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.Originally Posted by SoonerorLater
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.
Quote
If God wanted Men to look women in the eyes, He wouldnt have gave em Boobs !
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.
Put a lid on it! Kiss it goodbye. We gave it away, and apparently thought it made sense to do so.
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.
Look out you will hurt his wittle feelers!
Quote
If God wanted Men to look women in the eyes, He wouldnt have gave em Boobs !
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!
Last edited by SoonerorLater; 8/22/2014 at 09:43 AM.
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?
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?
Rules for Radicals
Page 7.
Note the * referencing a footnote on that page.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.*
Page 36/37* 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."
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.
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.
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.
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.
Last edited by FaninAma; 8/22/2014 at 12:22 PM.
Beware the man who would rule you for your own good. He will never cease. He will regulate every aspect of your life, destroy your liberty and enslave you, and sleep well convinced that he has made the world a better place.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Last edited by SoonerorLater; 8/22/2014 at 01:56 PM.
Posting Permissions
