not illegal, just subversive and wrong....

Well, unfortunately for you Bogey-man screamers, I found an interview Alinsky did where he was directly asked if he was a Communist:

Of course, you Glenn Beck fans think everyone is a Communist.

http://www.forestcouncil.org/tims_picks/view.php?id=1075

Ok, I still waiting to hear from one of you exactly what this man has done "wrong". Why the big foaming-at-the-mouth craziness over this guy? He was an important intellectual who wrote an influential book. Can you guys actually describe in real words exactly what makes him "bad", or is this more anti-intellectual Tea Bagger crap? Is his real sin the fact he has effective ideas? When are the book burnings to begin, and when do The Thought Police show up? Come on, one of you guys please point to one thing this man has done "wrong" or "evil". Otherwise, you guys sound like Hate Week in Orwell's 1984. Mindless, stupid hate based on nothing except that you were told to hate him by Boss Limbaugh and Boss Beck - you people look ridiculous because not one of you can give one solid reason why this man is supposed to be some sort of bogey man. So far, you've given me one lie. "he was a Communist", just typical right wing slander-speak.

Wrong? That's an interesting concept.

Thanks for the link, I thought it might be something along those lines. I don't know many thinking people who fully adopt a single ideology.

for starters, count how many communist governments perpetuated genocide on its own populace in the 20th century and compare it with that of non communist states... communism is a sham that promises equality for all and is actually just a mechanism for an elite to rule a country with an iron hand...

His real sin? He organized powerless people into powerful voting blocks. Indeed, if the man is anything, he is a radical small (d) democrat, his passion was making pluralistic democracy actually work in this country, and for that, the Right in this country truly, truly hates him. I again challenge any of the right wing posters on this thread that he was anything more or less than that.

Oh, you're going to dodge the questions by hijacking the thread? Nice. Start another thread. Again I ask, what is with the right wing obsession with Alinsky?

no, I won't. I was answering a question.... thread subject back on....

If you insist:

"Notes on Saul Alinsky and Neo-Marxism:

Alinsky's tactics were based, not on Stalin's revolutionary violence, but on the Neo-Marxist strategies of Antonio Gramsci, an Italian Communist. Relying on gradualism, infiltration and the dialectic process rather than a bloody revolution, Gramsci's transformational Marxism was so subtle that few even noticed the deliberate changes.

Like Alinsky, Mikhail Gorbachev followed Gramsci, not Lenin. In fact, Gramsci aroused Stalins's wrath by suggesting that Lenin's revolutionary plan wouldn't work in the West. Instead the primary assault would be on Biblical absolutes and Christian values, which must be crushed as a social force before the new face of Communism could rise and flourish. Malachi Martin gave us a progress report:

"By 1985, the influence of traditional Christian philosophy in the West was weak and negligible.... Gramsci's master strategy was now feasible. Humanly speaking, it was no longer too tall an order to strip large majorities of men and women in the West of those last vestiges that remained to them of Christianity's transcendent God." "

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

I think you are confusing communism with Communism, but neither seems to be applicable to this individual anyway.

BTW, I was commenting on your overall concept of "wrong" as a self-evident answer to a question, not on any of this nonsense.

Whoaaa. Insults? Allusions?
I guess that's the trouble with mere words.

First of all, I'm walking on your side of the street.

Nope, that's not my take. More like speaking on the same plane and at the same pitch as some others. (Dead communist?)

I don't tattle.

Look, I was using the UCMJ as a figure of speech only, one ex-serviceman to another. The "OD's version" of it, so to speak. "Article 1(b)" is my wording. The statement is from the forum rules.

I know nothing of your career and make no comments about it. Suffice it to say I respect your service, served myself, and every man in the family served in one branch or the other.

My post mentioning the Scarlet "I" was actually aimed in the opposite direction. I just wonder why some many guys can constantly get away with "questionable personal dialogue" (my term and my impression) and others, well, they seem to get the Scarlet I.
I was surprised to see it got an infraction and a lockdown. And because the standard is subjective, its application will puzzle most or us at one time or another. I openly wondered if another one might be forthcoming for your "trouble making p^%ck" post. That's all.
At the same time same time all this jzjz piling on goes unabated. Even to the point where a signature line poke fun with every post. About all I can say about that is, well, it's out of character of how I view that member, whom I have met on a couple of occasions. (I only mention it as an an example of subjectivity. I am not looking to take issue with the poster). And Johnjzjz certainly doesn't need me sticking up for him. He's proven his metal.

Personally, I think too many here are children of children of the 60's. The lack of manners here chagrins me.

End.

FAIK, this might be my first strike.

oops....my apologies. I read your post all wrong.....

Checkmate

RULE 3: "Whenever possible, go outside the expertise of the enemy." Look for ways to increase insecurity, anxiety and uncertainty. (This happens all the time. Watch how many organizations under attack are blind-sided by seemingly irrelevant arguments that they are then forced to address.)

RULE 5: "Ridicule is man's most potent weapon." There is no defense. It's irrational. It's infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions. (Pretty crude, rude and mean, huh? They want to create anger and fear.)