Saul Alinsky

[letzrockexpress]

I am not scared, just determined to remain free. I am willing to consider ALL options that lead to LESS government and MORE freedom. That removes ALL forms of Marxism. The very basis of Marxism IS government control of the People.

Nice work on addressing the post. I won't play the rest of your game.

I beg your pardon but if you want to talk about not addressing a post let's talk about you not addressing mine. You ignored the post about Allende and simpy reposted the same thing you posted previously. Game? Quit trying to play the victim. It's unbecoming.

 

[layoutshooter]

I beg your pardon but if you want to talk about not addressing a post let's talk about you not addressing mine. You ignored the post about Allende and simpy reposted the same thing you posted previously. Quite trying to play the victim. It's unbecoming.

I live here and now. My experience with Marxists teaches me that they, and the system, are evil. Marxism cannot, in any form, exist without government control of the People. Government should NEVER control the People. Government should ALWAYS, and at all levels, be subordinate to the People. NO form of Marxism keeps government in a subordinate position.

 

[Turtle]

I beg your pardon but if you want to talk about not addressing a post let's talk about you not addressing mine. You ignored the post about Allende and simpy reposted the same thing you posted previously. Game? Quit trying to play the victim. It's unbecoming.

Actually, he didn't ignore the post about Allende. He answered it directly. He stated that no Marxist government should be trusted, and Government must be contained and controlled, by the People and that Marxism controls the People. Your comment about one being scared or refuses to consider options not being an authority on anything, was a post directed to the individual, rather than about what he said, and it introduced a new topic in doing it. It's also nonsensical, because you can be scared to or refuse to consider options on a certain thing, and absolutely be an authority on any number of things. In fact, you can refuse to consider options on a subject simply because you are an authority on it and you already know the options won't work.

 

[davekc]

I checked with my own opinion and decided it is always right.

 

[RLENT]

Actually, he didn't ignore the post about Allende. He answered it directly.

While LOS' answer was direct, it was not really specifically responsive to the particular situation LRE raised (ie Allende) ... only generally responsive at the very best (which itself is arguable) IOW: it was a glib response.

Looks to me more like an effort to avoid engaging in a detailed discussion where LOS' premise might be challenged.

In fact, IMO, the later "I won't play the rest of your game." LOS' part seems to confirm that.

If LOS' premise is valid, then it ought to be a relatively simple matter for LOS to address how it is true and how it applies in the particular case of Allende/Chile specifically.

The playing of the "I won't play the rest of your game." card does nothing to further a detailed discussion of the particular matter of Allende/Chile that some might find enlightening and educational ...

I would think that someone with as strong feelings that LOS has on Marxism, would welcome the opportunity to enlighten everyone as to how what he asserted applies particularly to Allende/Chile.

Failure to address the particular issue raised in a responsive manner, which addresses the specifics of that particular instance, may leave the observers on the sidelines wondering whether or not the one making the general/blanket assertion has the capacity or actual requisite knowledge to address the point he was challenged on.

In fact, you can refuse to consider options on a subject simply because you are an authority on it and you already know the options won't work.

I won't argue that ... but when one walks away from being challenged on a topic where one has made a general assertion, and simply refuses to address it, it smacks of something akin to a Press Release from WeSaySo Corporation ...

 

[letzrockexpress]

Actually, he didn't ignore the post about Allende. He answered it directly.

Maybe he did, maybe he didn't. Repeatedly re-posting a mantra does not demonstrate answering something "directly".

He stated that no Marxist government should be trusted, and Government must be contained and controlled, by the People and that Marxism controls the People.

Ambiguous at best. The system does dictate that the people be controlled but to emphatically state that ALL Marxist governments should not be trusted is purely opinion.

Your comment about one being scared or refuses to consider options not being an authority on anything, was a post directed to the individual, rather than about what he said, and it introduced a new topic in doing it. It's also nonsensical, because you can be scared to or refuse to consider options on a certain thing, and absolutely be an authority on any number of things. In fact, you can refuse to consider options on a subject simply because you are an authority on it and you already know the options won't work.

Perhaps. Not at all the point though.

 

[letzrockexpress]

While LOS' answer was direct, it was not really specifically responsive to the particular situation LRE raised (ie Allende) ... only generally responsive at the very best (which itself is arguable) IOW: it was a glib response.

Looks to me more like an effort to avoid engaging in a detailed discussion where LOS' premise might be challenged.

In fact, IMO, the later "I won't play the rest of your game." LOS' part seems to confirm that.

If LOS' premise is valid, then it ought to be a relatively simple matter for LOS to address how it is true and how it applies in the particular case of Allende/Chile specifically.

The playing of the "I won't play the rest of your game." card does nothing to further a detailed discussion of the particular matter of Allende/Chile that some might find enlightening and educational ...

I would think that someone with as strong feelings that LOS has on Marxism, would welcome the opportunity to enlighten everyone as to how what he asserted applies particularly to Allende/Chile.

Failure to address the particular issue raised in a responsive manner, which addresses the specifics of that particular instance, may leave the observers on the sidelines wondering whether or not the one making the general/blanket assertion has the capacity or actual requisite knowledge to address the point he was challenged on.


I won't argue that ... but when one walks away from being challenged on a topic where one has made a general assertion, and simply refuses to address it, it smacks of something akin to a Press Release from WeSaySo Corporation ...

I knew he wouldn't address the issue, that's why I brought it up. Constitution thumpers never want to talk about Allende.

 

[layoutshooter]

Love the "personal" stuff.

 

[Turtle]

While LOS' answer was direct, it was not really specifically responsive to the particular situation LRE raised (ie Allende) ... only generally responsive at the very best (which itself is arguable) IOW: it was a glib response.

You nay see it as glib, but LOS made a general comment about Marxism and similar systems, in respond to Opel2010's statement (which is an incorrect, BTW, as Marxism-Leninism was NOT "all about" using health care to control the people) and LRE wanted to change the topic to a specific system which he apparently thinks is the exception which disproves the rule.

Looks to me more like an effort to avoid engaging in a detailed discussion where LOS' premise might be challenged.

Looks to me that way, too. This ain't the thread to engage in a detailed discussion where such a broad general statement should be challenged and discussed at length. If LRE wants to start another thread for that purpose, he knows how to do that.

In fact, IMO, the later "I won't play the rest of your game." LOS' part seems to confirm that.

I agree completely.

If LOS' premise is valid, then it ought to be a relatively simple matter for LOS to address how it is true and how it applies in the particular case of Allende/Chile specifically.

I would agree with that, as well. Just not in this thread.

The playing of the "I won't play the rest of your game." card does nothing to further a detailed discussion of the particular matter of Allende/Chile that some might find enlightening and educational ...

Again, on the nose.

I would think that someone with as strong feelings that LOS has on Marxism, would welcome the opportunity to enlighten everyone as to how what he asserted applies particularly to Allende/Chile.

He may very well might want to do that. Just not off-topic in this thread.

Failure to address the particular issue raised in a responsive manner, which addresses the specifics of that particular instance, may leave the observers on the sidelines wondering whether or not the one making the general/blanket assertion has the capacity or actual requisite knowledge to address the point he was challenged on.

I'm quite sure that at least some of those sideline observers can respect the decorum of at least attempting to stay on topic in a thread, or at least not intentionally let it go too far off topic with a discussion of detailed specifics of a broad statement.

I won't argue that ... but when one walks away from being challenged on a topic where one has made a general assertion, and simply refuses to address it, it smacks of something akin to a Press Release from WeSaySo Corporation ...

Good example of trying to move things to another topic. You quote me and say you won't argue what you just quoted, but instead you want to argue a completely different topic than what you just quoted.

If you or LRE want to discuss the virtues of Chilean Marxism, great, start a new thread. If you or LRE wants to use Chilean Marxism as a vehicle for some tacit agenda towards an EO member, than perhaps a discussion with that member via PM, or discussions at some other Web site might be the better way to proceed. You've gone to great lengths to wax poetic here to defend discussing the actions or inactions of a member, off-topic, in what appears to the the game playing of "set 'em up and knock 'em down." If someone truly wants to discuss Chilean Marxism, start a thread on it. If someone wants to play the "set 'am up and knock 'em down" game, they will find this site a disappointment for their folly. People can post whatever comments on a subject they like, including not posting any at all, and they should be able to do that without others attempting to besmirch them in any way. If you want to besmirch someone on the issues, great, but if you want to publicly postulate their motives for making a comment, or not making a comment, then you're off topic in most cases, this one in particular.

 

[RLENT]

You nay see it as glib, but LOS made a general comment about Marxism and similar systems, in respond to Opel2010's statement (which is an incorrect, BTW, as Marxism-Leninism was NOT "all about" using health care to control the people) and LRE wanted to change the topic to a specific system which he apparently thinks is the exception which disproves the rule.

Just seemed like a natural progression of the discussion to me ...

He may very well might want to do that. Just not off-topic in this thread.

Fair enough.

I'm quite sure that at least some of those sideline observers can respect the decorum of at least attempting to stay on topic in a thread, or at least not intentionally let it go too far off topic with a discussion of detailed specifics of a broad statement.

I would agree ...

Good example of trying to move things to another topic. You quote me and say you won't argue what you just quoted, but instead you want to argue a completely different topic than what you just quoted.

I don't want to argue anything ... I simply made a statement of my opinion about how I saw the issue of making a statement and then be unwilling to address it. That's all.

If you or LRE want to discuss the virtues of Chilean Marxism, great, start a new thread.

I think LOS and LRE are the more likely candidates on that count ... I really didn't have anything to offer on that subject specifically, other than my observations regarding it's discussion (... or lack thereof ...)

If you or LRE wants to use Chilean Marxism as a vehicle for some tacit agenda towards an EO member, than perhaps a discussion with that member via PM, or discussions at some other Web site might be the better way to proceed.

No agenda here ... I simply commented on what I observed and how I saw things.

You've gone to great lengths to wax poetic here to defend discussing the actions or inactions of a member, off-topic, in what appears to the the game playing of "set 'em up and knock 'em down."

No straw men here ...

If someone truly wants to discuss Chilean Marxism, start a thread on it.

Agreed - in fact, I would think that it would probably be a good idea to start a separate thread if someone wants to discuss Marxism generally ... or the Soviet Union, Nazi Germany, Communist China, the "Soviet Socialist States of North America", the "World Soviet Confederation", and/or the United Nations ...

Unless, of course someone can show how those things might pertain to Saul Alinsky, who I've been lead to believe is the actual subject of this thread.

I await, with great anticipation, the opening of any new threads ...

People can post whatever comments on a subject they like, including not posting any at all, and they should be able to do that without others attempting to besmirch them in any way.

I wouldn't disagree with that at all.

If you want to besmirch someone on the issues, great, but if you want to publicly postulate their motives for making a comment, or not making a comment, then you're off topic in most cases, this one in particular.

I didn't postulate anyone's motives ... I simply commented on appearances and what peoples' perceptions might be.

 

[Turtle]

I didn't postulate anyone's motives ... I simply commented on appearances and what peoples' perceptions might be.

Go back up and find your sentence that begins with, "Looks to me more like an effort..."
That sentence is the postulation of a motive.

 

[RLENT]

Go back up and find your sentence that begins with, "Looks to me more like an effort..." That sentence is the postulation of a motive.

Nope.

Actually, I would say it's the postulation of how the appearance of an action might look to others (myself being an "other") ... and there is really no postulation as to what the actual motive might be, only speculation as to how such efforts might appear to others.

 

[Turtle]

'Avoid... where might be challenged.' Once you start speculating as to why, whether it's perception of others or whatever, that "why" is what motivated his actions or inactions. Once you give a reason, that's giving the motive, whether that's what you intended to do or not.

 

[RLENT]

'Avoid... where might be challenged.' Once you start speculating as to why, whether it's perception of others or whatever, that "why" is what motivated his actions or inactions. Once you give a reason, that's giving the motive, whether that's what you intended to do or not.

In the line you (partially) quoted above, I didn't address the "why" - only the apparency of the "what" (what it appeared to be)

I offered no reason or motivation as to why one would try "to avoid engaging in a detailed discussion where ... premise might be challenged."

 

[Turtle]

In the line you (partially) quoted above, I didn't address the "why" - only the apparency of the "what" (what it appeared to be)

Of course you addressed the why. The "where LOS' premise might be challenged" is the posited motive as to "why."

I offered no reason or motivation as to why one would try "to avoid engaging in a detailed discussion where ... premise might be challenged."

Sure you did. See above.
If the sentence had simply been, "Looks to me more like an effort to avoid engaging in a detailed discussion," then that would be the "what" he did. But the addition of "where LOS' premise might be challenged" is the "why."


Your entire response was about your (and maybe others) perceived frustrations and annoyance at why LOS wouldn't engage in a detailed off-topic discussion. It tried to follow LRE's lead in introducing a new topic, only your topic was about LOS and not even about the one LRE tried to introduce.

It's not like I graduated Forum School yesterday, ya know.

 

[RLENT]

Of course you addressed the why. The "where LOS' premise might be challenged" is the posited motive as to "why."

You could infer that it is the "posited motive" (or "why") I guess

Sure you did. See above.
If the sentence had simply been, "Looks to me more like an effort to avoid engaging in a detailed discussion," then that would be the "what" he did. But the addition of "where LOS' premise might be challenged" is the "why."

Nope - because the "where LOS' premise might be challenged" only qualifies the specific type of discussion to be avoided - and is not a posited actual, underlying reason or motivation for doing so ...

Near as I can tell the only way one get to what you claim to be the "why" (or motivation) is to infer it.

The underlying motivations could actually be all kinds of things:

1. He doesn't know jack about Allende and Chile ...

2. He knows all about Allende and Chile ... but he'd have to kill us if he told us ...

3. He's allergic to chiles and just thinking or being reminded about them - to say nothing of actually discussing a particular Chile - makes him break out in hives ...

As many possible "whys" as there are grains of sand on a beach.

Your entire response was about your (and maybe others) perceived frustrations and annoyance at why LOS wouldn't engage in a detailed off-topic discussion.

LOL ... my frustrations and annoyance ?

I was simply an amused and entertained observer of the discussion ...

It tried to follow LRE's lead in introducing a new topic, only your topic was about LOS and not even about the one LRE tried to introduce.

No ... my comments were largely about the nature of LOS' responses ... or non-responses as it were ... as regards the discussion I saw occuring ... who had the temerity to share them publicly ...

It's not like I graduated Forum School yesterday, ya know.

.......

 

[Turtle]

Near as I can tell the only way one get to what you claim to be the "why" (or motivation) is to infer it.

Yes, from the words themselves, from the totality of your post, and from the history of straws in the same context.

LOL ... my frustrations and annoyance ?

It was an awful lot of words for anything less. You seemed rather focused on the nature of LOS's responses ... or non-responses as it were, moreso than what was actually said by him regarding the new topic LRE tried to introduce.

No ... my comments were largely about the nature of LOS' responses ... or non-responses as it were ... as regards the discussion I saw occuring ... who had the temerity to share them publicly ...

"The nature of" is the problem. Temerity is a good word - reckless boldness, rashness, audacity, effrontery, foolhardiness.

 

[skyraider]

Just to clear up that word: Postulate


pos·tu·late (pŏs′chə-lāt′)
tr.v. pos·tu·lat·ed, pos·tu·lat·ing, pos·tu·lates
1. To make claim for; demand.
2. To assume or assert the truth, reality, or necessity of, especially as a basis of an argument.
3. To assume as a premise or axiom; take for granted. See Synonyms at presume.
n. (pŏs′chə-lĭt, -lāt′)
1. Something assumed without proof as being self-evident or generally accepted, especially when used as a basis for an argument: "the postulate that there is little moral difference between the superpowers" (Henry A. Kissinger).
2. A fundamental element; a basic principle.
3. Mathematics An axiom.
4. A requirement; a prerequisite.
[Medieval Latin postulāre, postulāt-, to nominate to a bishopric, to assume, from Latin, to request; see prek- in Indo-European roots.]

Notice number 2 above: to assume,,,,, *** - u - me. got it. " Brought to you by the backroom silvered haired old men's meeting room" ahh- he who controls the definitions, controls the world ..............

 

[Maverick]

Saul David Alinsky (January 30, 1909 - June 12, 1972) was an
American community organizer and writer. He is generally considered
to be the founder of modern community organizing. He authored the
book, "Rules for Radicals."

In this book, he details the 8 levels of control that must be
obtained in order to create a social state.

The first is the most important!

1. HEALTHCARE: Control healthcare and you control the people.

2. POVERTY: Increase the Poverty level as high as possible. Poor
people are easier to control, and will not fight back as long
as you are providing everything they require to live.

3. DEBT: Increase the debt to an unsustainable level. In this way,
taxes must increase, and this will produce more poverty.

4. GUN CONTROL: Remove the ability for citizens to defend
themselves from the Government. In that way you are able to
create a police state.

5. WELFARE: Take control of every aspect of their lives (Food,
Housing and Income).

6. EDUCATION: Take control of what children read and to what
they are taught in school.

7. RELIGION: Remove the belief in God from the Government
and schools.

8. CLASS WARFARE: Divide the people into the wealthy and the poor.
This will cause more discontent, and it will be easier to tax
the wealthy with the support of the poor.

Matters little WHO said it....it's a happenin right now.

http://www.newenglishreview.org/DL_...d_the_Rise_of_Amorality_in_American_Politics/

And repeat....Snopes is not a good reference for much. Regurgitate, rinse, repeat, and reference all those who do the same. You can get all the confirmed propaganda in one place, Snopes does it for you, in condensed form.

They investigate nothing, have no central news core, and any couple from anywhere can put together supposed facts in one place, for anyone to reference.

What a joke, and it's on you.

 

[letzrockexpress]

Of course you addressed the why. The "where LOS' premise might be challenged" is the posited motive as to "why."

Sure you did. See above.
If the sentence had simply been, "Looks to me more like an effort to avoid engaging in a detailed discussion," then that would be the "what" he did. But the addition of "where LOS' premise might be challenged" is the "why."


Your entire response was about your (and maybe others) perceived frustrations and annoyance at why LOS wouldn't engage in a detailed off-topic discussion. It tried to follow LRE's lead in introducing a new topic, only your topic was about LOS and not even about the one LRE tried to introduce.

It's not like I graduated Forum School yesterday, ya know.

As you've mentioned before you do love a good irony...