Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Delphi Technique, what it is and how to counter it
TCOT Action Projects ^ | March 6th, 2009 | Jenny Hatch

Posted on 03/06/2009 6:55:10 AM PST by Jenny Hatch

I just wanted to make everyone aware of the Delphi Technique. It is a Consensus and Facilitation technique that keeps those who are unaware of how it works from being effective political activists. For those who are just beginning as politically active conservatives, mastering the countering techniques will help us be much more effective as we move against the Marxists who have overtaken our government.

(Excerpt) Read more at tcotprojects.ning.com ...


TOPICS: Government
KEYWORDS: delphi; democrats; party; tea; teaparty; technique
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-124 next last
The post contains many links and the complete text of how to deal with the Delphi Technique. Shared to help the Tea Party organizers understand how to counter the "Community Organizers" in their home states.

Jen

1 posted on 03/06/2009 6:55:11 AM PST by Jenny Hatch
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Jenny Hatch

site requires a login, how about posting the info here?


2 posted on 03/06/2009 6:58:13 AM PST by henry_reardon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jenny Hatch

You need a password to get in.


3 posted on 03/06/2009 6:58:16 AM PST by MeanWestTexan (Beware Obama's Reichstag Fire.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jenny Hatch
That site requires registration which I'm sure most don't want to do so here is the article that is all over blog postings about it

Using the Delphi Technique to Achieve Consensus
How it is leading us away from representative government to an illusion of citizen participation

The Delphi Technique and consensus building are both founded in the same principle - the Hegelian dialectic of thesis, antithesis, and synthesis, with synthesis becoming the new thesis. The goal is a continual evolution to "oneness of mind" (consensus means solidarity of belief) -the collective mind, the wholistic society, the wholistic earth, etc. In thesis and antithesis, opinions or views are presented on a subject to establish views and opposing views. In synthesis, opposites are brought together to form the new thesis. All participants in the process are then to accept ownership of the new thesis and support it, changing their views to align with the new thesis. Through a continual process of evolution, "oneness of mind" will supposedly occur.

In group settings, the Delphi Technique is an unethical method of achieving consensus on controversial topics. It requires well-trained professionals, known as "facilitators" or "change agents," who deliberately escalate tension among group members, pitting one faction against another to make a preordained viewpoint appear "sensible," while making opposing views appear ridiculous.

In her book Educating for the New World Order, author and educator Beverly Eakman makes numerous references to the need of those in power to preserve the illusion that there is "community participation in decision-making processes, while in fact lay citizens are being squeezed out."

The setting or type of group is immaterial for the success of the technique. The point is that, when people are in groups that tend to share a particular knowledge base, they display certain identifiable characteristics, known as group dynamics, which allows the facilitator to apply the basic strategy.

The facilitators or change agents encourage each person in a group to express concerns about the programs, projects, or policies in question. They listen attentively, elicit input from group members, form "task forces," urge participants to make lists, and in going through these motions, learn about each member of a group. They are trained to identify the "leaders," the "loud mouths," the "weak or non-committal members," and those who are apt to change sides frequently during an argument.

Suddenly, the amiable facilitators become professional agitators and "devil's advocates." Using the "divide and conquer" principle, they manipulate one opinion against another, making those who are out of step appear "ridiculous, unknowledgeable, inarticulate, or dogmatic." They attempt to anger certain participants, thereby accelerating tensions. The facilitators are well trained in psychological manipulation. They are able to predict the reactions of each member in a group. Individuals in opposition to the desired policy or program will be shut out.

The Delphi Technique works. It is very effective with parents, teachers, school children, and community groups. The "targets" rarely, if ever, realize that they are being manipulated. If they do suspect what is happening, they do not know how to end the process. The facilitator seeks to polarize the group in order to become an accepted member of the group and of the process. The desired idea is then placed on the table and individual opinions are sought during discussion. Soon, associates from the divided group begin to adopt the idea as if it were their own, and they pressure the entire group to accept their proposition.


How the Delphi Technique Works

Consistent use of this technique to control public participation in our political system is causing alarm among people who cherish the form of government established by our Founding Fathers. Efforts in education and other areas have brought the emerging picture into focus.

In the not-too-distant past, the city of Spokane, in Washington state, hired a consultant to the tune of $47,000 to facilitate the direction of city government. This development brought a hue and cry from the local population. The ensuing course of action holds an eerie similarity to what is happening in education reform. A newspaper editorial described how groups of disenfranchised citizens were brought together to "discuss" what they felt needed to be changed at the local government level. A compilation of the outcomes of those "discussions" influenced the writing of the city/county charter.

That sounds innocuous. But what actually happened in Spokane is happening in communities and school districts all across the country. Let's review the process that occurs in these meetings.

First, a facilitator is hired. While his job is supposedly neutral and non-judgmental, the opposite is actually true. The facilitator is there to direct the meeting to a preset conclusion.

The facilitator begins by working the crowd to establish a good-guy-bad-guy scenario. Anyone disagreeing with the facilitator must be made to appear as the bad guy, with the facilitator appearing as the good guy. To accomplish this, the facilitator seeks out those who disagree and makes them look foolish, inept, or aggressive, which sends a clear message to the rest of the audience that, if they don't want the same treatment, they must keep quiet. When the opposition has been identified and alienated, the facilitator becomes the good guy - a friend - and the agenda and direction of the meeting are established without the audience ever realizing what has happened.

Next, the attendees are broken up into smaller groups of seven or eight people. Each group has its own facilitator. The group facilitators steer participants to discuss preset issues, employing the same tactics as the lead facilitator.

Google Ads are provided by Google and are not selected or endorsed by Eagle Forum
Participants are encouraged to put their ideas and disagreements on paper, with the results to be compiled later. Who does the compiling? If you ask participants, you typically hear: "Those running the meeting compiled the results." Oh-h! The next question is: "How do you know that what you wrote on your sheet of paper was incorporated into the final outcome?" The typical answer is: "Well, I've wondered about that, because what I wrote doesn't seem to be reflected. I guess my views were in the minority."

That is the crux of the situation. If 50 people write down their ideas individually, to be compiled later into a final outcome, no one knows what anyone else has written. That the final outcome of such a meeting reflects anyone's input at all is highly questionable, and the same holds true when the facilitator records the group's comments on paper. But participants in these types of meetings usually don't question the process.

Why hold such meetings at all if the outcomes are already established? The answer is because it is imperative for the acceptance of the School-to-Work agenda, or the environmental agenda, or whatever the agenda, that ordinary people assume ownership of the preset outcomes. If people believe an idea is theirs, they'll support it. If they believe an idea is being forced on them, they'll resist.

The Delphi Technique is being used very effectively to change our government from a representative form in which elected individuals represent the people, to a "participatory democracy" in which citizens selected at large are facilitated into ownership of preset outcomes. These citizens believe that their input is important to the result, whereas the reality is that the outcome was already established by people not apparent to the participants.


How to Diffuse the Delphi Technique

Three steps can diffuse the Delphi Technique as facilitators attempt to steer a meeting in a specific direction.

  1. Always be charming, courteous, and pleasant. Smile. Moderate your voice so as not to come across as belligerent or aggressive.

  2. Stay focused. If possible, jot down your thoughts or questions. When facilitators are asked questions they don't want to answer, they often digress from the issue that was raised and try instead to put the questioner on the defensive. Do not fall for this tactic. Courteously bring the facilitator back to your original question. If he rephrases it so that it becomes an accusatory statement (a popular tactic), simply say, "That is not what I asked. What I asked was . . ." and repeat your question.

  3. Be persistent. If putting you on the defensive doesn't work, facilitators often resort to long monologues that drag on for several minutes. During that time, the group usually forgets the question that was asked, which is the intent. Let the facilitator finish. Then with polite persistence state: "But you didn't answer my question. My question was . . ." and repeat your question.

Never become angry under any circumstances. Anger directed at the facilitator will immediately make the facilitator the victim. This defeats the purpose. The goal of facilitators is to make the majority of the group members like them, and to alienate anyone who might pose a threat to the realization of their agenda. People with firm, fixed beliefs, who are not afraid to stand up for what they believe in, are obvious threats. If a participant becomes a victim, the facilitator loses face and favor with the crowd. This is why crowds are broken up into groups of seven or eight, and why objections are written on paper rather than voiced aloud where they can be open to public discussion and debate. It's called crowd control.

At a meeting, have two or three people who know the Delphi Technique dispersed through the crowd so that, when the facilitator digresses from a question, they can stand up and politely say: "But you didn't answer that lady/gentleman's question." Even if the facilitator suspects certain group members are working together, he will not want to alienate the crowd by making accusations. Occasionally, it takes only one incident of this type for the crowd to figure out what's going on.

Establish a plan of action before a meeting. Everyone on your team should know his part. Later, analyze what went right, what went wrong and why, and what needs to happen the next time. Never strategize during a meeting.

A popular tactic of facilitators, if a session is meeting with resistance, is to call a recess. During the recess, the facilitator and his spotters (people who observe the crowd during the course of a meeting) watch the crowd to see who congregates where, especially those who have offered resistance. If the resistors congregate in one place, a spotter will gravitate to that group and join in the conversation, reporting what was said to the facilitator. When the meeting resumes, the facilitator will steer clear of the resistors. Do not congregate. Instead gravitate to where the facilitators or spotters are. Stay away from your team members.

This strategy also works in a face-to-face, one-on-one meeting with anyone trained to use the Delphi Technique.


4 posted on 03/06/2009 7:00:13 AM PST by mnehring
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jenny Hatch

We have lots of facilitators here on FR especially for Global Warming.


5 posted on 03/06/2009 7:03:48 AM PST by facedown (Armed in the Heartland)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mnehrling

‘the Delphi Technique’....also known as Obama White House ‘summits’..’working groups’...etc.


6 posted on 03/06/2009 7:04:58 AM PST by penelopesire ("The only CHANGE you will get with the Democrats is the CHANGE left in your pocket")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: penelopesire

Known as a board meeting in a Dilbert cartoon.


7 posted on 03/06/2009 7:06:40 AM PST by mnehring
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: henry_reardon
I just wanted to make everyone aware of the Delphi Technique. It is a Consensus and Facilitation technique that keeps those who are unaware of how it works from being effective political activists. For those who are just beginning as politically active conservatives, mastering the countering techniques will help us be much more effective as we move against the Marxists who have overtaken our government.

Here are a couple of links:

A Post at Free Republic that shares how the Delphi Technique is being used all over the Obama Administration Web Sites.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/2200435/posts?page=7

About Consensus and Facilitation: http://www.learn-usa.com/transformation_process/~consensus.htm

Restructuring of America: http://www.learn-usa.com/transformation_process/~transformation.htm

Please take a few hours to read through this whole web site to educate yourself. It is the best resource on the web to help educate the next generation of political activists who want to restore freedom. Many of those in power in our government from the lowliest little PTA to all three branches of the federal government have been trained in these "crowd control" measures and we will be more effective if we understand how they work AND how to counter them.

The Delphi Technique — What Is It?

The Delphi Technique was originally conceived as a way to obtain the opinion of experts without necessarily bringing them together face to face. In recent times, however, it has taken on an all new meaning and purpose. In Educating for the New World Order by B. Eakman, the reader finds reference upon reference for the need to preserve the illusion that there is "…lay, or community, participation (in the decision-making process), while lay citizens were, in fact, being squeezed out." The Delphi Technique is the method being used to squeeze citizens out of the process, effecting a left-wing take over of the schools.

A specialized use of this technique was developed for teachers, the "Alinsky Method" (ibid, p.123). The setting or group is, however, immaterial; the point is that people in groups tend to share a certain knowledge base and display certain identifiable characteristics (known as group dynamics). This allows for a special application of a basic technique.

The change agent or facilitator goes through the motions of acting as an organizer, getting each person in the target group to elicit expression of their concerns about a program, project, or policy in question. The facilitator listens attentively, forms "task forces," "urges everyone to make lists," and so on. While s/he is doing this, the facilitator learns something about each member of the target group. S/He identifies the "leaders," the "loud mouths," as well as those who frequently turn sides during the argument — the "weak or noncommittal".

Suddenly, the amiable facilitator becomes "devil's advocate." S/He dons his professional agitator hat. Using the "divide and conquer" technique, s/he manipulates one group opinion against the other. This is accomplished by manipulating those who are out of step to appear "ridiculous, unknowledgeable, inarticulate, or dogmatic." S/He wants certain members of the group to become angry, thereby forcing tensions to accelerate. The facilitator is well trained in psychological manipulation. S/He is able to predict the reactions of each group member. Individuals in opposition to the policy or program will be shut out of the group.

The method works. It is very effective with parents, teachers, school children, and any community group. The "targets" rarely, if ever, know that they are being manipulated. Or, if they suspect this is happening, do not know how to end the process.

The desired result is for group polarization, and for the facilitator to become accepted as a member of the group and group process. S/He will then throw the desired idea on the table and ask for opinions during discussion. Very soon his/her associates from the divided group begin to adopt the idea as if it were their own, and pressure the entire group to accept the proposition.

This technique is a very unethical method of achieving consensus on a controversial topic in group settings. It requires well-trained professionals who deliberately escalate tension among group members, pitting one faction against the other, so as to make one viewpoint appear ridiculous so the other becomes "sensible" whether such is warranted or not.

The Delphi Technique is based on the Hegelian Principle of achieving Oneness of Mind through a three step process of thesis, antithesis, and synthesis. In thesis and antithesis, all present their opinion or views on a given subject, establishing views and opposing views. In synthesis, opposites are brought together to form the new thesis. All participants are then to accept ownership of the new thesis and support it, changing their own views to align with the new thesis. Through a continual process of evolution, Oneness of Mind will supposedly occur.

The theory of the Delphi and the reality of the Delphi are, obviously, quite different — the reality being that Oneness of Mind does not occur but only the illusion of Oneness of Mind with those who refuse to be Delphi'd being alienated from participating in the process.

While proponents of education reform feel they are quite justified in this, the effect of this unethical manipulation of people is to create polarized camps. In an effort to maintain the process, advocates have marketed a plethora of publications (such as What's Left After the Right, No Right Turn and If You Don't, They Will) intended to label, castigate, and alienate anyone who does not go along with them. As a result, parents come to understand that their role in education reform is merely perfunctory; that the outcome is preset, that they are not but the rah-rah team so when opposition does arise, advocates of education reform can say, "we had community input."

To make sure that the situation is controlled, only those parents who agree with the process are allowed on the restructuring teams. New participants are carefully screened to ensure that education reform goes forward unquestioned.

If measurable opposition persists, advocates are told, get the local ministers on board. Take steps to neutralize, by whatever means necessary, the opposition. In some places, opponents have been harassed, both at home and on the job, personal property has been damaged and vandalized, people have lost their jobs. Anyone who does not go along with the restructuring of our society is susceptible to the totalitarian tactics of those promoting education reform – whether it be parents, teachers, principals, superintendents or board members. The need exists for advocates to maintain an iron grip on the process. They cannot, for instance, withstand open public debate of the issues. Therefore, they do not partake in public forums. They cannot withstand the criticism, so they close every avenue for parents to address the issues. They are rapidly creating, through their divisive tactics, a volatile situation. America is being torn apart.

Parents, citizens, teachers, principals, superintendents who are opposed to the new purpose being given our American education system need tools to withstand the process being used to bring it in — against the Delphi Technique and consensus which, through their basis in the Hegelian Principle, have Marxist connections and purposes.

First, no opportunity must be left untaken to expose this unethical, divisive process. Second, when this process is used, it can be disrupted. To do so, however, one must be able to recognize when the Delphi Technique is being used, and how to disrupt it.

The Delphi Technique — How to Disrupt It

Ground rules for disrupting the consensus process (Delphi Technique) — when facilitators want to steer a group in a specific direction.

1) Always Be Charming. Smile, be pleasant, be courteous, moderate your voice so as not to come across as belligerent or aggressive.

2) Stay Focused. If at all possible, write your question down to help you stay focused. Facilitators, when asked questions they don't want to answer, often digress from the issue raised and try to work the conversation around to where they can make the individual asking the question look foolish, feel foolish, appear belligerent or aggressive. The goal is to put the one asking the question on the defensive. Do not fall for this tactic. Always be charming, thus deflecting any insinuation, innuendo, etc, that may be thrown at you in their attempt to put you on the defensive, but bring them back to the question you asked. If they rephrase your question into an accusatory statement (a favorite tactic) simply state, "that is not what I stated, what I asked was… (repeat your question)." Stay focused on your question.

3) Be Persistent. If putting you on the defensive doesn't work, facilitators often resort to long drawn out dissertations on some off-the-wall and usually unrelated, or vaguely related, subject that drags on for several minutes – during which time the crowd or group usually loses focus on the question asked (which is the intent). Let them finish with their dissertation/expose, then nicely, with focus and persistence, state, "but you didn't answer my question. My question was… (repeat your question)."

Remember…

always be charming,

stay focused, and

be persistent.

Never, under any circumstance, become angry. Anger directed at the facilitator will immediately make the facilitator "the victim." This defeats the purpose which is to make you the victim. The goal of the facilitator is to make those they are facilitating like them, alienating anyone who might pose a threat to the realization of their agenda. [People with fixed belief systems, who know what they believe and stand on what they believe, are obvious threats.] If the participant becomes the victim, the facilitator loses face and favor with the crowd. This is why crowds are broken up into groups of seven or eight, why objections are written on cards, not voiced aloud where they are open to public discussion and public debate. It's called crowd control. It is always good to have someone else, or two or three others who know the Delphi Technique dispersed through the crowd; who, when the facilitator digresses from the question, will stand up and say nicely, "but you didn't answer that lady's/gentleman's question." The facilitator, even if suspecting you are together, certainly will not want to alienate the crowd by making that accusation. Sometimes it only takes one occurrence of this type for the crowd to figure out what's going on, sometimes it takes more than one.

If you have an organized group, meet before the meeting to strategize. Everyone should know their part. Meet after the meeting to analyze what went right, what went wrong and why, and what needs to happen the next time around. Never meet during the meeting. One of the favorite tactics of the facilitator, if the meeting is not going the way he/she wants, if he/she is meeting measurable resistance, is to call a recess. During the recess, the facilitator and his/her "spotters" (people who wander the room during the course of the meeting, watching the crowd) watch the crowd to see who congregates where, especially those who have offered measurable resistance. If the "resistors" congregate in one place, a "spotter" will usually gravitate to that group to "join in the conversation" and will report back to the facilitator. When the meeting resumes, the facilitator will steer clear of those who are "resistors." Do not congregate. Hang loose and work the crowd. Move to where the facilitator or "spotters" are, listen to what they have to say, but do not gravitate to where another member of your team is.

This strategy also works in a face to face, one on one, meeting with anyone who has been trained in how to use the Delphi Technique.

What American Citizens Need to Know About Consensus and Facilitation

Your local newspaper publishes a notice that a meeting will be held one night next week to solicit input from the community regarding a proposed plan for community development. Being a civic minded individual, believing that community involvement is very important to the health of the community, you mark the date on your calendar and make a mental note to hold that night free of other commitments that you might attend this meeting to give your input.

The next day you call the number noted in the announcement and ask to obtain a copy of the proposed plan for community development, that you might read it before the scheduled meeting date. You are told that the proposed plan is still at the printers but will be available at the door. On the prescribed night you arrive at the meeting, a little early as is your custom. You are greeted at the door by an individual who hands you an agenda and the proposed new plan for community development heretofore unavailable. You find the agenda rather odd; you were under the impression that this was a public meeting. What you envision is what has always been — a panel of individuals at the front of the room, with one or two microphones positioned in the aisles where individuals from the audience may voice their comments or opinions.

As you enter the room, you are further amazed by the setup. There are no tables and chairs for the panel at the front of the room, there is but one microphone positioned beside a podium at the front of the room, lecture style. Further, the room is filled with tables — round tables, with six to eight chairs around each table. For an open public forum meeting, you find this rather odd and ask the greeter if this is really where you are supposed to be. Yes, you are assured, this is where the meeting is being held. Somewhat confused, you take a chair. Others file in, some you know, some you don't. You note that others, like you, find this new layout for a public forum meeting "different". Soon a speaker calls the meeting to order.

After a short introductory speech the presenter asks for your cooperation in utilizing a new concept in decision making. Following a presentation regarding the new purposed plan, each table will participate in a discussion with the help of a facilitator. Each table will put on paper their thoughts and feelings about this new community plan — their likes and dislikes. A roundhouse discussion will ensue at each table from which will emerge a consensus of the group — a narrowing of the listed likes and dislikes to two or three that the group deems most important. These, you are told will be later synthesized. What is going on? You look around and note a look of bewilderment on several other faces. No explanation is offered; and you, feeling at quite a disadvantage but not wanting to look like a total ignoramus or fool, are hesitant to ask. You say nothing and go along. But the feeling of discomfort remains and continues to grow. What is going on?

A phrase heard a lot these days is paradigm shift. What is described above is part of that paradigm shift. Parents, community members, citizens, taxpayers have no idea what they are walking into when they suddenly, and without warning, find themselves participating in a whole new concept of a "public forum meeting". While the semantics may vary to some degree from meeting to meeting, the underlying framework of the process to which the people will be exposed does not.

Under the new paradigm, decision making is to be "decentralized" moving away from decisions being made solely by elected and/or public officials accountable to elected officials, moving to decision-making including the people. The "public forum" meeting and community participation process is the venue for that decentralized decision-making process.

The decentralized decision-making process is being sold to the people as a "move to empower the people," a way for people to have greater voice in their governance and in decisions made that will affect them. This is the rhetoric, this is not the reality. What people don't know, at the outset, is that the goal or outcome of the process is predetermined. This is made very clear in book after book on the facilitative process.

The decentralized decision-making process has three steps. The first step, unbeknownst to the people, is to assess the people as to "where they are now." This is accomplished by feeding people information relative to the issue at hand — be it education reform, land use planning, etc, then soliciting the feedback of the people relative to the information presented. The feedback solicited is put in writing, to be later analyzed, assessing the people, as a collective, as to "where they are now."

The second step is the process of moving the people from "where they are now" to "where we want them to be" — to acceptance of, ownership of, what is being advocated by the meeting planners relative to the issue at hand.

Step two has two phases. The first phase is to establish the framework for moving people "from where they are now" to "where we want them to be." To accomplish this, people must become "adaptable to change." People whose belief system is strongly grounded in absolutes, in Judeo-Christian principles, are not easily manipulated, are not easily "adaptable to change." That belief system must be changed in a greater number of people if the goal or goals are to be realized, if sufficient buy-in is to be realized to give the agenda the foreword momentum needed to achieve the goal. The facilitation process, utilizing up to nine basic steps, is intended to move people from a belief in absolutes — that right is right, wrong is wrong, to believing that right and wrong are situational, a matter of perception, from beliefs holding basis in Christian principle to beliefs holding basis in humanism (although this is never divulged). For those who refuse to become adaptable, concession "not to sabotage" or "openly oppose" augments the forward momentum of the agenda. In some school districts teachers are being required to sign a charter agreeing not to oppose education reform.

The second phase is to facilitate people into ownership of the preset outcome. The process of facilitation is intended to produce consensus which means "solidarity of belief". In other words, through a facilitated process, oneness of mind theoretically occurs. Consensus holds basis in the Hegelian Dialectic of thesis — a belief or supposition; antithesis — the opposite belief or supposition; and synthesis — the synthesizing (bringing together) of thesis and antithesis to form a new thesis. The process then begins again and through continual evolution, oneness of mind theoretically occurs. Consensus, however, left to its own devices, cannot be controlled. As such, a manipulative form of consensus, utilizing facilitators highly trained in group dynamics, is used to ensure the outcome. While the facilitators are billed as neutral to the facilitated process of consensus, they are anything but neutral; they are key to the group reaching the preset outcome. And, if facilitated properly, the people emerge believing the decision made — the outcome — was their idea; unaware that they were facilitated in a certain direction. This, then, sets the stage for the third step. (Click here to learn more about what is commonly referred to as the Delphi Technique, and Click here to learn how to disrupt it.)

The third step is accountability. First, the outcome of the facilitation process is decided; second, the people are facilitated into acceptance of, and ownership of, the preset outcome; third, authorship of the preset outcome is given to the people. The people, then, as a collective, become accountable for the decision made. This is why, when people have objected to being governed by consensus decisions, they have heard, "but we had the input of the people." What this does, very effectively, is two-fold — it gives the bureaucracy license to do whatever it wants under the guise of "doing what the people authorized us, via their decision, to do;" and second, it makes the people, not the bureaucracy, accountable for decisions made. The people become at once the scapegoat and the victim.

Most people have no idea, when they become involved in consensus circles, what their purpose is in the larger picture, that they are being assessed, that their belief system is being targeted, that they are being used.

What is established, via the consensus process, is covert authority — the same authority that under girds socialist/communist regimes that justify their existence and governance structure in the collective authority of the people. In the Soviet Union, a consensus circle is known as a soviet.

The religion of socialist/communist regimes is humanism. Humanism is a man-centered religion, believing that man is devoid of spirituality or self-determinism, that man must, therefore, be conditioned to his environment — whatever that environment is decided to be. B F Skinner gave this "conditioning" a name — operant conditioning — a practice used pervasively in classrooms across America, especially under outcome-based education. Humanism is a pagan, occult, satanic religion. This is why socialism and communism are oppressive governments; why they lead people into darkness, into hopelessness, into bondage. Humanism is what is undergirding the paradigm shift in America, not only in education but in all facets of the restructuring of the American society.

America was established on Judeo-Christian principles. This was not by accident, this was by design. Our Founding Fathers knew that there was only one religion under which any nation had ever prospered; under which man would ever know freedom. That religion was Christianity. The American government was established on the principles of Biblical law — a government of laws, not a democracy (a government of men, humanism) which by its very nature is arbitrary and capricious.

The contrast between Christianity and humanism is the difference between individuality and collectivism, freedom and bondage, prosperity and adversity, light and darkness.

What can people do? First people must educate themselves. When participating in public meetings, insist the meeting be conducted under Roberts Rules of Order — no consensus circles. It is the elected officials and those accountable to the elected officials who should be held accountable for decisions made. Pressure legislators to dispense with appointed commissions, councils, and agencies that are not accountable to the people and that are, via legislation, not accountable to the Legislature. Pressure legislators to return to the limited form of government established by our Constitution and Bill of Rights. Such a government limits itself to addressing those structures over which it is given specific authority. Push for judicial reform that removes from the judiciary the right to legislate via interpretations of law that hold no basis in the Constitution.

Thomas Jefferson stated, in 1823, On every question of construction, carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it conform to the probable one in which it was passed.

To be able to do that, however, one must have a strong foundation in Western culture and history — something very few Americans have today.

If we are to save our nation, we must become involved in the governance of our nation — whether local, state, or national. We can no longer sit back and abrogate our duties as American citizens. We must become informed and involved. The price of freedom is vigilance. Vigilance has been want for too long.

Jenny Hatch

PS Please pass along this information to ANYONE who is protesting. Also be prepared that this site and twitter are going to be blasted with marxist trolls who will do anything to disrupt the tea parties and derail those who are planning them, including using the Dephi Technique at every juncture to make us feel like we are accomplishing something when in fact, we are just spinning our wheels, doing nothing effective.

8 posted on 03/06/2009 7:07:10 AM PST by Jenny Hatch (Mormon Mommy Blogger)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: mnehrling

Excellent summary. Thanks!


9 posted on 03/06/2009 7:09:35 AM PST by pabianice
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Jenny Hatch
I read up on that, too. It's also called group dynamics. The outcome of a meeting is already preordained.

People are divided up into groups and assigned a "task" (Oboma did this, and the Washington idiots actually did what he told them to do!), but the "task" is irrelevant. The "task" is designed to find out who the leaders are and who the followers are within the groups. The "speaker" manipulates the group by pitting the pros against the cons, and supports the side they want to win. It becomes so intense, the "followers" change sides, and the "leaders" apposed to an issue are attacked until they back down or freak out. Their anger is then used against them.

In the end, most people believe they actually had an input in the outcome of the meeting.

The public schools use this on parents all the time.

10 posted on 03/06/2009 7:13:13 AM PST by concerned about politics ("Get thee behind me, Liberal")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jenny Hatch

Why can’t we use this technique ourselves? Why are we always on the defensive?


11 posted on 03/06/2009 7:13:45 AM PST by nuconvert ( Khomeini promised change too // Hail, Chairman O)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: facedown
With respect: we don't. We have FReepers who put up graphs and who discuss the science. AGW on FR is not remotely a good example of the Delphi technique in action.

If you want examples of bad, deceitful debate technique on FR consider the following snippets that I often see used to shut down and diminish contrary opinion:

    "3... 2... 1 ... until (the people who oppose my viewpoint) arrive on the thread".

    "Birthers"

    "Yawn"

    "Free Traitors"

This might be an appropriate thread for other FReepers to post their own examples of dishonest debate technique.
12 posted on 03/06/2009 7:16:36 AM PST by agere_contra (So ... where's the birth certificate?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: nuconvert
Why can’t we use this technique ourselves? Why are we always on the defensive?

Because this Delphi Method, i.e., Alinski Method, i.e., Group Dynamics is unethical. It hurts a lot of innocent people when used for evil purposes. It manipulates the groups free will. People are deceived, and later suffer the consequences of what they've unwilling done. They become victims - for real.

It's cruel, and just plain evil. That's why the "All praise goes to Lucifer" Alinski followers use it.

13 posted on 03/06/2009 7:21:36 AM PST by concerned about politics ("Get thee behind me, Liberal")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: concerned about politics

It really isn’t as sinister as the articles make it sound, it is a common negotiation technique, after all, you don’t go in to tie, you go in to win. It is how it is used that can be troubling, just like NLP, simple cognitive techniques, but in the wrong hands can cause problems.


14 posted on 03/06/2009 7:24:24 AM PST by mnehring
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Jenny Hatch

Excellent post.


15 posted on 03/06/2009 7:28:30 AM PST by xcamel (The urge to save humanity is always a false front for the urge to rule it. - H. L. Mencken)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: concerned about politics

“Because this Delphi Method, i.e., Alinski Method, i.e., Group Dynamics is unethical” “It hurts a lot of innocent people when used for evil purposes.:”

Of course - But last time I checked, I wasn’t evil and what Conservatives want to preserve is our Constitution and government as it was intended and that’s not evil.

If we know that it’s being used for gaining people to their side - a side that we all know is bad because it’s going to be used against the framework of the country - why not turn the tables for the good?


16 posted on 03/06/2009 7:31:10 AM PST by nuconvert ( Khomeini promised change too // Hail, Chairman O)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: agere_contra; Jenny Hatch
Just a note that is important, focusing on this can also work against you, causing undue paranoia and divisions as people try to root out 'agent provocateurs'. Agere's post reminded me of this with the comment on 3...2...1.. (not saying this was intentional, it only triggered the thought..) Sometimes the seed of paranoia about the Delphi Technique can create as many divisions.. imagine if everyone suddenly went on a mission looking for it and calling anyone out on it who didn't fall in lock step with the OP. Oh, you are just an agent provocateur using the Delphi Technique.. you troll..zot...
17 posted on 03/06/2009 7:31:42 AM PST by mnehring
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Jenny Hatch
Excellent.

Know the enemy!

The Delphi Technique was exactly what the Episcopal Church used to force the gay agenda. Surveys with predetermined outcomes followed by intensive "small groupings" were the favored tactics, patiently pursued for years.

One quibble I have with the suggested response: I think a tactic of "nip it in the bud" is best. Once the Delphi Technique is spotted, it must be exposed. If there is an attempt to hire a "facilitator" or commission a "feasibility study" (two buzz terms that immediately raise a rotten stink), attack on the grounds that this is wasteful spending, and ruthlessly expose the agenda.

Research who wants to hire the facilitator/consultant. Remind everyone what agendas those pushing the study/survey/facilitator have had in the past. Research the firm/individual involved. Are there ties to ACORN? Gay activist groups? Environmentalist wackos? Contact talk radio. Pack the meetings of those who will do the funding. Kill the beast in its crib.

Once you sit down in a "small group" with these folks, you have lost. Deny their legitimacy. Walking away is better than participating in a farce.

18 posted on 03/06/2009 7:40:50 AM PST by Martin Tell (Happily lurking in one location for over ten years)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jenny Hatch
While I'm not even remotely interested in “reaching consensus” with any NWO NeoComms, I am however very interested in understanding their “messages”, and thus their methods and agendas.

Like I recently told an old friend who asked me why I listen to NPR and Democracy Now - I listen to them for the same reason I learned Russian and listened to those bastards on the radio when I was in the Army. So I'll know what the sneaky little Communist f***ers are up to!!! You have to learn their language first.

Thanks for the post. Good info.

19 posted on 03/06/2009 7:40:54 AM PST by conservativeharleyguy (Apparently, Obama would rather fight Limbaugh on the airwaves than Bin Laden in the sand!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nuconvert
PS.....there's also something else Oboma uses, which is why he MUST keep his face before an audience (t.v camera and u-tube). It's called Covert Hypnoses. You know he's using it when he trys to get you to "picture/Imagine/dream about/ see/ seriously think about" what it is he's he wants you place into your subconscious mind. The pictures aren't filtered by the analytical mind (which is why the left does so well with the visual media and not so well with talk radio)

There's also key words:
Examples - advancement, amazing, announcing, appealing, at last, authentic, breakthrough, challenge, change, deserve, exciting, extraordinary, fresh, indispensable.....etc. you get the drift. He's finalizing the "sale."

Covert Hypnoses is temporary at first. If reinforced enough, it becomes a habit, and the message remains until it's deprogrammed. HE MUST stay in your face for this to work. This is how he built his "army."

The Chicago inner city schools use this technique on their wayward students. Oboma was big in these schools, so he's learned it well.

20 posted on 03/06/2009 7:41:44 AM PST by concerned about politics ("Get thee behind me, Liberal")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: mnehrling

“How to Diffuse the Delphi Technique.
1. Always be charming, courteous, and pleasant. Smile. Moderate your voice so as not to come across as belligerent or aggressive.”

I wouldnt make it past step 1.


21 posted on 03/06/2009 7:42:39 AM PST by Hacklehead (Liberalism is the art of taking what works, breaking it, and then blaming conservatives.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: mnehrling

Actually, I’ve used the “Yawn” post before... but it was more of a response to the article posted than to the poster.


22 posted on 03/06/2009 7:43:02 AM PST by ponygirl ("It is error alone which needs the support of government. Truth can stand by itself." -T. Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Hacklehead

Arent’ these also known as “Jedi mind tricks?”


23 posted on 03/06/2009 7:44:23 AM PST by ponygirl ("It is error alone which needs the support of government. Truth can stand by itself." -T. Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: nuconvert

We can and do use it.
While studying in Boston in the late 60’s I encountered a graduate of the BU school of Social Sciences who had just received a PhD, one of the first, in group dynamis. He was the group leader of my graduate class at Tufts for 3 years, one Dr. Bruce Baldwin. Through him we learned the science of group dynamics.
I recognized at the time that this was a dangerous tool that could easily control people. The only systems I later used in my work with disadvantaged communities was enabling expression. I refused to manipulate groups into predetermined conclusions, with a few significant exceptions.
These are enormously powerful tools because they appear to rely on democratic principles.
The foundational principles of Free Republic make it clear to all that open discourse is encouraged but conservative values are the playing field. This removes the possibility of group manipulation.
The Delphi system, as outlined above and practiced by the 0 administration, can only be effective with groups and individuals who have weak basic principles. This is precisely why true conservatives, Right to Lifers, Roman Catholic leadership and so forth are excluded from White House study groups.
Our very existence is an affront to the Delphi Masters, much as is Rush. Let not your heart be troubled. Truth and conviction will break the rod of tyranny.


24 posted on 03/06/2009 7:46:10 AM PST by Louis Foxwell (He is the son of soulless slavers, not the son of soulful slaves.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: nuconvert
If we know that it’s being used for gaining people to their side - a side that we all know is bad because it’s going to be used against the framework of the country - why not turn the tables for the good?

CS Lewis had interesting things to say about the damage good people can do when they decide to adopt immoral methods.

Also, Tolkien in the Lord of the Rings makes the point -- Frodo tries to give the ring, first to Gandalf, and later to Galadriel. They are good and wise -- wise enough to recognize the temptation to use the ring for good and to know that this power would corrupt them and taint what they wish to achieve.

Delphi Method is wrong. Fight it. Don't use it.

25 posted on 03/06/2009 7:48:12 AM PST by ClearCase_guy (American Revolution II -- overdue)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: mnehrling

VERY good info there....I’ve witnessed this applied once and never realised it (involving some copmutor game testing)...

Something learned everyday....

The FR way...


26 posted on 03/06/2009 7:50:08 AM PST by Crim (Dont frak with the Zeitgeist....http://falconparty.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: betty boop

ping


27 posted on 03/06/2009 7:51:25 AM PST by Louis Foxwell (He is the son of soulless slavers, not the son of soulful slaves.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Crim

GRR...faulty keyboard...


28 posted on 03/06/2009 7:51:51 AM PST by Crim (Dont frak with the Zeitgeist....http://falconparty.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Crim

Many times it isn’t necessarily calculated, some controlling, narcissistic personality types do this without knowing it is a defined technique, it is just part of their nature.


29 posted on 03/06/2009 7:52:28 AM PST by mnehring
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Hacklehead
Neither would I.

I prefer to clarify my position by reacting like a wolverine.

There's a lot to be said for clearing a room.

30 posted on 03/06/2009 7:53:45 AM PST by Madame Dufarge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: mnehrling

3... 2 ... 1... until mnehrling finds some way to blow my posts out of the water :0)

Seriously, good point about paranoia, well made.

I doubt that DT as written could be successfully used on this forum. We DO get shills (classic builders of fake consensus), but I believe this Forum is well armored against them. This is because FReepers instinctively refer to an external touchstone on most issues (e.g the Constitution, the Bible, scientific papers, sourced links and so on).

But we do get dishonest techniques - ad hominem attacks, and prior constraint of debate. They are always obvious (and annoying) when used - no secret mind techniques, no possible cause for paranoia.

With respect however, I can’t agree that it could ever be a good idea to use manufactured ‘consensus’ to get things going the way one wants. Doing this must surely pose a moral hazard?

By which I mean: it’s not bad just because it’s dishonest, but also because in the end you would end up relying on slippery group dynamics rather than having and holding good ideas.

Better to make sure one’s arguments are good, one’s position is sound: train yourself to stand your ground and repeat the truth. This has got to be better strategy.

(Disclaimer: I have no experience in moving groups either with truth or trickery)


31 posted on 03/06/2009 7:54:32 AM PST by agere_contra (So ... where's the birth certificate?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Jenny Hatch

Interesting.

No doubt many of us have experienced this at the corporate level too.

Of course even in the absence of such codified detail, it should be clear to everyone that, for many years now, our form of gvt only provides the “apperance” of free choice by its participants.

What were our choices last fall? Left and Left-er?

And the melting of the switch boards prior to the original $700 bil bailout: Didn’t they do it anyway?

As with the lists of ideas cited in the article, were’nt “our represntatives” able to claim they got lots of call both for and against the bailout?

I suspect one cardinal foundation of Obama’s administration is the tacit buy-in he got by being elected. We’ve seen here recently that some people have “changed their mind” about him. But how many will come out and admit their error?


32 posted on 03/06/2009 7:55:28 AM PST by Pessimist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Amos the Prophet
This removes the possibility of group manipulation. The Delphi system, as outlined above...

I see it often, although I doubt it is calculated.. I'm sure you have too.. think of all the threads where we challenge X Republican candidate over an issue and that candidate's supporter all jump in with something like ..all you who oppose freedom and liberty just want X to fail while you root for socialism... even though the original premise had nothing to do with "freedom and liberty" but a specific issue or comment... it is an attempt to isolate the opposition, make them appear out of the mainstream and opposing the core values the group holds..

33 posted on 03/06/2009 7:57:24 AM PST by mnehring
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: concerned about politics

“It’s cruel, and just plain evil.”

Yeah, but it works.

I read somewhere that one of Alinsky’s rules was to hold the opposition up to their own highest standards. Why do you think he said that? ‘Cause he knew that would paralyze them.


34 posted on 03/06/2009 7:58:27 AM PST by Pessimist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Jenny Hatch

Oddly enough, I had to study this as part of my “management” training. It wasn’t called the Delphi technique, but it was about how as a manager, I should decide what I wanted to do, then bring in the group and use similar techniques to get them to come to the proper conclusion. It also had chapters about how to cut somebody off at the ankles if they didn’t get on board.


35 posted on 03/06/2009 7:58:49 AM PST by Richard Kimball (We're all criminals. They just haven't figured out what some of us have done yet.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mnehrling

Thanks for posting this - copies made.


36 posted on 03/06/2009 8:00:54 AM PST by Oatka ("A society of sheep must in time beget a government of wolves." –Bertrand de Jouvenel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Richard Kimball

You’ve had the ‘controlling group dynamics’, ‘achieving consensus’, and ‘successful group negotiations’ training as well?


37 posted on 03/06/2009 8:01:28 AM PST by mnehring
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: concerned about politics

Ah yes! Covert hypnosis, also known (IIRC) as Neuro-linguistic Programming or NLP

Absolutely correct. The key to this technique is to start with very obvious truisms, to remove resistance to the trojan horse idea which comes in later.

“concerned about politics, you are alive”

“concerned about politics, you are breathing”

“concerned about politics, you are in this room”

“concerned about politics, you will vote for hopey-changy-changy hope”

Ok I blew it at the end there, but you all see what I mean. Obama also makes key signals to reinforce his take-away points. There’s a PDF analyzing his technique - I bet sticking “Obama Neuro linguistic Programming” into Clusty will come up with it.


38 posted on 03/06/2009 8:02:38 AM PST by agere_contra (So ... where's the birth certificate?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: mnehrling

Yeppir, along with New Age out of body experience training. I worked for the city of Austin, TX.


39 posted on 03/06/2009 8:02:51 AM PST by Richard Kimball (We're all criminals. They just haven't figured out what some of us have done yet.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: agere_contra
This conversation is very helpful, wouldn't you agree? Of course you would? Imagine if all our conversations on FR where this productive, that would be an improvement, wouldn't it? Yes, I know you agree, anyone who doesn't just want's to control the conversation anyway. By the way, thanks for that million dollars, you are a great person for giving that to me. But you know you are a great person, right? Now how can I get that money wired?

Sorry, old NLP joke...

40 posted on 03/06/2009 8:06:22 AM PST by mnehring
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Richard Kimball

Austin, say no more..


41 posted on 03/06/2009 8:06:52 AM PST by mnehring
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: facedown
All participants in the process are then to accept ownership of the new thesis and support it, changing their views to align with the new thesis. Through a continual process of evolution, "oneness of mind" will supposedly occur.

Best description of the Drive By Media I've read in years..

42 posted on 03/06/2009 8:07:24 AM PST by Wil H (No Accomplishments, No Experience, No Resume No Records, No References, Nobama..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: mnehrling

“Many times it isn’t necessarily calculated, some controlling, narcissistic personality types do this without knowing it is a defined technique, it is just part of their nature.”

Yes I came to the same conclusion when giving it some thought...

I small bit of backround:

We were testing a new version of a popular computer( yea! I spelled it right) game a few years back...

Many members of the “gaming community” (players) wanted certain features from the older game...placed in the new version...

This person was dead set against anything from the old game being put into the new one...and in fact...railed against many of those very features in th old game as well...

This person also attained a status of trust and and “insider” previously as a tester...

Any mention of these features in the testing forums was met with imediate mockey, insults, devils advocation, cherry picking of quotes , strawman arguements ,and strong arming opinions outside of the public discussion to gain visible support...

People became divided between those who had played the old game...and new people who had not....with this person becoming the defacto leader of the latter group...

The subgroup became consensous as the other group gained “ignore” status, was marginalised, and eventualy gave up hope of influencing the game....

Needless to say...the guy got everything he wanted...

The game sucked compared to it’s former versions....

Sales tanked...

A lawsuit resulted between the developer and the licensee from lost profits vs licensing fee’s...

And the game became the laughingstock of the player base who stuck with the old game...

And in hindsight...the guy was a flaming liberal....just a natual aggitator I guess...

Very illustrative.....thank you for posting it...


43 posted on 03/06/2009 8:09:47 AM PST by Crim (Dont frak with the Zeitgeist....http://falconparty.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: agere_contra

This explains how people could allow the unbelievable could occur. It explains how logic can be disregarded and the person speaking the truth ostracized. It confuses and infuriates me but knowing how it works gives me power to see the reality and perhaps combat it with calm facts. Frustration over people not understanding the truth usually makes me react with anger. The DT is purely manipulation. A narcissistic personality could and would easily utilize such a technique to get their way, if nothing else just to get their way. Power.


44 posted on 03/06/2009 8:09:51 AM PST by outinyellowdogcountry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Jenny Hatch

bump for later


45 posted on 03/06/2009 8:09:52 AM PST by annieokie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oatka

You also, Jenny Hatch.


46 posted on 03/06/2009 8:12:06 AM PST by Oatka ("A society of sheep must in time beget a government of wolves." –Bertrand de Jouvenel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: mnehrling

THANKS.

Useful.

Personally, I think Deliphi can be used by our side . . .


47 posted on 03/06/2009 8:12:18 AM PST by Quix (POL Ldrs quotes fm1900 2 presnt: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2130557/posts?page=81#81)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Pessimist
I read somewhere that one of Alinsky’s rules was to hold the opposition up to their own highest standards. Why do you think he said that? ‘Cause he knew that would paralyze them.

Damn good point. But (contra that) I believe that the Conservative position at the end relies on simple truth.

We may be paralysed in Alinksy's view, because we refuse to use poisoned weapons.

But at the same time, using deceit or dishonest techniques in the primary battle of ideas must tend to weaken one's ability to discourse truthfully - must weaken one's ability to be conservative.

Democrats are always hiding what they believe. They make you sign onto a "war against poverty" or onto the "pro-choice" movement. They use victims as human shields.

We do not. The very essence of Conservatism is to let our true ideas wrestle naked with the alien deceits of the Socialists. If we start using subterfuge to cloak our ideas then we deny our ideas their power.

48 posted on 03/06/2009 8:13:27 AM PST by agere_contra (So ... where's the birth certificate?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Pessimist
Yeah, I know. Unfortunately, the right wing politicians don't make liberals play by their own rules.
The left wants choice, but denies choices for everyone else. Why not call them on it?
They want free speech, but deny it to others. Why not call them on it?
They want rights for homos living together, but object to unmarried heterosexual living together getting the same rights. Why not call them on it?
They scream about Corporate wealth and criminality, but ignore their own politicians who have "mysteriously" become millionaires after reaching Washington . Why not call them on it?

Our politicians are forced to live by their own rules, yes, but our own politicians at the same time give the left a pass. Why aren't they calling them out?

49 posted on 03/06/2009 8:14:12 AM PST by concerned about politics ("Get thee behind me, Liberal")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: mnehrling

Most excellent! Thanks. Placemarker ... we are about to see this technique on a national scale, as the kenyan kloen posse pretends to have ‘townhall type meetings’ of middle calss Americans as a means to ‘achieve consensus on our direction’.


50 posted on 03/06/2009 8:17:08 AM PST by MHGinTN (Believing they cannot be deceived, they cannot be convinced when they are deceived.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-124 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson