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.
Augustine has been quick on the draw up to this point. It looks like he can't or won't respond to my final challenge.
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.
Lol what a nerd
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?"
The Hillary-Alinsky-Lucifer Connection - CatholicCitizens.org
BY PAUL KENGOR , July 26, 2016 The devil is in her details. In his speech at the Republican convention last week, Ben Carson made a statement that raised some […]catholiccitizens.org
You guys should really work on your sarcasm detector.
Straight-up lying is a different thing altogether.
Seems like you just really don't want an answer to your own question and asked it in bad faith. Oh well.
Far too many "libertarian" and "independent" types flail miserably at #12.....The forum is full of 'em.
Yep. You do induce yawns and you’re effectively admitting that you just got crushed. Again.
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.
It is not rules for them. So I take it your attack is on the Saul Alinskys?
A great example of bigotry. First declaring the other guy lied. And then attacking him.
You would not understand.
Look kid, stop spewing RWNJ talking points for a minute and think about what you are saying.
