Sean Alinsky 12 rules for radicals

[Guest]

Alinsk's rules have been mentioned in several posts. They always try to tie these rules to Hillary, and President Obama to label them as communists. Read the rules, and don't look at the author's political leaning. Here they are form Glenn Beck's web site:

1) Power is not only what you have, but what the enemy thinks you have. Power is derived from the sources people, and money.

2) Never go outside the expertise of your people.

3) Whenever possible, go outside the expertise of you enemy.

4) Make the enemy up to its own set of rules.

5) Ridicule is a man's most potent weapon. There is no defense. It's irrational.

6) A good tactic is one your people enjoy.

7) A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag.

8) Keep the pressure on. Never let up.

9) The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.

10) If you push a negative hard enough, it will push through, and become a positive.

11) The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative.

12) Pick a target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.

You can follow these rules, and communism is the furthest thing on your mind. These tactics are being used by both parties. Also, they are being used by national news station to attack each other.

[Guest]

Alinsk's rules have been mentioned in several posts. They always try to tie these rules to Hillary, and President Obama to label them as communists. Read the rules, and don't look at the author's political leaning. Here they are form Glenn Beck's web site:

1) Power is not only what you have, but what the enemy thinks you have. Power is derived from the sources people, and money.

2) Never go outside the expertise of your people.

3) Whenever possible, go outside the expertise of you enemy.

4) Make the enemy up to its own set of rules.

5) Ridicule is a man's most potent weapon. There is no defense. It's irrational.

6) A good tactic is one your people enjoy.

7) A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag.

8) Keep the pressure on. Never let up.

9) The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.

10) If you push a negative hard enough, it will push through, and become a positive.

11) The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative.

12) Pick a target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.

You can follow these rules, and communism is the furthest thing on your mind. These tactics are being used by both parties. Also, they are being used by national news station to attack each other.


These rules and the book have become much to publicized. His work and theory go far beyond this.

A poster in another thread mentioned his/her admiration for Alinsky and he was a man who was an activist for the downtrodden.

If yo read further, you will find that many who have studied him, including Hillary Clinton do not like the tactics LITERALLY, and I am not speaking only to these 12 rules. His philosophy, and these are my words, is to overthrow. I think in my reading some Clinton things, that is what stymied her.

Alinsky was for overthrow, and then there was a vacuum. He never offered what happens once you overthrow all the power. He believed every man can make it on his ow.

Never heard anyone critique the man for his ideas or his character, but he was an anarchist at best.

Would love to read H Clinton's thesis to see WHY it was sealed.

[Guest]

Do you mean Saul Alinsky?

Maybe you had him mixed up with Saul Hannity. :1rotfl:

[Guest]

Those 12 steps sound exactly what the Regressives on this forum are doing with anyone who expresses a pro-Clinton opinion, don't they?

[Guest]

A poster in another thread mentioned his/her admiration for Alinsky and he was a man who was an activist for the downtrodden.

His philosophy, and these are my words, is to overthrow.

Alinsky was for overthrow, and then there was a vacuum. He never offered what happens once you overthrow all the power. He believed every man can make it on his own.

Never heard anyone critique the man for his ideas or his character.


Saul Alinsky was not for overthrow of the government but for a government that believed in the rights of the people to be heard and expressed. He had great character, was a kind man, and was easy to talk with on any subject you brought up. A truly brilliant man with a marvelous sense of humor.

[Guest]

The alinsky radical has a single principle- to take power from the Haves and give to the Have Nots. He was a communist/Marxist without doubt

[Guest]

Do you mean Saul Alinsky?

Maybe you had him mixed up with Saul Hannity. :1rotfl:

:bigbow:

[Guest]

:icon_bored:

[Guest]

Damn you! That was a set up, and you ruined it. A Republican was suppose to call me an idiot for not know his first name ie: Rule 5. With Sean Hannity's limited train of thought, he probably couldn't string 4 things together let alone 12. When you look at Jean's low brow, he has to be several steps back on the evaluation chain.

Apparently, one of the news organization got hold of some of her old letters. That thesis will probably follow. If it is sealed, maybe she should release it herself, if she didn't agree with his politics, and stated so in the thesis. Give it to an independent professor, there has to be one in the US, let him make his evaluation of the thesis public. That might offset some of the criticism she is receiving, and for good reason for not letting an independent source review her emails to determine the ones that were personal.

Will you please stop calling Republicans regressives? That got real old real quick. rule 7

[Guest]

Damn you! That was a set up, and you ruined it. A Republican was suppose to call me an idiot for not know his first name ie: Rule 5. With Sean Hannity's limited train of thought, he probably couldn't string 4 things together let alone 12. When you look at Jean's low brow, he has to be several steps back on the evaluation chain.

Apparently, one of the news organization got hold of some of her old letters. That thesis will probably follow. If it is sealed, maybe she should release it herself, if she didn't agree with his politics, and stated so in the thesis. Give it to an independent professor, there has to be one in the US, let him make his evaluation of the thesis public. That might offset some of the criticism she is receiving, and for good reason for not letting an independent source review her emails to determine the ones that were personal.

Will you please stop calling Republicans regressives? That got real old real quick. rule 7

Friend,
You really should not try posting while under the influence of booze (or drugs). Auto-correct might be responsible but I suspect the former.

Anyhow, sleep it off.

[Guest]

The alinsky radical has a single principle- to take power from the Haves and give to the Have Nots. He was a communist/Marxist without doubt

I only knew Saul for about 18 months. He was a remarkable man in many ways. The idea was to have low income people get more equality and recognition. He did not believe in Communism but Social Equality. This was always done in a non-violent way.

Communists ridicule religion. Saul was a fervant Universal Unitarian and the church practices were a big part of the community organizing movement.

[Guest]

Damn you! That was a set up, and you ruined it. A Republican was suppose to call me an idiot for not know his first name ie: Rule 5. With Sean Hannity's limited train of thought, he probably couldn't string 4 things together let alone 12. When you look at Jean's low brow, he has to be several steps back on the evaluation chain.

Apparently, one of the news organization got hold of some of her old letters. That thesis will probably follow. If it is sealed, maybe she should release it herself, if she didn't agree with his politics, and stated so in the thesis. Give it to an independent professor, there has to be one in the US, let him make his evaluation of the thesis public. That might offset some of the criticism she is receiving, and for good reason for not letting an independent source review her emails to determine the ones that were personal.

Will you please stop calling Republicans regressives? That got real old real quick. rule 7

Guys, this is the age of information....you should try and gain information...might help you.

First Saul Alinsky was an activist. He only talked and wrote about bringing down governments and society in the name of the people. FACT is in his book prior to Rules For Radicals, Reveille for Radicals he is pretty clear that all he wants is NO government.

A few quotes and I will tell you although I doubt any of you care, if you want to know about this man, do some reading. He was the best organizer ever. He was a good man if you judge only by his wanting to help the oppressed, but all of his works simply leave the people he "saves" in a vacuum,

He has been studied by BOTH parties and in all political science courses. Most advocates understand the limits to following him. He was the master community organizer..now those few quotes...

First, about Ms Clinton..he thesis is public now if you really want to look and read it....

"The thesis offered a critique of Alinsky's methods as largely ineffective, all the while describing Alinsky's personality as appealing. The thesis sought to fit Alinsky into a line of American social activists, including Eugene V. Debs, Martin Luther King, Jr., and Walt Whitman. Written in formal academic language, the thesis concluded that "[Alinsky's] power/conflict model is rendered inapplicable by existing social conflicts" and that Alinsky's model had not expanded nationally due to "the anachronistic nature of small autonomous conflict."[1]

In the acknowledgements and end notes of the thesis, Rodham thanked Alinsky for two interviews and a job offer. She declined the latter, saying that "after spending a year trying to make sense out of [Alinsky's] inconsistency, I need three years of legal rigor." Rodham, an honors student at Wellesley, received an A grade on the thesis.[1]"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Rodham_senior_thesis

"The problem with the Alinsky method is that the end game is amorphous; the end game is the acquisition of power but little is said of what to do with that power once acquired. The core of Alinsky's method is destruction, destruction of the "system" that allows a disparity of wealth. There is no discussion of what is to replace this system once it is brought down. However, there is little doubt that Alinsky's idea of a better "system" is one that brings forced equivalence or Marxism. Fundamentally, the struggle to get power is the essence of Alinsky, what to do with the power once acquired is another matter altogether."


Just a moment... (http://www.newenglishreview.org/DL_Adams/Saul_Alinsky_and_the_Rise_of_Amorality_in_American _Politics/)

A link to his words from his first book...a nice summary...

Reveille for Radicals by Saul Alinsky (http://courses.cs.vt.edu/cs3604/support/Assignments/alinsky.html)

And by the way, he has also been studied by the White Supremecy groups who still to this day think they can make it work.

Why would anyone object to our leaders using it to perection....from one of the links above...

"“Change” is both the tool and the goal, but it is rarely defined in any way that is not strictly local and economic; better housing for the poor, better economic opportunity, better wages, better municipal services, etc. However, at the national level "change" is left undefined. In fact it seems, the process of change itself, not the implementation of "change," is the goal.
This is amoral political agitation that appears to be about something positive but is really about deconstruction. Once the institutions of "oppression" that require "change" are destroyed, there is no plan delineated by Alinsky (nor his current crop of followers) as to what will replace them."


If you limit your knowledge of Alinsky to the commandments then you do not and will not understand Alinsky.

[Guest]

I only knew Saul for about 18 months. He was a remarkable man in many ways. The idea was to have low income people get more equality and recognition. He did not believe in Communism but Social Equality. This was always done in a non-violent way.

Communists ridicule religion. Saul was a fervant Universal Unitarian and the church practices were a big part of the community organizing movement.

He actually detested ALL forms of government. It was all for the people....my name is anarchy because he never said much about anything after his practice over threw what was in place, but remember, all of his writings were based on LOCAL situations. He never wrote on national views.

Frankly and this is why this gets lots of press....if you read his works, a national program based on Alinsky is scary.

But, he was not a bad man as some make him out to be, but he also is not the person to idolize as others do. He was a great organizer.

[Guest]

He actually detested ALL forms of government. It was all for the people....my name is anarchy because he never said much about anything after his practice over threw what was in place, but remember, all of his writings were based on LOCAL situations. He never wrote on national views.

Frankly and this is why this gets lots of press....if you read his works, a national program based on Alinsky is scary.

But, he was not a bad man as some make him out to be, but he also is not the person to idolize as others do. He was a great organizer.

You are right. Saul did not like organized government. Anarchist is just a person who does not believe in organized government and it can work only at a local level. He knew that.

Idolize him is too strong a word. Amazing friend is more like it. I was only 24 when he passed away but he taught me many things about life.

[Guest]

You are right. Saul did not like organized government. Anarchist is just a person who does not believe in organized government and it can work only at a local level. He knew that.

Idolize him is too strong a word. Amazing friend is more like it. I was only 24 when he passed away but he taught me many things about life.

Thanks for the input. It is really great.

But you understand that our current folks who are strong believers of his are using the same tactics on a national and in some cases, international level. That is scary.

I have never said a bad word about the man, except his relationship with our administration has always concerned me. What is happening within the black/white in our country is what he would want LOCALLY as you said, but he wanted the hate, the strict black/white lines...he wanted confrontation in order to get what he wanted or the group wanted.

"Amorality is fundamental to Alinsky and to his followers; an ideology that justifies the abandonment of morality and ethics is attractive to many – to the detriment of us all.
"Integrity! What ****." (Alinsky interview)
In fairness to Alinsky, the above was said relating to a specific local situation, but the dismissal of integrity is illustrative. Alinsky saw the march of history as driven by revolution; without revolution there is stagnation (lack of development of humanity in his view). It is stunning to see someone dedicated to destruction and deconstruction so self-convinced that he is an agent of human necessity and development; "

I am making no claims about the breakdown in morality that is happening because that is not fair at all, but he would like all the unsettled situation and the riots, etc.

[Guest]

One more thing if I may.....I think that his name comes up a lot, especially on this forum, because if anyone is aware of Alinsky, they know that the little blurbs saying...."old rich white men"..."racist tea partiers"....giving a "white sheet award" being flippant and insulting about opponents from the opposing party are EXACTLY what Saul Alinsky would have people do.

In the internet age, he would be a troll for sure. He never talked much about ISSUES, only attack and make them hate you.

So with many posters on here, it is hard not to think of Alinsky a lot.

But remember he offers no end game....just a void for all that hate.

[Guest]

Seriously, thanks for the information on Saul Alinsky. Am I as well information as you are about Alinsky? Hell no! Not by a long shot, but I am not stupid. The unmistakable impression that the Republicans are throwing out there is that President Obama, and Hillary Clinton are walking lock step with Alinsky. Alinsky is a communist. Therefore, the logical conclusion is President Obama and Hillary Clinton will lead this country to communism.

Even on some of the posts here that referenced Alinsky, also gave that same impression. Some said that President Obama was following Alinsky's steps toward radicalism. If you knew the steps, you would see that. So, I printed steps. Everyone to an extent is following the steps. Say what you mean, and mean what you say. Following Alinsky's steps, and how to deal with an "enemy", doesn't mean you agree with his political leaning. Calling the other or both parties an "enemy", is ridiculous.

What I would like to see is all the negative ads stopped. That is impossible but, at least, don't try to mislead people. The Republicans tying to tie President Obama, and Hillary Clinton to Communism by saying they are followers of Alinsky is disingenuous at best.

Bernie Sanders hasn't, and doesn't intend to use negative ads in the primaries with Hillary, and the other Democrats running for president. I am looking forward to a discussion on the issues, rather than trying to defend yourself from misleading negative ads.

I am sorry. Trump is making the Republicans look like a circus full of clowns. Here is hoping his attitude changes, and the first debate is on the issues, and not all about him, and his silent majority followers.

[Guest]

[QUOTE=Guest;1088449]Seriously, thanks for the information on Saul Alinsky. Am I as well informed as you are about Alinsky? Hell no! Not by a long shot, but I am not stupid. The unmistakable impression that the Republicans are throwing out there is that President Obama, and Hillary Clinton are walking lock step with Alinsky. Alinsky is a communist. Therefore, the logical conclusion is President Obama and Hillary Clinton will lead this country to communism.
/QUOTE]

People should know that Saul was not a Communist but a very spiritural man. The Universal Unitarians are opinionated and liberal, to say the least. Saul's niece is now working in South Carolina with a Mexican-American cooperative to improve conditions for migrant workers and we still stay in touch to talk about the days of the past as well as her current efforts. Me? Just happy being in The Villages and riding around in my golf cart and playing bridge with friends.

[Guest]

Read rule 11. It is very clear. He understood that if you are going to tear something down you now have an obligation to have a constructive alternative. This is not simply anarchy but allows for the alternative to be a delivery of power to the people and away from central authority, or any other constructive alternative.

[Guest]

The OP cites Alinsky's 12 steps and intimates that they are used by both parties. Perhaps? Is there a difference in the game of politics to that of the application and intent of Alinsky's steps? I think so. Progressives both political and academic have applied these steps to blunt discussion to gain sole control, to indoctrinate etc. Look back at the response you get from progressives if you attempt a discussion about blacks or gays "racist " "homophobic". Look at education that focuses on gender race gay sex etc. In southern florida teachers are now told they have to teach 8th grade students about gays, transgender and go into detail about gay sex. Why do you think that is so? Progressives teach students America's colonial past as only evil. They don't teach the classics in many places because its all about evil white men. They pride themselves in diversity classes but don't teach civics, etc and continually re-write history .

But the real proof is in the application of Obama's policies as respects the below stated Alinsky 8 rules. In every aspect Obama has used each step
to transform America to Europe. Alinsky was a marxist/communist and he hated America.

How To control via A social State (Saul Alinsky)

Eight Levels of control:

1 Healthcare: Control healthcare and hence control the people
2 Poverty: increase the poverty level and control people by providing for them
3 Debt: Increase debt to high level so you can tax more and make poor poorer
4 Gun Control: Remove people’s ability to defend themselves
5 Welfare: Take control of people needs food shelter income
6 Education: Control what to read and what to hear
7 Religion: replace belief in god with belief in government
8 Class Warfare: divide the people into rich and poor

Need more be said.


Personal Best Regards:

[Guest]

The OP cites Alinsky's 12 steps and intimates that they are used by both parties. Perhaps? Is there a difference in the game of politics to that of the application and intent of Alinsky's steps? I think so. Progressives both political and academic have applied these steps to blunt discussion to gain sole control, to indoctrinate etc. Look back at the response you get from progressives if you attempt a discussion about blacks or gays "racist " "homophobic". Look at education that focuses on gender race gay sex etc. In southern florida teachers are now told they have to teach 8th grade students about gays, transgender and go into detail about gay sex. Why do you think that is so? Progressives teach students America's colonial past as only evil. They don't teach the classics in many places because its all about evil white men. They pride themselves in diversity classes but don't teach civics, etc and continually re-write history .

But the real proof is in the application of Obama's policies as respects the below stated Alinsky 8 rules. In every aspect Obama has used each step
to transform America to Europe. Alinsky was a marxist/communist and he hated America.

How To control via A social State (Saul Alinsky)

Eight Levels of control:

1 Healthcare: Control healthcare and hence control the people
2 Poverty: increase the poverty level and control people by providing for them
3 Debt: Increase debt to high level so you can tax more and make poor poorer
4 Gun Control: Remove people’s ability to defend themselves
5 Welfare: Take control of people needs food shelter income
6 Education: Control what to read and what to hear
7 Religion: replace belief in god with belief in government
8 Class Warfare: divide the people into rich and poor

Need more be said.


Personal Best Regards:

No nothing more need to be said. Even those who support Obam would certainly have difficulty arguing against the above......assuming they put down the party banner for a minute.

[Guest]

The OP cites Alinsky's 12 steps and intimates that they are used by both parties. Perhaps? Is there a difference in the game of politics to that of the application and intent of Alinsky's steps? I think so. Progressives both political and academic have applied these steps to blunt discussion to gain sole control, to indoctrinate etc. Look back at the response you get from progressives if you attempt a discussion about blacks or gays "racist " "homophobic". Look at education that focuses on gender race gay sex etc. In southern florida teachers are now told they have to teach 8th grade students about gays, transgender and go into detail about gay sex. Why do you think that is so? Progressives teach students America's colonial past as only evil. They don't teach the classics in many places because its all about evil white men. They pride themselves in diversity classes but don't teach civics, etc and continually re-write history .

But the real proof is in the application of Obama's policies as respects the below stated Alinsky 8 rules. In every aspect Obama has used each step
to transform America to Europe. Alinsky was a marxist/communist and he hated America.

How To control via A social State (Saul Alinsky)

Eight Levels of control:

1 Healthcare: Control healthcare and hence control the people
2 Poverty: increase the poverty level and control people by providing for them
3 Debt: Increase debt to high level so you can tax more and make poor poorer
4 Gun Control: Remove people’s ability to defend themselves
5 Welfare: Take control of people needs food shelter income
6 Education: Control what to read and what to hear
7 Religion: replace belief in god with belief in government
8 Class Warfare: divide the people into rich and poor

Need more be said.


Personal Best Regards:

Go to Snopes.com and you will find those 8 steps by Alinski are FALSE. He NEVER wrote or said the.

Please check your facts before posting or else you are a TROLL just putting down ludicrous posts in order to inflame others.

[Guest]

Go to Snopes.com and you will find those 8 steps by Alinski are FALSE. He NEVER wrote or said the.

Please check your facts before posting or else you are a TROLL just putting down ludicrous posts in order to inflame others.

CALM DOWN AND REREAD

The 8 steps were NOT ATTRIBUTED TO ALINSKY IN ANY WAY.

[Guest]

CALM DOWN AND REREAD

The 8 steps were NOT ATTRIBUTED TO ALINSKY IN ANY WAY.

SORRY....I AM THE ONE WHO NEEDS TO REREAD.

The post does, in fact, imply that they came from Alnsky.

SORRY

[Guest]

Don't let the distraction of whether he said what or not....the intent of the 8 listedand the alignment with the Obama agenda is spot on!

[Guest]

I don't think PBR is a troll. An Epsilon perhaps.

[Guest]

Don't let the distraction of whether he said what or not....the intent of the 8 listedand the alignment with the Obama agenda is spot on!

In other words, put down any false statements, attribute them to whomever you want, and claim they are the blueprint for a President that you despise to take down the country? :ohdear:

Now, THAT is truly worthy of ridicule!

[Guest]

Nope. Most people just stick to the facts about Clinton. The most obvious one is that she has been caught in lies. By the way, you really should stop the name calling. It is getting old and deflects from whatever point you are trying to make.

Those 12 steps sound exactly what the Regressives on this forum are doing with anyone who expresses a pro-Clinton opinion, don't they?

[Guest]

Dear Guests:

I am the poster who referenced Alinsky 8 steps to control a social state.
It was information I collected sometime ago. I should have verified it given all the junk on the internet these days, but I did not. My apology. It was never my attempt to pull a fast one on any poster and I do deserve to be criticized for my failure to verify. However a few posters went a bit too far in their direct attacks on my character.

Having said that the 8 steps listed still merit consideration because every last step was applied by Obama and they all are intended to create a social state and controlled by the federal government. Can one say that Obama extrapolated his applications in part from his studies of Alinsky? Don't know? But it does give one pause since both were community organizers

It is difficult to discuss a public figure especially one that is very controversial because emotions run high. Saint or sinner is left in the eye of the beholder.

Lessons in life tend to be painful or at least uncomfortable . Hopefully this lesson will stick with me. Again my apology.

Personal Best Regards:

[Guest]

Dear Guests:

I am the poster who referenced Alinsky 8 steps to control a social state.
It was information I collected sometime ago. I should have verified it given all the junk on the internet these days, but I did not. My apology. It was never my attempt to pull a fast one on any poster and I do deserve to be criticized for my failure to verify. However a few posters went a bit too far in their direct attacks on my character.

Having said that the 8 steps listed still merit consideration because every last step was applied by Obama and they all are intended to create a social state and controlled by the federal government. Can one say that Obama extrapolated his applications in part from his studies of Alinsky? Don't know? But it does give one pause since both were community organizers

It is difficult to discuss a public figure especially one that is very controversial because emotions run high. Saint or sinner is left in the eye of the beholder.

Lessons in life tend to be painful or at least uncomfortable . Hopefully this lesson will stick with me. Again my apology.

Personal Best Regards:

You should be applauded for showing character in owning up to an error.

I really think the poster who referenced Snopes now needs to step up and post the author notes after dispelling these, and speaks to the "power tactics" Alinsky proposed. They speak well to the discussion, but I will leave it to that poster to share them, as that would be the right thing to do.

[Guest]

Those 12 steps sound exactly what the Regressives on this forum are doing with anyone who expresses a pro-Clinton opinion, don't they?

Why don't you research the Hillary Letters of correspondence with Saul Alinsky!!!!!! There is a connection

[Guest]

Dear Guests:

I am the poster who referenced Alinsky 8 steps to control a social state.
It was information I collected sometime ago. I should have verified it given all the junk on the internet these days, but I did not. My apology. It was never my attempt to pull a fast one on any poster and I do deserve to be criticized for my failure to verify. However a few posters went a bit too far in their direct attacks on my character.

Having said that the 8 steps listed still merit consideration because every last step was applied by Obama and they all are intended to create a social state and controlled by the federal government. Can one say that Obama extrapolated his applications in part from his studies of Alinsky? Don't know? But it does give one pause since both were community organizers

It is difficult to discuss a public figure especially one that is very controversial because emotions run high. Saint or sinner is left in the eye of the beholder.

Lessons in life tend to be painful or at least uncomfortable . Hopefully this lesson will stick with me. Again my apology.

Personal Best Regards:

Stating that the made up 8 steps still merit consideration taints your apology. But minus that paragraph, thanks.

[Guest]

I agree with the 1st posters comments..... These rules are NOT about socialist or communist views there about shaping the views of people.

Look at the first one...

Power is not only what you have, but what the enemy thinks you have. Power is derived from the sources people, and money. Is this not a true statement.....

Ridicule is a man's most potent weapon. There is no defense. It's irrational. Think Rush

I guess that the hard right machine is going back to the well one to many times.....these rules are old news. Used against Obama.
I am no socialist, but in college at first glance it seemed interesting...but then I moved into a condo unit then I began to understand...it was an object lesson. Should my views or any political candidates views be set in stone when they were in college? I think not because I know my views on many things have evolved over time.

[Guest]

I agree with the 1st posters comments..... These rules are NOT about socialist or communist views there about shaping the views of people.

Look at the first one...

Power is not only what you have, but what the enemy thinks you have. Power is derived from the sources people, and money. Is this not a true statement.....

Ridicule is a man's most potent weapon. There is no defense. It's irrational. Think Rush

I guess that the hard right machine is going back to the well one to many times.....these rules are old news. Used against Obama.
I am no socialist, but in college at first glance it seemed interesting...but then I moved into a condo unit then I began to understand...it was an object lesson. Should my views or any political candidates views be set in stone when they were in college? I think not because I know my views on many things have evolved over time.

Probably the best post on this entire thread!
:bigbow:

[Guest]

Stating that the made up 8 steps still merit consideration taints your apology. But minus that paragraph, thanks.

Dear Guest: My sincere thanks for responding to my post but I wonder why giving merit to those 8 steps in my personal view is any less credible than your view that it tinted my apology? And I wonder why you did not address specifically why it taints my view? Or why you do not refute the comparison?

If one examines those 8 steps we can find Obama's fingerprints all over them.

Healthcare = Obamacare and the news that carrier are going to up premiums from 10% to 50% in this year.

Poverty = Food stamps ,medicaid up handsomely during the Obama years Obama not only give free phones he now wants to parcel out free internet
And under Obama this economy has not rebounded ( anemic) since the recession ended in 2009

Debt= Obama has accumulated more debt than the last three presidents combines over 18 trillion and counting

Education= I'll give him a pass since there are so many progressive dirty hands in this mess its hard to distinguish. However his student loan program is another handout and his policy concerning rape victims on college campuses lacks due process and invokes a kangaroo court mentality..proven guilty until . Its a sham and its being challenged in court like so many of his policies

Religion= the attacks on religion under this president administration abound and under Obamacare shock the conscious

Class Warfare= Obama has divided this nation not only by economic class but by race, gender and religion

Obama is a natural community organizer and like all organizer an important tool in their bag is the ability to divide to cause chaos and disagreement. This is especially true since he also has a Chicago style political bent .

I am open to any disagreement because the bottom line for me is I want any president to be as right as s/he can be for the sake of this nation and its people.

Personal Best Regards:

[Guest]

Guest will you please elucidate

[Guest]

Dear Guest: My sincere thanks for responding to my post but I wonder why giving merit to those 8 steps in my personal view is any less credible than your view that it tinted my apology? And I wonder why you did not address specifically why it taints my view? Or why you do not refute the comparison?

If one examines those 8 steps we can find Obama's fingerprints all over them.

Healthcare = Obamacare and the news that carrier are going to up premiums from 10% to 50% in this year.

Poverty = Food stamps ,medicaid up handsomely during the Obama years Obama not only give free phones he now wants to parcel out free internet
And under Obama this economy has not rebounded ( anemic) since the recession ended in 2009

Debt= Obama has accumulated more debt than the last three presidents combines over 18 trillion and counting

Education= I'll give him a pass since there are so many progressive dirty hands in this mess its hard to distinguish. However his student loan program is another handout and his policy concerning rape victims on college campuses lacks due process and invokes a kangaroo court mentality..proven guilty until . Its a sham and its being challenged in court like so many of his policies

Religion= the attacks on religion under this president administration abound and under Obamacare shock the conscious

Class Warfare= Obama has divided this nation not only by economic class but by race, gender and religion

Obama is a natural community organizer and like all organizer an important tool in their bag is the ability to divide to cause chaos and disagreement. This is especially true since he also has a Chicago style political bent .

I am open to any disagreement because the bottom line for me is I want any president to be as right as s/he can be for the sake of this nation and its people.

Personal Best Regards:

To make a point you cited an 8 step Alinski protocol to control a social state. The whole thing was made up, and a poster called you out on it. You acknowledged your transgression and apologized. But you went on to give the made up piece merit and now you've parsed it like it's actual data. You are wondering why I won't refute something that wasn't real to begin with.

Perhaps this link will help you to move on from the hole you dug.

snopes.com: Saul Alinsky: How to Create a Social State (http://www.snopes.com/politics/quotes/alinsky.asp)

[Guest]

To make a point you cited an 8 step Alinski protocol to control a social state. The whole thing was made up, and a poster called you out on it. You acknowledged your transgression and apologized. But you went on to give the made up piece merit and now you've parsed it like it's actual data. You are wondering why I won't refute something that wasn't real to begin with.

Perhaps this link will help you to move on from the hole you dug.

snopes.com: Saul Alinsky: How to Create a Social State (http://www.snopes.com/politics/quotes/alinsky.asp)

Dear Guest: I had visited snopes and the basis for my admission that the 8 steps were not Alinsky but you present a false narrative when you negate the comparison because it wasn't Alinsky. The comparison of the 8 steps irrespective of who created them fit perfectly as an overlay to Obama's policies and you continue to refuse to acknowledge that one way or another.
Is Obamacare made up? Is 18 trillion in debt made up? Is the substantial increase in food stamps, et al made up? Is the anemic economy made up because if it is then the why hasn't the Fed let loose on interest rates so that people can begin earning interest on their money?

I made have missed that Alinsky didn't create these 8 steps but they make the comparison no less accurate. At least one of us has been honest in this discussion

Personal Best Regards:

[Guest]

Believe me, I am not questioning your honesty. However, You can't overlook what President Obama was handed. The rise in debt shouldn't be the debt increase, since Jan. 20, 2009. The former president, pushed the snowball down the hill. You start counting Obama's contribution to the debt, when the snowball hit flat ground., That would be when the economy hit rock bottom. I think that was in the summer of 2009.

The increase in food stamps was a direct result of the great recession. The increase in debt due to Iraq again has to be placed on the past president.

The old saying that figures lie, and liars figure. Again, you are not a liar, but the same can't be said of the Republicans congressmen, and newsmen pushing the lotion that President Obama has increased the debt more than every other president.

The problem with throwing ACA into to the mix is uninsured people were using the emergency room as their primary care doctor. The hidden increases in insurance rates due to this have been thrown into the ACA; therefore, they are known. This isn't an increase due to ACA. This was always there.

Why haven't interest rates increased? Every time there is a threat to increase interest rates the stock market takes a dive. The Fed. chair shouldn't be looking at this, but it appears that they are. Wall Street still has a lot to say in the economy. That is not going to change.

Again much of the increase is due to what he inherited. I am not blaming "W", because he was dealt a blow in first four years. Personally, I think, he was a honest man that was taken for a ride by his advisors. The bankers really hurt this country with their mortgage policies. Fraud was running out of control. Only one of this thieves served any jail time. That is the real crime. Start pointing your fingers at them for the increase in US debt.

[Guest]

Believe me, I am not questioning your honesty. However, You can't overlook what President Obama was handed. The rise in debt shouldn't be the debt increase, since Jan. 20, 2009. The former president, pushed the snowball down the hill. You start counting Obama's contribution to the debt, when the snowball hit flat ground., That would be when the economy hit rock bottom. I think that was in the summer of 2009.

The increase in food stamps was a direct result of the great recession. The increase in debt due to Iraq again has to be placed on the past president.

The old saying that figures lie, and liars figure. Again, you are not a liar, but the same can't be said of the Republicans congressmen, and newsmen pushing the lotion that President Obama has increased the debt more than every other president.

The problem with throwing ACA into to the mix is uninsured people were using the emergency room as their primary care doctor. The hidden increases in insurance rates due to this have been thrown into the ACA; therefore, they are known. This isn't an increase due to ACA. This was always there.

Why haven't interest rates increased? Every time there is a threat to increase interest rates the stock market takes a dive. The Fed. chair shouldn't be looking at this, but it appears that they are. Wall Street still has a lot to say in the economy. That is not going to change.

Again much of the increase is due to what he inherited. I am not blaming "W", because he was dealt a blow in first four years. Personally, I think, he was a honest man that was taken for a ride by his advisors. The bankers really hurt this country with their mortgage policies. Fraud was running out of control. Only one of this thieves served any jail time. That is the real crime. Start pointing your fingers at them for the increase in US debt.

I think you over simplify, but it is what it is.

I am still seething after readin the thread on True..Not true. I never doubted this President and his sincerity, but he has lied quite a bit, and now he is simply creating racial divide. I actually trusted this guy at the beginning, but now, he is insulting us all

[Guest]

I probably am over simplify the increase in debt. They are still running an annual deficit of 500 billion dollars give or take 50 billion. Both parties are protecting their own priorities. He did extend the Bush tax cuts for lower, and middle income people, that increased the debt. His first stimulus plan didn't do much of anything. He stole from Medicare to partly fund ACA. That money could have been used elsewhere, if you except the fact that Medicare funds can be used wherever they want. They haven't done anything to reform the income tax.

The racial divide has always been there. He is adding fuel to it in his second term, because it would have never flown in his first term.

Lied is a pretty strong word. Claims that he made that turn out to be wrong, may not be lies.

[Guest]

I wonder when this president will take responsibility for his bad decisions? I will not defend W but he had always taken responsibility for his actions,he has always shown his patriotism and he has always remained dignified and he remained reticent even when Obama was slamming him.

History will determine a president's legacy and I am betting Obama will go down as the worse president who ever served which is going to take the pressure off of Carter. I keep saying I wish that wasn't so but the American voters got it wrong in 2008 and 2012. I pray God they get it right in 2016


Personal Best Regards

[Guest]

I wonder when this president will take responsibility for his bad decisions? I will not defend W but he had always taken responsibility for his actions,he has always shown his patriotism and he has always remained dignified and he remained reticent even when Obama was slamming him.

History will determine a president's legacy and I am betting Obama will go down as the worse president who ever served which is going to take the pressure off of Carter. I keep saying I wish that wasn't so but the American voters got it wrong in 2008 and 2012. I pray God they get it right in 2016


Personal Best Regards

I am quite sure the American voters WILL get it right in 2016 and getting it right means that Hillary Clinton WILL be YOUR next President!!!

[Guest]

I am quite sure the American voters WILL get it right in 2016 and getting it right means that Hillary Clinton WILL be YOUR next President!!!

I am not being sarcastic, but am in hope that someday these folks who come on here with their little "slogans: will address WHY you think Hillary Clinton should be the next President.

[Guest]

I am not being sarcastic, but am in hope that someday these folks who come on here with their little "slogans: will address WHY you think Hillary Clinton should be the next President.

Very easy to answer: We do not want ANY DumbAs- Republican as President!

[Guest]

Very easy to answer: We do not want ANY DumbAs- Republican as President!

But a dumb a$$, liar and cheat and unethical, dishonest, self centered, screw the little guy, totally unqualified person is OK if they happen to be a democrat!!!

I suppose in one way or another admitting you openly admit that an unqualified, unlawful, unethical person is OK as long as they are a democrat.....is progress!?!?

:rolleyes:

:ohdear: