You finally got mad when the government decided that people in America deserved the right to see a doctor if they are sick. Yes, illegal wars, lies, corruption, torture, stealing your tax dollars to make the rich richer, are all okay with you, but helping other Americans...oh hell no.

You finally got mad when the government decided that people in America deserved the right to see a doctor if they are sick.

but helping other Americans...oh hell no.

Sigh....do you really think that there aren't studies saying the opposite out there?

Just the lies they're telling about me indicate that many local conservatives have no ethics.

Then if the study I posted is accurate, think about how many more local unethical, lying liberals there are.

No. Not worth it.

No. Not worth it.

Had you written it, you would have shown yourself to be as ignorant as the author.

Conservatives make less money and pay more in taxes than liberals, yet outgive liberals by 30%.

Conservatives are more honest and ethical than liberals.

...and sending Pat Robertson money doesn't count as "charitable giving."

Conservatives are more honest and ethical than liberals.

I'd respond but I'm laughing too hard.

Yeah. Wow. Where to even start... I think you've got the right idea on this one, Beavis.

Hey Mikey...you should contact the Pew Research Center and tell them they can skip all of the pesky data gathering and analysis and save a ton of time and load of money by just calling you and the Beaverage for your opinions. Who knew?

Hey Mikey...you should contact the Pew Research Center and tell them they can skip all of the pesky data gathering and analysis and save a ton of time and load of money by just calling you and the Beaverage for your opinions. Who knew?

Actually, I was hoping you would post them, too, if you've got them.

As I said, you could be a boon to Pew Research. Our own government uses their research to help form policy. You could actually have an impact on American society.

I don't have them. I'd have to research them out and I'm not all that interested in the topic to spend time doing that. And I just think you only need to turn on the TV to see the flaws in the research presented.

Our government? The government that never gets it wrong? The same government you criticize, too?

Not to mention it was the author, not PEW Research, that arrived at the unfounded conclusion

However, when the highest elected liberal official in the nation and organizer-in-chief is a student of Saul Alinsky

Straight from the teaching of Sun Tzu.

"Obama learned his lesson well. I am proud to see that my father's model for organizing is being applied successfully beyond local community organizing to affect the Democratic campaign in 2008. It is a fine tribute to Saul Alinsky as we approach his 100th birthday."

There's a big difference between educating yourself about the ideology and methods Alinsky advocated, i.e. know your enemies-know yourself (paraphrasing Sun Tzu), and putting Alinsky's "lessons" into practice.

lol.
I'm not a member of the TeaParty.
I've never been to a TeaParty,
nor contributed to them.
I have no control over them.
I don't condone nor practice Saul Alinsky's tactics which includes deceitfulness.
I do not believe that truth is relative.

You said one of the things that make you wonder about Barack Obama is his reading Saul Alinsky

Is that what I said?
Guess again.

I said he was a student of Alinsky.
He wasn't some casual reader.
He taught Alinsky ideology.
The picture of him chalkboarding Alinsky's Power Analysis is not a state secret.

Well, Iky, we're waiting.

mdean has a perfectly legit question for you to answer. And go...

Your asking for well reasoned justified answers as opposed to sound bites and insults. You might be waiting awhile.

OK, I'm asking you to please explain, in more than a stock smug one-liner, where you draw the line between casual reader and student.

I see you giving conservatives a pass while holding Obama's feet to the fire. Can you make a rational explanation of why, since both appear to be reading and applying the book's methods?

Can one be just a casual reader when they are both using the book in practical application?

I'm asking you to please explain how what the Tea Party does with the book is different than what Obama does with it.

Real nice sound bite and insult, MWMI.

I read Alinsky throughout the years to see what he was about, what he advocated; and then again to see where one of his disciples, Hillary Clinton, was coming from. (See her Wellesley thesis, There is Only the Fight: An Analysis of the Alinsky Model, which interestingly was kept a State secret during "the Clinton years".)

Hence, the difference between a reader of Alinsky and a student/disciple of Alinsky.

I wanted to refrain from using the trigger word "disciple", however if that gets my meaning across more clearly, then substitute it for "student."

I read Alinsky throughout the years to see what he was about, what he advocated; and then again to see where one of his disciples, Hillary Clinton, was coming from. (See her Wellesley thesis, There is Only the Fight: An Analysis of the Alinsky Model, which interestingly was kept a State secret during "the Clinton years".)

Hence, the difference between a reader of Alinsky and a student/disciple of Alinsky.

Read my post again. I don't give anyone a pass for using or advocating Alinsky's ideology or methods. I believe Alinsky's methods to be destructive.

No. However, I believe there are many non-readers who do what their "leaders" or "organizers" tell them to do without knowing the origin of impetus or ideology behind it.

According to Alinsky, the difference is who has "power", which Alinsky claims is "the very essence of life." Who has the power, mdean? Obama will remind you that he does.

Yet, the only I see you holding accountable is the Left.

Read my post again. I don't give anyone a pass for using or advocating Alinsky's ideology or methods. I believe Alinsky's methods to be destructive.

Can one be just a casual reader when they are both using the book in practical application?

No.

There is no 'end justifies the means.'

What follows is for those who want to change the world from what it is to what they believe it should be. The Prince was written by Machiavelli for the Haves on how to hold power. Rules for Radicals is written for the Have-Nots on how to take it away".

Yeah...good luck convincing Alinsky's disciples of that. We recently saw B.O., Pelosi, and Reid thumb their collective noses at that assertion.

Instead, the President is taking the high road. He's a better man than I am.

H. Clinton's thesis pointed out flaws in Alinsky's rules. She was not a supporter of his theories. One of her major disputes with his rules is this: his rules are written for those who are working for change from OUTSIDE the system;

... 1) find a wailing wall and feel sorry for themselves; 2) go crazy and start bombing, warning that would lose support and turn people to the right; or 3) learn the lessons, go back to their states, organize, build power, and be the delegates at the next convention.

Rule 1: Power is not only what you have, but what an opponent thinks you have. If your organization is small, hide your numbers in the dark and raise a din that will make everyone think you have many more people than you do.

Rule 2: Never go outside the experience of your people.
The result is confusion, fear, and retreat.

Rule 3: Whenever possible, go outside the experience of an opponent. Here you want to cause confusion, fear, and retreat.

Rule 4: Make opponents live up to their own book of rules. “You can kill them with this, for they can no more obey their own rules than the Christian church can live up to Christianity.”

Rule 5: Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon. It’s hard to counterattack ridicule, and it infuriates the opposition, which then reacts to your advantage.

Rule 6: A good tactic is one your people enjoy. “If your people aren’t having a ball doing it, there is something very wrong with the tactic.”

Rule 7: A tactic that drags on for too long becomes a drag. Commitment may become ritualistic as people turn to other issues.

Rule 8: Keep the pressure on. Use different tactics and actions and use all events of the period for your purpose. “The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition. It is this that will cause the opposition to react to your advantage.”

Rule 9: The threat is more terrifying than the thing itself. When Alinsky leaked word that large numbers of poor people were going to tie up the washrooms of O’Hare Airport, Chicago city authorities quickly agreed to act on a longstanding commitment to a ghetto organization. They imagined the mayhem as thousands of passengers poured off airplanes to discover every washroom occupied. Then they imagined the international embarrassment and the damage to the city’s reputation.

Rule 10: The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative. Avoid being trapped by an opponent or an interviewer who says, “Okay, what would you do?”

Rule 11: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, polarize it. Don’t try to attack abstract corporations or bureaucracies. Identify a responsible individual. Ignore attempts to shift or spread the blame.