Obama '08?

ican, the last dozen times you posted that, you said that David Horowitz wrote that, as his version of what Alinsky was saying. (Which is not what Alinsky in fact said or taught). Now you're saying Alinsky wrote it. Which is it? If you maintain those are Alinsky's words, you wanna tell me where they're from? And not somebody's wacko interpretation of what he thinks Alinsky actually did say?

1 Reply

@MontereyJack,

MontereyJack, David Horowitz quoted and paraphrased what Saul Alinsky wrote from Alinsky's books Reveille for Radicals and Rules for Radicals. I have verified that the following are quotes from those two books. You, MontereyJack can do the same thing by reading those two books.

Saul Alinsky wrote:

Radicals should be political relativists. They should take an agnostic view of means and ends;
The radical is not a reformer of the system but its would-be destroyer;
The radical is building his own kingdom, a kingdom of heaven on earth;
The revolutionary’s purpose is to undermine the system by taking from the haves and giving it to the have-nots, and then see what happens;
The most basic principle for radicals is lie to opponents and disarm them by pretending to be moderates and liberals;
The radical organizer does not have a fixed truth"truth to him is relative and changing; everything to him is relative and changing; he is a political relativist.

MontereyJack, I think you should begin now to start questioning the validity of your own sources!

2 Replies

@ican711nm,

ican711nm wrote:

Obama is a self-confessed disciple of Saul Alinsky.

Saul Alinsky wrote:
Radicals should be political relativists. They should take an agnostic view of means and ends;
The radical is not a reformer of the system but its would-be destroyer;
The radical is building his own kingdom, a kingdom of heaven on earth;
The revolutionary’s purpose is to undermine the system by taking from the haves and giving it to the have-nots, and then see what happens;
The most basic principle for radicals is lie to opponents and disarm them by pretending to be moderates and liberals;
The radical organizer does not have a fixed truth"truth to him is relative and changing; everything to him is relative and changing; he is a political relativist.

Do you have a link to this? It reads like something coming from the National Review, or worse.

0 Replies

@ican711nm,

You lie! Obama never confessed to being a desciple of Alinsky.

He was, however, a close associate of his.

2 Replies

@Advocate,

Advocate wrote:

You lie! Obama never confessed to being a desciple of Alinsky.

He was, however, a close associate of his.

Alinsky died when Obama was 12... so hard to see how they could have been 'close associates.'

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@ican711nm,

Ah, so now you say that the quote is really double hearsay. You would be laughed out of court.

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

I was joking about the "associate" thing.

1 Reply

@Advocate,

Ah ok lol

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

ah, "paraphrasing", right. In other words, Horowitz's bullbleep projections onto Alinsky of what Horowitz thinks, in his own particular mindwarp, of what Alinsky actually said.

0 Replies

@Advocate,

Advocate wrote:

Obama never confessed to being a desciple of Alinsky.

Obama does not confess to much of anything. One is left to have to conclude the truth about the man. Example, he disassociated himself from the Rev. Wright, after the truth came out about Wright, and a bunch of his Marxist sympathizing rich white / Jew hating tirades became known. However before that, Obama obviously thought Wright was one great guy with really good ideas. He will not confess to that now, but I would bet he still thinks so. Same principle applies to Alinsky.
Everyone knows Alinsky wrote the rules for community organizing in Chicago or anywhere else.

0 Replies

Goot a problem with community organizing, okie? Other than that it is a way for people to have control over their own lives and to participate in the political system, which is, after all, what democracy and this country are all about. Your ilk aren't big on political participation by people you look down on, but that's just too bad.

1 Reply

@ican711nm,

You can buy Reveille for Radicals (1946) and Rules for Radicals (1971) from:
http://www.amazon.com
For less than 11 bucks each.

0 Replies

@MontereyJack,

MontereyJack wrote:

Goot a problem with community organizing, okie? Other than that it is a way for people to have control over their own lives and to participate in the political system, which is, after all, what democracy and this country are all about. Your ilk aren't big on political participation by people you look down on, but that's just too bad.

Yes I goots a problem with it. I do not think political thuggery is good for politics or the country. Besides, communities are already organized, and it would do a whole lot more good if people would organize their own lives and support their families. If they wish to register to vote, great, go to the county clerk and sign up, it is not complicated, it doesn't take a guy telling them what to do and how to do it, and also it doesn't require payoffs for registering voters and voting. We don't need the blind leading the blind.

1 Reply

@okie,

Quote:

Besides, communities are already organized

Sez who? And what the hell do you know about inner-city communities, Okie? Nothin.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

I see, okie So you don't think the teabaggers should have had their convention to think about setting up a new political party, because we've already got political parties, right, okie? You don't think business people should have set up the National Assocition of Manufacturers to make sure their interests were represented? Or is it only people you disagree with who you think shouldn't be able to set up new groups to get representation?

1 Reply

@MontereyJack,

I want the Tea Party to take over the Republican Party. I do not want the Tea Party to establish a third party. If the Tea Party takes over the Republican Party, their candidates will likely defeat the candidates of the Democratic Party. If the Tea Party establishes a third party, Tea Party candidates will face both the opposition candidates of the current Republican Party and the current Democrat Party, and the Tea Party candidates will likely divide conservative votes and lose elections to Democrat candidates.

2 Replies

@ican711nm,

ican711nm wrote:

I want the Tea Party to take over the Republican Party. I do not want the Tea Party to establish a third party. If the Tea Party takes over the Republican Party, their candidates will likely defeat the candidates of the Democratic Party. If the Tea Party establishes a third party, Tea Party candidates will face both the opposition candidates of the current Republican Party and the current Democrat Party, and the Tea Party candidates will likely divide conservative votes and lose elections to Democrat candidates.

The problem is that the Tea Party has no money and no infrastructure for getting money. How exactly do you expect them to 'take over?'

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

They could make everybody a nice cuppa. That's popular.

1 Reply

@spendius,

Or promise to increase the strength of tea.

1 Reply

@spendius,

I read over the weekend that there's a "Tea Party" movement just begun in England. Wonder what they'll serve?

1 Reply

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know