Sadly, more and more mainstream liberals are being willingly or unknowingly sucked into performing these tactics by a Democratic leadership that is socialist at heart, and completely Machiavellian by nature.
Rule 5 is admittedly a danger, but Rule 9 is probably the most threatening to a free society. Any group with a history of following through on its threats is in a position to bluff with great effect. Conservatives, and moderates with any degree of patriotism, need to say "I call your bluff." And if it's not a bluff, then fight back with everything you've got. Investigate, prosecute, fine, jail, deport, etc.
We can't keep giving in to radical illegal aliens, radical Islam, liberation theologists, and other rabble rousers just because they "might" do something. At the request of the administration, the MSM is avoiding reporting many news events, and watering down reports of other events, because of fear that some group will be offended and commit a dangerous act if all news is fully reported. My answer - report all of it anyway. Some of the threats will be bluffs, and some won't. If the ones that aren't bluffs are investigated swiftly and punished severely, the threats will diminish. I appreciate that in the short to intermediate term, this stance may cost some hu...
Rule 5 is admittedly a danger, but Rule 9 is probably the most threatening to a free society. Any group with a history of following through on its threats is in a position to bluff with great effect. Conservatives, and moderates with any degree of patriotism, need to say "I call your bluff." And if it's not a bluff, then fight back with everything you've got. Investigate, prosecute, fine, jail, deport, etc.
We can't keep giving in to radical illegal aliens, radical Islam, liberation theologists, and other rabble rousers just because they "might" do something. At the request of the administration, the MSM is avoiding reporting many news events, and watering down reports of other events, because of fear that some group will be offended and commit a dangerous act if all news is fully reported. My answer - report all of it anyway. Some of the threats will be bluffs, and some won't. If the ones that aren't bluffs are investigated swiftly and punished severely, the threats will diminish. I appreciate that in the short to intermediate term, this stance may cost some hu...
Sadly, more and more mainstream liberals are being willingly or unknowingly sucked into performing these tactics by a Democratic leadership that is socialist at heart, and completely Machiavellian by nature.
Rule 5 is admittedly a danger, but Rule 9 is probably the most threatening to a free society. Any group with a history of following through on its threats is in a position to bluff with great effect. Conservatives, and moderates with any degree of patriotism, need to say "I call your bluff." And if it's not a bluff, then fight back with everything you've got. Investigate, prosecute, fine, jail, deport, etc.
We can't keep giving in to radical illegal aliens, radical Islam, liberation theologists, and other rabble rousers just because they "might" do something. At the request of the administration, the MSM is avoiding reporting many news events, and watering down reports of other events, because of fear that some group will be offended and commit a dangerous act if all news is fully reported. My answer - report all of it anyway. Some of the threats will be bluffs, and some won't. If the ones that aren't bluffs are investigated swiftly and punished severely, the threats will diminish. I appreciate that in the short to intermediate term, this stance may cost some human life, but freedom isn't "free." Andrew Jackson said "The price of liberty is eternal vigilance." By dumbing down the news, we are saying to the crazy fringe leftists in our nation "go ahead, take our liberty, nobody will expose it; in fact under this administration, the DOJ won't even prosecute you."
Loss of life to protect our liberty is a serious matter, but an issue that can't be wished away. My favorite founding fathers quote is "He who trades liberty for security deserves neither and will lose both." - Thomas Jefferson. We have the choice between some loss of life now through incremental terror, or total loss of liberty later to transnational socialism (i.e., dictatorship) because we didn't vote out the statists, and stand firm against the "useful idiots" in our society who do their bidding. We have to accept the fact that terror eminating from groups already on American soil is actually a collection of very small scale civil wars. This is not something you hide; this is something you expose, fight, and destroy.
(more)Rule 5 is admittedly a danger, but Rule 9 is probably the most threatening to a free society. Any group with a history of following through on its threats is in a position to bluff with great effect. Conservatives, and moderates with any degree of patriotism, need to say "I call your bluff." And if it's not a bluff, then fight back with everything you've got. Investigate, prosecute, fine, jail, deport, etc.
We can't keep giving in to radical illegal aliens, radical Islam, liberation theologists, and other rabble rousers just because they "might" do something. At the request of the administration, the MSM is avoiding reporting many news events, and watering down reports of other events, because of fear that some group will be offended and commit a dangerous act if all news is fully reported. My answer - report all of it anyway. Some of the threats will be bluffs, and some won't. If the ones that aren't bluffs are investigated swiftly and punished severely, the threats will diminish. I appreciate that in the short to intermediate term, this stance may cost some human life, but freedom isn't "free." Andrew Jackson said "The price of liberty is eternal vigilance." By dumbing down the news, we are saying to the crazy fringe leftists in our nation "go ahead, take our liberty, nobody will expose it; in fact under this administration, the DOJ won't even prosecute you."
Loss of life to protect our liberty is a serious matter, but an issue that can't be wished away. My favorite founding fathers quote is "He who trades liberty for security deserves neither and will lose both." - Thomas Jefferson. We have the choice between some loss of life now through incremental terror, or total loss of liberty later to transnational socialism (i.e., dictatorship) because we didn't vote out the statists, and stand firm against the "useful idiots" in our society who do their bidding. We have to accept the fact that terror eminating from groups already on American soil is actually a collection of very small scale civil wars. This is not something you hide; this is something you expose, fight, and destroy.
ME: He's the quote from Rules on the Weathermen:
"When they talk of values they're asking for a reason. They are searching for an answer, at least for a time, to man's great question, 'Why am I hear?'
The young react to their world in different ways. Some panic an run, rationalizing that the system is going to collapse anyway of its own rot and corruption and so they're copping out, going hippie or yippie, taking drugs, trying communes, anything to escape. Others sick with guilt not knowing where to turn went berserk. These were the Weathermen and their like: They took the grand cop-out suicide. To these I have nothing to say or give but pity--and in some cases contempt . . . "
"Alinsky, is an avowed atheist, he does not believe in God but
Lucifer does… and Alinsky believes in Lucifer…does this make sense"
When you read the entire quote that references Lucifer in the scan you've provided, you see that he's simply acknowledging the MYTH of Lucifer as the "very first radical". Nowhere does he proclaim belief in him.
It seems like it's becoming impossible to have an honest discussion these days...
Your conclusion that "if he didn't believe in satan he wouldn't give him so much credit" is based purely on conjecture that runs counter to the available, objective facts.
Given that Merriam-Webster defines "common sense" as "sound and prudent judgment based on a simple perception of the situation or facts" ( http://www.merriam-webster.co... ) I would have to argue that I AM the one using common sense.
Well that would be before the economic crash. Of course most people felt better about their situations before the economy crumbled around us. And let's not forget that this crash happened before Obama was elected, thanks to decades of both major political parties allowing businesses to treat our savings like their own personal casino accounts. How are we ever going to get out of this mess if we can't even have an honest discussion about how we got here?
Where's the hope? Where's the change?
That's what I mean - if we can't even start from an objectively established baseline that acknowledges both the successes and failures of past and current policies, then we can't have an honest, constructive conversation about it. It's incredibly frustrating to see every attempt at reasoned debate spiral into some diatribe about the caricature of Obama that's been created by his most fervent opponents.
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/10...
Their estimates and predictions are typically VERY close to the mark.
lol