What's Wrong With Saul Alinsky?

SezMe said:
Doesn't matter. Books live beyond the author's death.

To the OP, I don't think there is any direct substance to Newt's mention of Alinsky. The latter has become a symbol of Obama's supposed socialism so using his name is a dog whistle to the far right that Newt is right there with them. IOW, it's a way to yell "Socialist" without yelling "Socialist".
Click to expand...

I was certainly starting to think that.

The fact that nobody on Gingrich's side of the aisle has come up with anything seems to confirm it.
 
fishbob said:
Here's a clue: Nobody is interested in discussing a book with you.

Newt doesn't have a clue about Alinsky either - he is just trying to sound intellectual (smart and stuff) to his uninformed admirers. Newt really isn't nearly as smart as he thinks he is.
Click to expand...

Got it.

You know nothing about subject xyz (the book in question) and you allege that Enemy Politician knows nothing about xyz, and you are certain that nobody wants to discuss the actuality of xyz with me.

Well now.

That really does sum it up nicely.

Continue.


:)
 
mhaze said:
Got it.

You know nothing about subject xyz (the book in question) and you allege that Enemy Politician knows nothing about xyz, and you are certain that nobody wants to discuss the actuality of xyz with me.

Well now.

That really does sum it up nicely.

Continue.
Click to expand...
You know nothing about the subject. This thread isn't about Saul Alinsky's book. Your silence is proof of your ignorance.
 
No, mhaze, the subject is not Rules for Radicals. The subject is Saul Alinsky in general, with a particular focus on what Newt Gingrich is trying to say when he namedrops Alinsky and why he does that.

You're the only one that wants to limit the discussion of Alinsky to the contents of a single published work. And since that's not the subject actually being discussed in this thread, that's why no one is biting on your attempts to derail.
 
ANTPogo said:
No, mhaze, the subject is not Rules for Radicals. The subject is Saul Alinsky in general, with a particular focus on what Newt Gingrich is trying to say when he namedrops Alinsky and why he does that.

You're the only one that wants to limit the discussion of Alinsky to the contents of a single published work. And since that's not the subject actually being discussed in this thread, that's why no one is biting on your attempts to derail.
Click to expand...

Well, that's because that's essentially his only work. Two earlier ones are somewhat specialized, and are virtually unknown outside a few academic circles. Reveille, and the biography of Lewis.

And Alinsky is known and understood by his book, Rules for Radicals. There is no other serious work that I am aware of. The 1972 interview with Playboy?

:rolleyes:
 
mhaze said:
Well, that's because that's essentially his only work. Two earlier ones are somewhat specialized, and are virtually unknown outside a few academic circles. Reveille, and the biography of Lewis.

And Alinsky is known and understood by his book, Rules for Radicals. There is no other serious work that I am aware of. The 1972 interview with Playboy?

:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

So, referring back to the CNN link you provided, when Gingrich said that Obama "really is sort of a classic Saul Alinsky radical whose basic ideas are the opposite of what we need to create jobs", what parts of Rules for Radicals was Gingrich referring to?

Chapter and page number, please.
 
ANTPogo said:
So, referring back to the CNN link you provided, when Gingrich said that Obama "really is sort of a classic Saul Alinsky radical whose basic ideas are the opposite of what we need to create jobs", what parts of Rules for Radicals was Gingrich referring to?

Chapter and page number, please.
Click to expand...
Here's what is wrong with your question. From it you get something (information) but I don't get anything. In other words, there is no incentive for me to "do work for you". That's why I said earlier I'd be willing to discuss the book on an equal basis with anyone who cared to.

That would be interesting to me. Your request isn't.

Also, I'd note that there would be no way to authenticate Newt's remark without referring to an authoritative source material. And guess what that would be....
 
Last edited:
mhaze said:
Here's what is wrong with your question. From it you get something (information) but I don't get anything. In other words, there is no incentive for me to "do work for you". That's why I said earlier I'd be willing to discuss the book on an equal basis with anyone who cared to.

That would be interesting to me. Your request isn't.
Click to expand...
Because you don't know. Because you are a liar.
 
mhaze said:
Here's what is wrong with your question. From it you get something (information) but I don't get anything. In other words, there is no incentive for me to "do work for you". That's why I said earlier I'd be willing to discuss the book on an equal basis with anyone who cared to.

That would be interesting to me. Your request isn't.

Also, I'd note that there would be no way to authenticate Newt's remark without referring to an authoritative source material. And guess what that would be....
Click to expand...

I see...
 
mhaze said:
Here's what is wrong with your question. From it you get something (information) but I don't get anything. In other words, there is no incentive for me to "do work for you". That's why I said earlier I'd be willing to discuss the book on an equal basis with anyone who cared to.

That would be interesting to me. Your request isn't.

Also, I'd note that there would be no way to authenticate Newt's remark without referring to an authoritative source material. And guess what that would be....
Click to expand...

Lol. You've popped into this thread, which was entirely a request for information, to say that you have it but you refuse to give it. I, for one, am putting you on ignore.
 
I cannot help but respond: "I offer the world my genius. All I ask is that the world cover my expenses".

;)
 
Rules for Radicals counseled young radicals of the early 1970s to burrow in, and to pretend to be more moderate than they really are. Being open about their far left views would only turn off the masses and make them ineffective.

It's a pernicious little book, mainly because it justifies some of the paranoid beliefs that some conservatives have about liberals and moderates: that they are just waiting to get enough power to turn this country into a communist utopia. I suspect that there may be some politicians who are still playing the Alinsky gambit, but that the vast majority of those who even started out with that object in mind found themselves becoming more moderate over time.
 
I'm pretty sure that Brainster is not actually claiming that liberals and moderates in general or Obama in particular really are just waiting to get enough power to turn this country into a communist utopia.

Just that he feels Alinsky's book feeds the paranoia that some conservatives have regarding that.
 
Last edited:
RandFan said:
What does that have to do with Obama?
Click to expand...


Perhaps the NRA's Wayne LaPierre can enlighten us:
They will say gun owners — they’ll say they left them alone. In public, he’ll remind us that he’s put off calls from his party to renew the Clinton ban, he hasn’t pushed for new gun control laws… The president will offer the 2nd Amendment lip service and hit the campaign trail saying he’s actually been good for the 2nd Amendment.

But it’s a big fat stinking lie! It’s all part of a massive Obama conspiracy to deceive voters and destroy the 2nd Amendment in our country. Obama himself is no fool. So when he got elected, they concocted a scheme to stay away from the gun issue, lull gun owners to sleep and play us for fools in 2012. Well, gun owners are not fools and we are not fooled.
Click to expand...
Paranoid, indeed.
 
ANTPogo said:
I'm pretty sure that Brainster is not actually claiming that liberals and moderates in general or Obama in particular really are just waiting to get enough power to turn this country into a communist utopia.

Just that he feels Alinsky's book feeds the paranoia that some conservatives have regarding that.
Click to expand...
I had suspected that but I wanted to make it clear. It's really a bizarre issue that those on the right don't want to step up to the pate and either reasonably defend Gingrich or admit it's BS. But that's fine, silence speaks volumes. Far more than mhaze's offer of a book club speaks that's for sure.
 
ANTPogo said:
I'm pretty sure that Brainster is not actually claiming that liberals and moderates in general or Obama in particular really are just waiting to get enough power to turn this country into a communist utopia.

Just that he feels Alinsky's book feeds the paranoia that some conservatives have regarding that.
Click to expand...

What I find hilariously ironic is that while these Chicken Littles run around claiming the sky is falling (see my example above with the NRA), mainstream Republican presidential candidates like Rick Santorum talk openly about the need to inject right wing theologism into American culture.

It seems to me these conservatives aren't so much worried about losing their way of life as they are about losing the ability to impose their way of life on the rest of us.
 
johnny karate said:
Perhaps the NRA's Wayne LaPierre can enlighten us:
They will say gun owners — they’ll say they left them alone. In public, he’ll remind us that he’s put off calls from his party to renew the Clinton ban, he hasn’t pushed for new gun control laws… The president will offer the 2nd Amendment lip service and hit the campaign trail saying he’s actually been good for the 2nd Amendment.

But it’s a big fat stinking lie! It’s all part of a massive Obama conspiracy to deceive voters and destroy the 2nd Amendment in our country. Obama himself is no fool. So when he got elected, they concocted a scheme to stay away from the gun issue, lull gun owners to sleep and play us for fools in 2012. Well, gun owners are not fools and we are not fooled.
Click to expand...
Paranoid, indeed.
Click to expand...
And evidence of this conspiracy? Not doing anything? :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom