Breitbart -- The Vetting, Part I: Barack's Love Song To Alinsky

Originally posted by RealSpoke
reply to post by butcherguy

 

The quote you use with the term "any means" is shortened and never includes the word necessary. Perhaps you could post the whole thing?

So it doesn't even need to be necessary to the cause?

That can be even more brutal and ugly. Of course, what would we expect from someone that teaches not to let ethics get in the way!

reply to post by butcherguy


You already took the have-nots quote out of context. As I said in my previous post. It had nothing to do with communism, it was a cocky intro to the book slighting Machiavelli's "The Prince".

But just for an example how easily a book can be taken out of context if you shorten the passage or did not read the book in general.

I'll use the bible since its so popular. —Matthew 5:38-42,

You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.'.....

This makes it seem that Jesus was speaking of revenge but in reality the whole passage states the opposite. If someone was not familiar with the Bible that line could easily be propagandized to make Jesus look vengeful, just saying.

You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.' But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also

Originally posted by butcherguy
reply to post by OutKast Searcher

 

You think that the Weathermen didn't study and use Alinsky's methods?

I understand that he didn't believe in adhering strictly to any ideology. What do you think that his IDEA of taking from the 'haves' and giving to the 'have nots' aligns with??? Capitalism? What system does it agree with?

Do tell.

And the Crusaders used the Bible to commit their atrocities...should we vilify anyone who then uses the Bible???

I don't see him saying "take" from the haves...I see him advocating for the "have nots" to RISE UP against the "haves" that are holding them down and exploiting them.

Do you have a problem with people rising up against their opressors?

reply to post by RealSpoke

You already took the have-nots quote out of context.

Let me know if the ideas of Marxism have changed, but I'm pretty sure they are all about the workers having the power. having, not having?

reply to post by OutKast Searcher

Do you have a problem with people rising up against their opressors?

Hardly.

I have a problem with a fellow that throws ethics out the window when deciding on a means to an end.

Some Muslims have no problem blowing up a bus full of their brothers to kill a Jew.
Some Christians have no problem bombing abortion clinics, killing innocents.

Was it necessary to behead Marie Antoinette?

reply to post by butcherguy


Why are you ignoring that Evil Bible and the atrocities that have been commited in it's name?


Does that make every Christian an evil person?

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
reply to post by butcherguy

 

Why are you ignoring that Evil Bible and the atrocities that have been commited in it's name?


Does that make every Christian an evil person?

Why do you choose to ignore the FACT that Alinsky said that ethics have no place in removing the power from the haves?

Looking at the thread title, I see Alinsky mentioned. You see anything about the Bible? Maybe you can go make a new thread.

As you've done before.

reply to post by butcherguy


I'm using the Bible as an example. There are a lot of not so great things in the Bible...but people still read it, study it, and live by it. It doesn't mean they will go around killing gay men like Leviticus says.

Believe it or not, people can read a book and study it and take the good things from it and leave the bad.

But that doesn't fit your argument...you want to vilify Obama because he may have studied Alinsky and you can hack some quotes out of context and try to make it look like Obama subscribes to that.


I can do the exact same thing with the Bible...which is why you are trying to ignore discussing it.

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
reply to post by butcherguy

 

I'm using the Bible as an example. There are a lot of not so great things in the Bible...but people still read it, study it, and live by it. It doesn't mean they will go around killing gay men like Leviticus says.

Believe it or not, people can read a book and study it and take the good things from it and leave the bad.

But that doesn't fit your argument...you want to vilify Obama because he may have studied Alinsky and you can hack some quotes out of context and try to make it look like Obama subscribes to that.


I can do the exact same thing with the Bible...which is why you are trying to ignore discussing it.

This is about Alinsky and Obama. You choose to ignore this.....

the FACT that Alinsky said that ethics have no place in removing the power from the haves?

There's nothing out of context about it, there is a whole chapter in the Rules for Radicals book about it.

So peddle your Bibles after you address the real issue.

reply to post by butcherguy


You just aren't getting it.

Sure, he can have a whole chapter in his book about ignoring ethics...doesn't mean that everyone who reads the book or studies it or uses parts of his strategy subscribes to that way of thinking.

Does that mean that if Obama studies his book that he subscribes to that ONE chapter in his book?


Just like if someone studies the bible, does that mean they subscribe to every teaching of the bible???


Can you show me some proof where Obama has ignored ethics?

reply to post by OutKast Searcher

Can you show me some proof where Obama has ignored ethics?

try...... this

In this case, ethics is that pesky Constitution.

Do you get it?

reply to post by RealSpoke

IF YOU WANT OBAMA OUT OF OFFICE THEN FOCUS ON ACTUAL CRIMES/VIOLATIONS, not party politics if you REALLY want to change the country.

NDAA
LIBYA
DRONES
SOLYNDRA
CONNECTIONS TO BANKS

I'm trying to focus on his military activities in Africa. People just choose to ignore it around here because its reality and truth. They don't want to deal with reality.

You might find these interesting
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Something big is about to go down on the Dark Continent...

reply to post by butcherguy


So you give an example that would go against everything Alinsky was for.

I give up.


All I know is that if this is all Breitbart had on Obama, then as usually he was over hyping his hand.

Baraka means “Divine Presence” and “Spiritual Wisdom” in Arabic...

Just sayin'.

I think this wasn't a misspelling at all, and a hint at things to come from the good folks at Breitbart.com.

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
reply to post by butcherguy

 

So you give an example that would go against everything Alinsky was for.

I give up.


All I know is that if this is all Breitbart had on Obama, then as usually he was over hyping his hand.

You should give up... because you don't get it.

Obama can be following Alinsky to a T, and do exactly what you say, going against everything Alinsky was for.... if the bigger goal is what Alinsky was for.

Take a couple of days and think it through.

reply to post by butcherguy

if the bigger goal is what Alinsky was for.

And what is that bigger goal that Alinsky was for?

To fight for those that are being oppressed?

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
reply to post by butcherguy

 

if the bigger goal is what Alinsky was for.

And what is that bigger goal that Alinsky was for?

To fight for those that are being oppressed?

Hey, is that a thought bouncing around in there? Yes, fighting for the oppressed.

In his writings, he speaks of the necessity of killing innocents to win for the cause.... the very people that he is fighting to free from oppression.

Oh, sorry you're dead. But you're not oppressed anymore, are you? Have fun with that.( but it's okay, because Mr Alinsky isn't an idealist!)

reply to post by butcherguy


Ok, so you dodged. I'll ask again.

What is that bigger goal that Alinsky was for?

Click here for more information.