Thank you for being a valued part of the CNET community. As of December 1, 2020, the forums are in read-only format. In early 2021, CNET Forums will no longer be available. We are grateful for the participation and advice you have provided to one another over the years.

Thanks,

CNET Support

General discussion

Now Republicans adopt con-man tactics.

Mar 13, 2004 12:29AM PST

>>AARP, the advocacy group for people over age 50 that opposes diverting Social Security taxes into private accounts, is irked about a new organization with a similar name -- minus one A -- that is advocating the changes. The new group, founded by Republicans, is called Alliance for Retirement Prosperity, or ARP. "Gee, what a coincidence," said John Rother, AARP's policy director. <<
That full story is at AARP upset new group named ARP.

As for the con-man angle? One of their well-known tactics is to "borrow" a well-known and respected group's cachet by chosing a similar name for their own sleazy operation: >>a name similar to a reputable organization's is used -- such as "American Cancer Center" instead of the American Cancer Society.<<
See Telemarketing/Direct Marketing Fraud.

-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

Discussion is locked

- Collapse -
Actually fairly well documented...
Mar 27, 2004 5:17AM PST

and while the following link will be ridiculed by the regular nay sayers (because they apparently lack the time or inclination to follow up on sources cited) one finds some rather definitive and unbiased sources.
http://www.lbduk.org/FEMFRAUD.htm

"The Violence Against Women Act slipped into law in 1994 without most members of Congress quite knowing what they were passing. ... She told the New Republic at the time that the only possible explanation for the bill's popularity in the Senate was the 'senators don't understand the meaning of the legislation that they pass.' In plain English, she seemed to mean that Congress was naively institutionalizing the radical view of domestic violence as antifemale terrorism by a relentless oppressor class ? men. -- U. S. News, page 12, John Leo. January 24, 2000

N.O.W. LEGISLATIVE UPDATE - June 12, 2000; NOW claims that VAWA is Gender Neutral and that it provides protection for men and children when a simple reading of VAWA shows that it CLEARLY EXCLUDES help for children and men.

NOW's LDEF (Legal Defense Education Fund) sponsors and helped to WRITE the VAWA legislation and therefore NOW is AWARE that the language of the bill **specifically** excludes children and is gender biased.

Here is an interesting if undefinitive "study" (Dave ought to love it as it was "peer reviewed")
http://ms.cc.sunysb.edu/~lhuddy/Sigel_Jenkins.pdf

A second group critizes the movement for having become radicalized and for having been taken over by a particular group, by which they usually understand lesbians. "...And, I don't know, but they've gotten very heavily infiltrated with the homosexual, lesbian community, which I think has kind of distorted a few of their views."

- Collapse -
Re: Actually fairly well documented...
Mar 27, 2004 12:24PM PST

Hi, Ed.

>> when a simple reading of VAWA shows that it CLEARLY EXCLUDES help for children and men.<<
I'm sure the lawyers for the many women currently in jail for spouse abuse would be very interested in your legal theory for help in preparing their appeals -- maybe you could make some money testifying on their behalf as an expert witness? I'm sure the legal system would be willing to stipulate that you're a well known authority on such issues...

-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

- Collapse -
Not MY reading Dave (and you must not have read the link)...
Mar 27, 2004 1:44PM PST

and N.O.W's Legal Defense Team (they helped write the legislation) has ADMITTED that it "specifically EXCLUDES children and is gender biased".

Very little research (there is that word that is so foreign to you) would show you that there are many abused men whose plight goes unnoticed by any government agency, let alone passing legislation that would be gender specific for them. Women jailed for such are NOT there because of VAWA, but for the same charges that men would be but for VAWA.

Maybe you could spend a little more time reading and less time skimming and you wouldn't be making these strange errors of interpretation.

- Collapse -
Re: Since I was curious...
Mar 27, 2004 12:19PM PST

Hi, Evie.

>>This just isn't the case for the lesbians I know.<<
I know a couple, and neither fits that mold. One's a secretary in my Department, and gets along just fine with everyone of both genders.

-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

- Collapse -
I just find it to be an interesting coincidence ...
Mar 27, 2004 2:37AM PST

... that most of the lesbians I know "switched teams" after some bad experience with a man. Not all, but most. And most just don't seem to like to hang out with heterosexuals in general let alone have many male friends. That's just not, IME, what I find with my gay male friends. Most just seem to prefer men sexually for whatever reason, but they also have lots of female friends and seem to harbor a genuine affection and appreciation for the opposite gender even if not sexually attracted. Now I'm sure there are exceptions to both "rules" out there, but this has just been my experience.

- Collapse -
Re:Re: One last time--Newt's 'manual' was a knockoff of what the Democrits issue...
Mar 17, 2004 4:54AM PST
Newt's candidtaes manual is widely available on the web. I challenge you to produce a similar document from a reputable site.

For something that is supposedly so widely available http://www.google.com/search?q=Newt+candidate+manual didn't find any copies. I challenge you to find a copy of Newt's candidates manual from any site, unless of course you're just making it up.

- Collapse -
(NT) Well? Are you just making it up?
Mar 24, 2004 12:49PM PST
- Collapse -
No, he isn't.
Mar 24, 2004 11:54PM PST
- Collapse -
A purported memo is NOT a 'Gingrich Manual' Josh...
Mar 25, 2004 3:40AM PST

and crediting the source there leaves a bit to be desired.

having said that I invite you to look up some of the campaign debates and advertisements PRIOR to 1980 and look at which party was using the words most often. You will find that they were widely in use by the Democratic contenders--much more so than by Republicans.

Democrats have always been gifted with the art of spin through the use of emotive verbage and Gingrich COPIED what he saw that was working and used it to his benefit.

Here is one site where you can see it in action:
http://presidentialcampaign2004.coas.missouri.edu/general/tvhistory_clips.htm

The "problem" is only that Dave seems to think that emotive words and emotive word lists only came about as a result of the fictitious "Gingrich Manual" when history shows us their widespread use LONG BEFORE Gingrich and mostly by Democrats who were admittedly superior at choosing words to impart the spin desired.

The site requires Quicktime for the videos but hopefully you will enjoy the "blasts from the past" as both partys are doing and using words credited to Gingrich.

- Collapse -
Re:A purported memo is NOT a 'Gingrich Manual' Josh...
Mar 25, 2004 4:50AM PST

The Gingrich manual was big news when its existence was exposed. I remember it well, and so do a lot of other people with the apparent exceptions of you and Clay. Just because it's been taken off the web doesn't mean it doesn't exist and never did.

I can understand suppressing such a memory, I guess, and "who started it" is irrelevant to the existence or non-existence of this manual.

- Collapse -
Re:No, he isn't.
Mar 25, 2004 6:12AM PST

No Josh, that memo is not any supposed Candidate's Manual. If it ever really existed you'd think http://www.google.com/search?q=Newt+candidate+manual would at least turn up a reference or two to it even if it didn't turn up the supposed manual itself. It doesn't turn up anything. Dave said it's available all over the web and I can't even find anything outside of this forum that shows it ever existed. At the moment I'm having an awful hard time finding any truth to Dave's post.

- Collapse -
Re:Re:No, he isn't.
Mar 25, 2004 10:28AM PST
I can't even find anything outside of this forum that shows it ever existed.

Short or selective memory, I suppose.
- Collapse -
Re:Re:Re:No, he isn't.
Mar 25, 2004 11:49AM PST
Short or selective memory, I suppose.

Maybe short but not selective.

- Collapse -
and Dems dirty tricks go back at least to the 50s when they discovered
Mar 16, 2004 10:15AM PST

the power of character assassination with McCarthy, Chambers, Hiss, etc.

BTW Dave, who gets most of their money from the 'little' guy? Do I hear a B U S H ? Who gets their money from fatcats? Do I hear S O R B O S H or S T R I E S A N D ?

- Collapse -
Um......hate to break it to you but.....
Mar 17, 2004 12:15AM PST

...McCarthy was a Republican, and his powers of character assassination remain unequaled to this day.

- Collapse -
Re:Now Republicans adopt con-man tactics.
Mar 16, 2004 2:00AM PST

Now, if I recall correctly you don't pay into SS yourself. In fact, you said here, "The ORP pension program to which I refer is similar to a 401k, except more generous -- I put in about 7% of my salary annually, and that's matched slightly more than 1:1 by the state." I would also assume that you have your own account that YOUR contributions are diverted to and matched by your employer and yet you refer to this as a "sleazy operation". It looks to me like you've just posted your picture next to Hypocrite with a capital "H" in the dictionary. Unlike your own arraignment, this group doesn't advocate allowing people to divert all of a person's SS contributions to a private account, only part of it. Exactly what part of this do you think is sleazy?

- Collapse -
and the answer is? (NT)
Mar 16, 2004 10:18AM PST

.

- Collapse -
(NT) Don't hold your breath!
Mar 17, 2004 12:13AM PST
- Collapse -
Well?
Mar 21, 2004 6:41AM PST
- Collapse -
I don't think it's as bad as you speculated ...
Mar 21, 2004 7:14AM PST

Dave K did state elsewhere in that thread:
In Texas college and professional school teachers do pay into SS ... so apparently the ORP program is in addition to SS.

- Collapse -
I think you misunderstand
Mar 21, 2004 7:24AM PST

DK started this thread with an article about ARP, a group which advocates allowing people to divert up to 1/2 of their SS contribution to a private account for their own retirement. DK referred to this as a "sleazy operation" when he himeself stated in another thread that he has this same type of plan. My question to Dave is just what is sleazy about allowing personal retirement accounts and if they're so sleazy why does he participate in one?

I personally favor the complete privatization of Social Security and I think ARP's plan is a good place to start. Social Security is a money pot that is repreatedly dipped into by politicians for programs other than retirement. Once privatized it will no longer be there for the politicians to rob from.

- Collapse -
We read things differently ...
Mar 21, 2004 7:37AM PST

My impression is that Dave K objects to the fact that the ARP group chose a name that is similar to AARP. He (and AARP) are assuming that the similar names will result in confusion, and that the confused people will assume the ARP positions are AARP positions.

I don't think he was offended by the position of the ARP as much as he was by the (presumably deliberate?) attempt to confuse the public with the similar names.

- Collapse -
Well, yes, but
Mar 21, 2004 7:47AM PST

Yes, the con man angle was the similair name trick, not a particularly new and I'll agree rather unsavory.

But Dave's wording seems to say the operation is disreputal, as well as it's name. As for the con-man angle? One of their well-known tactics is to "borrow" a well-known and respected group's cachet by chosing a similar name for their own sleazy operation...

I'm not sure, but it sounds like Dave was characterizing the group's purpose and intent a 'sleazy operation'. He may have meant the name choice still, but the impression I got was he was negative about the groups goal also. Of course, that may have been colored by his previous statements against most privatization proposals.

RogerNC

click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

- Collapse -
Re:We read things differently ...
Mar 21, 2004 8:09AM PST

Oh, I believe his title referring to con-man tactics was about the name similarity. Beyond that he took an extra jab that referred to the agency as a sleazy operation. Quite hypocritical when he participates in the same type of plan they advocate.

- Collapse -
Re:I think you misunderstand
Mar 21, 2004 10:31PM PST

Hi, Clay.

I did indeed misunderstand. At first I thought you were merely trying the usual tactic of trying to divert the discussion (we've already discussed ORP, SS privatization, etc. to exhaustion in this thread) from an area uncomfortable for the Republicnas. But now I see you're trying to completely twist my words, by taking a criticism of the Republicans for trying to confuse people by forming an "advocacy group" (really a thinly disguised targeted propaganda arm) with a name very close to that of the AARP, and misinterpreting it as an attack on the AARP itself. Seems quite in keeping with the original theme of this thread!

-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

- Collapse -
Re:Re:I think you misunderstand
Mar 22, 2004 6:16AM PST
But now I see you're trying to completely twist my words,...

Not at all, I never said anything one way or the other about the name they chose. You made it clear you don't like the name choice and that's fine, that's your opinion.

In addition to complaining about their choice of names though, you also referred to their operation as sleazy. They have stated that their operation is to lobby for legislation that would allow citizens to divert up to one half of their SS contribution to a private retirement account. I am puzzled as to why you consider this a "sleazy operation" when you stated you have a similar plan.

The post you replied to is pretty clear about the fact that I was referring to their plans and not their name so looks like you're to read the words wrong. This has nothing to do with the AARP and nothing I have said claimed that you were attacking the AARP either.



- Collapse -
Re:Now Republicans adopt con-man tactics.
Mar 21, 2004 10:24PM PST

Really now Dave, if someone can't tell the difference between the AARP and ARP it's their own fault. I guess your worry is that someone will think "if the AARP thinks it's a good idea it must be so I'll support it" only to be hoodwinked because it is really the ARP? That would be truly sad. But getting hoodwinked into considering a good idea ain't all that bad Wink

Now as to misleading names, how about People for the American Way (very far left of the mainstream and surely not representative of American mainstream culture!), Center for Science in the Public Interest (science??), and a whole host of physicians groups that sign onto similarly named groups to crusade against any use of tobacco, etc.

Evie Happy

- Collapse -
Re:Re:Now Republicans adopt con-man tactics.
Mar 23, 2004 8:21AM PST

Strangely enough, I may have to go with DaveK on this. At least on the acronym deliberately chose to resemble another. It can predispose an attitude even if the difference is realized.

His characterization of the group of a sleasy operation is over the top I think. I'm not sure if that is based on the one aspect of their name, or (IMO, more likely) based on he opposes their proposals.

Their purpose is to present a proposal and advocate for it. Confusion with an existing group already considered as an advocate for the elderly would be benificial to them being believed.

The plan may be fine, but it is a sales tactic, no doubt.

Unfortunately this tactic is well established by groups of every persuasion, particularly advocacy and political groups from one end of the spectrum to the other.

Heck, the very names Democratic Pary and Republican Party are intended to associate by name with an ideal, no matter what shape the party happens in right then.

RogerNC

click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

- Collapse -
I can agree somewhat on the name choice ...
Mar 23, 2004 8:39AM PST

... but it sure got them noticed but quickly! If the initial confusion gets some ingrained in their views of whatever the AARP thinks is good being a good idea it might help to get them to listen. Actually, the ARP is geared more towards people pre-retirement age vs. AARP whose membership is getting younger but still is geared to "retired" people.

Anyway, read Kemp's article I linked below. To clear up any name confusion he is challenging AARP for a debate on the ideas which should make it pretty clear they are not one in the same.

OTOH, their name is not misleading in itself like the others I think really are sleazy -- ones that imply they are physicians organizations or interested in food safety when they are really lobbyists for other industries or animal rights fanatics.

With their membership, AARP sure has the numbers to counter any "con job", but generally their members are quite well off -- at least most of the AARP members I know are -- and they probably fear losing them to a system that would benefit them and everyone more.

Evie Happy

- Collapse -
Hmmm, I may be joining AARP soon myself
Mar 23, 2004 9:33AM PST