AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

okie, Rather than attacking me which is only ad hominems on your part, why don't you challenge what I actually said? What was "hilarious?" Can you do that? Is that how you graduated at the top of your class by attacking the lessons with nonsense that it's funny?

Here is what you said about my post in regard to Alinsky:

"Yes, it's a slow process, because congress and the president are the ones who approve laws for our country. They cannot approve laws that are not Constitutional. We select our government by elections.

Alinsky obviously doesn't know how our government is selected or works. We are not the Soviet Union, Cuba, or any third world country. We still vote our representatives into government.

So if he wants to point the finger, it's the voters who are to blame."

The reason why I thought your post was hilarious, is because you are apparently so naive. Alinsky is not ignorant of how the government works at all, that is precisely why his brand of revolution involves incremental takevoer of the institutions in this country. He is a Marxist, ci, come on, and this is the guy that Obama studied and used, his principles are the handbook of "community oranizers" as Obama was.

Essentially, when you voted for Obama, you voted for a guy that learned the rules of radicals from a Marxist, to practice "community organizing" in Chicago, which he would also take experience from to apply nationally. That is what Obama is doing. I am left wondering, do you simply not know this, or do you pass it off as untrue, or what? I know you are a liberal, but are liberals want Marxist politics to be practiced, do you? After all, you voted for a guy that would never claim he is, but if you study the man and who he learned from and practiced, you would know more than you show from your posts.

Its time to ask you the question, do you want this country to go radical socialist communist or not? If you do, you voted correctly. If not, you need to study these politicians and understand them more, you are totally naive. That is why I thought your post was hilarious, it appears to be totally naive and without any understanding whatsoever about what I posted about Alinsky.

0 Replies

@okie,

okie wrote:

I do not trust Obama at all. He has not earned trust at all. Few people even know what Obama is about, who he is, or what he wants, and I believe very very little that he says.

That's so scarrrrrrry okie. Let's all gather around the campfire and tell ghost stories. At the appropriate time, you can creep in the way you always do and shout "BOO!"

0 Replies

@okie,

okie wrote:

Read about Alinsky, this is what you are trusting . . . .

“[W]e are concerned,” Alinsky elaborated, “with how to create mass organizations to seize power and give it to the people; to realize the democratic dream of equality, justice, peace, cooperation, equal and full opportunities for education, full and useful employment, health, and the creation of those circumstances in which men have the chance to live by the values that give meaning to life. . . .

Oh okie, that's so scarrrrrry too. Good thing Alinsky is dead. Otherwise, he would be working his heart out to achieve these awful things:

democratic dream of equality,
justice,
peace,
cooperation,
equal and full opportunities for education,
full and useful employment, health, and
the creation of those circumstances in which men have the chance to live by the values that give meaning to life.

Americans hate those things!!!!!!! Anyone who would follow in Alinsky's footsteps and try to grow a grassroots movement to support those awful things must be stopped before it's too late! IMPEACH ALINSKY!

1 Reply

@Debra Law,

Yeah, those are all wonderful things, they are the same things Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, Castro, Hugo Chavez and a few other guys of their ilk loved to espouse. Yes, they all loved to talk about their dream of social justice, peace, equality, cooporation, yes, that would be utopia.

You will have to cart me away and send me to a re-education camp to convince me, Debra, and then I won't even be convinced.

Pretty revealing stuff here. The libs are beginning to shed their cocoons.

2 Replies

@okie,

okie wrote:

Yeah, those are all wonderful things, they are the same things Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, Castro, Hugo Chavez and a few other guys of their ilk loved to espouse. Yes, they all loved to talk about their dream of social justice, peace, equality, cooporation, yes, that would be utopia.

You will have to cart me away and send me to a re-education camp to convince me, Debra, and then I won't even be convinced.

So, you are against those things, and would counsel not working or attempting to make them a reality in any way?

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@okie,

And they all thought it appropriate to bludgeon anybody who got in the way of implementation of their version of utopia, too. We have politicians and 'visionaries' here too who, on a somewhat less extreme scale, also think it appropriate to blugeon verbally or economically or politically, anybody who gets in their way or speaks against their version of utopia.

2 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

I believe in equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome, and that is what Alinsky was about, his social justice blah blah blah, equality, and so forth, was nothing more than equality of outcome, its Marxist propaganda, cyclops.

So come on out of your cocoon, if thats what you believe in. Otherwise if you don't, wake up and smell the coffee, as Ann Landers used to say.

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

And they all thought it appropriate to bludgeon anybody who got in the way of implementation of their version of utopia, too. We have politicians and 'visionaries' here too who, on a somewhat less extreme scale, also think it appropriate to blugeon verbally or economically or politically, anybody who gets in their way or speaks against their version of utopia.

Is this not bizarre, Foxfyre, Debra claims America hates all of her Marxist buzz phrases of social justice, equality, etc. I never thought I would see the day, but they are coming forth in full bloom, Foxfyre. I guess all it took was an Obama to give them the "audacity of hope?" Hope in their twisted mindset, thats about all.

1 Reply

@okie,

okie wrote:

I believe in equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome, and that is what Alinsky was about, his social justice blah blah blah, equality, and so forth, was nothing more than equality of outcome, its Marxist propaganda, cyclops.

So come on out of your cocoon, if thats what you believe in. Otherwise if you don't, wake up and smell the coffee, as Ann Landers used to say.

Well, I have never pretended not to have Socialist leanings, Okie. I'm not in a cocoon, as you put it. I have consistently maintained that the strongest economic system possible will have elements of cooperation AND competition within it.

'Equality of Opportunity.' I hear you guys throw this around a lot, but what does it really mean, to you? Does it mean that everyone gets the same opportunities in life? That everyone has the advantages a rich kid has, or a kid whose parents live in a nice area of town, or someone whose family is politically connected? It has been my experience that Conservatives don't really want to examine what equality of opportunity means.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

Your side will be credible in their efforts when they produce bullet pointed summaries for perusal and discussion.

Here is a "bullet pointed summary" of the RADICAL dreams for an American democracy:

equality,
justice,
peace,
cooperation,
equal and full opportunities for education,
full and useful employment,
health, and
the creation of those circumstances in which men have the chance to live by the values that give meaning to life.

Could these things be the epitome of the life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness that our revolutionary founders had in mind when they revolted from England and created this country? when later generations fought the civil war and enacted the civil war amendments to our Constitution?

Foxfyre wrote:

And they all thought it appropriate to bludgeon anybody who got in the way of implementation of their version of utopia, too.

Those DAMN founding fathers, civil war heros, and their bludgeoning ways: Shame on them! And anyone who dares to be a community organizer and awaken the sleeping giants in our communities, shame on them too! The little people who want all those things on that radical list must be stomped into submission because we cannot abide by their "version of utopia." For crying out loud, man -- they want equality and justice and HEALTH! We can't let that happen!

2 Replies

@Debra Law,

What do they think religious' charities do? Are they socialist organizations that's teaching communism to the masses?

Are they or aren't they community organizations? ..

How about the Red Cross? Are they also intruding people out of self-sufficiency and should be outlawed? Are they "community organizations?"

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

okie wrote:

I believe in equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome, and that is what Alinsky was about, his social justice blah blah blah, equality, and so forth, was nothing more than equality of outcome, its Marxist propaganda, cyclops.

So come on out of your cocoon, if thats what you believe in. Otherwise if you don't, wake up and smell the coffee, as Ann Landers used to say.

Well, I have never pretended not to have Socialist leanings, Okie. I'm not in a cocoon, as you put it. I have consistently maintained that the strongest economic system possible will have elements of cooperation AND competition within it.

'Equality of Opportunity.' I hear you guys throw this around a lot, but what does it really mean, to you? Does it mean that everyone gets the same opportunities in life? That everyone has the advantages a rich kid has, or a kid whose parents live in a nice area of town, or someone whose family is politically connected? It has been my experience that Conservatives don't really want to examine what equality of opportunity means.

Cycloptichorn

Equality of opportunity means that nobody is forbidden or prohibited from attempting to achieve his/her legal goals or opportunities and that the identical same rules apply to everybody regardless of race, ethnicity, gender, creed, sexual orientation etc.

Equality of opportunity does not mean that everybody will be as qualified, capable, skilled, motivated, or will make best choices as the next person or will happen to stumble across the right opportunity at the right time. But everybody, without exception, can compete and attempt to qualify.

Equality of opportunity means that those who do achieve their goals can hold their heads high and know in their heart that they earned their recognition or status or position and nobody gave it to them out of pity because they were inadequate or inferior in any way or because they were given deference not available to others.

Equality of opportunity is one of the most enobling policies a society can provide for its members.

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Quote:

Nope; but, what matters is how someone governs and what actions they take, not what their personal preference is. I'm sure many of our politicians believe all sorts of crazy stuff; that's immaterial to me. What matters are the policies they try and enact. And Obama is not trying to enact ANY 'radical leftist' policies at this time.

Cycloptichorn

I did not say that Obama was trying to enact any "radical ideas".

My concern regarding him and the health care bills currently making the rounds is that he isnt trying to enact anything.
He has so far refused to use the power of his office to even hint at what kind of bill he wants, or what he would support.

Now I know that the President cannot write legislation, So theusual suspects dont need to tell me that.
He can however, push for what he wants, and use the power of his office to attempt to steer legislation the way he wants.

He has refused to do even that much.

1 Reply

@mysteryman,

mysteryman wrote:

Quote:
Nope; but, what matters is how someone governs and what actions they take, not what their personal preference is. I'm sure many of our politicians believe all sorts of crazy stuff; that's immaterial to me. What matters are the policies they try and enact. And Obama is not trying to enact ANY 'radical leftist' policies at this time.

Cycloptichorn

I did not say that Obama was trying to enact any "radical ideas".

I know you didn't, but Okie and Ican make this argument on a daily basis.

Quote:

My concern regarding him and the health care bills currently making the rounds is that he isnt trying to enact anything.
He has so far refused to use the power of his office to even hint at what kind of bill he wants, or what he would support.

I wouldn't say this is true, Obama has put out plenty of info on what the bill should include and what he wants. Hell, he wrote a piece on exactly this in the NYT this last weekend.

Quote:

Now I know that the President cannot write legislation, So theusual suspects dont need to tell me that.
He can however, push for what he wants, and use the power of his office to attempt to steer legislation the way he wants.

He has refused to do even that much.

See above; this is inaccurate. Though, I do wish he would lay down the law with some of these Dem senators.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

What do they think religious' charities do? Are they socialist organizations that's teaching communism to the masses?

Are they or aren't they community organizations? ..

How about the Red Cross? Are they also intruding people out of self-sufficiency and should be outlawed? Are they "community organizations?"

People like Foxfyre, ican, and okie have opposed and fought against every bit of progress this country has made from it inception. If they lived in the 1800's, they would be defending the institution of slavery. If they lived in the early 1900's, they would be defending the meat packing industry and opposing reform. They sit here today in the first decade of the 21st Century, living in much better conditions than those who lived in earlier times due to the hard work of progressives, and work their little hearts out to grind progress to a halt with their lies. Community organization is BADDDDDDD they say--the tool of socialists, communists, and marxists--all the while they're engaged in community organization to fight progress. Hypocrites (and Idiots). All of them.

2 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

Equality of opportunity is one of the most enobling policies a society can provide for its members.

Correct. The government is to act as a referee to protect us from each other, they are not there to play the game and hurt us. We should not have to protect ourselves from it. I am trying to figure out if folks like Debra and cyclops really just do not understand liberty and freedom, or that they just think there is a better way, that better way having been tried and has failed to one extent or another. Yet they persist in wanting to go down that same only failed path.

1 Reply

@Debra Law,

Well, Alinsky had Marxist philosophy and his methods were used by Obama. I think this is pretty well established. If you wish to try to defend it, fine, that is your privilege, but don't lie to us, okay. Present it for what it is. I am merely pointing out the facts of it.

1 Reply

@okie,

okie wrote:

Is this not bizarre, Foxfyre, Debra claims America hates all of her Marxist buzz phrases of social justice, equality, etc. I never thought I would see the day, but they are coming forth in full bloom, Foxfyre. I guess all it took was an Obama to give them the "audacity of hope?" Hope in their twisted mindset, thats about all.

Although I think you're already aware of this, okie, I was MOCKING you and your demonization of community organizing as a RADICAL socialism, communist, Marxist tool. If you didn't realize that I was MOCKING you, then you're several more slices short of a full loaf than what I originally gave you credit for having.

0 Replies

@okie,

okie wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:

Equality of opportunity is one of the most enobling policies a society can provide for its members.

Correct. The government is to act as a referee to protect us from each other, they are not there to play the game and hurt us. We should not have to protect ourselves from it. I am trying to figure out if folks like Debra and cyclops really just do not understand liberty and freedom, or that they just think there is a better way, that better way having been tried and has failed to one extent or another. Yet they persist in wanting to go down that same only failed path.

Of course we understand freedom and liberty. We simply believe there are structural problems with the setup of America, in a variety of ways, which prevent many of our citizens from achieving freedom and liberty. And those who benefit from these structural imbalances will always fight to protect them and always claim that the advantages they enjoyed were not the reason of their success.

The Health Care debate is a great example. Our health care system currently serves the Rich quite well and the upper middle class OK, as long as you aren't sick to begin with. It sucks for everyone else. But, those who fall into the middle and upper classes are likely to resist change, for they fear change.

So, we fight to give access to health care to everyone, not just the rich or upper middle class; that's our version of equality of opportunity, that everyone has the opportunity to see a doctor when they are sick, not just those who are lucky.

The government, as you put it, does protect us from each other; and one of the things it protects people from are Corporations, in this case, Health Insurance corps., who have put a stranglehold on our health-care system and are choking the life out of us in the name of gigantic profits. Attempting to reform the system is the government doing it's job.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Debra Law,

Debra Law wrote:

People like Foxfyre, ican, and okie have opposed and fought against every bit of progress this country has made from it inception. If they lived in the 1800's, they would be defending the institution of slavery.

That is over the top and you know it. It is nonsense. In the first place, I am no racist, that is what BLT teaches, on which Obama's religion in Chicago was based.

1 Reply

AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know