Understood. Don't blame ya. Was just curious if you knew of some and if they had any better foundation than the ones ikayak posted. Morbid curiosity.

Right or wrong isn't the point. Right or wrong, the government uses info from these polls to create policies.



Pew gathers data, records, analyzes, and reports their findings. Pew reported there was a partisan divide on morality issues. It revealed that conservatives had a stricter code of ethics.

The author also noted several other independent studies including The Journal of Business Ethics which linked "conservatism" to "higher levels of ethical values", and The Journal of Psychology linking "political liberalism" with "lying in your own self-interest".

Make of these studies what you will. However, when the highest elected liberal official in the nation and organizer-in-chief is a student of Saul Alinsky who dedicated his training manual to Lucifer, and proclaimed: "An organizer working in and for an open society is in an ideological dilemma to begin with, he does not have a fixed truth -- truth to him is relative and changing; everything to him is relative and changing..." (p.10); "The third rule of ethics of means and ends is that in war the end justifies almost any means...." (p.29); and "The seventh rule... is that generally success or failure is a mighty determinant of ethics...."( p.34) all from Rules for Radicals,

...one has to wonder.

Saul Alinsky? You just keep getting funnier and funnier.

But a funny thing happened on the way to Alinsky taking a place alongside top contemporary conservative bogeymen like Michael Moore, George Soros and Jane Fonda. His seminal 1971 guide to organizing, “Rules for Radicals: A Pragmatic Primer for Realistic Radicals,” became a must-read for a new wave of conservative activists who mobilized — many for the first time — in opposition to the ambitious, big-government agenda pushed by President Obama and the Democratic Congress.

In the opening lines of “Rules,” Alinsky described its mission — and his approach — thus: “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."

Suddenly, the book was being touted as a way to beat the left at its own game by everyone from 69-year-old former House Majority Leader Dick Armey, whose nonprofit group FreedomWorks has emerged as a leading Washington bulwark for the tea party movement, to 25-year-old James O’Keefe, the self-styled activist investigative journalist who last year became a conservative hero for secretly recording employees of the liberal community-organizing group ACORN apparently offering advice on how to set up a brothel, to tea party leaders seeking to disrupt congressional town halls.

http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=7D78B2CE-18FE-70B2-A889E10B1C707BA6

Straight from the teaching of Sun Tzu.

I thought reading Saul Alinsky made someone less moral and ethical? Or does that only apply to African-Americans?

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.

Remember how the teabaggers were disrupting town hall meetings on health insurance reform?

Remarkable that they actually read the book. Before the election Republicans were waving Alinsky like a bloody shirt.
I had an online, pre-election conversation with a guy who asserted that Obama's campaign themes were "right out of Alinsky's book."
"What are those themes," I asked, "and which book? He wrote more than one."
Then followed an exchange establishing that he was parroting what he'd heard somewhere else and had no actual understanding of the matter.

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.