Zone1 A question for the USMB left.

Do you even engage anyone besides your own straw men?
I mean your side literally wants gay people ostracized from society and for the legal protections and benefits of marriage to be stripped from them. Your people have spent decades doing things like calling them child grooming pedophiles and applauding the AIDS epidemic. If you can't see how that can be interpreted as hatred then you're nuts.
 
Oh, I guess that I got it wrong and you do not support women's right to abortion on demand, and you are appalled at the brutality of late term abortions. Yes or no?
I have no problem with abortion on demand up to some reasonable amount of time. Your scenario involves significantly less than 1% of all abortions, and are mostly performed due to a threat to the life of the woman. So I completely disregard your comments as nonsense.
 
Mostly? Because he was an evil, soulless agent of chaos. He made no attempt to hide how twisted he was.

". . . Now, a crucial clarification: I don’t think it’s technically accurate to say that Rules for Radicals is “dedicated” to Lucifer, as is often claimed by Alinsky’s detractors. (It’s also hard to criticize them for making that assumption.) Looking at the book carefully, it appears to be dedicated to one person: There is a page that says simply “To Irene,” and nothing else. On the page prior to the Irene dedication is a list of “Personal Acknowledgements,” where Alinsky lists four friends: Jason Epstein, Cicely Nichols, Susan Rabiner, and Georgia Harper. Following the Irene page is another page, the controversial one, in which Alinsky offers three quotes, the first from a Rabbi Hillel, the second from Thomas Paine, and the third from Alinsky himself, giving his nod to Lucifer. One well-known fact-checker source (Snopes) describes this as “three epigraphs on an introductory page.” I suppose that’s an acceptable way to characterize it. And the third of the three is an “epigraph” (if you will) to Satan.

But we shouldn’t let Alinsky off the Lucifer hook so easily.

Alinsky, for one, was asked about the Lucifer acknowledgment in his March 1972 interview with Playboy magazine near the end of his life, a swan-song that every Alinsky aficionado knows about. Here’s the exchange, which came at the very end of the interview, with Playboy apparently judging it a fittingly provocative close to the extremely lengthy interview:

PLAYBOY: Having accepted your own mortality, do you believe in any kind of afterlife?

ALINSKY: Sometimes it seems to me that the question people should ask is not “Is there life after death?” but “Is there life after birth?” I don’t know whether there’s anything after this or not. I haven’t seen the evidence one way or the other and I don’t think anybody else has either. But I do know that man’s obsession with the question comes out of his stubborn refusal to face up to his own mortality. Let’s say that if there is an afterlife, and I have anything to say about it, I will unreservedly choose to go to hell.

PLAYBOY: Why?

ALINSKY: Hell would be heaven for me. All my life I’ve been with the have-nots. Over here, if you’re a have-not, you’re short of dough. If you’re a have-not in hell, you’re short of virtue. Once I get into hell, I’ll start organizing the have-nots over there.

PLAYBOY: Why them?

ALINSKY: They’re my kind of people.

“They’re my kind of people,” said Alinsky. “Hell would be heaven for me.”

Tongue-in-cheek again? Yuk, yuk, yuk. Hilarious, just hilarious.

For the record, when I googled the Alinsky-Playboy interview this week I found the aforementioned excerpt posted at (among other places) a Satanist website. There, the author, in an article titled, “Saul D. Alinsky: A role model for left-wing Satanists,” writes of the exchange: “I’m not sure whether Alinsky really was a Satanist/Luciferian of some sort or whether he was just joking. He may well have been just joking.”

Maybe. Pretty funny, eh?"
:sleeping-smiley-015: You guys should really work on your sarcasm detector.
 
I mean your side literally wants gay people ostracized from society and for the legal protections and benefits of marriage to be stripped from them. Your people have spent decades doing things like calling them child grooming pedophiles and applauding the AIDS epidemic. If you can't see how that can be interpreted as hatred then you're nuts.
My side is moderate libertarians. We've done nothing that you accuse us of. Grow up.
 
Saul Alinsky

The Rules[edit source]​

  1. "Power is not only what you have but what the enemy thinks you have."
  2. "Never go outside the expertise of your people."
  3. "Whenever possible go outside the expertise of the enemy."
  4. "Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules."
  5. "Ridicule is man's most potent weapon. There is no defense. It is almost impossible to counterattack ridicule. Also it infuriates the opposition, who then react to your advantage."
  6. "A good tactic is one your people enjoy."
  7. "A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag."
  8. "Keep the pressure on."
  9. "The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself."
  10. "The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition."
  11. "If you push a negative hard and deep enough it will break through into its counterside; this is based on the principle that every positive has its negative."
  12. "The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative."
  13. "Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it."
Far too many "libertarian" and "independent" types flail miserably at #12.....The forum is full of 'em.
 
I have a sincere question for the lefties here.
No, you're clearly not sincere. That insincerity is clearly very deliberate on your part. You're making up a dishonest strawman and then attacking it.

That is, you're just lying, and that's just boring, since all conservatives lie about everything, all the time. It's only news if a conservative isn't lying.

We do get it. You can't debate any liberal on any topic, ever, so that forces you to attack strawmen instead. Yes, it is that obvious.
 
It's because you guys aren't disagreeing. You are hating.
 
Far too many "libertarian" and "independent" types flail miserably at #12.....The forum is full of 'em.
It is not rules for them. So I take it your attack is on the Saul Alinskys?
 
No, you're clearly not sincere. That insincerity is clearly very deliberate on your part. You're making up a dishonest strawman and then attacking it.

That is, you're just lying, and that's just boring, since all conservatives lie about everything, all the time. It's only news if a conservative isn't lying.

We do get it. You can't debate any liberal on any topic, ever, so that forces you to attack strawmen instead. Yes, it is that obvious.
A great example of bigotry. First declaring the other guy lied. And then attacking him.
 
You think that is the magic. Tell lies and some plan to believe you. Classic Saul Alinsky.
Illegal aliens are in the law. And they have a right way vs a wrong way to join we citizens. Biden packs them in using the wrong way.
Look kid, stop spewing RWNJ talking points for a minute and think about what you are saying.

Asylum seekers that are let into the country are not illegal. They have been granted at least temporary status. You know this yet you still mindlessly regurgitate the talking point.

And this is America.

The "melting pot", remember?

It's inscribed at the Statue of Liberty.

"Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,

I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"


That's the real America baby. That's the country we are, the country I love.

Not this fascist nightmare you want us to become.


'
 

Forum List

Back
Top