Again Sam is being misleading. Saul Alinsky was a 60's civil rights activist. Sam seems to forget that the so called opponents were conservative groups at the time who were very against civil rights for all. You know, such groups as the Klan, companies that refused to serve blacks, etc.
That said, Alinsky was noted for using very innovative tactics. As for not talking, again Sam is distorting the record. Alinsky always advocated talking with the opponent. For instance during the campaign he led against a department store for equal treatment of black and white customers and employees he made sure that the company could talk with the organizing committee at any time. In fact he assumed that all discussions would be forwarded to the company. So at one point, there was going to be a major protest with people flooding the department store and buying one item, and immediately returning it. Nothing illegal, in fact they were very carefully following the company's own rules for returning items. The problem is that it would have literally shut the department store down. Moreover the store went from almost all white customers to mostly black - again that would have deterred a lot of other customers at the time. Within a couple of hours the company contacted the organizing committee to negotiate a settlement. The thing is that all the lines of communication were open. Definitely not something Sam thought worthy of mentioning. I guess it did not fit with his message of blaming and demonizing liberals. >> And I have no idea who Alinsky is, and I don't really care. I suspect that >> > is an attempt to discredit what I say as not even being my opinion, but >> > rather a copy-cat version of some liberal talking head. >> >> He wrote the liberal guidelines of how to dismiss or discredit an >> opponent without actually entering into a discussion that would likely >> be lost on merit. >> > > I don't read many liberal writings, so that explains that. My apologies for > not being as well-educated as you; my family was and is poor, and college > was out of the question. I've worked my entire adult life just to survive, > and after 20 years of getting kicked while I was down I'm finally seeing > some light. Now I get to spend the next 20 or 30 years hoping I can provide > enough to get my daughter out of the quagmire. > > >> >> > That neither of those happened is enough evidence that there is no actual >> > evidence to support the position of the "Birthers." >> >> Are you saying if the SC refuses to take a case it's considered a >> verdict on the case? >> > > No, I'm saying it's a pretty strong indication that there is no real > evidence. We fall back to innocent until proven guilty. You need evidence of > guilt before you can get a hearing. No evidence, no hearing, no guilt. > Legally speaking, anyway. > > >> > See above: there are no remaining legitimate questions; they simply don't >> > believe the answers the Republicans themselves give and so ask the same >> old >> > questions repeatedly. I'm reminded of an Einstein quote here. >> >> I for one want to know why he wasn't certified by the DNC in any state >> but Hawaii. > > > That's you, not the so-called "Birthers." Nowhere have I seen them asking > this question. I admit I can't answer it, but I despise politics so much I > don't even know what you're talking about. And I don't care. The point is > irrelevant for at least another year and a half. > > >> I also want to know where he was born. Like the name of >> the hospital. >> > > What if he wasn't born in a hospital? Many people weren't back then. > >> There may not be any true extreme righties on the list, but you sure do >> play >> > one to the hilt. >> >> To you. >> > > Not just to me. It's quite obvious that you're willing to step up and take > on all debates from the most extreme right-wing viewpoint. If that is not > your true stance, then you are "playing one on the Internet." I disagree > with the stances of many of the other right-leaning on the list, but few, if > any, take up the truly extreme side of the debates like you do. > > >> > Oh yeah, I'm an extreme lefty. Sure. This extreme lefty supports conceal >> > and/or open carry laws and is against gun control. But I'm still an >> extreme >> > lefty. Whatever you want to believe there. >> >> I though you said you were in the center? Now you see how that just >> fell apart? Maybe you should avoid the extremist labels in the future. >> > > No you said I was in the center. And you're the one throwing labels on > people. I didn't say you were an extremist, I said "[sic]you sure do > play one to the hilt." > > >> >> > Oh no, I'm not in the center, I just hate both sides of that equation. I >> > also hate labels and pigeon holes. And taxes, bigots and wanna-be >> theocrats. >> > And bad drivers. >> >> And I thought you said you were center. Both sides have good and bad, >> it's just those in charge that stray off the path and force the mob to >> follow. > > > Both parties have members that range the gamut, but the parties themselves > are both bad to the core with nothing in their sights but what they can do > to get more of the taxpayers' money into their own pockets. > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now! http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology-Michael-Dinowitz/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:324005 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/unsubscribe.cfm
