The Down Range Forum
Member Section => Down Range Cafe => Topic started by: McGyver on April 15, 2010, 05:56:13 PM
-
I dunno about you, but for once in my life, I agree with this point of view! :'(
http://la-gun.com/email/manning/
-
Kind of makes the "race" issue a bunch more insignificant now, huh?
-
http://www.downrange.tv/forum/index.php?topic=8541.0
http://www.downrange.tv/forum/index.php?topic=8364.0
I stand by my original comment:
http://www.downrange.tv/forum/index.php?topic=8541.msg109518#msg109518
-
I'm sorry, I didn't know it already had been posted! :-X
Just seems to hit a little more close to home now!
-
Thanks, McGyver..I missed it the other times....not sure how...
Does give a interesting perspective.
-
Thanks, McGyver..I missed it the other times....not sure how...
Does give a interesting perspective.
Interesting is one word. Bat sh@t crazy is another. This guy breaks into song at the end of his rant and seems to want join forces with some folks who will at best regard him with, let us put it mildly, suspiscion. Not that I disagree with his point that folks have been pushed too far, but it started long before BO, the "half breed mac daddy freak". We can trace it back to Nixon and LBJ. Still, this guy is in a league of his own. SNL couldn't even spoof him, just run live feed and cap it with "Live from New York, its Saturday Night".
FQ13
-
FQ, You DO , I hope, realize that the Rev. Manning preaches in Harlem.
Do like I did, Google ATLAH Ministries.
-
If anything, this shows just how far this has all gone. If a white, ANY WHITE, said the exact same thing, the left would become horse from screaming about it. As was said, SNL wouldn't dare touch it because of the fear of race card being played. I like this kind of stuff. We need to hear more of it. This guy sees what is coming, and he simply doesn't want to be on the losing end when it happens. That to me equates to as much common sense as stocking up on food and ammunition. Bad times are coming, that is for certain. Bill T.
-
If anything, this shows just how far this has all gone. If a white, ANY WHITE, said the exact same thing, the left would become horse from screaming about it. As was said, SNL wouldn't dare touch it because of the fear of race card being played. I like this kind of stuff. We need to hear more of it. This guy sees what is coming, and he simply doesn't want to be on the losing end when it happens. That to me equates to as much common sense as stocking up on food and ammunition. Bad times are coming, that is for certain. Bill T.
Bill T, I pray you (and so many others I respect) are wrong, but I fear you are right. Bad times are coming.
As always, forewarned is forearmed. Preparation is the most significant predictor of a successful outcome.
Crusader
-
Bill T, I pray you (and so many others I respect) are wrong, but I fear you are right. Bad times are coming. Crusader
I pray I'm wrong as well. But when you look at everything that has happened in the last couple of years, it all points to bad things ahead. Financially this nation is on the brink of collapse, and has been for a very long time. Hussein, with his wild spending and printing of money has put us into even greater danger. Liberalism has drifted so far off course it's now out there where the buses don't run, along with the entire democratic party. There are no more "moderate democrats". The party doesn't want them. They want total socialism. This is the reason solid democrats like Evan Bayh have quit, and left politics all together. They are as disgusted with the liberal left as any conservative.
Hussein doesn't give a damn about the people. He is going to aggravate them as much as possible by ramming the most communistic agenda through that he possibly can. This will ignite a firestorm. Especially if the Republicans slaughter the dems at the polls this November, which as most political polling shows, is going to happen on a grand scale.
This is when it will in fact get ugly. The far left knows no bounds when it comes to despicable behaviour. They've all but memorized Saul Alinsky's playbook. This guy was as evil of a thinker as Hitler IMHO. Not if, but rather when they lose in November is when things will unravel quickly. They're behaviour is out of control now, imagine how they'll be after they get their clock cleaned after the election. They'll behave much like a street gang retaliating after a drive by on one of their "brothers". They've been mocking and demonizing the Tea Party since it's inception. When conservatives take Washington enough to hog tie Hussein, they'll go off the rails. Be prepared! Bill T.
-
Billt is right, and you do not need to be psychic to see it coming.
All you have to do is look at history, Especially Europe after the world wars.
First the Communists took over the Gov. and unions then if any one resisted they were killed.
-
Posted on lucianne.com (http://lucianne.com) today:
(http://www.lucianne.com/images/lucianne/DailyPhoto/2010-04-21.jpg)
-
The far left knows no bounds when it comes to despicable behaviour. They've all but memorized Saul Alinsky's playbook. This guy was as evil of a thinker as Hitler IMHO.
Here is where you're wrong Bill. Alinisky was no more evil than Kalishnokov or Stoner or Browning. He built a weapon, how its used depends on who picks it up. He wrote about power, how its acquired, maintained and lost. His Rules for Radicals should be required reading for any serious student of politics (and was for several of my classes). Also he wasn't an innovator, just a popularizer. The real ideas are found in the writings of Antonio Gramsci (the PHd. Level version of Alinsky) and his inspiration, Niccolo Machiavelli. Alinsky, and especially Gramsci teach us, among other things, to look at the state as a brick wall. Most focus on how high and tall it is. These guys say no, just look at the bricks themselves and the mortar holding them toghther. Find the weak spot, then insert the crowbar. Its not their fault the right never picked up on this any more than its Kalishnakov's fault we never adopted the AK. As I said, Rules for Radicals, The Prison Notebooks and the Prince are weapons. Pick them up and learn from them or don't, but if it comes to challenging state power and you haven't read them, you'll wish you had.
FQ13 who will note that all three are available in paperback and can easily be found used. There is no excuse.
-
Here is where you're wrong Bill. Alinisky was no more evil than Kalishnokov or Stoner or Browning. He built a weapon, how its used depends on who picks it up. He wrote about power, how its acquired, maintained and lost. His Rules for Radicals should be required reading for any serious student of politics (and was for several of my classes). Also he wasn't an innovator, just a popularizer. The real ideas are found in the writings of Antonio Gramsci (the PHd. Level version of Alinsky) and his inspiration, Niccolo Machiavelli. Alinsky, and especially Gramsci teach us, among other things, to look at the state as a brick wall. Most focus on how high and tall it is. These guys say no, just look at the bricks themselves and the mortar holding them toghther. Find the weak spot, then insert the crowbar. Its not their fault the right never picked up on this any more than its Kalishnakov's fault we never adopted the AK. As I said, Rules for Radicals, The Prison Notebooks and the Prince are weapons. Pick them up and learn from them or don't, but if it comes to challenging state power and you haven't read them, you'll wish you had.
FQ13 who will note that all three are available in paperback and can easily be found used. There is no excuse.
In general, I would agree...but because the weapons a man may create are not evil in themselves, the men, themselves, may or may not be evil depending upon how and why they use the weapons they created.
I use "evil" as a moral label, so what I see as an evil man, others may see as a hero. The legal question is much for cut and dried.
With the way things are going, if major changes do not occur, "our side" might find these works, these weapons, useful for offensive. For defense, it's never a bad thing to be able to read the oppositions playbook.
-
John,
Once again you are wrong.
Alinsky did not just speak about the "how to" he also was very clear about "why" the weapon should be used. It was not like he was just talking theory about how to destroy a government if perhaps one wanted to, he was very clear about why it should be done. He wanted to tear down society so that he could build it back in his own image... as he saw fit. He wanted to force his will on people. He was about power, plain and simple. He did not care about the means, and he certainly did not care about the "less fortunate" that he always claimed he wished to help. He wanted to enslave the free people of this nation and have them live under a dictatorship.
-
Here is where you're wrong Bill. Alinisky was no more evil than Kalishnokov or Stoner or Browning. He built a weapon, how its used depends on who picks it up. He wrote about power, how its acquired, maintained and lost. His Rules for Radicals should be required reading for any serious student of politics (and was for several of my classes). Also he wasn't an innovator, just a popularizer. The real ideas are found in the writings of Antonio Gramsci (the PHd. Level version of Alinsky) and his inspiration, Niccolo Machiavelli. Alinsky, and especially Gramsci teach us, among other things, to look at the state as a brick wall. Most focus on how high and tall it is. These guys say no, just look at the bricks themselves and the mortar holding them toghther. Find the weak spot, then insert the crowbar. Its not their fault the right never picked up on this any more than its Kalishnakov's fault we never adopted the AK. As I said, Rules for Radicals, The Prison Notebooks and the Prince are weapons. Pick them up and learn from them or don't, but if it comes to challenging state power and you haven't read them, you'll wish you had.
FQ13 who will note that all three are available in paperback and can easily be found used. There is no excuse.
OK, Prof. Einstein, answer this. How do you counteract Alinsky? How do you proceed as a society where some members see no reason to perpetuate that society, and actively and aggressively - and even violently - act to subvert that society rather than simply address the societal ills and try to remedy them? How do you protect the mortar and bricks when Alinsky himself instructed people that the very existence of the brick and mortar is evil and must be destroyed?
? ? ? ? ?
-
Heck Path, that's an easy one.
You use their own tactics against them.
Two of the first cliches I remember hearing as a kid involved fighting fire with fire, and setting a thief to catch a thief.
-
We've had the discussion often about how you need to fight the home invader, the mugger....you do what you need to do to survive and you do it to them as hard and fast as you can.
Without even discussing which "way of life...or government or society...is right", if those opposing yours go outside the legal means to modify it, you cannot win by staying between the lines.
-
Heck Path, that's an easy one.
You use their own tactics against them.
Two of the first cliches I remember hearing as a kid involved fighting fire with fire, and setting a thief to catch a thief.
No, I think you just bring them up on charges of treason. If they are actively trying to bring down our society its treason.... they should be shot.
-
Will not work Eric.
First, the Courts are owned by the enemies of America, secondly, they don't shoot traitors any more.
Ask Jane Fonda.
-
Actually guys let me clarify here. I don't care what the three authors thought or wanted. It is utterly irrelevant. How you WANT your book/rifle to be used goes out the window the second it leaves the publisher/factory and gets into peoples hands. Kalishikov was a dedicated comunist, or at least a Russian nationalist. Who care's? Does his rifle have cooties or something? Ditto with Gramsci and Alinsky, Machiavelli was just an Italian nationalist (one of the first modern nationalists ever which is why he scared the crap out of the Church) who was tired of seeing Spain and France use Italy as a chew toy. All three are dead, let them stay that way. The author is less important than the ideas.
As to how to counter them? The answer is easy. Look at why they are effective. They aren't (Gramsci and Machiavelli especially) just about revolution, they also talk about why some govrnments survive and other's don't. They talk about what makes a state vulnerable, how to recognize that there are certain natural factions based on self interest, and balancing those correctly is the key to stability (cf Federalist 10 and 51), as well as how a stable government is based on a combination of consent and coercsion. If you can take away consent, without having to directly fight the instruments of coercision (like the army) then you fatally weaken them and force on force can work if done right. If you just play soldier and think you're going to fight the gummint while a majority still actively support it, you lose. Job one is attacking the states legitimacy ideologiacally. The reverse is to extend that legitimacy through reform, cooptation of the opponent,s base and bringing real benefits to the people with honest and limited government. The books work for both sides.
FQ13
-
Actually guys let me clarify here. I don't care what the three authors thought or wanted. It is utterly irrelevant. How you WANT your book/rifle to be used goes out the window the second it leaves the publisher/factory and gets into peoples hands. Kalishikov was a dedicated comunist, or at least a Russian nationalist. Who care's? Does his rifle have cooties or something? Ditto with Gramsci and Alinsky, Machiavelli was just an Italian nationalist (one of the first modern nationalists ever which is why he scared the crap out of the Church) who was tired of seeing Spain and France use Italy as a chew toy. All three are dead, let them stay that way. The author is less important than the ideas.
As to how to counter them? The answer is easy. Look at why they are effective. They aren't (Gramsci and Machiavelli especially) just about revolution, they also talk about why some govrnments survive and other's don't. They talk about what makes a state vulnerable, how to recognize that there are certain natural factions based on self interest, and balancing those correctly is the key to stability (cf Federalist 10 and 51), as well as how a stable government is based on a combination of consent and coercsion. If you can take away consent, without having to directly fight the instruments of coercision (like the army) then you fatally weaken them and force on force can work if done right. If you just play soldier and think you're going to fight the gummint while a majority still actively support it, you lose. Job one is attacking the states legitimacy ideologiacally. The reverse is to extend that legitimacy through reform, cooptation of the opponent,s base and bringing real benefits to the people with honest and limited government. The books work for both sides.
FQ13
Yeah, and the communist manifesto was just theoretical ideas ::)
-
FQ is right, what works to destroy the "Good guy's" will also work to destroy the bad guys.
"If you can take away consent, without having to directly fight the instruments of coercision (like the army) then you fatally weaken them"
If the US were invaded by the UN right now, How much action do you think would be authorized by Obummer or Pelosi ?
The point , as Sun Tsu says, is not to defeat your foes Army, but to defeat the Leadership of your foes Army, whether it is by intimidation or subversion.
-
Yeah, and the communist manifesto was just theoretical ideas ::)
No, it was a manifesto for a specific program, hence the title (clever those commies, always masters of subterfuge ;)). Hower, Das Kaptital (all three 600 page fun filled volumes ::)) and most importantly to our current discussian "The 13th Brumaire of Louis Napolean" are still damn useful works of political sociology. The 13th Brumaire in particular. Its where we get the phrase "History repeats itself, first as tragedy, then as farce". True words, no matter who wrote them. Ditto with the others. We may not agree with the ends, but you can still learn from the play book. None of these guys were dumb. Pretending you can't learn something from them......
FQ13
-
What we are getting at is that motive has no tactical importance. It does not matter if we are discussing the pre revolution Bolsheviks,the pre "Home Rule" IRA, or the TEA Party movement, while the aims may be vastly different the tactical situations were nearly identical, grassroots organizations without wealth or an effective political voice seeking to change a vastly more powerful Government.
-
I'm not talking about burning books here.... It doenst really matter if Alinsky documented and published his playbook or not. I am saying that Alinsky is a bad guy (and you can make the case for evil) because he spent his entire life trying to bring down our free society.
-
Hell Eric, Most of the people on that reading list were bastards.
Michel Collins gained his position in the IRA as a security officer, killing informers, after torturing them for information.
-
Hell Eric, Most of the people on that reading list were bastards.
Michel Collins gained his position in the IRA as a security officer, killing informers, after torturing them for information.
Yeah, but Quaker is trying to grant them tenture under the vail of "academic freedom" ::)
-
Yeah, but Quaker is trying to grant them tenture under the vail of "academic freedom" ::)
Did I ever say that? Seriously Eric, if you don't like me, that's fine. I assure you the feeling is mutual, but at least attack me for what I say, not what you imagine I said. Honestly, its like you have this huge list of grievances against liberal academia and have chosen me as your whipping boy. Here's a clue. I will carry no ones water but my own. You want me to apologize for something I didn't do? Godault will show up to take you to see the flying pigs ice skating in hell before that happens. I wouldn't hire any of them (except Machiavelli). However I would (and have) made sure sure my students read the name's on both mine and Tom's lists. If you're just reading people you agree with, you're wasting your time.
FQ13
-
Eric, Just because some one is an SOB does not mean his ideas don't work.
You just saw an election run on many of those principles.
FQ, I DO have a "huge list of grievances against liberal academia", and you DO make a handy whipping boy since you are here and the truly guilty aren't.
I will be surprised if Eric gets the reference though ;F
-
How do you counteract Alinsky? ? ? ? ? ?
I don't have kids, but if I did I would start by making sure that before I shelled out well into 5 digits for their college education, it wouldn't be at one of these ultra liberal colleges that allow the likes of Ward Churchill to stroll around their campus manufacturing young Hussein's on my dime.
This is a major problem in our society today. In the 60's many kids went through a liberal "stage". They soon grew up, and out of it, to become productive members of society. They learned quickly that while, "tuning in, turning on, and dropping out", was fun and good for your sex life, it really didn't do a hell of a lot to pay the bills. And those tie dye tee shirts didn't wear very well. And Lava Lamps leaked.
Today these "professors" have these kid's minds so packed with liberal slop, you end up with a young socialist who goes on to vote for idiot's like we have now. Most today believe that society is the problem, not their socialistic thinking that hasn't produced a damn thing in the last half century where ever it's been put into play. It goes back to that old saying, "The reason communism has failed everywhere it's been applied in the last 50 years is because the right people haven't been put in charge." We use it as a punch line. They believe it. Bill T.
-
"The reason communism has failed everywhere it's been applied in the last 50 years is because the right people haven't been put in charge." We use it as a punch line. They believe it. Bill T.
You are absolutely right, Bill. I have witnessed this sort of inane response countless times in my academic endeavors and in political discussions with the looney left through the years. In my own home (I am sad to say) I have a wife who bemoans the fact of governmental intrusion and lack of personal responsibility while voting a straight left-democrat ticket. When faced with any rational counter argument, she and her looney-left friends (like Haz's lady) resort to shouting and personal attack.
Michael Savage and Ann Coulter have it right: Liberalism is a mental disease.