IWETHEY v. 0.3.0 | TODO
1,095 registered users | 0 active users | 0 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User
IWETHEY Banner

Welcome to IWETHEY!

IWETHEY Home / IWETHEY Board / Politics Forum / If that were true . . .
Post #305,115
by Andrew Grygus
Picture of Andrew Grygus
3/4/09 9:19:02 PM
Reply
New If that were true . . .
. . rabble rousers would be out of business.

The listeners have the power to vote. By skillfully playing to his audience the rabble rouser has power over them, and directs their vote. He has this power over them because they have given it to him - in return for freedom from having to think for themselves. They become his surrogates.

Humans are semi-pack animals and a majority of them are looking for a leader to follow - rather few are leaders, perhaps a few more are independents. If this were not so Hitler would have remained a paper hanger.
Post #305,116
by Ashton
3/4/09 9:48:46 PM
Reply
New Amenuensis.
The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.
-- H.L. Mencken
Post #305,118
by beepster
3/4/09 10:11:40 PM
Reply
New And again...
if Rush had that true power over Republicans...McCain would never have been the candidate for President. Rush tried very hard...but gee...he didn't make a difference.


I will choose a path that's clear. I will choose freewill.
Post #305,124
by Andrew Grygus
Picture of Andrew Grygus
3/5/09 12:06:28 AM
Reply
New For that argument to be valid . . .
. . you have to show viable alternatives supported by Rush. If there are no truly viable alternatives it doesn't matter what anyone says, regardless of their power - and I seem to recall the Republican primary field was a basket of losers. At least Mc Cain had some name recognition.
     I'm sorry, Rush. - (Silverlock) - (34) - March 4, 2009, 08:07:46 AM EST
         remember McCarthy? - (boxley) - (33) - March 4, 2009, 08:49:52 AM EST
             This is all a game - (beepster) - (32) - March 4, 2009, 09:58:45 AM EST
                 Ya know - (jake123) - (5) - March 4, 2009, 10:07:06 AM EST
                     face it Jake if it wasnt for hnic no one would voluntarily - (boxley) - (1) - March 4, 2009, 10:18:51 AM EST
                         I'd have to disagree with that - (jake123) - March 5, 2009, 10:17:28 AM EST
                     So when the US Gov't takes over all radio stations - (beepster) - (2) - March 4, 2009, 10:46:01 AM EST
                         Some places they de-facto do - (mhuber) - (1) - March 4, 2009, 01:05:41 PM EST
                             Just cut it out - (beepster) - March 4, 2009, 01:41:32 PM EST
                 No - (drook) - (19) - March 4, 2009, 10:47:25 AM EST
                     So don't vote for them. - (beepster) - (18) - March 4, 2009, 11:05:28 AM EST
                         He has the power given to him by the Republicans. HTH. -NT - (Another Scott) - (17) - March 4, 2009, 11:42:12 AM EST
                             They're not doing it. - (beepster) - (16) - March 4, 2009, 01:45:52 PM EST
                                 There weren't too many Democrats at CPAC. - (Another Scott) - (15) - March 4, 2009, 02:22:12 PM EST
                                     No I'm not (and d'uh ^^) - (beepster) - (7) - March 4, 2009, 03:20:45 PM EST
                                         Yes you are - (drook) - (6) - March 4, 2009, 03:30:44 PM EST
                                             BS. Pure and simple - (beepster) - (5) - March 4, 2009, 03:36:33 PM EST
                                                 I'm not talking about the campaign - (drook) - (4) - March 4, 2009, 03:45:12 PM EST
                                                     Why is that such a big deal? - (beepster) - (2) - March 4, 2009, 05:24:08 PM EST
                                                         You seem to be missing the point. - (Another Scott) - (1) - March 4, 2009, 07:38:48 PM EST
                                                             I'm missing that poiint? - (beepster) - March 4, 2009, 10:13:30 PM EST
                                                     And lets look at that apology being spun - (beepster) - March 4, 2009, 05:58:43 PM EST
                                     ..nor Father Coughlan; in the '30's: Our Rwanda propagandist - (Ashton) - (6) - March 4, 2009, 03:29:13 PM EST
                                         Aren't I the one oft accused of falling for the ploy du jour - (beepster) - (5) - March 4, 2009, 03:32:06 PM EST
                                             No one thinks you're dumb enough to fall for it - (drook) - (4) - March 4, 2009, 03:34:34 PM EST
                                                 Me repeating it? - (beepster) - (3) - March 4, 2009, 03:38:48 PM EST
                                                     Was referring to the "frequently accused" line - (drook) - (2) - March 4, 2009, 03:45:01 PM EST
                                                         (Surely you've known for years.. - (Ashton) - March 4, 2009, 03:56:10 PM EST
                                                         What Republican ploy would that be? - (beepster) - March 4, 2009, 05:26:34 PM EST
                 And by the way ... - (drook) - (5) - March 4, 2009, 03:48:20 PM EST
                     They have an option. - (beepster) - (4) - March 4, 2009, 05:31:08 PM EST
                         If that were true . . . - (Andrew Grygus) - (3) - March 4, 2009, 09:19:02 PM EST
                             Amenuensis. -NT - (Ashton) - March 4, 2009, 09:48:46 PM EST
                             And again... - (beepster) - (1) - March 4, 2009, 10:11:40 PM EST
                                 For that argument to be valid . . . - (Andrew Grygus) - March 5, 2009, 12:06:28 AM EST

Just the facts, ma'am.
47 ms