Heh, I like this

[olevetonahill]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F6etfJgZQ7A

[rock on sooner]

Welp, Vet, I gotta ruminate a bit........okay, long enough....
Great humor, only thing missing is the FACT that Pubs want
to do NOTHING but stop Obama at every turn. Just guessin'
but if anyone would want to find a way to get to somewhere
in the middle a BUNCH of this sh1t would have gone away. A
lot to go around....jus sayin...

[olevetonahill]

Welp, Vet, I gotta ruminate a bit........okay, long enough....
Great humor, only thing missing is the FACT that Pubs want
to do NOTHING but stop Obama at every turn. Just guessin'
but if anyone would want to find a way to get to somewhere
in the middle a BUNCH of this sh1t would have gone away. A
lot to go around....jus sayin...

Im just appreciatin the Humor in it my friend :devilish:

[rock on sooner]

Im just appreciatin the Humor in it my friend :devilish:

Oh, Yeah. that is some FUNNY stuff....guy orta be on SNL!

[TheHumanAlphabet]

Welp, Vet, I gotta ruminate a bit........okay, long enough....
Great humor, only thing missing is the FACT that Pubs want
to do NOTHING but stop Obama at every turn. Just guessin'
but if anyone would want to find a way to get to somewhere
in the middle a BUNCH of this sh1t would have gone away. A
lot to go around....jus sayin...

What's wrong with stopping a guy who hates America, wants to destroy American Exceptionalism, and is a communist/socialist?

[Sooner8th]

What's wrong with stopping a guy who hates America, wants to destroy American Exceptionalism, and is a communist/socialist?

Hey, I see you got right in line -

http://diggerhistory.info/images/uniforms2/goose-step.jpg

lemming

[REDREX]

Some people can't handle the truth

[TheHumanAlphabet]

8th, I pity you...

And I see that just like all Leftists and "Progressives" you denigrate, name call and accuse those you disagree with with those images you yourself want to impose on people. The Saul Alinsky way... Appropriate you chose the Nazi image... what exactly they want to happen here, only with the Alinsky-ites at the helm.

[Sooner8th]

8th, I pity you...

And I see that just like all Leftists and "Progressives" you denigrate, name call and accuse those you disagree with with those images you yourself want to impose on people. The Saul Alinsky way... Appropriate you chose the Nazi image... what exactly they want to happen here, only with the Alinsky-ites at the helm.

You can't even have a rebuttal without reguirtating a talking point. There is no disagreement here, what you about obama is simply not the truth.

and btw - the idiot you voted for TWICE did a hell of a lot more to destroy America than obama ever could.

[olevetonahill]

Heh, Its fun gettin Matlock 8th fired up and not being able to read his drivel :highly_amused:

[Sooner8th]

Heh, Its fun gettin Matlock 8th fired up and not being able to read his drivel :highly_amused:

So it's fun to be an ignorant *******?

[Curly Bill]

You can't even have a rebuttal without reguirtating a talking point. There is no disagreement here, what you about obama is simply not the truth.

and btw - the idiot you voted for TWICE did a hell of a lot more to destroy America than obama ever could.

Are you speaking in English? To be the smartest man on the board you should try not to sound like a drunken toddler.

[Curly Bill]

It's so fun to get me some obamadong!

That's what you keep telling us.

[Curly Bill]

Heh, Its fun gettin Matlock 8th fired up and not being able to read his drivel :highly_amused:

Are we thinking he's Matlock or KC?

I'm still leaning towards KC - I see the same angry irrational drivel out of our little troll buddy that KC so often displayed in his meltdown.

[olevetonahill]

Are we thinking he's Matlock or KC?

I'm still leaning towards KC - I see the same angry irrational drivel out of our little troll buddy that KC so often displayed in his meltdown.

His Matlock persona has faded now I just think its an angry little girl .

But KC fits as well

[Curly Bill]

His Matlock persona has faded now I just think its an angry little girl .

But KC fits as well

He's never responded to any of the troll accusations, which of course only confirms that he definitely is one.

KC or angry little girl - I could see how it'd be hard to separate the two.

[Sooner8th]

That's what you keep telling us.

There you go again talking about dong......................you really have a thing about dong.

[Sooner8th]

He's never responded to any of the troll accusations, which of course only confirms that he definitely is one.

KC or angry little girl - I could see how it'd be hard to separate the two.

Just shows how stupid you are.

[olevetonahill]

So Curly who stired the little whinebag up this time You or me.

[Curly Bill]

So Curly who stired the little whinebag up this time You or me.

Not sure, but it's fun either way.

[Curly Bill]

There you go again talking and making sense, but as for me.....................I really have a thing about dong.

Yep

[olevetonahill]

Not sure, but it's fun either way.

I kinda Like the fact I can stir him up and Not even know what hes sayin LOL

[Curly Bill]

I kinda Like the fact I can stir him up and Not even know what hes sayin LOL

It might not have been either of us - it could just be that his vibrator got wedged in too deep!

[olevetonahill]

It might not have been either of us - it could just be that his vibrator got wedged in too deep!

:highly_amused:

[Sooner8th]

Yep

There you go talking about dong again.

[Curly Bill]

There I go, craving the obamadong again.

Stop it. You're killin me!

[olevetonahill]

Stop it. You're killin me!

Dayum Curly, He keeps talkin about Dong a lot dont he?

[Curly Bill]

Dayum Curly, He keeps talkin about Dong a lot dont he?

He loves him some obamadong! I wish that damn Turd would never have got him started. Now it's all KC//8th can talk about.

[olevetonahill]

He loves him some obamadong! I wish that damn Turd would never have got him started. Now it's all KC//8th can talk about.

He seems to be only sayin it to you tho. Ya think hes tryin to hit on ya?

[Curly Bill]

He seems to be only sayin it to you tho. Ya think hes tryin to hit on ya?

I didn't wanna say anything, but he's been sending me PM's trying to check my situation out.

I think he was pissed when I told him I didn't swing from the same side of the plate as him and obammy, not to mention the tranny moochelle.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Some people can't handle the truthSome people WON'T hear the truth. (Sooner8th, Rock on Sooner, etc.

[olevetonahill]

Some people WON'T hear the truth. (Sooner8th, Rock on Sooner, etc.

Rock is pretty good People. 8th is a Moronic dildo.

[Sooner8th]

Some people WON'T hear the truth. (Sooner8th, Rock on Sooner, etc.

Coming from a bunch of people who are just making **** up. Look at the posts above and ALL of it is made up. They just can't stop talking about dong.

[TheHumanAlphabet]

You can't even have a rebuttal without reguirtating a talking point. There is no disagreement here, what you about obama is simply not the truth.

and btw - the idiot you voted for TWICE did a hell of a lot more to destroy America than obama ever could.

Uhmmm, who did I vote for twice? How would you know if I did or didn't?

Since you did not reply to my comment, when did you take the Alinsky course? Where were you indoctrinated at?

[Sooner8th]

Uhmmm, who did I vote for twice? How would you know if I did or didn't?

Since you did not reply to my comment, when did you take the Alinsky course? Where were you indoctrinated at?

What is there to reply to? All you did and did again on this post is just regurgitate ignorant rightwing talking points.

[TheHumanAlphabet]

Alinsky espoused his plan to take over the US government. Hillary, Jarrett, Obama, and others are all disciples of this guy. Why won't you accept that fact? Or do you deny Alinsky exists and his thoughts are down for posterity?

[Sooner8th]

Alinsky espoused his plan to take over the US government. Hillary, Jarrett, Obama, and others are all disciples of this guy. Why won't you accept that fact? Or do you deny Alinsky exists and his thoughts are down for posterity?

Accept it as fact like you do? Without a single shred of evidence? You do realize this guy died in 1972 when obama was 11? Why don't you just admit that you lemming and a rube who believes ANYTHING ANY rightiwngnut webstie puts out. If meeting with Sal or saying his writing influenced or interview him makes you, like the ones you listed,a commie who hates America you really need to read this.

Ironically, Mitt Romney's father George, the one-time governor of Michigan, met with Alinsky in 1967 to ask his advice about addressing the racial turmoil following that summer's Detroit riots. "I think you ought to listen to Alinsky," the liberal Republican advised his political allies (see T. George Harris' Romney's Way, 1968). "It seems to me that we are always talking to the same people. Maybe the time has come to hear new voices." When this anecdote surfaced earlier this year on the right-wing blogosphere, conspiracy-minded extremists used it as evidence that Mitt Romney had also, like Obama, been infected by Alinsky's influence.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/peter-dreier/the-right-wing-resurrects_b_1663154.html

RUH ROH

So Mitt's daddy was a commie too huh? Do you think being raised by a commie has more or less influence on you than some guy who you never met? So Mitt is an American hating commie too huh?

Not exactly working out for you is it?

I do take it as fact that you are a lemming and a rube who simply regurgitates talking points without checking them out.

[Sooner8th]

Alinsky espoused his plan to take over the US government. Hillary, Jarrett, Obama, and others are all disciples of this guy. Why won't you accept that fact? Or do you deny Alinsky exists and his thoughts are down for posterity?

Now you are making a claim that "Alinsky espoused his plan to take over the US government." I looked and cannot find anything on it.

Show me where he "espoused" that.

[Turd_Ferguson]

Accept it as fact like you do? Without a single shred of evidence? You do realize this guy died in 1972 when obama was 11? Why don't you just admit that you lemming and a rube who believes ANYTHING ANY rightiwngnut webstie puts out. If meeting with Sal or saying his writing influenced or interview him makes you, like the ones you listed,a commie who hates America you really need to read this.

Ironically, Mitt Romney's father George, the one-time governor of Michigan, met with Alinsky in 1967 to ask his advice about addressing the racial turmoil following that summer's Detroit riots. "I think you ought to listen to Alinsky," the liberal Republican advised his political allies (see T. George Harris' Romney's Way, 1968). "It seems to me that we are always talking to the same people. Maybe the time has come to hear new voices." When this anecdote surfaced earlier this year on the right-wing blogosphere, conspiracy-minded extremists used it as evidence that Mitt Romney had also, like Obama, been infected by Alinsky's influence.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/peter-dreier/the-right-wing-resurrects_b_1663154.html

RUH ROH

So Mitt's daddy was a commie too huh? Do you think being raised by a commie has more or less influence on you than some guy who you never met? So Mitt is an American hating commie too huh?

Not exactly working out for you is it?

I do take it as fact that you are a lemming and a rube who simply regurgitates talking points without checking them out.

Waaa! you called my obamadong supplier a commie! Waaa!

You're such a ****'n lemming.

[Sooner8th]

You're such a ****'n lemming.

How am I the lemming here. I see you're talking about dong AGAIN.

WOW, really got a thing for it don't you?

[Curly Bill]

How am I the lemming here. Just because I'm craving the obamadong AGAIN?

WOW, I really gotta have some more of the obamadong, know what I mean?

No, I really don't. Now, quit talking to us about obamadong!

[TheHumanAlphabet]

Now you are making a claim that "Alinsky espoused his plan to take over the US government." I looked and cannot find anything on it.

Show me where he "espoused" that.
Rules for Radicals...

who or what is "the enemy" he talks about...

[Sooner8th]

Rules for Radicals...

who or what is "the enemy" he talks about...

You are the expert on him, you tell me. I am not making the accusations, you are and you have yet to back a single one up. So show me in Rules for Radicals where it says his goal is to overthrow the government.

[Sooner8th]

No, I really don't. Now, quit talking to us about obamadong!


WOW - there you go again talking about dong. You just cant stop talking about it can you?

[Curly Bill]

WOW - here I am again talking about obamadong. I just cant stop talking and dreaming about it can you?

Uhhh yeah, I don't think about it at all.

[Sooner8th]

Uhhh yeah, I don't think about it at all.

You keep bringing it up.

[Turd_Ferguson]

You are the expert on him, you tell me. I am not making the accusations, you are and you have yet to back a single one up. So show me in Rules for Radicals where it says his goal is to overthrow the government.

Whoa!!! I thought you were the expert on everything and the rest of us were all dumb asses? I wish you'd make up your mind.

[Sooner8th]

Whoa!!! I thought you were the expert on everything and the rest of us were all dumb asses? I wish you'd make up your mind.

It's called GOOGLE, use it to back up your claims.

Funny how when I make claims there are demands I back it up with links. But when THA demands I take an unproven "fact" for an actual fact no one on here expects him to back it up with any kind of link.

[olevetonahill]

I see the Moronic Dildo is still suffering from Diarrhea of the mouth thru the keyboard.

[TheHumanAlphabet]

Typical Alinsky move by 8th... Throw what they say back at them with disdain and deride their opinion or belief until people discount it. You are in the minority 8th. While most people may not be as conservative as me, the people that earn money and pay taxes are not aligned with the views of Alinsky.

[Sooner8th]

Typical Alinsky move by 8th... Throw what they say back at them with disdain and deride their opinion or belief until people discount it. You are in the minority 8th. While most people may not be as conservative as me, the people that earn money and pay taxes are not aligned with the views of Alinsky.

Typical rightwingnut teabagger move by tha, makes a claim then screams ALINSKY when he can't back it up. You made a claim that alinsky wanted to over throw the government but won't provide the proof while demanding I take what you say as fact. You mentioned his book so it should be simple to provide the proof, you already know the source.



Prove it or shut up.

[SoonerorLater]

Typical rightwingnut teabagger move by tha, makes a claim then screams ALINSKY when he can't back it up. You made a claim that alinsky wanted to over throw the government but won't provide the proof while demanding I take what you say as fact. You mentioned his book so it should be simple to provide the proof, you already know the source.



Prove it or shut up.

I would say that providing the playbook for those that did want to overthrow the government counts.


Bill Ayers: "Standing right next to the world as such, a world that could be or a world that should be and committing ourselves to work toward that better world."

Bill Ayers slightly butchering a Saul Alinsky quote. We don't have to guess what Ayers is/was all about. He is happy to tell us.

[Sooner8th]

I would say that providing the playbook for those that did want to overthrow the government counts.


Bill Ayers: "Standing right next to the world as such, a world that could be or a world that should be and committing ourselves to work toward that better world."

Bill Ayers slightly butchering a Saul Alinsky quote. We don't have to guess what Ayers is/was all about. He is happy to tell us.

WOW - hitting all the wingnut talking points huh? Bill Ayers? "Standing right next to the world as such, a world that could be or a world that should be and committing ourselves to work toward that better world."

Says I want to overthrow the government? What about all the teabaggers who say they want to take our country back? What about the same teabaggers why say if we don't get our way with the ballot box we will with the second admendment?

AGAIN, show me in the "playbook" where it says he wants to overthrow the government.

Put up or shut up.

[olevetonahill]

Is 8TH still talkin about Dong?

[SoonerorLater]

WOW - hitting all the wingnut talking points huh? Bill Ayers? "Standing right next to the world as such, a world that could be or a world that should be and committing ourselves to work toward that better world."

Says I want to overthrow the government? What about all the teabaggers who say they want to take our country back? What about the same teabaggers why say if we don't get our way with the ballot box we will with the second admendment?

AGAIN, show me in the "playbook" where it says he wants to overthrow the government.

Put up or shut up.

So in your enlightened view you don't think providing the roadmap to guys like Ayers counts? Of course he wouldn't have directly advocated an overthrow of the government or he most likely would have been arrested.

[Sooner8th]

So in your enlightened view you don't think providing the roadmap to guys like Ayers counts? Of course he wouldn't have directly advocated an overthrow of the government or he most likely would have been arrested.

OH......so now "it's he wouldn't have directly advocated an overthrow of the government" HUH? So you are saying he didn't.

Like I said, either put up or shut up. Looks like you need to shut up.

[SoonerorLater]

OH......so now "it's he wouldn't have directly advocated an overthrow of the government" HUH? So you are saying he didn't.

Like I said, either put up or shut up. Looks like you need to shut up.

Did I ever say anywhere that he could be quoted in his book as advocating an overthrow of the government. What I said was "I would say that providing the playbook for those that did want to overthrow the government counts"

It's called a counter argument. It is meant to refute a larger premise and present another viewpoint. Just want to clear that up for you.

One more thing, the "Teabagger" or "wingnut" stuff , adds nothing to any point you are trying to make as you really have no idea. It just seems like a you have a need to hurl an insult for no apparent reason.

[Sooner8th]

Did I ever say anywhere that he could be quoted in his book as advocating an overthrow of the government. What I said was "I would say that providing the playbook for those that did want to overthrow the government counts"

It's called a counter argument. It is meant to refute a larger premise and present another viewpoint. Just want to clear that up for you.

One more thing, the "Teabagger" or "wingnut" stuff , adds nothing to any point you are trying to make as you really have no idea. It just seems like a you have a need to hurl an insult for no apparent reason.

There you go again, what you said was "it's he wouldn't have directly advocated an overthrow of the government". What you said was right above you. Copy and paste. Now you say you provided a playbook. You admit you cannot show me in the book where he says to overthrow the government, but somehow, someway in your mind he is still advocating overthrowing the government. The only place you get that is from rightwingnut websites. As for tea baggers, tell me how saying they want to take our country back and if we don't get our way with the ballot box we will with the second amendment is not advocating over throwing the government.

[SoonerorLater]

There you go again, what you said was "it's he wouldn't have directly advocated an overthrow of the government". What you said was right above you. Copy and paste. Now you say you provided a playbook. You admit you cannot show me in the book where he says to overthrow the government, but somehow, someway in your mind he is still advocating overthrowing the government. The only place you get that is from rightwingnut websites. As for tea baggers, tell me how saying they want to take our country back and if we don't get our way with the ballot box we will with the second amendment is not advocating over throwing the government.

Is your sole purpose to be here just to act as an irritant? I can't even decipher what you are writing about.

[Sooner8th]

Is your sole purpose to be here just to act as an irritant? I can't even decipher what you are writing about.

You can't? No wonder you believe rightwingnut website crap.

[olevetonahill]

Is your sole purpose to be here just to act as an irritant? I can't even decipher what you are writing about.

Its prolly about Obammy peter Curly says 8th Peems him all the time about how good it is. I wouldnt know tho, cause I choose not to see his drivel.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

...the "Teabagger" or "wingnut" stuff , adds nothing to any point you are trying to make as you really have no idea. It just seems like a you have a need to hurl an insult for no apparent reason.At some point, and usually VERY early on, the Leftist will play the stupid card, and/or the crazy accusation, and even the racist or homophobe charges are often hurled. Their position is that statism is a normal, logical belief for people. If you don't buy into it, you are stupid, and/or crazy.

[SoonerorLater]

At some point, and usually VERY early on, the Leftist will play the stupid card, and/or the crazy accusation, and even the racist or homophobe charges are often hurled. Their position is that statism is a normal, logical belief for people. If you don't buy into it, you are stupid, and/or crazy.

Yeah 8th is a tool for sure. Even most of those left wing agitator types can write a sentence. Nobody is expecting Faulkner on a message board but even excluding his shaky logic, his writing is incoherent. Reading his post you can't even tell if English is his first language. Either that or he studied creative writing under Mike Tyson.




"There you go again, what you said was "it's he wouldn't have directly advocated an overthrow of the government". What you said was right above you. Copy and paste. Now you say you provided a playbook. You admit you cannot show me in the book where he says to overthrow the government, but somehow, someway in your mind he is still advocating overthrowing the government. The only place you get that is from rightwingnut websites. As for tea baggers, tell me how saying they want to take our country back and if we don't get our way with the ballot box we will with the second amendment is not advocating over throwing the government.

[Sooner8th]

Yeah 8th is a tool for sure. Even most of those left wing agitator types can write a sentence. Nobody is expecting Faulkner on a message board but even excluding his shaky logic, his writing is incoherent. Reading his post you can't even tell if English is his first language. Either that or he studied creative writing under Mike Tyson.




"There you go again, what you said was "it's he wouldn't have directly advocated an overthrow of the government". What you said was right above you. Copy and paste. Now you say you provided a playbook. You admit you cannot show me in the book where he says to overthrow the government, but somehow, someway in your mind he is still advocating overthrowing the government. The only place you get that is from rightwingnut websites. As for tea baggers, tell me how saying they want to take our country back and if we don't get our way with the ballot box we will with the second amendment is not advocating over throwing the government.

Even the most rightwingnut lemming can read a simple sentence, I guess that leaves you out.

Let me make it simple so you can understand. You changed your premise again. What you wrote is on here right above the post where you changed your premise AGAIN, all anyone has to do is to copy and paste what you previously posted to show you changed it when pressed for proof.

Understand now, pumpkin?

As for tea baggers, tell me how saying they want to take our country back and if we don't get our way with the ballot box we will with the second amendment is not advocating over throwing the government

What about this sentence do you not understand? You have a double standard for what people on the left say and people on the right say.

Now - either show me where the "playbook" says anything about overthrowing the government or admit you just read it on some rightwingnut webstire or heard it on faux "news" or on some crazy rightwingnut talk radio or shut up about it.

[olevetonahill]

Yeah 8th is a tool for sure. Even most of those left wing agitator types can write a sentence. Nobody is expecting Faulkner on a message board but even excluding his shaky logic, his writing is incoherent. Reading his post you can't even tell if English is his first language. Either that or he studied creative writing under Mike Tyson.




"There you go again, what you said was "it's he wouldn't have directly advocated an overthrow of the government". What you said was right above you. Copy and paste. Now you say you provided a playbook. You admit you cannot show me in the book where he says to overthrow the government, but somehow, someway in your mind he is still advocating overthrowing the government. The only place you get that is from rightwingnut websites. As for tea baggers, tell me how saying they want to take our country back and if we don't get our way with the ballot box we will with the second amendment is not advocating over throwing the government.

Look out you will hurt his wittle feelers!

[SoonerorLater]

Even the most rightwingnut lemming can read a simple sentence, I guess that leaves you out.

Let me make it simple so you can understand. You changed your premise again. What you wrote is on here right above the post where you changed your premise AGAIN, all anyone has to do is to copy and paste what you previously posted to show you changed it when pressed for proof.

Understand now, pumpkin?

As for tea baggers, tell me how saying they want to take our country back and if we don't get our way with the ballot box we will with the second amendment is not advocating over throwing the government

What about this sentence do you not understand? You have a double standard for what people on the left say and people on the right say.

Now - either show me where the "playbook" says anything about overthrowing the government or admit you just read it on some rightwingnut webstire or heard it on faux "news" or on some crazy rightwingnut talk radio or shut up about it.


What I understand is you are an idiot. You write at about a ninth grade level.

I never said that Alinsky published anything about overthrowing the government. Never. Did not say that. What I did say and this is a direct quote.

"I would say that providing the playbook for those that did want to overthrow the government counts".

Again this it's what is called a counter argument. It does not necessarily challenge a previous statement but is meant to provide another viewpoint or in this case point to the larger truth. The fact is that Alinsky gave aid, information and road map to the sixties radical types (like the aforementioned Ayres ) who employed strategies found in his book. In other words he wrote a book directed to an audience of people who did want to bring down our government. The fact that he supplied the bullets but didn't pull the trigger doesn't make his hands any cleaner than his devotees who did the dirty work (Last sentence is an analogy in case you don't understand that either)

As far as the "rightwingnut talk radio" "faux news", etc. crap. That is just a complete lie. A total fabrication on your part. Just something you made up without any shred of proof. Let's play your silly-*** game. PROVE one thing I said came from my viewing or reading any of the media you mentioned. PROVE IT OR SHUT UP!

[Sooner8th]

What I understand is you are an idiot. You write at about a ninth grade level.

I never said that Alinsky published anything about overthrowing the government. Never. Did not say that. What I did say and this is a direct quote.

"I would say that providing the playbook for those that did want to overthrow the government counts".

Again this it's what is called a counter argument. It does not necessarily challenge a previous statement but is meant to provide another viewpoint or in this case point to the larger truth. The fact is that Alinsky gave aid, information and road map to the sixties radical types (like the aforementioned Ayres ) who employed strategies found in his book. In other words he wrote a book directed to an audience of people who did want to bring down our government. The fact that he supplied the bullets but didn't pull the trigger doesn't make his hands any cleaner than his devotees who did the dirty work (Last sentence is a metaphor in case don't understand that either)

As far as the "rightwingnut talk radio" "faux news", etc. crap. That is just a complete lie. A total fabrication on your part. Just something you made up without any shred of proof. Let's play your silly-*** game. PROVE one thing I said came from my viewing or reading any of the media you mentioned. PROVE IT OR SHUT UP!


The question was where does he espouse overthrowing the government. Your answer was

Rules for Radicals...

who or what is "the enemy" he talks about...

What I said is show me in the book where he "espouses" that. Three times you can't show me where it is in the book. You have one reason after another why you can't show it including he would have been arrested for it if he would have.

Lets talk about that for a minute - you make yet another claim you can't backup.

Now the Supreme Court referred to the right to speak openly of violent action and revolution in broad terms:

[Our] decisions have fashioned the principle that the constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not allow a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or cause such action.

So even if he "espoused" without coming right out and saying it, he could have been arrested and prosecuted. Stop making stuff up.

So the fact is you can't because show it because he didn't "espouse" it. So, it follows that since it is not in the book, it was made up and the only people making it up are rightwingnuts. Google saul alinsky overthrow the government and all you find is rightwingnut websites. So it follows that is where you got it from.

Simple enough?

[SoonerorLater]

Simple enough?

Well you certainly have the simple part down but the enough part is lacking. You do understand that responding to your post and answering your question are two different things. You do get that, right?

Again show me PROOF what you said concerning what I wrote coming from "rightwingnut talk radio" "faux news", etc. PROOF not what you surmise. Not what you think or feel must be, but PROOF.

[Sooner8th]

Well you certainly have the simple part down but the enough part is lacking. You do understand that responding to your post and answering your question are two different things. You do get that, right?

Again show me PROOF what you said concerning what I wrote coming from "rightwingnut talk radio" "faux news", etc. PROOF not what you surmise. Not what you think or feel must be, but PROOF.

Thank you for showing your double standard. You made a claim that the book "espouses" overthrowing the government, but you cannot provide any proof. Then you demand proof where you got that idea at.

Tell me, have you read the book?

[dwarthog]

Rules for Radicals

Page 7.


All societies discourage and penalize ideas and writings that threaten the
ruling status quo. It is understandable, therefore, that the literature of a
Have society is a veritable desert whenever we look for writings on social
change. Once the American Revolution was done with, we can find very
little besides the right of revolution that is laid down in the Declaration of
Independence as a fundamental right; seventy-three years later Thoreau's
brief essay on "The Duty of Civil Disobedience"; followed by Lincoln's
reaffirmation of the revolutionary right in 1861.*

Note the * referencing a footnote on that page.


* Lincoln's First Inaugural. "This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who
inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise
their constitutional right of amending it, or their revolutionary right to dismember or
overthrow it."

Page 36/37


The tenth rule of the ethics of means and ends is that you do what you can
with what you have and clothe it with moral garments. In the field of action,
the first question that arises in the determination of means to be employed
for particular ends is what means are available. This requires an
assessment of whatever strengths or resources are present and can be
used. It involves sifting the multiple factors which combine in creating the
circumstances at any given time, and an adjustment to the popular views
and the popular climate. Questions such as how much time is necessary
or available must be considered. Who, and how many, will support the
action? Does the opposition possess the power to the degree that it can
suspend or change the laws? Does its control of police power extend to
the point where legal and orderly change is impossible? If weapons are
needed, then are appropriate weapons available? Availability of means
determines whether you will be underground or above ground; whether
you will move quickly or slowly; whether you will move for extensive
changes or limited adjustments; whether you will move by passive
resistance or active resistance; or whether you will move at all. The
absence of any means might drive one to martyrdom in the hope that this
would be a catalyst, starting a chain reaction that would culminate in a
mass movement. Here a simple ethical statement is used as a means to
power.

A naked illustration of this point is to be found in Trotsky's summary of
Lenin's famous April Theses, issued

Of Means and Ends 37

shortly after Lenin's return from exile. Lenin pointed out: "The task of the
Bolsheviks is to overthrow the Imperialist Government. But this
government rests upon the support of the Social Revolutionaries and
Mensheviks, who in turn are supported by the trustfulness of the masses
of people. We are in the minority. In these circumstances there can be no
talk of violence on our side." The essence of Lenin's speeches during this
period was "They have the guns and therefore we are for peace and for
reformation through the ballot. When we have the guns then it will be
through the bullet." And it was.

[Sooner8th]

Rules for Radicals

Page 7.



Note the * referencing a footnote on that page.



Page 36/37

So your backup is him quoting LINCOLN! Too funny!

I knew you haven't read it, I did the same search you did and found the same two quotes.

Now show me where this says to use it to overthrow the government of the United States.

[SoonerorLater]

Thank you for showing your double standard. You made a claim that the book "espouses" overthrowing the government, but you cannot provide any proof. Then you demand proof where you got that idea at.

Tell me, have you read the book?

You mean like.

"Lest we forget at least an over-the-shoulder acknowledgment to the very first radical: from all our legends, mythology, and history (and who is to know where mythology leaves off and history begins — or which is which), the first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom — Lucifer"

Alinsky giving props to his mentor Satan. You draw the analogy. As Satan "won" his kingdom through deception and lies so was Alinsky trying to win his own kingdom through the methods of his mentor.

I never said the book "espouses" (your quotation, not mine) anything. You are still yet to PROVE anything I said is from, in your words, "rightwingnut webstire" or "faux "news" or on some "crazy rightwingnut talk radio". Admit it, you just made it all up because you thought it served your purposes.

[FaninAma]

The sad thing about the whole Sooner8th mindset is that there is at least 45%(probably higher) of the electorate that belong to the same cult as he does. Which means if a pathetic leader like Obama can somehow convince just 5.1% of the rest of the country who actually have a few brain cells with electrical activity they can become President of the United States.

[Sooner8th]

You mean like.

"Lest we forget at least an over-the-shoulder acknowledgment to the very first radical: from all our legends, mythology, and history (and who is to know where mythology leaves off and history begins — or which is which), the first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom — Lucifer"

Alinsky giving props to his mentor Satan. You draw the analogy. As Satan "won" his kingdom through deception and lies so was Alinsky trying to win his own kingdom through the methods of his mentor.

I never said the book "espouses" (your quotation, not mine) anything. You are still yet to PROVE anything I said is from, in your words, "rightwingnut webstire" or "faux "news" or on some "crazy rightwingnut talk radio". Admit it, you just made it all up because you thought it served your purposes.

One - I showed you that you answered the question on espoused with the "playbook". So you did.

Two - you obviously have not read the book so you got your talking point from somewhere. The only place it is coming from is from rightwingnut websites, faux "news" and rightwingnut talk radio.

If you didn't tell me where you did get it at.

[dwarthog]

So your backup is him quoting LINCOLN! Too funny!

I knew you haven't read it, I did the same search you did and found the same two quotes.

Now show me where this says to use it to overthrow the government of the United States.

I have the book in my hand dumbass.

Quit being an illiterate jerk.

I didn't quote Lincoln, Alinsky quoted him in the book.


Now, go read your copy and find it. I gave you the page numbers, surely you can pull that off.

[Sooner8th]

I have the book in my hand dumbass.

Quit being an illiterate jerk.

I didn't quote Lincoln, Alinsky quoted him in the book.


Now, go read your copy and find it. I gave you the page numbers, surely you can pull that off.

My bad, I thought you were soonerorlater

and i said So your backup is him quoting LINCOLN! Too funny!

Never said you quoted Lincoln.

I don't have a copy, funny how you do. Show me where it says to overthrow the government of the United States.

Quit being an illiterate jerk.

[SoonerorLater]

From Alinsky himself. Here he talks about his view of radicals. This is Alinsky's version of "hope and change". The people in this statement that he, himself acknowledges hit, hurt, are dangerous and break necks. He provides tacit approval of change through violence by writing a guidebook book for people like this.

“Let the liberal turn to the course of action, the course of all radicals, and the amused look vanishes from the face of society as it snarls, “That’s radical!” Society has good reason to fear the radical. Every shaking advance of mankind toward equality and justice has come from the radical. He hits, he hurts, he is dangerous. Conservative interests know that while liberals are most adept at breaking their own necks with their tongues, radicals are most adept at breaking the necks of conservatives.”
― Saul D. Alinsky, Reveille for Radicals

[Sooner8th]

From Alinsky himself. Here he talks about his view of radicals. This is Alinsky's version of "hope and change". The people in this statement that he, himself acknowledges hit, hurt, are dangerous and break necks. He provides tacit approval of change through violence by writing a guidebook book for people like this.

“Let the liberal turn to the course of action, the course of all radicals, and the amused look vanishes from the face of society as it snarls, “That’s radical!” Society has good reason to fear the radical. Every shaking advance of mankind toward equality and justice has come from the radical. He hits, he hurts, he is dangerous. Conservative interests know that while liberals are most adept at breaking their own necks with their tongues, radicals are most adept at breaking the necks of conservatives.”
― Saul D. Alinsky, Reveille for Radicals

There you go again. You wont answer the question and now you want to link obama to alinsky. Typical rightwingnut talking point. You and yours use words like version and espouse, because there is not direct link between the two. Just like the claim obama pals around with terrorists.

Remember your party's last nominees daddy loved himself some saul alinsky.

[dwarthog]

My bad, I thought you were soonerorlater

and i said So your backup is him quoting LINCOLN! Too funny!

Never said you quoted Lincoln.

I don't have a copy, funny how you do. Show me where it says to overthrow the government of the United States.

Quit being an illiterate jerk.
Obtuse to the bitter end.

Prologue pages 23/24 showcases nicely the background plots and storylines for which the book was written and subsequently the targets for which the rules were to be brought to bear against.

Now somethng for you to find.

Your head.

Hint, it's encapsulated in a frequently used storage location identifiable by gaseous discharges and lack of light.

[SoonerorLater]

There you go again. You wont answer the question and now you want to link obama to alinsky. Typical rightwingnut talking point. You and yours use words like version and espouse, because there is not direct link between the two. Just like the claim obama pals around with terrorists.

Remember your party's last nominees daddy loved himself some saul alinsky.

Are you on drugs? You keep saying I used the word "espouse". Other than quoting you I never used the word and where did you get the idea that my partys nominee's father loved anything about Saul Alinsky. Your are just making stuff up again.

[Sooner8th]

Obtuse to the bitter end.

Prologue pages 23/24 showcases nicely the background plots and storylines for which the book was written and subsequently the targets for which the rules were to be brought to bear against.

Now somethng for you to find.

Your head.

Hint, it's encapsulated in a frequently used storage location identifiable by gaseous discharges and lack of light.

Prologue xxiii

how bad things are now, they are better than that." So they begin to turn
back. They regress into acceptance of a coming massive repression in the
name of "law and order."

In the midst of the gassing and violence by the Chicago Police and
National Guard during the 1968 Democratic Convention many students
asked me, "Do you still believe we should try to work inside our system?"

These were students who had been with Eugene McCarthy in New
Hampshire and followed him across the country. Some had been with
Robert Kennedy when he was killed in Los Angeles. Many of the tears that
were shed in Chicago were not from gas. "Mr. Alinsky, we fought in
primary after primary and the people voted noov\ Vietnam. Look at that
convention. They're not paying any attention to the vote. Look at your
police and the army. You still want us to work in the system?"

It hurt me to see the American army with drawn bayonets advancing on
American boys and girls. But the answer I gave the young radicals
seemed to me the only realistic one: "Do one of three things. One, go find
a wailing wall and feel sorry for yourselves. Two, go psycho and start
bombing — but this will only swing people to the right. Three, learn a
lesson. Go home, organize, build power and at the next convention, you
be the delegates. "

Remember: once you organize people around something as commonly
agreed upon as pollution, then an organized people is on the move. From
there it's a short and natural step to political pollution, to Pentagon
pollution.

It is not enough just to elect your candidates. You must keep the pressure
on. Radicals should keep in mind Franklin D. Roosevelt's response to a
reform delegation, "Okay, you've convinced me. Now go on out and bring
pressure on me!" Action comes from keeping the heat on.

Prologue xxiv

No politician can sit on a hot issue if you make it hot enough.

As for Vietnam, I would like to see our nation be the first in the history of
man to publicly say, "We were wrong! What we did was horrible. We got in
and kept getting in deeper and deeper and at every step we invented new
reasons for staying. We have paid part of the price in 44,000 dead
Americans. There is nothing we can ever do to make it up to the people of
Indo-China — or to our own people — but we will try. We believe that our
world has come of age so that it is no longer a sign of weakness or defeat
to abandon a childish pride and vanity, to admit we were wrong." Such an
admission would shake up the foreign policy concepts of all nations and
open the door to a new international order. This is our alternative to
Vietnam — anything else is the old makeshift patchwork. If this were to
happen, Vietnam may even have been somewhat worth it.

A final word on our system. The democratic ideal springs from the ideas of
liberty, equality, majority rule through free elections, protection of the rights
of minorities, and freedom to subscribe to multiple loyalties in matters of
religion, economics, and politics rather than to a total loyalty to the state.
The spirit of democracy is the idea of importance and worth in the
individual, and faith in the kind of world where the individual can achieve
as much of his potential as possible.

Great dangers always accompany great opportunities. The possibility of
destruction is always implicit in the act of creation. Thus the greatest
enemy of individual freedom is the individual himself.

From the beginning the weakness as well as the strength of the
democratic ideal has been the people.

So this is your overthrow the government?

[olevetonahill]

8TH subscribes to the adage of "If you cant Dazzle em with Brilliance Then Baffle em with Bullsh1t"

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

8TH subscribes to the adage of "If you cant Dazzle em with Brilliance Then Baffle em with Bullsh1t"he's evidence of the genius of Leftism. Anyone that advanced deserves philosophical adherance.

[Sooner8th]

8TH subscribes to the adage of "If you cant Dazzle em with Brilliance Then Baffle em with Bullsh1t"

So posting what he said is the proof that alinsky said to overthrow the government is bullsh!t?

[olevetonahill]

Who he talking to? Is he talking about Dong again?

[Curly Bill]

I'm not reading through these next two pages, but it's my guess that KC//8th said he likes obamadong and other kinds of progressive dong soooooo much that no matter what's said, he will love him some dong and support it no matter how stupid he looks in the process.

[olevetonahill]

I'm not reading through these next two pages, but it's my guess that KC//8th said he likes obamadong and other kinds of progressive dong soooooo much that no matter what's said, he will love him some dong and support it no matter how stupid he looks in the process.

Bout what I thot .