Hypocrisy!

[Русский агент]

That is so true. Heck, I'm a liberal and I didn't read Saul Alinsky!

I'm not and I do, so my knowledge of his writings trumps rofl2 yours, Christecrite.

This reminds me of the threads where liberals hack up twisted quotes from Raw Story about conservatives they never read, listened to, or watched.

 

[christiefan915]

I'm not and I do, so my knowledge of his writings trumps rofl2 yours, Christecrite.

This reminds me of the threads where liberals hack up twisted quotes from Raw Story about conservatives they never read, listened to, or watched.

Who cares? He's dead and gone. The only people who quote him are conservative boneheads without imagination.

 

[Phantasmal]

That is so true. Heck, I'm a liberal and I didn't read Saul Alinsky!

I didn't read Saul, either. I was too busy reading feminazi literature.

 

[christiefan915]

I didn't read Saul, either. I was too busy reading feminazi literature.

I picked up a copy at a used book store and it looks so boring I just shelved it.

 

[Русский агент]

Who cares? He's dead and gone. The only people who quote him are conservative boneheads without imagination.

Is that a fact?

Correspondence between Hillary Clinton and Saul Alinsky shows that Clinton has not been honest about her far-left past.

Alinsky’s original quarrel with the young radicals of the 1960s, which Hillary alludes to, was over the New Left’s tendency to make noise rather than get things done. Working effectively, Alinsky believed, requires ideological stealth, gradualism, and pragmatic cover. In his day, Alinsky took hits from more openly leftist ideologues for his incrementalist caution, Hillary does now. Yet he was no more a centrist than his most famous acolyte today.

A tweet in response to the story by Politico’s Glenn Thrush: “Remind me again why liking Saul Alinsky is unacceptable.” Alright, Glenn, and the rest of the DEMOCRAT-leaning media that will do everything in its power to play this revelation down, I’ll remind you.

Alinsky was a DEMOCRAT socialist. He worked closely for years with Chicago’s Communist party and did everything in his power to advance its program. Most of his innovations were patterned on Communist organizing tactics. Alinsky was smart enough never to join the party, however. From the start, he understood the dangers of ideological openness. He was a pragmatist, but a pragmatist of the far left.

Hillary Clinton understood all of this. As she noted at the conclusion of her undergraduate thesis on Alinsky, “If the ideals Alinsky espouses were actualized, the result would be social revolution.” In a letter to Alinsky, Hillary says, “I have just had my one-thousandth conversation” about Reveille for Radicals (Alinsky’s first book). Nowadays, people focus on Alinsky’s more famous follow-up, Rules for Radicals. But Reveille, which Hillary knows inside-out, is the more ideologically revelatory work.

Here’s how Alinsky defined his favored politics in Reveille for Radicals:

"Radicals want to advance from the jungle of laissez-faire capitalism to a world worthy of the name of human civilization. They hope for a future where the means of economic production will be owned by all of the people instead of the comparative handful."

So Alinsky supported the central Marxist tenet of public ownership of the means of production.


http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/388560/why-hillarys-alinsky-letters-matter-stanley-kurtz

 

[christiefan915]

Is that a fact?

Correspondence between Hillary Clinton and Saul Alinsky shows that Clinton has not been honest about her far-left past.

<snip>
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/388560/why-hillarys-alinsky-letters-matter-stanley-kurtz

So is Alinsky a "role model" for Clinton? The most direct connection between Alinsky and Clinton is that she wrote her undergraduate thesis about Alinsky and interviewed him before he died. At the time, Clinton was Hillary Rodham and the student government president at Wellesley College. The New York Times reviewed the 92-page thesis and summarized her views this way:

"Ms. Rodham endorsed Mr. Alinsky’s central critique of government antipoverty programs — that they tended to be too top-down and removed from the wishes of individuals.

"But the student leader split with Mr. Alinsky over a central point. He vowed to ‘rub raw the sores of discontent’ and compel action through agitation. This, she believed, ran counter to the notion of change within the system."

Clinton herself addressed her reactions to Alinsky in her 2003 memoir Living History.

"Alinsky was a colorful and controversial figure who managed to offend almost everyone during his long career. His prescription for social change required grassroots organizing that taught people to help themselves by confronting government and corporations to obtain the resources and power to improve their lives. I agreed with some of Alinsky's ideas, particularly the value of empowering people to help themselves. But we had a fundamental disagreement. He believed you could change the system only from the outside. I didn't. Later, he offered me the chance to work with him when I graduated from college, and he was disappointed that I decided instead to go to law school. Alinsky said I would be wasting my time, but my decision was an expression of my belief that the system could be changed from within."

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...en-carson-said-about-hillary-clinton-saul-al/

 

[Русский агент]

I didn't read Saul, either. I was too busy reading feminazi literature.

I doubt it, unless it was the kind with lots of pictures, you mangy Stupid Moderator.

 

[Русский агент]

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...en-carson-said-about-hillary-clinton-saul-al/[/SIZE]

LOL, it's hilarious to think that you consider PolitiFact the arbiter of truth.

Take a look at what these supposed "conservative boneheads without imagination" had to say 5 years ago in "Liberals Unite":

Yes, DEMOCRATS have long aligned themselves with Alinsky in name and methodology and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton even wrote her undergraduate thesis on Alinsky. And while Obama was only 10 years old when Alinsky died in 1972 and has never publicly stated he was influenced by him, he did work as a community organizer in Chicago in the 1980s at a time when Alinsky’s colleagues were still active.

http://samuel-warde.com/2012/06/republican-lies-exposed/

This, from the self-proclaimed "24 hour news magazine for discerning liberals".

Is there such a thing? If a liberal had any discernment, he wouldn't be a liberal.

 

[christiefan915]

LOL, it's hilarious to think that you consider PolitiFact the arbiter of truth.

Take a look at what these supposed "conservative boneheads without imagination" had to say 5 years ago in "Liberals Unite":

Yes, DEMOCRATS have long aligned themselves with Alinsky in name and methodology and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton even wrote her undergraduate thesis on Alinsky. And while Obama was only 10 years old when Alinsky died in 1972 and has never publicly stated he was influenced by him, he did work as a community organizer in Chicago in the 1980s at a time when Alinsky’s colleagues were still active.

http://samuel-warde.com/2012/06/republican-lies-exposed/

This, from the self-proclaimed "24 hour news magazine for discerning liberals".
Is there such a thing? If a liberal had any discernment, he wouldn't be a liberal.

You source from the National Review yet you're criticizing Politifact? *incredulous look*

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Well, that's conclusive.

yes, it is. You must be a closet liberal that demands news sources like CNN and shit, right?

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Excellent. When are they going to get started rebuilding the entire infrastructure?

if the government wouldn't stand in their way, probably pretty damned soon.......oh, but you'll NEVER let that happen, right? because statists like you think ONLY the government can build roads and bridges and shit.

 

[Taichiliberal]

it was a damn sight more than any government entity put out. YOU deal with reality, dumbass.

I swear, I'm beginning to believe you truly are some right wing cult clown who actually believes your BS over cold hard FACTS.

Pay attention, dummy: No one is putting down or denying that local, grassroots groups and such are a tremendous asset in such situations.

BUT

When you're looking at the massive scale of damage, local resources just are not enough, nor do they fully compensate for the resources the federal gov't can provide (i.e., military equipment, reconstruction, etc.)

Now I could list via newspaper articles what is being provided, estimated, etc....but let's face it, you're insipidly stubborn and just won't concede a point of fact. So why don't you toddle over and tell all those folks that they can just stew ONLY on what the state and locals can provide in means of reconstruction, temp housing, etc., because YOUR ideology takes precedent. I suggest you do so from a fast moving car.

 

[Русский агент]

You source from the National Review yet you're criticizing Politifact? *incredulous look*

Feel free to prove that a single statement I cited is false, Christiecrite.

The operative word is "prove".

 

[SmarterthanYou]

I swear, I'm beginning to believe you truly are some right wing cult clown who actually believes your BS over cold hard FACTS.

Pay attention, dummy: No one is putting down or denying that local, grassroots groups and such are a tremendous asset in such situations.

BUT

When you're looking at the massive scale of damage, local resources just are not enough, nor do they fully compensate for the resources the federal gov't can provide (i.e., military equipment, reconstruction, etc.)

Now I could list via newspaper articles what is being provided, estimated, etc....but let's face it, you're insipidly stubborn and just won't concede a point of fact. So why don't you toddle over and tell all those folks that they can just stew ONLY on what the state and locals can provide in means of reconstruction, temp housing, etc., because YOUR ideology takes precedent. I suggest you do so from a fast moving car.

hey, asshat. because you place more stock in anything the government is involved in over that of private civilians doesn't make it so, it just makes you a retard. the private citizens know exactly what is needed and as long as government doesn't stick their giant fucktard boot in the door, is quite capable of doing what they need to. take uncle sams cock out of your mouth before you respond.

 

[Русский агент]

I picked up a copy at a used book store and it looks so boring I just shelved it.

Too many long words and no pictures.

 

[Althea]

You source from the National Review yet you're criticizing Politifact? *incredulous look*

Funny how that works.

 

[Althea]

if the government wouldn't stand in their way, probably pretty damned soon.......oh, but you'll NEVER let that happen, right? because statists like you think ONLY the government can build roads and bridges and shit.

Really? Where will the billion$ come from?

 

[Althea]

hey, asshat. because you place more stock in anything the government is involved in over that of private civilians doesn't make it so, it just makes you a retard. the private citizens know exactly what is needed and as long as government doesn't stick their giant fucktard boot in the door, is quite capable of doing what they need to. take uncle sams cock out of your mouth before you respond.

Private sector never does anything that isn't profitable. Contrast that with the govt. who has funded loss leaders for centuries.

 

[christiefan915]

Feel free to prove that a single statement I cited is false, Christiecrite.

The operative word is "prove".

You posted an article so that's what I'm working with.

NR claims that HRC wasn't honest about her past. Where is the money quote showing this dishonesty? The thesis was not about completely changing the method of government; it was about government anti-poverty programs. Why didn't the NR make this distinction?

NR claims that she was willing to adopt and adapt Alinsky's methods but a quote from the thesis shows otherwise: “Alinsky’s conclusion that the ‘ventilation’ of hostilities is healthy in certain situations is valid, but across-the-board ‘social catharsis’ cannot be prescribed,” she wrote. “Catharsis has a way of perpetuating itself so that it becomes an end in itself.” She continued: “Interestingly, this society seems to be in a transition period, caught between conflict and consensus.”

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."

NR criticized HRC because she worked at what they call a left-wing law firm. "...senior partner Treuhaft was not "head of the California Communist Party" as Morris claimed in his article. It is true that Treuhaft was once an active member of the American Communist Party. Investigated and harassed by McCarthyites in 1950s, Treuhaft was listed by the House Un-American Activities Committee as one of the most dangerously subversive lawyers in the country, according to his 2001 obituary in the Times of London. But he became disillusioned with the party and left it in 1958, before Clinton started her internship with the firm....

Burnstein, who was never a communist, is retired now. "She wasn't political at all, that I remember," Burnstein said. "The only politics that were discernible were probably liberal politics. ... She came to us because of the civil rights cases we did, the things we did with racial equity and other civil rights things. That was her interest."

And

"...but in his 2004 book, Rewriting History, Morris notes that, for the record, he doesn't think Clinton is a Communist and that he doesn't mean to imply that because she worked at the law firm she was.

Finally, why is NR using a college thesis that's almost 50 years old to paint HRC as far left? Using that logic, trump was a lefty 50 years ago so repubs better make sure he's not working secretly to steer the country in that direction.

 

[Русский агент]

You seem awfully anxious to deflect attention from the fact that Her Hillyness and other devout DEMOCRATS revere Alinksky as if here were a saint. Saint Saul.

You studied his works, too, didn't you?

CONFESS!