GOP Presidential Debate

[Hemodoc]

Oh I have no problem with the use of it for Medical purposes.  And totally understand that sometimes it can be taken for various reasons for the lessing of menstural (?) bleeding & pain. The only thing that I object to is for the use of it to avoid pregnancy!

May I ask another question?  You probably know this already, but the body of a pregnant woman actually makes more blood than that of a non-pregnant woman, and as a result, there is a greater workload on the kidneys.  So, if you have CKD, pregnancy can be a dangerous proposition.  When I was pregnant with my son, I had fsgs and didn't yet know it, and it nearly cost me my life.  I was in the hospital for 6 weeks.  Once I was biopsied and discovered my CKD, my neph told me that I really shouldn't get pregnant again.  Since I believed that I now had a responsibility to my new son to stay healthy, I had to make sure not to get pregnant, so for a short while, I used birth control pills and then had a tubal ligation.  So, my question is how do you feel about birth control for a married woman for whom a pregnancy may be dangerous?

If you don't care to answer this, as it is a rather personal question, please feel free to ignore me!  If you do choose to reply, thanks!!

(I know this doesn't have anything to do with the GOP debates, but you know how these discussions can veer way off topic!  LOL!)

Not sure I want to open up that can of worms here in a public IHD forum. In short let it suffice that I have prescribed birth control pills throughout my  practice.

[RichardMEL]

RichardMel, yes I agree in decorum absolutely, but I am a bit puzzled where all of this quorum of moderators was last week when there was a whole chorus of falsely accusing me of being racist and other such accusations.

I cannot speak for the others, but for me personally - as I wrote above this discussion is very US-centric, and as such I have not been reading it - it's hardly my place to comment when I live in another country (and we have our own political stuff to deal with ). I am here now because this, and some other, threads have been brought to our attention.

As you can probably appreciate there are many threads on this board - we simply can't read them all every day and find offensive posts. On the other hand if you felt there were things that offended you last week why did you not report them yourself?

I do have a serious question for the moderators since there appears to be a unique perhaps even historical quorum as you note. Since the Alinsky rules have been used openly against me for the last week, and since I decided to try this new radical method of discourse myself in the last two days, please advise which Alinski rules of engagement we can use in our political discourse here in IHD.

what the???

How about we ALL use some common sense, courtesy and manners when responding to any and all threads.

I am going to refuse to "take sides" in this - I understand you've been upset by comments posted, and others have also been upset. As a moderator it is not my position(I feel) to make a judgement call one way or the other - hence the general call.

Aren't we adults here? Why is it some of these threads almost seem like they are in the playground?

As for the "Alinsk rules" - *personally* (just me, not moderator hat) I feel any political discussions in a non political forum are rife to upset people in one way or another, just as religion is another sure way to fire someone up. I've done a little bit of reading on this  Alinsky chap and it seems to me that suggesting ANY rules, conventions etc from a politically motivated (or do I mean "community organisation") person can just lead to questions of bias and thus igniting the arguments all over again, so as a serious response to your serious question I say "None." - use common sense and treat people with respect - that goes for everyone here - you, me, other posters, etc.

Is that too difficult?

[MooseMom]

Oh I have no problem with the use of it for Medical purposes.  And totally understand that sometimes it can be taken for various reasons for the lessing of menstural (?) bleeding & pain. The only thing that I object to is for the use of it to avoid pregnancy!

May I ask another question?  You probably know this already, but the body of a pregnant woman actually makes more blood than that of a non-pregnant woman, and as a result, there is a greater workload on the kidneys.  So, if you have CKD, pregnancy can be a dangerous proposition.  When I was pregnant with my son, I had fsgs and didn't yet know it, and it nearly cost me my life.  I was in the hospital for 6 weeks.  Once I was biopsied and discovered my CKD, my neph told me that I really shouldn't get pregnant again.  Since I believed that I now had a responsibility to my new son to stay healthy, I had to make sure not to get pregnant, so for a short while, I used birth control pills and then had a tubal ligation.  So, my question is how do you feel about birth control for a married woman for whom a pregnancy may be dangerous?

If you don't care to answer this, as it is a rather personal question, please feel free to ignore me!  If you do choose to reply, thanks!!

(I know this doesn't have anything to do with the GOP debates, but you know how these discussions can veer way off topic!  LOL!)

Not sure I want to open up that can of worms here in a public IHD forum. In short let it suffice that I have prescribed birth control pills throughout my  practice.

You're probably right that I shouldn't have asked.  So, lmunchkin, if you'd like to reply, just PM me!  (I should have used the pm function to ask in the first place.  Apologies.  I don't want to "open a can of worms", rather, I'm really interested in people's opinions, as you know!  LOL!)

[MooseMom]

I know I should probably apologize for calling Newt Gingrich a "manslut", but I....just.....can't.

[Hemodoc]

RichardMel, yes I agree in decorum absolutely, but I am a bit puzzled where all of this quorum of moderators was last week when there was a whole chorus of falsely accusing me of being racist and other such accusations.

I cannot speak for the others, but for me personally - as I wrote above this discussion is very US-centric, and as such I have not been reading it - it's hardly my place to comment when I live in another country (and we have our own political stuff to deal with ). I am here now because this, and some other, threads have been brought to our attention.

As you can probably appreciate there are many threads on this board - we simply can't read them all every day and find offensive posts. On the other hand if you felt there were things that offended you last week why did you not report them yourself?

I do have a serious question for the moderators since there appears to be a unique perhaps even historical quorum as you note. Since the Alinsky rules have been used openly against me for the last week, and since I decided to try this new radical method of discourse myself in the last two days, please advise which Alinski rules of engagement we can use in our political discourse here in IHD.

what the???

How about we ALL use some common sense, courtesy and manners when responding to any and all threads.

I am going to refuse to "take sides" in this - I understand you've been upset by comments posted, and others have also been upset. As a moderator it is not my position(I feel) to make a judgement call one way or the other - hence the general call.

Aren't we adults here? Why is it some of these threads almost seem like they are in the playground?

As for the "Alinsk rules" - *personally* (just me, not moderator hat) I feel any political discussions in a non political forum are rife to upset people in one way or another, just as religion is another sure way to fire someone up. I've done a little bit of reading on this  Alinsky chap and it seems to me that suggesting ANY rules, conventions etc from a politically motivated (or do I mean "community organisation") person can just lead to questions of bias and thus igniting the arguments all over again, so as a serious response to your serious question I say "None." - use common sense and treat people with respect - that goes for everyone here - you, me, other posters, etc.

Is that too difficult?

Dear RicharMel,

I was not trying to provoke you. Far from it. However, the entire discussion has recently centered on Alinski and the rules for radicals which I have spoken out against. Ridicule and sarcasm are at the center of his rules for radicals. I would hope that we can all agree that they rules for radicals engenders strife and hurt feelings.

After nearly two weeks of the Alinski rules used in post after post to my replies, I simply used them myself which prompted an outpouring of moderators.

This is unfortunately the political climate that the current administration especially has fostered in a class warfare. I speak this not to have you choose sides, but instead to show what we are facing here in the US, especially on the conservative side of the issues where anyone that rises to a high enough level to be noticed by the opposition becomes an immediate target by the late night comedians where ridicule and sarcasm abound.

It appears that ridicule and sarcasm are perfectly acceptable political discourse except when applied to anyone personally. After two weeks of unabated personal attacks against me, which by the way truly didn't bother me in the least or I wouldn't have even joined the discussion in the first place and I understood what was to come, I would hope all the folks that support the rules for radicals would ask how fair it is to be the subject of the Alinski rules themselves.

I will tell you quite personally that many comments were hard to ignore and resort to the same tactics many times over. In the last two days, I have used these tactic deliberately to provoke  a confrontation where people would complain about the sarcasm and ridicule applied. However, where has this outrage been for the last two weeks I must ask with these attacks against me?

Like I said, I knew what was coming before I joined the thread and spoke out against false accusations of racism and other outrageous false allegations, innuendos and associations.

Sadly, the nation that brought forth political freedom is now becoming a land infested with talks of revolution and radicalism at the highest level of our government and indeed, is accepted political discourse. We are on a course of destruction in this nation. What a sad commentary from the highest "leaders" in America.

Thank you RichardMel for your comments. I guess that pretty much sums up the Alinski rules for radicals as something too radical for IHD since acting nice and polite won't work well with sarcasm and ridiclule.

By the way, I agree completely with you RichardMel. 

Thank you again,

Peter

[Hemodoc]

I know I should probably apologize for calling Newt Gingrich a "manslut", but I....just.....can't.

Ah back to Alinski rule #6

6. "A good tactic is one your people enjoy."

[cariad]

RichardMel, yes I agree in decorum absolutely, but I am a bit puzzled where all of this quorum of moderators was last week when there was a whole chorus of falsely accusing me of being racist and other such accusations.

This is simply untrue, people have said nothing but the opposite. In clear, plain language.

I do have a serious question for the moderators since there appears to be a unique perhaps even historical quorum as you note. Since the Alinsky rules have been used openly against me for the last week, and since I decided to try this new radical method of discourse myself in the last two days, please advise which Alinski rules of engagement we can use in our political discourse here in IHD.

Huh?
I can only assume this is directed at me. I have not been using the Alinsky rules openly or covertly or any other way against you or anyone else. I told you directly that I was not prepared to even comment on the rules, let alone use them, because I had not got there in the book. Plus, I only got the book yesterday. Until Newt opened his mouth, I don't know that I could have even said why this man was famous. What on earth made you feel it was appropriate to use this 'new' (book was published in 1971) 'radical method of discourse' on IHD? You said yourself you never even read the book, so how can you claim that you know HOW to use the rules, but beyond that, this is a SUPPORT forum not the beginning of a community organization campaign. You are taking things that have already happened and seeing how Alinsky's rules fit with the argument. That is all well and good, but that does not mean those rules are being used against you, it means that much of what he says is just codifying how change has effectively been brought about in the past and can be in the future.

[cariad]

what the???

How about we ALL use some common sense, courtesy and manners when responding to any and all threads.

I am going to refuse to "take sides" in this - I understand you've been upset by comments posted, and others have also been upset. As a moderator it is not my position(I feel) to make a judgement call one way or the other - hence the general call.

Aren't we adults here? Why is it some of these threads almost seem like they are in the playground?

As for the "Alinsk rules" - *personally* (just me, not moderator hat) I feel any political discussions in a non political forum are rife to upset people in one way or another, just as religion is another sure way to fire someone up. I've done a little bit of reading on this  Alinsky chap and it seems to me that suggesting ANY rules, conventions etc from a politically motivated (or do I mean "community organisation") person can just lead to questions of bias and thus igniting the arguments all over again, so as a serious response to your serious question I say "None." - use common sense and treat people with respect - that goes for everyone here - you, me, other posters, etc.

Is that too difficult?

Thanks, Richard. Not too difficult in the slightest.

[Hemodoc]

RichardMel, yes I agree in decorum absolutely, but I am a bit puzzled where all of this quorum of moderators was last week when there was a whole chorus of falsely accusing me of being racist and other such accusations.

This is simply untrue, people have said nothing but the opposite. In clear, plain language.

I do have a serious question for the moderators since there appears to be a unique perhaps even historical quorum as you note. Since the Alinsky rules have been used openly against me for the last week, and since I decided to try this new radical method of discourse myself in the last two days, please advise which Alinski rules of engagement we can use in our political discourse here in IHD.

Huh?
I can only assume this is directed at me. I have not been using the Alinsky rules openly or covertly or any other way against you or anyone else. I told you directly that I was not prepared to even comment on the rules, let alone use them, because I had not got there in the book. Plus, I only got the book yesterday. Until Newt opened his mouth, I don't know that I could have even said why this man was famous. What on earth made you feel it was appropriate to use this 'new' (book was published in 1971) 'radical method of discourse' on IHD? You said yourself you never even read the book, so how can you claim that you know HOW to use the rules, but beyond that, this is a SUPPORT forum not the beginning of a community organization campaign. You are taking things that have already happened and seeing how Alinsky's rules fit with the argument. That is all well and good, but that does not mean those rules are being used against you, it means that much of what he says is just codifying how change has effectively been brought about in the past and can be in the future.

Actually Cariad, you were not the person I was thinking of. Sorry, I guess you didn't read the last two days where I did show each type of rules for radicals used.

In any case, if folks want to deal with sarcasm and ridicule as a matter of discourse, fine with me, but please don't get all bent out of shape if it comes back at you. Is that really how you want to discuss issues not only here at IHD, but here in America's political arena as well. Cariad, you are the one promoting the Alinski book. That is exactly the language and demeanor you are promoting.

If that is what you want, it looks like it is no longer tolerated here at IHD and for that I agree. Sadly, it is the language of politics today and we shall all reap the rewards of the loss of civility.

In any case, I have already spoken out against the rules for radicals, which you embrace, but are put off when applied to you and others personally. Don't you see what that is?

in any case, if I never hear of Alinski ever again that wouldn't be too soon. You may however want to just look at any news report in the next year during this election and apply which Alinski rule applies. I already did that earlier when Obama told the Christians how they should consider debt in America. He was profoundly wrong on Bible doctrine as related to the finances of a nation. If he is a Christian as he claims and a scholar by trade, could he have been that wrong by accident?

http://money.cnn.com/2012/02/02/news/economy/obama_tax_rich_jesus/?hpt=hp_t2

No, he was instead applying Alinski rule #4


4. "Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules. You can kill them with this, for they can no more obey their own rules than the Christian church can live up to Christianity."

Those that despise the Bible and Christians will accept his false proclamation of Bible truths today. Jesus would instead tell him to quit borrowing and placing this nation in debt. This is pure and simple class warfare at a dangerous level that will inevitably lead to bloodshed in the streets of the US. Yes, Alinski is dangerous to America. What did Jesus say about taxes?

Matthew 17:24     ¶ And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute?
25     He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers?
26     Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free.
27     Notwithstanding, lest we should offend them, go thou to the sea, and cast an hook, and take up the fish that first cometh up; and when thou hast opened his mouth, thou shalt find a piece of money: that take, and give unto them for me and thee.

Jesus explained two thousand years ago why GE paid not a dime of tax in 2010. Kings of the earth do not take tribute from their own children which in this example was his friend at GE. Nor will the corporate friends of Obama suffer under his tax the rich mantra. Who will pay, the strangers of course. Those without a direct line into the oval office are the strangers who will be asked to pay.

This is pure class warfare following the rules of Alinski which Obama taught as a community organizer. It is indeed very dangerous.

[Hemodoc]

Take a look at the dedication of Rules for Radicals. I think this says all you need to know about his motivations:

Saul Alinsky's choice of epigraph in "Rules for Radicals":[1]

"Where there are no men, be thou a man."

-- Rabbi Hillel
"Let them call me rebel and welcome, I feel no concern from it; but I should suffer the misery of devils, were I to make a whore of my soul..."
-- Thomas Paine
Lest we forget at least an over-the-shoulder acknowledgment to the very first radical: from all our legends, mythology, and history (and who is to know where mythology leaves off and history begins -- or which is which), the first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom -- Lucifer.
-- Saul Alinsky

Yup, he dedicated his book to the devil/Lucifer. I wonder what he thinks of Lucifer now that he has passed on?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rules_for_Radicals


"The enemy properly goaded and guided in his reaction will be your major strength" - Saul Alinsky #ocra #tcot #Alinsky

http://twitter.com/#!/AlinskyDefeater/status/157544960076427264

[Hemodoc]

Rub raw the sores of social discontent

“The despair is there; now it’s up to us to go in and rub raw the sores of discontent, galvanize them for radical social change. We’ll give them a way to participate in the democratic process, a way to exercise their rights as citizens and strike back at the establishment that oppresses them, instead of giving in to apathy. We’ll start with specific issues — taxes, jobs, consumer problems, pollution — and from there move on to the larger issues: pollution in the Pentagon and the Congress and the board rooms of the megacorporations. Once you organize people, they’ll keep advancing from issue to issue toward the ultimate objective: people power. We’ll not only give them a cause, we’ll make life goddamn exciting for them again — life instead of existence. We’ll turn them on. – Saul Alinsky


http://romanticpoet.wordpress.com/2011/12/28/rubbing-raw-the-sores-of-discontent-then-galvanize-them-independent-voters-educate-yourself-to-the-ideology-trying-to-take-hold-in-america/

[Hemodoc]

"A Marxist begins with his prime truth that all evils are caused by the exploitation of the proletariat by the capitalists. From this he logically proceeds to the revolution to end capitalism, then into the third stage of reorganization into a new social order of the dictatorship of the proletariat, and finally the last stage -- the political paradise of communism." p.10

"An organizer working in and for an open society is in an ideological dilemma to begin with, he does not have a fixed truth -- truth to him is relative and changing; everything to him is relative and changing.... To the extent that he is free from the shackles of dogma, he can respond to the realities of the widely different situations...." pp.10-11

http://www.crossroad.to/Quotes/communism/alinsky.htm

Is that what you folks want, a dictatorship?

[Hemodoc]

Excellent review of The Rules for Radicals. What is the revolution and what are their plans to replace the current system. What is their end?

http://www.redstate.com/delawarewindjammer/2012/01/13/obama-hillary-clinton-saul-alinsky-and-rules-for-radicals/

[Hemodoc]

Here is another excellent review of the Obama connection to Alynski. Nearly 50 pages, but very succinct and well written. If you haven't understood why Obama does what Obama does, you will after this short treatise.

http://frontpagemag.com/2012/01/27/obama’s-rules-for-revolution-the-alinsky-model/

Do you Democrats really want a utopian communist society? Really?

[MooseMom]

This is not a criticism, but I think we can all agree that Gov. Romney can't sing.   Did Saul Alinsky ever address the use of song to irritate the enemy? LOL!

[YLGuy]

I really question Hemodoc's responses.  It truly appears that he is on this board as a troll sometimes.  I found the responses equally as ridiculous and I believe an apology is in order. He should be ashamed.  If you truly are a doctor your response is even more disturbing.

I find your response to be belittling and mean! You call him a troll? Why do you get a pass?  You may not agree with him, but you're targeting his character...-when someone disagrees with you- you call them a troll. Or YELL AT THEM- DONT YOU GET IT? THAT IS VERY RUDE?  You should be ashamed. and you should apologize.

Hemodoc posted that he was using sarcasm and ridicule as a matter of discourse. 

Troll: In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts inflammatory,[2] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response[3] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.[4] The noun troll may refer to the provocative message itself, as in: "That was an excellent troll you posted".

So, he was being a troll. 

[cariad]

"A Marxist begins with his prime truth that all evils are caused by the exploitation of the proletariat by the capitalists. From this he logically proceeds to the revolution to end capitalism, then into the third stage of reorganization into a new social order of the dictatorship of the proletariat, and finally the last stage -- the political paradise of communism." p.10

"An organizer working in and for an open society is in an ideological dilemma to begin with, he does not have a fixed truth -- truth to him is relative and changing; everything to him is relative and changing.... To the extent that he is free from the shackles of dogma, he can respond to the realities of the widely different situations...." pp.10-11

http://www.crossroad.to/Quotes/communism/alinsky.htm

Is that what you folks want, a dictatorship?

This is pretty low, Hemodoc. If you read the book as you claim, then you know perfectly well he was broadly and simplistically summarizing Marxism and not promoting it one way or the other.

This is why I go to the source whenever possible. This is why I encourage all of you to do the same.

The part about rejecting rigid dogma makes a lot of sense to me.

[cariad]

Actually Cariad, you were not the person I was thinking of. Sorry, I guess you didn't read the last two days where I did show each type of rules for radicals used.

In any case, if folks want to deal with sarcasm and ridicule as a matter of discourse, fine with me, but please don't get all bent out of shape if it comes back at you. Is that really how you want to discuss issues not only here at IHD, but here in America's political arena as well. Cariad, you are the one promoting the Alinski book. That is exactly the language and demeanor you are promoting.

If that is what you want, it looks like it is no longer tolerated here at IHD and for that I agree. Sadly, it is the language of politics today and we shall all reap the rewards of the loss of civility.

In any case, I have already spoken out against the rules for radicals, which you embrace, but are put off when applied to you and others personally. Don't you see what that is?

in any case, if I never hear of Alinski ever again that wouldn't be too soon. You may however want to just look at any news report in the next year during this election and apply which Alinski rule applies. I already did that earlier when Obama told the Christians how they should consider debt in America. He was profoundly wrong on Bible doctrine as related to the finances of a nation. If he is a Christian as he claims and a scholar by trade, could he have been that wrong by accident?

http://money.cnn.com/2012/02/02/news/economy/obama_tax_rich_jesus/?hpt=hp_t2

No, he was instead applying Alinski rule #4


4. "Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules. You can kill them with this, for they can no more obey their own rules than the Christian church can live up to Christianity."

Those that despise the Bible and Christians will accept his false proclamation of Bible truths today. Jesus would instead tell him to quit borrowing and placing this nation in debt. This is pure and simple class warfare at a dangerous level that will inevitably lead to bloodshed in the streets of the US. Yes, Alinski is dangerous to America. What did Jesus say about taxes?

Matthew 17:24     ¶ And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute?
25     He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers?
26     Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free.
27     Notwithstanding, lest we should offend them, go thou to the sea, and cast an hook, and take up the fish that first cometh up; and when thou hast opened his mouth, thou shalt find a piece of money: that take, and give unto them for me and thee.

Jesus explained two thousand years ago why GE paid not a dime of tax in 2010. Kings of the earth do not take tribute from their own children which in this example was his friend at GE. Nor will the corporate friends of Obama suffer under his tax the rich mantra. Who will pay, the strangers of course. Those without a direct line into the oval office are the strangers who will be asked to pay.

This is pure class warfare following the rules of Alinski which Obama taught as a community organizer. It is indeed very dangerous.

I never said I 'embrace' anything. I have no interest in promoting Rules for Radicals, I have only said that I am enjoying reading it (still am), that it is exceedingly smart and entertaining writing, and that I will wait until I finish the book to comment on the rules. It is all there in black and white. You are trying to put words in my mouth and take advantage of the fact that you have so clogged up this discussion and the other with cut and paste crap that no one has the time nor energy to read carefully and critically. If you are reading what I've written and not deliberately misinterpreting it, as you have done with Saul Alinsky's work, then you would never say I am promoting this book, especially not as a way to interact with others on a support forum.

[cariad]

Take a look at the dedication of Rules for Radicals. I think this says all you need to know about his motivations:

Saul Alinsky's choice of epigraph in "Rules for Radicals":[1]

"Where there are no men, be thou a man."

-- Rabbi Hillel
"Let them call me rebel and welcome, I feel no concern from it; but I should suffer the misery of devils, were I to make a whore of my soul..."
-- Thomas Paine
Lest we forget at least an over-the-shoulder acknowledgment to the very first radical: from all our legends, mythology, and history (and who is to know where mythology leaves off and history begins -- or which is which), the first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom -- Lucifer.
-- Saul Alinsky

Yup, he dedicated his book to the devil/Lucifer. I wonder what he thinks of Lucifer now that he has passed on?

Did the devil change his name to Irene?

Yup, this is completely false.

He put that quote along with a few other quotes at the front of the book, not as a dedication. It is an interesting quote that I took to be somewhat tongue-in-cheek, but then I am taking my time to read this book properly and see what Newt Gingrich finds so threatening about it.

[Rerun]

MM, this is a very legitimate question, but it does need its own topic.  Please start it in Dialysis General Discussion and you could title it something about contraception or CKF Pregnancy? 

Thank you for your question.

Rerun, Moderator 

[MooseMom]

MM, this is a very legitimate question, but it does need its own topic.  Please start it in Dialysis General Discussion and you could title it something about contraception or CKF Pregnancy? 

Thank you for your question.

Rerun, Moderator 

That's a good idea; thank you for the suggestion.   You're right...this isn't the place.

[Hemodoc]

Take a look at the dedication of Rules for Radicals. I think this says all you need to know about his motivations:

Saul Alinsky's choice of epigraph in "Rules for Radicals":[1]

"Where there are no men, be thou a man."

-- Rabbi Hillel
"Let them call me rebel and welcome, I feel no concern from it; but I should suffer the misery of devils, were I to make a whore of my soul..."
-- Thomas Paine
Lest we forget at least an over-the-shoulder acknowledgment to the very first radical: from all our legends, mythology, and history (and who is to know where mythology leaves off and history begins -- or which is which), the first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom -- Lucifer.
-- Saul Alinsky

Yup, he dedicated his book to the devil/Lucifer. I wonder what he thinks of Lucifer now that he has passed on?

Did the devil change his name to Irene?

Yup, this is completely false.

He put that quote along with a few other quotes at the front of the book, not as a dedication. It is an interesting quote that I took to be somewhat tongue-in-cheek, but then I am taking my time to read this book properly and see what Newt Gingrich finds so threatening about it.

Dear Cariad, I read the book last night for free by the way, I truly didn't want to pay for this, due to the central role he has played in the 2008 election and now in this one. ACORN is nothing more than the expression of his "community organizatin" on a nationwide basis. I could care less about "winning" an internet argument.

Yes, he is against "dogma" and "ideology" which is just another expression of Marxism and their war against Christianity.  I took a very interesting course on Marxism while in college a long time ago in a Catholic college from a Jesuit preist who laid out the Catholic churches complaints against Marxism. He also happened to have been Rhodes scholar during his student years. Very interesting details on why Marx feared the "opium of the masses" in countering communism.

Marxism is based on a reversed Hegelian dialectic. It essentially states that that which is spiritual is a illusion and that which is material is reality. Marxism by necessity of its design MUST exclude Christianity. If we look at the dedication page of Alinski, he didn't choose Lucifer by accident. It is a natural progression by Marxists since that is so central to their philosophy.

The foundation of irreligious criticism is: Man makes religion, religion does not make man. Religion is, indeed, the self-consciousness and self-esteem of man who has either not yet won through to himself, or has already lost himself again. But man is no abstract being squatting outside the world. Man is the world of man – state, society. This state and this society produce religion, which is an inverted consciousness of the world, because they are an inverted world. Religion is the general theory of this world, its encyclopaedic compendium, its logic in popular form, its spiritual point d’honneur, its enthusiasm, its moral sanction, its solemn complement, and its universal basis of consolation and justification. It is the fantastic realization of the human essence since the human essence has not acquired any true reality. The struggle against religion is, therefore, indirectly the struggle against that world whose spiritual aroma is religion.

Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.
The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions. The criticism of religion is, therefore, in embryo, the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo.[1]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opium_of_the_people

So, if you wish to read every part of this book, so be it. I never said not to read it. But I would also recommend that you do some extracurricular reading to put his work in context. If you can ever read a treatise against the philosophy of Marxism written from a Christian apologist, I believe you will see that Alinski's allusions to dogma and ideology is none other than a direct attack on Christianity just like we see in rule number 5:

4. "Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules. You can kill them with this, for they can no more obey their own rules than the Christian church can live up to Christianity."

In such, this only proves what the Bible states about rulers in high places:

Ephesians 6:11     Put on the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil.
12     For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.

This is a real manifestation of wickedness in high places. I won't tell you what to read Cariad, never have, I would advise you to walk carefully when ever you see someone dedicate the book to Lucifer.

[Hemodoc]

I really question Hemodoc's responses.  It truly appears that he is on this board as a troll sometimes.  I found the responses equally as ridiculous and I believe an apology is in order. He should be ashamed.  If you truly are a doctor your response is even more disturbing.

I find your response to be belittling and mean! You call him a troll? Why do you get a pass?  You may not agree with him, but you're targeting his character...-when someone disagrees with you- you call them a troll. Or YELL AT THEM- DONT YOU GET IT? THAT IS VERY RUDE?  You should be ashamed. and you should apologize.

Hemodoc posted that he was using sarcasm and ridicule as a matter of discourse. 

Troll: In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts inflammatory,[2] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response[3] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.[4] The noun troll may refer to the provocative message itself, as in: "That was an excellent troll you posted".

So, he was being a troll.

Dear YLGuy, I suspect you are a good family man but we simply disagree on politics. If you are against ridicule and sarcasm, then I guess you will speak out against the Alinski rules for radicals since that is the basic tactics that they use in political debates.

[Hemodoc]

Take a look at the dedication of Rules for Radicals. I think this says all you need to know about his motivations:

Saul Alinsky's choice of epigraph in "Rules for Radicals":[1]

"Where there are no men, be thou a man."

-- Rabbi Hillel
"Let them call me rebel and welcome, I feel no concern from it; but I should suffer the misery of devils, were I to make a whore of my soul..."
-- Thomas Paine
Lest we forget at least an over-the-shoulder acknowledgment to the very first radical: from all our legends, mythology, and history (and who is to know where mythology leaves off and history begins -- or which is which), the first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom -- Lucifer.
-- Saul Alinsky

Yup, he dedicated his book to the devil/Lucifer. I wonder what he thinks of Lucifer now that he has passed on?

Did the devil change his name to Irene?

Yup, this is completely false.

He put that quote along with a few other quotes at the front of the book, not as a dedication. It is an interesting quote that I took to be somewhat tongue-in-cheek, but then I am taking my time to read this book properly and see what Newt Gingrich finds so threatening about it.

Hmmm, I don't believe that is correct especially looking at some of his other statements about Christianity, hell and other issues. By the way, he is a bit wrong in the history of Lucifer who started as the chief of the angels who stood over the thrown of God. By pride he was lifted up against God from his own beauty and intelligence. What Alinski fails to mention is that Jesus defeated him on the cross. In essesnce, Alinski dedicated his book to a failed rebel who is already defeated.

Once again, when he is using the terms dogma and ideology, he is following classic Marxist anti-God, anti-Christian doctrine. Nothing new at all in this book that is only a rehash of Marxism masquerading as community organizations.  Do we really want a Marxist government leading us to their new Utopia by passage through dictarship? Really?

Maybe Idaho can secede from the union. If we go in that direction, Montana already has that as a state constitutional right. Pretty sure Texas is going to do the same. No thanks, I wish to have no part of a Marxist state.

[Hemodoc]

For those that would take issue with my summation of the Marxist war against Christianity, here is a quote from a supporter of this philosophy:

Julian Huxley, the head of UNESCO in 1947, wrote a book titled, “UNESCO: Its Purpose and Its Philosophy.” His book was a blueprint for a New World Order that called for a single ‘new’ spirituality—-a mixture of Buddhist materialist-pantheism, Liberalized ‘pantheistic’ Christianity, Gnosticism, and other occult traditions—- one language, and one way of thinking. He believed a global order could be brought about through the universal implementation of Hegel’s Dialectic process.

Huxley observed, “The task before UNESCO…is to help the emergence of a single world culture with its own philosophy and background of ideas and with its own broad purpose.” Huxley spoke of two opposing worldviews—-one founded on supernatural creation and the other on atheist evolutionism—confronting each other from the West and the East. In describing them he said, “You may categorize the two philosophies as…individualism versus collectivism or as the American versus the Russian…or as capitalism versus communism, or as Christianity versus Marxism. Can these opposites be reconciled, this antithesis be resolved in a higher synthesis? I believe…this can happen…through the inexorable dialectic of evolution.”

http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/21033

In addition, you can't really understand the politics  of America today with out understanding the Hegelian dialectic of thesis, antithesis and synthesis.