I Have a Confession to Make

[Larry Gude]

What do you believe was meant?

What he said. It's easy to look up.

I think what we've proved is that most people haven't the first clue what Alinsky was actually about and simply buy into the narrative that he was some sort of left wing ideologue when, in fact, he was nothing of the sort.

He, very simply, was about activism, about those without power fighting against those with power to get what they want. That's it. He didn't even have a view on the goals or objectives. Alinsky is absolutely 100% applicable to the TEA party or to your favorite conservative group or idea in terms of fighting those with more power. You want something from someone more powerful than you? Here's my rules on how to get it.

Period.

 

[Larry Gude]

LMAO I don't know what Alynski meant , but I do know what the Democrats think it meant and they are using it. Lying their asses off.

You are always convenient to helping me make my point. I owe you a Christmas card, at least.

 

[This_person]

What he said. It's easy to look up.

I think what we've proved is that most people haven't the first clue what Alinsky was actually about and simply buy into the narrative that he was some sort of left wing ideologue when, in fact, he was nothing of the sort.

He, very simply, was about activism, about those without power fighting against those with power to get what they want. That's it. He didn't even have a view on the goals or objectives. Alinsky is absolutely 100% applicable to the TEA party or to your favorite conservative group or idea in terms of fighting those with more power. You want something from someone more powerful than you? Here's my rules on how to get it.

Period.

We agreed he is not about ideology. I simply state that his tactics are not conducive to a conservative, because they are immoral.

I note you only went after one of the things I listed, without challenging it directly except to say you disagree with my interpretation. You left the rest on the table, ignored.

 

[PsyOps]

That is not his interpretation and you know it. Why would you try and claim something so easily disproved??? Isn't that a direct example of you justifying your means to achieve your ends?

It doesn't matter what Alinsky's interpretation was (which you would have to read his mind to truly get at that); this is how democrats and progressives are interpreting it, as evident in how they operate.

 

[Hijinx]

It doesn't matter what Alinsky's interpretation was (which you would have to read his mind to truly get at that); this is how democrats and progressives are interpreting it, as evident in how they operate.

Larry owes you a Christmas Card too.

 

[PsyOps]

What he said. It's easy to look up.

I think what we've proved is that most people haven't the first clue what Alinsky was actually about and simply buy into the narrative that he was some sort of left wing ideologue when, in fact, he was nothing of the sort.

You really need to address your angst at democrats for distorting Alinsky’s meaning. Just as true communism was distorted to be used as a totalitarian ideal. Just how sects of Islam are distorting much of the Koran. Like so many Christians have abused the bible.

The whole premise of what the left is doing is to use Alinsky’s Rules for Radical to create chaos in our society; not just to identify who your political or social enemy is and target them with these rules. Democrats view our entire population as the enemy, and can only be conquered by creating so much chaos that we must look towards government to fix it.

 

[Larry Gude]

It doesn't matter what Alinsky's interpretation was (which you would have to read his mind to truly get at that); this is how democrats and progressives are interpreting it, as evident in how they operate.

Oh, for crying out loud. So, if some d is using art of the deal to promote their personal brand, Trump is thus a left wing ideologue? Is it that hard to see saul as he was?

 

[Larry Gude]

You really need to address your angst at democrats for distorting Alinsky’s meaning. Just as true communism was distorted to be used as a totalitarian ideal. Just how sects of Islam are distorting much of the Koran. Like so many Christians have abused the bible.

The whole premise of what the left is doing is to use Alinsky’s Rules for Radical to create chaos in our society; not just to identify who your political or social enemy is and target them with these rules. Democrats view our entire population as the enemy, and can only be conquered by creating so much chaos that we must look towards government to fix it.

My angst is, was and will be with my erstwhile right wing brethren constantly getting it wrong and not caring and the effect that has on the nation.

 

[Larry Gude]

Larry owes you a Christmas Card too.

He's not as helpful as you are.

 

[Hijinx]

You really need to address your angst at democrats for distorting Alinsky’s meaning. Just as true communism was distorted to be used as a totalitarian ideal. Just how sects of Islam are distorting much of the Koran. Like so many Christians have abused the bible.

The whole premise of what the left is doing is to use Alinsky’s Rules for Radical to create chaos in our society; not just to identify who your political or social enemy is and target them with these rules. Democrats view our entire population as the enemy, and can only be conquered by creating so much chaos that we must look towards government to fix it.

Just say OK Larry, you're right. Easiest way to stop the thread.

 

[PsyOps]

Oh, for crying out loud. So, if some d is using art of the deal to promote their personal brand, Trump is thus a left wing ideologue? Is it that hard to see saul as he was?

First of all, I don't recall calling Alinsky a left wing ideologue. What I did say is the left uses his RFR to push their agenda. However, Alinsky was a liberal.

 

[PsyOps]

My angst is, was and will be with my erstwhile right wing brethren constantly getting it wrong and not caring and the effect that has on the nation.

You know Larry, you're really starting to sound like TommyJoe; where you're the only one that could possibly be right; even when nearly EVERYONE is telling YOU you're wrong.

 

[Larry Gude]

First of all, I don't recall calling Alinsky a left wing ideologue. What I did say is the left uses his RFR to push their agenda. However, Alinsky was a liberal.

So has newt Gingrich. So does rush Limbaugh. Does that make them lefty radicals or are they simply using a system?

 

[PsyOps]

So has newt Gingrich. So does rush Limbaugh. Does that make them lefty radicals or are they simply using a system?

Do show.

 

[PsyOps]

Newt doesn't sound like an Alinsky guy to me

[video=youtube;s-Pzh438CHQ]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s-Pzh438CHQ[/video]

 

[Larry Gude]

Do show.

Newt, for one, has said so. Rush uses a number of sauls principles. A lot of people do. That's why this is interesting: the demonization of someone based on a false premise. Isn't that supposedly what the left does that the right objects to or is that only when 'they' do it?

 

[This_person]

Newt, for one, has said so. Rush uses a number of sauls principles. A lot of people do. That's why this is interesting: the demonization of someone based on a false premise. Isn't that supposedly what the left does that the right objects to or is that only when 'they' do it?

The ends never justify inappropriate means (at least to a conservative).

 

[PsyOps]

Rush doesn't sound like an Alinsky guy to me

[video=youtube;_wPvOyWgnS8]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_wPvOyWgnS8[/video]

 

[PsyOps]

Newt, for one, has said so. Rush uses a number of sauls principles. A lot of people do. That's why this is interesting: the demonization of someone based on a false premise. Isn't that supposedly what the left does that the right objects to or is that only when 'they' do it?

Sorry Larry, not just because you say so. I have paid pretty close attention to both and have seen nothing of the sort. I need actual examples. Their words, as I posted, demonstrate the opposite.

 

[Larry Gude]

We agreed he is not about ideology. I simply state that his tactics are not conducive to a conservative, because they are immoral.

I note you only went after one of the things I listed, without challenging it directly except to say you disagree with my interpretation. You left the rest on the table, ignored.

I asked you how they were immoral and you ascribed something to them that you, apparently, think he means when that is not the truth. I didn't ignore it. You know you're comment is wrong and it's easy to check. He never said lying is OK. You did. And now you don't want to back off it.