Im a Racist

[Hemodoc]

You have not answering a question down to an art.

If you ever learn to DISCUSS like Moosemom, politely I would be more than happy to engage in civil conversation. To date on this thread, she is the only one that has the grace and courage to do so.

And in fact, my wife literally answered the question. Don't want to believe her. So be it. She is proud of her beautiful brown skin and laughs at all of us prejudiced whities going to the tanning salon. You didn't answer my question, how many times to you go get a sun tan or go to the tanning salon?

[CebuShan]

CarIad & Moosemom: I gave to tell you a sweet story. My husband & I are both me Irish descent. Two of our very best friends are of African descent. One day I was visiting when their daughter came home from kindergarten. She looked at me and then at her Mom very intently. Finally she asked me if I knew that I was white! (Her parents had never taught their kids that there was a difference.) I said yes, I know. She said I'm black. I said yes, you are. She was quiet for a minute then said cool, and went off to play. I have always thought how great it was that their kids never learned about our differences at home. Just a side note, the Dad is very light skinned and during the summer, I am way darker than he is! The Mom has always thought that was hilarious!

[Hemodoc]

CarIad & Moosemom: I gave to tell you a sweet story. My husband & I are both me Irish descent. Two of our very best friends are of African descent. One day I was visiting when their daughter came home from kindergarten. She looked at me and then at her Mom very intently. Finally she asked me if I knew that I was white! (Her parents had never taught their kids that there was a difference.) I said yes, I know. She said I'm black. I said yes, you are. She was quiet for a minute then said cool, and went off to play. I have always thought how great it was that their kids never learned about our differences at home. Just a side note, the Dad is very light skinned and during the summer, I am way darker than he is! The Mom has always thought that was hilarious!

I spent so much time outdoors as a kid getting the pearly white body to tan that I got a melanoma 5 years ago. Quite silly when you think about it. My wife has a natural olive colored skin that is the envy of all those folks tanning religiously in tanning booths all winter long. She never gets a sunburn and she has very clear skin without any of my sun damaged appendages growing from it. Stay out of the sun folks and embrace the beauty that God has given us all in the various ways He did. Celebrate that which God intended.

Great story Cebushan, thank you.

Peter

[YLGuy]

You have not answering a question down to an art.

If you ever learn to DISCUSS like Moosemom, politely I would be more than happy to engage in civil conversation. To date on this thread, she is the only one that has the grace and courage to do so.

And in fact, my wife literally answered the question. Don't want to believe her. So be it. She is proud of her beautiful brown skin and laughs at all of us prejudiced whities going to the tanning salon. You didn't answer my question, how many times to you go get a sun tan or go to the tanning salon?

I will give you one of your answers:
    ¶
Genesis

1      And God said, Let there be light: 2 Cor. 4.6 and there was light.

4    And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
5    And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.



14    ¶ And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:
15    and let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.
16    And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
17    And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,
18    and to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.


2 Corinthians 4:6 For God, who said, "Let light shine out of darkness," made his light shine in our hearts to give us the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Christ.

Judges 5:31
May they who love you be like the sun when it rises in its strength.

Ecclesiastes Chapter 11
7 Truly the light is sweet, and a pleasant thing it is for the eyes to behold the sun:

I do not use tanning salons.

[cariad]

If you ever learn to DISCUSS like Moosemom, politely I would be more than happy to engage in civil conversation.

You never answered my question about Saul Alinsky and the danger to America that his texts present, either. Cutting and pasting with no analysis is pointless. I do not read your Bible quotes. I like expert theological analysis from authorities like Jack Miles, not proselytizing.

Your posts rather smack of desperation. 

You are in no position to lecture about civil conversation. After admonishing MM for her language in calling Newt Gingrich a 'manslut' (which is hilarious) and pontificating that he is made in the image of God, you go on to call Abbie Hoffman a 'weirdo' and political activists as a group 'retards' (wow, that is despicable for several reasons), and members such as myself 'insane' and 'delusional'.

I could not care less about when you heard about Saul Alinsky, 'hearing about' someone is not synonymous with knowing what you are talking about, which in this case, you don't. I never mentioned Glenn Beck, you are confusing me with someone else. I have to say, I do miss seeing that man skewered on The Colbert Report, though. Anyone remember the 'crazy eyes' episode with the war bunker? You must find time to view this. It is a satirical masterwork.

[Hemodoc]

If you ever learn to DISCUSS like Moosemom, politely I would be more than happy to engage in civil conversation.

You never answered my question about Saul Alinsky and the danger to America that his texts present, either. Cutting and pasting with no analysis is pointless. I do not read your Bible quotes. I like expert theological analysis from authorities like Jack Miles, not proselytizing.

Your posts rather smack of desperation. 

You are in no position to lecture about civil conversation. After admonishing MM for her language in calling Newt Gingrich a 'manslut' (which is hilarious) and pontificating that he is made in the image of God, you go on to call Abbie Hoffman a 'weirdo' and political activists as a group 'retards' (wow, that is despicable for several reasons), and members such as myself 'insane' and 'delusional'.

I could not care less about when you heard about Saul Alinsky, 'hearing about' someone is not synonymous with knowing what you are talking about, which in this case, you don't. I never mentioned Glenn Beck, you are confusing me with someone else. I have to say, I do miss seeing that man skewered on The Colbert Report, though. Anyone remember the 'crazy eyes' episode with the war bunker? You must find time to view this. It is a satirical masterwork.

Dear Cariad, is this really necessary? Are you trying to convince me by power of reason to like Alinski? Sorry, he is completely antithetical to my beliefs and I really have no interest in becoming one of his students. The little I have read of his works is enough. Thank you nevertheless.

As far as calling Abbie Hoffman a weirdo, that is what ultra-liberal Walter Cronkite called him years ago and I tend to agree, he is a weirdo and even has a weirdo hairdo to boot. And yes, I believe that his books and Rubins are quite stupid and retarded. That is what I thought of them when I was an ultra-liberal. Really stupid and socially unacceptable in all ways, but if that is the book you wish to uphold, so be it.

http://books.google.com/books?id=d7vRwnwuZFEC&pg=PA81&lpg=PA81&dq=abbie+hoffman+is+a+weirdo&source=bl&ots=pKkU4PJqzF&sig=M0Vg1eRD7FnVall1n6AQ9JNuISU&hl=en&sa=X&ei=kTUrT6qUAqfYiQLb5smbCg&ved=0CDgQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=abbie%20hoffman%20is%20a%20weirdo&f=false

As far as Colbert, he is just the media propaganda master applying Alinski rule number 5:

5. "Ridicule is man's most potent weapon. It is almost impossible to counteract ridicule. Also it infuriates the opposition, which then reacts to your advantage."

You can turn on the late night comedians every single night and listen to an exposition of rule number 5 on just about every single channel after the 11 oclock news.

Thank you,

Peter

[cariad]

CarIad & Moosemom: I gave to tell you a sweet story. My husband & I are both me Irish descent. Two of our very best friends are of African descent. One day I was visiting when their daughter came home from kindergarten. She looked at me and then at her Mom very intently. Finally she asked me if I knew that I was white! (Her parents had never taught their kids that there was a difference.) I said yes, I know. She said I'm black. I said yes, you are. She was quiet for a minute then said cool, and went off to play. I have always thought how great it was that their kids never learned about our differences at home. Just a side note, the Dad is very light skinned and during the summer, I am way darker than he is! The Mom has always thought that was hilarious!

That is a sweet story, CebuShan. Thanks for sharing it. I adore stories about children learning, it always gives me a new perspective on things as each one seems to approach the world in their own way.

Now, I hate to follow up with this, but La Directoria (the principal) at my sons' school wrote a brilliant essay on how kids in fact do not need to be taught racism, they will pick up the value system of the culture in which they are immersed. She was a teacher for a long, long while before she helped found this school that takes as its mission statement a commitment to an anti-racist, anti-biased curriculum. She had many examples of little kids (5 and 6) using skin color as a weapon. It was a fascinating piece as I know that parents can influence this a lot, but kids are perceptive and are learning more from the world at large than we might think.

MM, I would struggle if one of my boys suggested to me that they do not like homosexuality, but I would say it's too early to be concerned with your son. Tonight the boys and I were discussing social networks and I mentioned my fear that they would be bullied at some point. (A fear I will have to get over eventually). I mentioned gay children killing themselves, so Liot of course asked, and I gave my quick, age-appropriate explanation and he said "that's weird". Well, he's five. We talked about it a touch more and I told him that I found it weird at first, too. I was much older than he when I found it a bit scary, not too much younger than your son. I think you're right in that your son's response has peer-influence written all over it. 

[cariad]

Dear Cariad, is this really necessary? Are you trying to convince me by power of reason to like Alinski? Sorry, he is completely antithetical to my beliefs and I really have no interest in becoming one of his students. The little I have read of his works is enough. Thank you nevertheless.

As far as calling Abbie Hoffman a weirdo, that is what ultra-liberal Walter Cronkite called him years ago and I tend to agree, he is a weirdo and even has a weirdo hairdo to boot. And yes, I believe that his books and Rubins are quite stupid and retarded. That is what I thought of them when I was an ultra-liberal. Really stupid and socially unacceptable in all ways, but if that is the book you wish to uphold, so be it.

http://books.google.com/books?id=d7vRwnwuZFEC&pg=PA81&lpg=PA81&dq=abbie+hoffman+is+a+weirdo&source=bl&ots=pKkU4PJqzF&sig=M0Vg1eRD7FnVall1n6AQ9JNuISU&hl=en&sa=X&ei=kTUrT6qUAqfYiQLb5smbCg&ved=0CDgQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=abbie%20hoffman%20is%20a%20weirdo&f=false

Thank you,

Peter

I don't care if you like Saul Alinsky or not. You made an anti-Obama statement that you cannot support with evidence. Try and make it about anything else you like, but you know perfectly well I am asking you to explain how you find Saul Alinsky dangerous to America.

(I don't hold up Steal This Book, whatever that means. I think it was well-written. Also so very 60s. It's a great artifact, but unlike Alinsky's work, has no real relevance to today's world.)

[Gerald Lively]

The exchange of ideas requires listening and it also requires useful information.  A default in either should end the discussion

[MooseMom]

CebuShan, what a brilliant story.  That has sweetness written all over it.

Cariad, this comment from my son re homosexuality happened a year or two ago, and I meant to ask him more about it, but I forgot.  He calls me most days, so if I talk to him tomorrow, I intend to ask him more about his thoughts on the subject.  When he said that homosexuality was "not good", it sounded sort of robotic, like he really had not thought about what he was saying and that he was parrotting someone else's sentiments.  It is not always easy to sound him out on his opinions about such grand topics, one, because I'm not sure he has the language for it and two, if it isn't something he is terribly interested in to begin with, he probably doesn't have a real opinion of his own to share.

Hemodoc, I spend a lot of time outdoors in the spring and summer, what with my gardening and my love for swimming.  I have bottles, sprays and gels of sunscreen stationed all over the house and even in my car.  Waterproof, chemical free, all kinds of sunscreen in every form known to man.  And I STILL tan.  I just don't know what more I can do.  I also have a wide array of hats.  I'd love to stay the color that God made me, but I'd have to remain in a crypt for that to happen.  As you have experience with skin cancer, do you have any suggestions of anything more I should be doing to prevent me from tanning?  (Off topic, I know, but if anyone else has any suggestions, fire away!)

[cariad]

As far as Colbert, he is just the media propaganda master applying Alinski rule number 5:

5. "Ridicule is man's most potent weapon. It is almost impossible to counteract ridicule. Also it infuriates the opposition, which then reacts to your advantage."

You can turn on the late night comedians every single night and listen to an exposition of rule number 5 on just about every single channel after the 11 oclock news.

Thank you,

Peter

Ah, missed this part that was added after I replied.

You're absolutely right, Stephen Colbert is a true satirical genius, and Alinsky is right that ridicule (in the form of scathing satire) is an extremely powerful weapon. Political satirists are invaluable to society. Wit makes us think, and points up such failings as hypocrisy and arrogance, which makes us all into more skilled political analysts, the better to hold our leaders accountable. Colbert and Jon Stewart are making a mockery of Citizens United just by utilizing it as politicians do and following its rules to the letter. Saul Alinsky is a dyed-in-the-wool realist like me. He articulates what we already know to be true, whether we want to face it or not. Conservatives speak very favorably of his writings, even Newt himself is known to use his tactics, so if its so dangerous to America, I guess we're pretty well hosed. Both Obama and the Republicans have put his writings to use and will continue to do so.

Glenn Beck preyed on vulnerable people by relentlessly exploiting their fears and their ignorance. As Bill Mahr (another excellent satirist) said, and I paraphrase, even Karl Rove was terrified at how mentally unbalanced Beck is, and eventually he was taken off Fox because Rove saw him as heralding "the rise of the apes". He was once described as "the Jimmy Swaggert" of political talk show hosts for his habit of randomly bursting into tears and delivering every new warning about the end of civilization in a desperate, pleading tone.

The Doom Bunker clips. This has got to be among Colbert's best work:
http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/220649/march-04-2009/doom-bunker---glenn-beck-s--war-room-
http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/220650/march-04-2009/doom-bunker---jack-jacobs-and-stephen-moore

[Hemodoc]

CebuShan, what a brilliant story.  That has sweetness written all over it.

Cariad, this comment from my son re homosexuality happened a year or two ago, and I meant to ask him more about it, but I forgot.  He calls me most days, so if I talk to him tomorrow, I intend to ask him more about his thoughts on the subject.  When he said that homosexuality was "not good", it sounded sort of robotic, like he really had not thought about what he was saying and that he was parrotting someone else's sentiments.  It is not always easy to sound him out on his opinions about such grand topics, one, because I'm not sure he has the language for it and two, if it isn't something he is terribly interested in to begin with, he probably doesn't have a real opinion of his own to share.

Hemodoc, I spend a lot of time outdoors in the spring and summer, what with my gardening and my love for swimming.  I have bottles, sprays and gels of sunscreen stationed all over the house and even in my car.  Waterproof, chemical free, all kinds of sunscreen in every form known to man.  And I STILL tan.  I just don't know what more I can do.  I also have a wide array of hats.  I'd love to stay the color that God made me, but I'd have to remain in a crypt for that to happen.  As you have experience with skin cancer, do you have any suggestions of anything more I should be doing to prevent me from tanning?  (Off topic, I know, but if anyone else has any suggestions, fire away!)

I don't spend a lot of time in the sun without long sleeves. It is easier to accomplish that up in Idaho where it is cooler most of the year than in CA but it can get pretty warm up there as well. I always wear a hat outdoors, or just about always. I never go outside without a shirt on any more. Wouldn't want to scare anyone anyway. My shirtless days on Cape Cod are long since gone.

You need to be careful with sunscreens and get one that has UV A and B coverage. Some articles suggested that sunscreen use  several years back may have been associated with increased risk of melanoma by people spending more time in the sun. Long sleeves and broad rimmed hats are fashionable in the garden are they not. There are some loose fitting  long sleeve blouses that are not that hot in the summer.  Stay covered, stay out of the mid day sun and after you have taken all the precautions getting exercise in the garden probably is healthier in preventing heart attacks than the sun exposure gives you in skin cancer risk.

[Hemodoc]

Dear Cariad, is this really necessary? Are you trying to convince me by power of reason to like Alinski? Sorry, he is completely antithetical to my beliefs and I really have no interest in becoming one of his students. The little I have read of his works is enough. Thank you nevertheless.

As far as calling Abbie Hoffman a weirdo, that is what ultra-liberal Walter Cronkite called him years ago and I tend to agree, he is a weirdo and even has a weirdo hairdo to boot. And yes, I believe that his books and Rubins are quite stupid and retarded. That is what I thought of them when I was an ultra-liberal. Really stupid and socially unacceptable in all ways, but if that is the book you wish to uphold, so be it.


Thank you,

Peter

I don't care if you like Saul Alinsky or not. You made an anti-Obama statement that you cannot support with evidence. Try and make it about anything else you like, but you know perfectly well I am asking you to explain how you find Saul Alinsky dangerous to America.

(I don't hold up Steal This Book, whatever that means. I think it was well-written. Also so very 60s. It's a great artifact, but unlike Alinsky's work, has no real relevance to today's world.)

Dear Cariad, Alinski is all about revolution. What exactly is it that we need to revolt against?

Secondly, his tactics are polarizing by design resulting in people that simply shout at each other resulting in a nation that has so many factions today that it is truly difficult to define any longer what it means to be an American. If he is looking for a revolution instead of working with in our constitutional system itself, then that makes him and those that follow his views enemies of the constitution.

So what is this great revolution you folks want? It seems that a lot of folks really like this man in a cult like following of your democratic leaders. Here, nice little summary of Alinski and his followers including Barack who taught Allnski as a community organizer.

http://www.rense.com/general80/fon.htm

[RichardMEL]

*sigh*

I ahve just read through variations of much of this kind of stuff on the "GDP" thread.

PLEASE!!!! everyone quit it with the personal comments etc. If you can't discuss these topics in a way without dragging down someone else (ironically a related "evil" to Racism ie: discrimination and/or victimisation) then pleasse try and restrain yourselves. While I do not speak for the Admin team of IHD here, as a moderator I certainly do not want to quash free exchange of opinion or discourse on any topic, even ones as seemingly off-topic to the discussions of kidney disease ) I do despair at some of the comments I am reading here. Some of these topics can be very sensitive to some readers and contentious views can lead to anything. Let's try to not upset anyone and make them leave this forum for having differing opinions. We're all different, but we also all share a common bond of kidney disease, let's try and keep that in perspective please? Or perhaps reviw before finally hitting "post".....

Thank You

[Hemodoc]

As far as Colbert, he is just the media propaganda master applying Alinski rule number 5:

5. "Ridicule is man's most potent weapon. It is almost impossible to counteract ridicule. Also it infuriates the opposition, which then reacts to your advantage."

You can turn on the late night comedians every single night and listen to an exposition of rule number 5 on just about every single channel after the 11 oclock news.

Thank you,

Peter

Ah, missed this part that was added after I replied.

You're absolutely right, Stephen Colbert is a true satirical genius, and Alinsky is right that ridicule (in the form of scathing satire) is an extremely powerful weapon. Political satirists are invaluable to society. Wit makes us think, and points up such failings as hypocrisy and arrogance, which makes us all into more skilled political analysts, the better to hold our leaders accountable. Colbert and Jon Stewart are making a mockery of Citizens United just by utilizing it as politicians do and following its rules to the letter. Saul Alinsky is a dyed-in-the-wool realist like me. He articulates what we already know to be true, whether we want to face it or not. Conservatives speak very favorably of his writings, even Newt himself is known to use his tactics, so if its so dangerous to America, I guess we're pretty well hosed. Both Obama and the Republicans have put his writings to use and will continue to do so.

Glenn Beck preyed on vulnerable people by relentlessly exploiting their fears and their ignorance. As Bill Mahr (another excellent satirist) said, and I paraphrase, even Karl Rove was terrified at how mentally unbalanced Beck is, and eventually he was taken off Fox because Rove saw him as heralding "the rise of the apes". He was once described as "the Jimmy Swaggert" of political talk show hosts for his habit of randomly bursting into tears and delivering every new warning about the end of civilization in a desperate, pleading tone.

The Doom Bunker clips. This has got to be among Colbert's best work:
http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/220649/march-04-2009/doom-bunker---glenn-beck-s--war-room-
http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/220650/march-04-2009/doom-bunker---jack-jacobs-and-stephen-moore

hit the wrong button.

[cariad]

Then why take it personally when someone uses these same rules of radicals to counter your arguments. Isn't that what you are advocating, yet sarcasm and ridicule appears to be unacceptable when it is applied to you. If we are going to apply the rules of radicals, they just might come back at you. Do you really want political discourse and our society ruled by rules for radicals?

Because I never used any 'rules' on you and do not expect you to use rules that you say you condemn to attack me, and then hide behind them as justification for poor behaviour. You have not read this book. I am currently reading it. Why, if you've been enjoying yourself so much as you've claimed, would you suddenly decide it is time to start insulting people? I had been enjoying participating on this thread, but to be called 'insane' and 'delusional' for asking questions and making my argument is a bit too juvenile for my taste. Firstly, Alinsky does not believe in personal attacks unless you simply have no other option. If you have no other option than to call me 'delusional' and 'insane', then that speaks volumes about the strength of your argument and your own belief in it.

Secondly, Alinsky worked within systems, and here on IHD, they have Rules for Members which includes no personal attacks. He only deals with the reality of the world in which he is trying to organize, not, as he states repeatedly, the way he wishes the world were. The reality is that on IHD, personal attacks on other members are not tolerated. I personally adore this rule. I think it is a fantastic precept for IHD, and I cannot think of the last time I engaged in a personal attack offline. It is really not part of my world. Strong critique, absolutely. Really don't care for calling anyone a 'retard'. That just grosses me out. But I feel those types of terms say much more about the speaker than the object of ridicule.

[Hemodoc]

Then why take it personally when someone uses these same rules of radicals to counter your arguments. Isn't that what you are advocating, yet sarcasm and ridicule appears to be unacceptable when it is applied to you. If we are going to apply the rules of radicals, they just might come back at you. Do you really want political discourse and our society ruled by rules for radicals?

Because I never used any 'rules' on you and do not expect you to use rules that you say you condemn to attack me, and then hide behind them as justification for poor behaviour. You have not read this book. I am currently reading it. Why, if you've been enjoying yourself so much as you've claimed, would you suddenly decide it is time to start insulting people? I had been enjoying participating on this thread, but to be called 'insane' and 'delusional' for asking questions and making my argument is a bit too juvenile for my taste. Firstly, Alinsky does not believe in personal attacks unless you simply have no other option. If you have no other option than to call me 'delusional' and 'insane', then that speaks volumes about the strength of your argument and your own belief in it.

Secondly, Alinsky worked within systems, and here on IHD, they have Rules for Members which includes no personal attacks. He only deals with the reality of the world in which he is trying to organize, not, as he states repeatedly, the way he wishes the world were. The reality is that on IHD, personal attacks on other members are not tolerated. I personally adore this rule. I think it is a fantastic precept for IHD, and I cannot think of the last time I engaged in a personal attack offline. It is really not part of my world. Strong critique, absolutely. Really don't care for calling anyone a 'retard'. That just grosses me out. But I feel those types of terms say much more about the speaker than the object of ridicule.

Really, did you ever speak out against the personal attacks against me in the last two weeks not just on the political threads but on others as well? Really.

I used delusional and insane as ridicule and sarcasm, something that you have stated more than once is acceptable and they are part of the rules for radicals. Once again, ridicule and sarcasm appear to be just fine when applied to conservatives but not if applied to you personally. If you don't agree with sarcasm and ridicule then just repudiate Alinski rule #5 and #13.

5. "Ridicule is man's most potent weapon. It is almost impossible to counteract ridicule. Also it infuriates the opposition, which then reacts to your advantage."

13. Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.  In conflict tactics there are certain rules that [should be regarded] as universalities. One is that the opposition must be singled out as the target and 'frozen.'...
     "...any target can always say, 'Why do you center on me when there are others to blame as well?' When your 'freeze the target,' you disregard these [rational but distracting] arguments.... Then, as you zero in and freeze your target and carry out your attack, all the 'others' come out of the woodwork very soon. They become visible by their support of the target...'
     "One acts decisively only in the conviction that all the angels are on one side and all the devils on the other." (pps.127-134)


So, if you wish to speak out against ridicule and sarcasm in personal attacks against people, what about these rules for radicals? How does that fit into your personal virtues?

[Hemodoc]

Dear Cariad, I read the entire book online tonight and several conservative critiques of his book. Poetic? Really?

What is the end of this revolution that they want to have to oust the HAVES with the HAVE-NOTS?

Nothing new about this philosophy. Just a bunch of rehashed Marxist diatribes ending in their goal to simply have power by any means since the end justifies the means.

This country is in trouble and folks are blindly walking along with the Obama trying to buy another election with a job for every veteran, I will pay for your house, you won't have to pay any debt. The sad fact is folks don't recognize how rich the poor folks are in this country compared to 90% of the world. If you have a car, you are richer than 90% of the world. And they want a revolution HERE.

Really great book you are promoting Cariad.

[cariad]

Really, did you ever speak out against the personal attacks against me in the last two weeks not just on the political threads but on others as well? Really.

I did not see any personal attacks against you and had no idea you were looking to me to defend you. Can't you defend yourself?

I used delusional and insane as ridicule and sarcasm, something that you have stated more than once is acceptable and they are part of the rules for radicals. Once again, ridicule and sarcasm appear to be just fine when applied to conservatives but not if applied to you personally. If you don't agree with sarcasm and ridicule then just repudiate Alinski rule #5 and #13.

5. "Ridicule is man's most potent weapon. It is almost impossible to counteract ridicule. Also it infuriates the opposition, which then reacts to your advantage."

13. Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.  In conflict tactics there are certain rules that [should be regarded] as universalities. One is that the opposition must be singled out as the target and 'frozen.'...
     "...any target can always say, 'Why do you center on me when there are others to blame as well?' When your 'freeze the target,' you disregard these [rational but distracting] arguments.... Then, as you zero in and freeze your target and carry out your attack, all the 'others' come out of the woodwork very soon. They become visible by their support of the target...'
     "One acts decisively only in the conviction that all the angels are on one side and all the devils on the other." (pps.127-134)


So, if you wish to speak out against ridicule and sarcasm in personal attacks against people, what about these rules for radicals? How does that fit into your personal virtues?

I never stated that ridicule and sarcasm were acceptable. That is pure fiction. I especially can assure you that I am not so arrogant as to believe that I can say what is and is not acceptable on this forum. If you feel that you've been attacked, take it up with a moderator.

I did state that ridicule in the form of highly intelligent satire is an extremely powerful weapon. I have no need to use political weapons of any sort on a support forum. I also spent a great deal of time in theatre and think that satire in the wrong form - satire that is not funny or muddles the message - is the opposite of a effective weapon, it only makes a person look foolish. Stephen Colbert is a skilled satirist.

I never promoted the ideas in this book, least of all for use against members on this forum. Show me where I did that or leave me alone. You stated that you reject these ideas but then use them against me (incorrectly at that). I do not compromise my principles so easily. It is a book - it cannot make me do anything that I do not choose to do. I do not choose to engage in vicious personal attacks. Saul Alinsky was speaking about ridiculing ideas not people, and only in appropriate settings. Perhaps he did not make that clear enough to you.

[cariad]

Dear Cariad, I read the entire book online tonight and several conservative critiques of his book. Poetic? Really?

What is the end of this revolution that they want to have to oust the HAVES with the HAVE-NOTS?

Nothing new about this philosophy. Just a bunch of rehashed Marxist diatribes ending in their goal to simply have power by any means since the end justifies the means.

This country is in trouble and folks are blindly walking along with the Obama trying to buy another election with a job for every veteran, I will pay for your house, you won't have to pay any debt. The sad fact is folks don't recognize how rich the poor folks are in this country compared to 90% of the world. If you have a car, you are richer than 90% of the world. And they want a revolution HERE.

Really great book you are promoting Cariad.

And this is where we are coming very close to my line in the sand. You stayed up half the night just to read a book you have said you have zero interest in in order to 'win' an online discussion? This is starting to get unnerving. You seem way too invested in my opinion of this book and in ordering me to change it. Telling me that I must repudiate ideas that I have not even read yet, positions that I have not taken? This is making me really uncomfortable. My opinion should not be this important to you. This is starting to give me flashbacks to some truly scary times in my life where people have taken an unhealthy and relentless interest in my feelings.

Hemodoc, you do not get to choose what I read, choose what I talk about, tell me how to feel about a book, nor dictate my political opinions to me. I will continue to read and analyze Rules for Radicals with or without your permission.

[Sluff]

Last warning or I will shut down all political threads. I do not want to do this because I believe as did Epoman that it would be an injustice to good debates.

Please no personal attacks on other members. Opinions are valued by many on both sides of the debate but attacking someones view is different than disagreeing with them. The lines get blurred when we start to take things personal and other members of IHD may enjoy just reading the debate. However we get complaints all the time and have to weigh the difference of what is a personal attack and what isn't.

Epoman was a strong minded individual and loved debates. Lets keep the debates going but others don't want to get involved if they think they will be attacked.

Thank you

Sluff/Admin

[Hemodoc]

Let's get back to the OP on racism. Here is a shocking video of a black DJ insulting a black congresswoman including racist allegations against the Tea Party in this edited version.

A shocking YouTube video (uploaded by someone not friendly to the Tea Party) shows Memphis talk radio host Thaddeus Matthews insulting and humiliating Republican congressional candidate Charlotte Bergmann on air.

Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/bob-parks/2012/02/01/memphis-talk-radio-host-humiliates-black-gop-candidate#ixzz1lM6VtH8E

Is this the politics of America today?

[Hemodoc]

Outrage subdued after DJ goes on racially charged rant on GOP congressional candidate

In a profanity-laced tirade, a Memphis DJ last week used an on-air interview to berate a local Republican congressional candidate -- calling her a "token negro" who is doing the bidding of "white folk."
DJ Thaddeus Matthews called Charlotte Bergmann, who is black, "stupid." He referred to her as a "curly-haired nigga." When she walked out of the interview, he refused to shake her hand, saying he didn't want to get her "whiteness" on him.
The outrage? The fury? In Memphis, you can hear the crickets.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/02/03/outrage-subdued-after-dj-gop-congressional-candidate/#ixzz1lM93ij2F

[MooseMom]

I'm really glad you posted this link because it goes to the heart of what I've been trying to say all along, and that is sometimes the message can be valid yet lost if delivered with invective and bile.

I listened to the entire interview, and for what it is worth, here are my thoughts...

1.  Mr. Matthews was clearly enraged and didn't hesitate to show it.  He acted with extreme disrespect, and it was painful to both watch and listen to.

2.  It is understandable that Mr. Matthews is more interested in the black center of the 9th district and would therefore focus his questions there.

3.  Mr. Matthews asked very direct, simple questions.

4.  Ms. Bergman reacted with an astonishing amount of grace.

5.  However, Mr. Bergman didn't answer any of the questions put to her, save two:

Mr. Matthews:  "Do you support President Obama?"

Ms. Bergman:  "I think he is a very nice man, but I do not support his policies."

Mr. Matthews:  "Would you support Newt Gingrich?"

Ms. Bergman:  "No."

6.  Mr. Matthews asked specifically if Ms. Bergman had visited the black sections of the 9th district.  He also asked her specifically what she had done for that community.  She waffled like most politicians do, and she spoke about the areas that she HAD visited, which happened to be the white areas of her district.    Draw from that what you will.

7.  Mr. Matthews showed her a document that outlined who had donated to her campaign, and it was revealed that none of the donors were black.  Again, draw from that what you will.

I do not have the life experience to be able to comment on the nuanced debate about "Uncle Toms" or "Oreos", but Mr. Matthews obviously and stridently felt that Ms. Bergman had betrayed her race and that certain elements within the GOP were trying to use her to manipulate the black population of the 9th district.  I couldn't possibly say whether or not he is right in this assessment, but then again, my opinion is irrelevant.  What matters is how the black population in the 9th district perceives this.

If that population deems her to be a "token negro", yes, I think that probably qualifies as being "racist", but what does Ms. Bergman do with that?  Like any politician, she will have to find ways to appeal to all of her constituents.  It sounds like this district is racially divided, so I don't know what the answer is.

While I do deplore Mr. Matthew's abominable behaviour, the fact remains that Ms. Bergman really didn't have any answers to his questions.  She should have known that this interview would go down this predictable route, and she should have prepared herself better with some good answers. 

The "subtitles" that accompanied that video were disgraceful.  What saddens me is that there are people who really do feel this way.  That any part of our population feels so disenfranchised is a moral stain.

[Hemodoc]

Dear Moosemom,

I am sorry, I have to wonder if you and I saw the same video. It appears that you are siding with Mr. Matthews against the congresswoman.

She ATTEMPTED to answer every question but was shouted down and bullied. Did you not see that?

She was polite, he was a heathen to her.

Yet, for all this, you support "his message."

Moosemom, his message was a racist rant. Are you sure you support his message?

In any case, did you know that MLK Jr. was a Republican?

Take a look:

http://images.nbra.info/docs/library/NationalBlackRepublicanAssociation2009/NBRA%20Civil%20Rights%20Newsletter%202Feb11.pdf

Sorry, but where is YOUR outrage over the DJ's racist diatribe. Instead you support the absolutely outrageous statement that this woman is racist because she works with white people? My goodness, my head is spinning.