why I hate Liberals,

[CUDA]

this is the type of thinking that I truly detest. and I cannot believe that our current President and S.O.S. follow this man's teachings

"Obama learned his lesson well. I am proud to see that my father's model for organizing is being applied successfully beyond local community organizing to affect the Democratic campaign in 2008. It is a fine tribute to Saul Alinsky as we approach his 100th birthday." --Letter from L. DAVID ALINSKY, son of Neo-Marxist Saul Alinsky

Saul Alinsky's rules for Radicals

here is the dedication for his book

“Lest we forget at least an over-the-shoulder acknowledgment to the very first radical: from all our legends, mythology, and history... 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.”

the man dedicates his book to Satan?!?!?!?!?!?!

1. The Purpose

In this book we are concerned with how to create mass organizations to seize power and give it to the people; to realize the democratic dream of equality, justice, peace.... "Better to die on your feet than to live on your knees.' This means revolution." p.3

"Radicals must be resilient, adaptable to shifting political circumstances, and sensitive enough to the process of action and reaction to avoid being trapped by their own tactics and forced to travel a road not of their choosing." p.6

"A Marxist begins with his prime truth that all evils are caused by the exploitation of the proletariat by the capitalists. From this he logically proceeds to the revolution to end capitalism, then into the third stage of reorganization into a new social order of the dictatorship of the proletariat, and finally the last stage -- the political paradise of communism." p.10

"An organizer working in and for an open society is in an ideological dilemma to begin with, he does not have a fixed truth -- truth to him is relative and changing; everything to him is relative and changing.... To the extent that he is free from the shackles of dogma, he can respond to the realities of the widely different situations...." pp.10-11

2. Of Means and Ends [Forget moral or ethical considerations]

"The end is what you want, the means is how you get it. Whenever we think about social change, the question of means and ends arises. The man of action views the issue of means and ends in pragmatic and strategic terms. He has no other problem; he thinks only of his actual resources and the possibilities of various choices of action. He asks of ends only whether they are achievable and worth the cost; of means, only whether they will work. ... The real arena is corrupt and bloody." p.24

"The means-and-ends moralists, constantly obsessed with the ethics of the means used by the Have-Nots against the Haves, should search themselves as to their real political position. In fact, they are passive — but real — allies of the Haves…. The most unethical of all means is the non-use of any means... The standards of judgment must be rooted in the whys and wherefores of life as it is lived, the world as it is, not our wished-for fantasy of the world as it should be...." pp.25-26

"The third rule of ethics of means and ends is that in war the end justifies almost any means...." p.29

"The seventh rule... is that generally success or failure is a mighty determinant of ethics...." p.34

"The tenth rule... is you do what you can with what you have and clothe it with moral garments.... It involves sifting the multiple factors which combine in creating the circumstances at any given time... Who, and how many will support the action?... If weapons are needed, then are appropriate d weapons available? Availability of means determines whether you will be underground or above ground; whether you will move quickly or slowly..." p.36

I guess the end justifies the means, Lie, cheat, and steal. to achieve your Goal. a pure politician

http://www.crossroad.to/Quotes/communism/alinsky.htm

[Soapy]

I'm going out on a limb here, but when did Obama quote or refer to any of your quotes?

Secondly, are those quotes selective? i.e. are they in the context of the whole, or just paraphrased?

Lastly, whats the deal with Saul Alinsky? He is hardly a liberal in any sense, perhaps a bit of a false paradigm for the right wing to hold up as a "liberal", and thus a false proposition.

Apart from that, kudos on actually spelling his name correctly

It is a bit like me saying I hate people who drive a certain type of car, because a book I read part of, had a certain car in it, which then was used to run over a small cat and kill it. Rather than saying, Obama has shares in a company that makes cars that are specifically made with the intention of their owners, running down cats when and if they see them

Oh, and I still get spam emails from the same sources as people who watch Fox news, so Tea bag party perhaps or is it a subset or splinter group of the Palinists who brought up the idea?

[fatman]

Dude whats not to understand with a name like Saul im tipping he is tribe and they have a view on satan. And im not going to google him but was he more of an anarchist than a liberal?

[callmeslick]

Both Soapy and Fatman strike points that show the lunacy of Cuda's post. Cut and paste selectivity can vilify anyone or anything. Blanket comdemnations like, "I hate liberals" expose the person making the statement as a small, or close minded individual, incapable of seeing the nuance in the positions of others.
Soapy's car analogy is damned near perfect, and as Fatman notes, Alinsky was essentially an anarchist, which is actually, in terms of ideology, far closer to the Tea Party types than to anyone close to being called a true Liberal.

[HappyHappy]

Liberalism is just a disguise for a dictatorship of the proletariat.

Callmeslick is well aware that his party is NOT about representative goverment.
It is all about electing people better qualified
to make decisions for the irrational masses (in theory, we the people)

Obama, Pelosi. Kerry and other "Democrats" are CERTAIN that we need the
rational hand of goverment to force us on the correct path.
This criminal health care bill that recently passed is a excellent example
of the Democratic parties extreme arrogance.

I for one resent and REJECT the goverment of the facist Madame Pelisi and her pet president (Obama).

HH

[callmeslick]

Liberalism is just a disguise for a dictatorship of the proletariat.

how so? Cite examples.

Callmeslick is well aware that his party is NOT about representative goverment.
It is all about electing people better qualified
to make decisions for the irrational masses (in theory, we the people)

and, by extension, the Republican philosophy is to elect people less qualified? What a concept.

Obama, Pelosi. Kerry and other "Democrats" are CERTAIN that we need the
rational hand of goverment to force us on the correct path.
This criminal health care bill that recently passed is a excellent example
of the Democratic parties extreme arrogance.

The fact that Obama got elected partly on the promise to do something about healthcare aside,
have you any direct quotes to back up the observation that those folks are CERTAIN about this,
or anything for that matter?

I for one resent and REJECT the goverment of the facist Madame Pelisi and her pet president (Obama).

HH

and, I might add, you're stupid enough to misspell her name in your loony rant.

[ruggbutt]

Slick, heard a vicious rumor that everyone shall have the gubmint's mandatory health care except 1) Amish 2) Scientologists 3) Muslims. Is that shit true?

[callmeslick]

Slick, heard a vicious rumor that everyone shall have the gubmint's mandatory health care except 1) Amish 2) Scientologists 3) Muslims. Is that shit true?

they won't have to have the government's anything. Generally, they will have private plans, as they do now.
Some folks will go to public exchanges(still run by companies), and there are always the Medicaid and Medicare folks. Now, what IS true is that in 6 years, medical insurance will be mandatory. The Amish are exempted, as they don't believe in insurance(something about gambling?). I don't know about the Muslims and never heard anything regarding Scientologists. In both of the latter cases, I can't see a religious reason for non-compliance, as both groups seem to purchase insurance(although I know exactly 2 Scientologists, a really poor sample group).

so, feel free to convert to the Amish religion, if you wish. I couldn't hack the lifestyle but YMMV.


note to rugg: that no-electricity thing could really put a crimp on gaming stuff. But, you could still sit in your cool setup and make suitable sound effects, if you weren't too tired from plowing fields manually or building
barns without power tools......

[callmeslick]

a quick update, ruggie--found no evidence that for any reason would Scientologists be exempted, but potentially, Muslims could be. Apparently, there are a few fatwahs banning insurance as forbidden. Summing it up is the following, which I quoted from a sort of conservative blog investigating it:

"So, it turns out that observant Muslims are not only strictly forbidden from buying any health insurance under the ObamaCare mandate, but may also not even work for any company that provides such insurance or any other form of commercial insurance"

this is sort of funny, as I work with a fair number of Muslims, all of whom carry insurance; medical, auto, homeowners, you name it. Apparently, not too many folks are obeying those cited fatwahs. Not surprising, as one of the tenets of the religion is sort of that you follow the leaders you choose, and obey only their interpretation of the Koran.

[HappyHappy]

Calmeslick, the first rule of Liberals/Communists is when backed into a corner ask for
esoteric facts and or complain about spelling.

I am sure you care little about my opinion of you, but I will say you are at least
as worthless as Obama and Pelosi in my mind.

I hate communists and will never suffer them gladly.

HH