Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
NO FAMILY!, but I didn't heed her advice like you did.Traitor, answer the question: How does it feel to be so destructive to your country? Who told you this was a good idea?You need to reread this part and the first quote in my sig.I asked you a fucking question, traitor: How does it feel to be so destructive to your country?
do both of you assholes only cut paste, because when either of you dicwads just wing it, you are no better than Obama without a teleprompter
it's "dickwads"
do both of you assholes only cut paste, because when either of you dicwads just wing it, you are no better than Obama without a teleprompter
do both of you assholes only cut paste, because when either of you dicwads just wing it, you are no better than Obama without a teleprompter
Your utterly valueless opinion is duly noted (which is to say, ridiculed) and filed in the ciruclar file. You fuckin' rejects from the defunct MSLSD board can't even spell.
do both of you assholes only cut paste, because when either of you dicwads just wing it, you are no better than Obama without a teleprompter
Your utterly valueless opinion is duly noted (which is to say, ridiculed) and filed in the ciruclar file. You fuckin' rejects from the defunct MSLSD board can't even spell.
But they are fun to Smack around, aren't they...
peace...
Your utterly valueless opinion is duly noted (which is to say, ridiculed) and filed in the ciruclar file. You fuckin' rejects from the defunct MSLSD board can't even spell.
But they are fun to Smack around, aren't they...
peace...
Yep. But do you realize that only one or two people saw fit to address the point on a substantive level?
The majority of the discussion on this thread has been the hijacking by EdTheSickDick or replies to his hijacking.
As to the two main substantive responses, I like post number 2. A clear reiteration of Alinsky's scumbag "rules" was helpful. And the observation (with which I happen not to agree) that Alinsky wouldn't care -- was interesting and on point.
I believe Alinsky would care because it would be pointless to struggle to obtain power if it wasn't something worth DOING something with or worth holding on to. Alinsky was a scumbag, but not stupid.
But they are fun to Smack around, aren't they...
peace...
Yep. But do you realize that only one or two people saw fit to address the point on a substantive level?
The majority of the discussion on this thread has been the hijacking by EdTheSickDick or replies to his hijacking.
As to the two main substantive responses, I like post number 2. A clear reiteration of Alinsky's scumbag "rules" was helpful. And the observation (with which I happen not to agree) that Alinsky wouldn't care -- was interesting and on point.
I believe Alinsky would care because it would be pointless to struggle to obtain power if it wasn't something worth DOING something with or worth holding on to. Alinsky was a scumbag, but not stupid.
The Left has a Tendency to Disrupt Discussion with Shit Flinging... Most of them are Not Capable of much More than that regarding Honest Discourse, and in that, they make Good little Online Foot Soldiers for the Beast...
peace...
Yet to remain in power to govern, popular support is needed. Thus, the rules are useful tools. If the proletariat (relative to those in power) practice them, any attempt by the powereful to end the inanity would not be in the best interest of the powerful. It was no surprise to me that it took a week for BHO to renounce the faux-racism shenanigans of last week.I think Alinsky might ahve said, "who cares?" The point was to give some power and influence to the powerless, not to tell the powerful how to govern.
Respectfully, I disagree wholeheartedly. These rules are quite useful for attempted silencing of the opposition. For a glaring example, the amount of ridicule to the Tea Party protesters is amazing. it hasn't silenced them, but it has been effective in marginalizing that opposition's message to much of the lower intelligence masses. Starting a meme then feeding it works for those who don't think critically. And there are a lot of folks who don't.Yet to remain in power to govern, popular support is needed. Thus, the rules are useful tools. If the proletariat (relative to those in power) practice them, any attempt by the powereful to end the inanity would not be in the best interest of the powerful. It was no surprise to me that it took a week for BHO to renounce the faux-racism shenanigans of last week.I think Alinsky might ahve said, "who cares?" The point was to give some power and influence to the powerless, not to tell the powerful how to govern.
Once power has been achieved, whether it's in the hands of an individual or a collective, it affords its own methods of protection. The powerful and the powerless will remain, it's only the faces that change. Alinsky's ideas are useful to the powerless, the powerful have no need for them, they have the apparatus of the state to use.
Respectfully, I disagree wholeheartedly. These rules are quite useful for attempted silencing of the opposition. For a glaring example, the amount of ridicule to the Tea Party protesters is amazing. it hasn't silenced them, but it has been effective in marginalizing that opposition's message to much of the lower intelligence masses. Starting a meme then feeding it works for those who don't think critically. And there are a lot of folks who don't.Yet to remain in power to govern, popular support is needed. Thus, the rules are useful tools. If the proletariat (relative to those in power) practice them, any attempt by the powereful to end the inanity would not be in the best interest of the powerful. It was no surprise to me that it took a week for BHO to renounce the faux-racism shenanigans of last week.
Once power has been achieved, whether it's in the hands of an individual or a collective, it affords its own methods of protection. The powerful and the powerless will remain, it's only the faces that change. Alinsky's ideas are useful to the powerless, the powerful have no need for them, they have the apparatus of the state to use.
Good points about the historical use of it. I suppose those who come up with these sorts of things that get stamped with their names are good at summarizing known concepts and applying them. In fact, now that I think of it, this sort of thing happens in science...something long known but with a new application, gets the scientist's name on it.Respectfully, I disagree wholeheartedly. These rules are quite useful for attempted silencing of the opposition. For a glaring example, the amount of ridicule to the Tea Party protesters is amazing. it hasn't silenced them, but it has been effective in marginalizing that opposition's message to much of the lower intelligence masses. Starting a meme then feeding it works for those who don't think critically. And there are a lot of folks who don't.Once power has been achieved, whether it's in the hands of an individual or a collective, it affords its own methods of protection. The powerful and the powerless will remain, it's only the faces that change. Alinsky's ideas are useful to the powerless, the powerful have no need for them, they have the apparatus of the state to use.
I take your point. But I would argue that ridicule as a weapon wasn't created by Alinsky, the Romans knew it well. Alinsky's suggestion is that ridicule can be used by the powerless, I don't think he says anything about its use by the powerful because the powerful wasn't his primary concern except as an opponent.
Recent use of ridicule by the powerful can be seen in the work of Karl Rove and before him in the work of Lee Atwater. It may be that both Rove and Atwater used Alinsky's teachings, I have no idea, but their use doesn't change the purpose behind the principles that Alinsky espoused. He wasn't a voice for the powerful. That the powerful have possibly taken his teachings doesn't change his original perspective which stands for itself.
Good points about the historical use of it. I suppose those who come up with these sorts of things that get stamped with their names are good at summarizing known concepts and applying them. In fact, now that I think of it, this sort of thing happens in science...something long known but with a new application, gets the scientist's name on it.Respectfully, I disagree wholeheartedly. These rules are quite useful for attempted silencing of the opposition. For a glaring example, the amount of ridicule to the Tea Party protesters is amazing. it hasn't silenced them, but it has been effective in marginalizing that opposition's message to much of the lower intelligence masses. Starting a meme then feeding it works for those who don't think critically. And there are a lot of folks who don't.
I take your point. But I would argue that ridicule as a weapon wasn't created by Alinsky, the Romans knew it well. Alinsky's suggestion is that ridicule can be used by the powerless, I don't think he says anything about its use by the powerful because the powerful wasn't his primary concern except as an opponent.
Recent use of ridicule by the powerful can be seen in the work of Karl Rove and before him in the work of Lee Atwater. It may be that both Rove and Atwater used Alinsky's teachings, I have no idea, but their use doesn't change the purpose behind the principles that Alinsky espoused. He wasn't a voice for the powerful. That the powerful have possibly taken his teachings doesn't change his original perspective which stands for itself.
