency cannot require individual plants to comply with agency standards because under HACCP, one size does not fit all.

The two foundational premises on which HACCP was constructed were (a) prevention and (b) corrective actions to prevent recurrences....

In less than 100 years since the passage of the Federal Meat Inspection Act, USDA unilaterally and voluntarily relinquished much of its congressionally-mandated authority back to the industry. FSIS’ promise to maintain a “Hands Off” non-inspection role in the industry should have raised red flags, but was outweighed by the ostensible advantages garnered from the promised substantial increase in scientific microbiological testing....

This little-known fact, and its timely implementation, quickly revealed that the agency lacked the intestinal fortitude to conduct microbial testing at the large slaughter plants. ...

It is imperative to realize that E.coli and Salmonella are “enteric” bacteria, which by definition means they emanate from within animals’ intestines, and by extension, proliferate on manure-covered hides...

In the ten years America has now endured HACCP, history has shown that FSIS primarily inspects paperwork, while avoiding inspecting meat in this HACCP-deregulated industry. Inspectors who previously monitored meat production lines are now frequently relegated to inspecting paperwork....

Liberal ideas so good, they must be mandatory.

reply to post by FreeMason


Liberals run on conservatives principle, but they always revert back to authoritarian socialism when they get elected. They are fakers.

reply to post by FreeMason


You should post an example. Otherwise all we have is baseless accusations from an untrustworthy source.

Also try not to turn this thread into preaching about your religion, like all the other threads.

No one likes to have their ideology or so-called "facts" debated or refuted. This applies to everyone.....liberal, progressive, conservative or neo-conservative. Some just take it better than others and that is based on the individual.

This thread and some of the responses show us that some people are not interested in constructive debate. Instead they are interested in continuing the rhetoric, generalizing and dissemination of propaganda from their side of the political spectrum.

It's so sad that many on the right point fingers at the left....and fail to see that what they do is just as bad as that which they blame the liberals for.