FCC Czar Admires Alinksy - Hates Limbaugh - Seeks Weaponized Diversity Tactic Ala CRA

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Harvey

Administrator<br>Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
35,057
67
91
Originally posted by: BarrySotero

Nobody is more Authoritarian than Obama taking things over and wanting to limit speech/expression - as the far left usually wants to do.

And who was it that instituted warrantless domestic spying on American citizens and lied about it? Who was it that didn't raise an eyebrow to challenge it? :shocked:

It's true conservatives (and Bush wasn't one)...

Then why aren't allegedly "true" conservatives, supposedly including you, calling for his ass for their crimes. They shredded that Constitution you claim you want to preserve.

As of August 28, 2009, they have murdered 4,337 American troops in a war they pimped to Congress and the American people based entirely on LIES.
rose.gif
:(

They committed acts of torture and other war crimes and crimes against humanity, violating both U.S. and international laws.

And worst of all, they told us and the world they commited those crimes in our name. :9

They have imparted bloody stains on the name and integrity of the United States of America and the principles annunciated in our once honored, once valued U.S. Constitution. We will not rid ourselves of those stains until we hold those maniacal criminals responsible for their egregious, inhuman crimes. :|

That isn't liberal vs. conservative. That isn't left vs. right. That isn't Democratic or Republican. That's American vs. un-American and human vs. inhuman.

Which side of that equation are you on? :confused:
 

ebaycj

Diamond Member
Mar 9, 2002
5,418
0
0
Originally posted by: umbrella39
Originally posted by: MovingTarget
I thought I had heard this before, so I searched 'weaponized diversity' and 'winnar111'. I got nothing. Turns out it was the OP who first mentioned this concept. Lots of real gems in that thread:

http://forums.anandtech.com/me...1=weaponized+diversity

The OP is no winnar, that would be Patranus imo. The more this guy posts the more he sound like butterbean.

Yeah. ButterBean had a hard-on for his supposed Obama - Alinsky connection.

The only other poster I've ever heard bring up the topic of Alinsky is BarrySotero.
 

BarrySotero

Banned
Apr 30, 2009
509
0
0
Originally posted by: Harvey
Originally posted by: BarrySotero

Nobody is more Authoritarian than Obama taking things over and wanting to limit speech/expression - as the far left usually wants to do.

And who was it that instituted warrantless domestic spying on American citizens and lied about it? Who was it that didn't raise an eyebrow to challenge it? :shocked:

It's true conservatives (and Bush wasn't one)...

Then why aren't allegedly "true" conservatives, supposedly including you, calling for his ass for their crimes. They shredded that Constitution you claim you want to preserve.

As of August 28, 2009, they have murdered 4,337 American troops in a war they pimped to Congress and the American people based entirely on LIES.
rose.gif
:(

They committed acts of torture and other war crimes and crimes against humanity, violating both U.S. and international laws.

And worst of all, they told us and the world they commited those crimes in our name. :9

They have imparted bloody stains on the name and integrity of the United States of America and the principles annunciated in our once honored, once valued U.S. Constitution. We will not rid ourselves of those stains until we hold those maniacal criminals responsible for their egregious, inhuman crimes. :|

That isn't liberal vs. conservative. That isn't left vs. right. That isn't Democratic or Republican. That's American vs. un-American and human vs. inhuman.

Which side of that equation are you on? :confused:



I didn't like things like the Patriot Act (didn't support Iraq either). I was impressed watching Robert Byrd taking everyone to task in Senate for passing the thing without really reading it. But I wasn't as worried about Bush people abusing things as much as administrations to follow - like Hillary or this one. Clintons had already shown a willingness to use FBI files on people. I have a MA in history and international relations and knew about Terrorism around world in at least a basic sense. When 9-11 happened my reaction was "wonder what took them so long".

Bush and co did lie about causes of war but I didn't think it was for oil because I haven't seen any and neither have you probably. It was a geopolitical thing which is why I didn't like it. There were several factors. Al Qaeda didn't like the US in Saudi Arabia because of the holy soils bit and the Saudis didn't take their AQ terrorists seriously (and they attacked Saudis too don't forget) because the US was there to protect them. With Iraq and its rejection of inspectors etc. the Bush people thought they could invade Iraq and clean up the Saddam mess while also giving them another base aside from Saudi Arabia. They also wanted to put fear of Allah into Saudi Royals by leaving which is what happened. Of course there was also the proximity to Iran and Afghanistan. I cant go over it all but STRATFOR early on was saying the Bush admin was using WMD"s as an excuse for the geopolitcal imperatives which they thought were too vague to get people to understand.

In any case, it was plain early on in war Saddam was doing a rope-a-dope and their were arms all over the country and an insurgency was set. I knew that in 5 weeks into the war and new the situation was misread. Bush really thought the Iraqi's would welcome them like France in 1945 and that was dumb. From there Bush fought a PC war - not tough enough until the "surge." I wasn't for war but once in it they needed to win it. I did see AQ getting sucked into it and that was a good thing since I do think it kept them busy.. Still thought that war took us down a dead end we didn't need going - not that I excuse Dems attacking troops after voting for war and then waiting for vulnerable moment to pull rug out.

As for International laws - meh - France, Russia, UN diplomats and even Kofi Annan's nephew were up to their turtle necks in corruption via Oil for Food scandal - a reason I think many of them were against Iraq. I faulted Bush for going to great lengths to get their permission to go to war knowing he would go anyway if they said "no" which they did and then he flipped them the bird and pissed them off. Better that he would have just gone in in the first place then to set them up for an insult. Saddam also trounced international law and I don't hear too many tear about that. A lot of international law is situated in anti American politics> Spain got blasted by AQ and then gave in - and now they want to go after US after for waterboarding? Please - grow a pair Spain.

As far as now, I think Obama is much worse threat to Constitution than Bush ever was (and I would dismantle Homeland Security now because its malignant at this point and headed for worse). Obama has either kept many of the same Bush elements in place or he has expanded on them. The CIA and enhanced interrogations don't phase me. I have family from West Point and Air Force Academy as well as a friend who was a seal and 2 of them were waterboarded for training. I knew kids in high school that beat guys and pissed on them and locked them in lockers and knowing things like that go on all the time I get get worked up that a guy like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed got water-boarded when he cut Danny Pearl's head off with a hand knife. I mean that would traumatize me more than getting waterboarded. Even if it was bad (waterboarding), to attack intelligence agencies and paralyze them is really dangerous and not smart. Obama and Holder don't care about "principles" its all politics - throwing red meat to MoveOn ACLU etc while gutting defense.

Bush ratings went real low and that's because conservatives left him because of bad war management, borders and spending. A lot of conservatives didn't vote for McCain at all and that helped get Obama elected. The idea conservatives defended Bush to the end is wrong. I think part of the problem is that people like Rush felt compelled to keep making excuses for him while Dems were attacking him and military. Rush lost credibility defending "everything" when he should have been criticizing them. At one point he did say he wouldn't "carry water for them" anymore but it was a little late. I stopped listening to him well before that. About Obama though I think he has been right - namely that Obama is braking economy (and other things) on pupose. we have dark days ahead.
 

BarrySotero

Banned
Apr 30, 2009
509
0
0
Originally posted by: ebaycj
Originally posted by: umbrella39
Originally posted by: MovingTarget
I thought I had heard this before, so I searched 'weaponized diversity' and 'winnar111'. I got nothing. Turns out it was the OP who first mentioned this concept. Lots of real gems in that thread:

http://forums.anandtech.com/me...1=weaponized+diversity

The OP is no winnar, that would be Patranus imo. The more this guy posts the more he sound like butterbean.

Yeah. ButterBean had a hard-on for his supposed Obama - Alinsky connection.

The only other poster I've ever heard bring up the topic of Alinsky is BarrySotero.

We have an FCC diversity Czar who wrote a book praising Alinksy. Van Jones praised Alinksy. Obama taught Alinksy tactics. Glen Beck, Rush, Kudlow, hugh Hewitt - all will discuss Alinksy. Alinsky is not some great secret.

Take a look at Van Jones manifesto for STORM. It's full of principles of Alinksy and Marx

http://web.archive.org/web/200...ocs/STORMSummation.pdf


 

CallMeJoe

Diamond Member
Jul 30, 2004
6,938
5
81
Originally posted by: ebaycj
Originally posted by: umbrella39
Originally posted by: MovingTarget
I thought I had heard this before, so I searched 'weaponized diversity' and 'winnar111'. I got nothing. Turns out it was the OP who first mentioned this concept. Lots of real gems in that thread:
http://forums.anandtech.com/me...1=weaponized+diversity
The OP is no winnar, that would be Patranus imo. The more this guy posts the more he sound like butterbean.
Yeah. ButterBean had a hard-on for his supposed Obama - Alinsky connection.
The only other poster I've ever heard bring up the topic of Alinsky is BarrySotero.
If Barry really is Butterbuns, someone cured his obsession with homosexuality...
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,422
14,337
136
What's wrong with Alinsky besides what Beck and Rush told you is wrong with Alinsky?

The Cold War is over. Communism lost. Now the greatest threat to capitalism is the fascists who have been brainwashed into believing they're fighting for capitalism.
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,422
14,337
136
Originally posted by: BarrySotero
I didn't like things like the Patriot Act (didn't support Iraq either). I was impressed watching Robert Byrd taking everyone to task in Senate for passing the thing without really reading it. But I wasn't as worried about Bush people abusing things as much as administrations to follow - like Hillary or this one. Clintons had already shown a willingness to use FBI files on people. I have a MA in history and international relations and knew about Terrorism around world in at least a basic sense. When 9-11 happened my reaction was "wonder what took them so long".

Bush and co did lie about causes of war but I didn't think it was for oil because I haven't seen any and neither have you probably. It was a geopolitical thing which is why I didn't like it. There were several factors. Al Qaeda didn't like the US in Saudi Arabia because of the holy soils bit and the Saudis didn't take their AQ terrorists seriously (and they attacked Saudis too don't forget) because the US was there to protect them. With Iraq and its rejection of inspectors etc. the Bush people thought they could invade Iraq and clean up the Saddam mess while also giving them another base aside from Saudi Arabia. They also wanted to put fear of Allah into Saudi Royals by leaving which is what happened. Of course there was also the proximity to Iran and Afghanistan. I cant go over it all but STRATFOR early on was saying the Bush admin was using WMD"s as an excuse for the geopolitcal imperatives which they thought were too vague to get people to understand.

In any case, it was plain early on in war Saddam was doing a rope-a-dope and their were arms all over the country and an insurgency was set. I knew that in 5 weeks into the war and new the situation was misread. Bush really thought the Iraqi's would welcome them like France in 1945 and that was dumb. From there Bush fought a PC war - not tough enough until the "surge." I wasn't for war but once in it they needed to win it. I did see AQ getting sucked into it and that was a good thing since I do think it kept them busy.. Still thought that war took us down a dead end we didn't need going - not that I excuse Dems attacking troops after voting for war and then waiting for vulnerable moment to pull rug out.

As for International laws - meh - France, Russia, UN diplomats and even Kofi Annan's nephew were up to their turtle necks in corruption via Oil for Food scandal - a reason I think many of them were against Iraq. I faulted Bush for going to great lengths to get their permission to go to war knowing he would go anyway if they said "no" which they did and then he flipped them the bird and pissed them off. Better that he would have just gone in in the first place then to set them up for an insult. Saddam also trounced international law and I don't hear too many tear about that. A lot of international law is situated in anti American politics> Spain got blasted by AQ and then gave in - and now they want to go after US after for waterboarding? Please - grow a pair Spain.

As far as now, I think Obama is much worse threat to Constitution than Bush ever was (and I would dismantle Homeland Security now because its malignant at this point and headed for worse). Obama has either kept many of the same Bush elements in place or he has expanded on them. The CIA and enhanced interrogations don't phase me. I have family from West Point and Air Force Academy as well as a friend who was a seal and 2 of them were waterboarded for training. I knew kids in high school that beat guys and pissed on them and locked them in lockers and knowing things like that go on all the time I get get worked up that a guy like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed got water-boarded when he cut Danny Pearl's head off with a hand knife. I mean that would traumatize me more than getting waterboarded. Even if it was bad (waterboarding), to attack intelligence agencies and paralyze them is really dangerous and not smart. Obama and Holder don't care about "principles" its all politics - throwing red meat to MoveOn ACLU etc while gutting defense.

Bush ratings went real low and that's because conservatives left him because of bad war management, borders and spending. A lot of conservatives didn't vote for McCain at all and that helped get Obama elected. The idea conservatives defended Bush to the end is wrong. I think part of the problem is that people like Rush felt compelled to keep making excuses for him while Dems were attacking him and military. Rush lost credibility defending "everything" when he should have been criticizing them. At one point he did say he wouldn't "carry water for them" anymore but it was a little late. I stopped listening to him well before that. About Obama though I think he has been right - namely that Obama is braking economy (and other things) on pupose. we have dark days ahead.

You are cookoo for cocoa puffs, guy.
 

JEDIYoda

Lifer
Jul 13, 2005
33,986
3,321
126
Originally posted by: BarrySotero
Dude your too morbid. Without the divine source of rights and sanctity as expressed in Constitution and Declaration of Independence you would have no sanctity or claim to rights and freedoms. Everything would be a toss up and there would be no sense arguing principles if there was no absolute truth and authority. A Marxist like Obama wants to play God and impose his will egotistically in violence of principles. He's a thug in a suit with Italian shoes with a drive to kill babies, embryos and now seniors. I have no idea what your on about with plagiarism and Google since I post news articles with my own summaries/comments as per instructions. The media ignores headcases like Van Jones so I go through his vids and articles and pull out the gems like "I give up the radical pose to achieve radical ends". I was writing about Jones months before Beck but WND exposed this guy first. I can take anyone seriously talking about principles and rights while Obama is obviously an angry resentful radical not worthy of the office. As history goes, people will look back one day and wonder how Americans could have been so stupid to vote their country away the way Germany did. Bad education and parenting is the cause here.

hahahhaaaa...Anands getting bhis moneys worth...employing BarrySotero as the resident village idiot!!!

hahahahahahhahahaaaaa
 

MovingTarget

Diamond Member
Jun 22, 2003
9,002
115
106
Originally posted by: BarrySotero
Originally posted by: ebaycj
Originally posted by: umbrella39
Originally posted by: MovingTarget
I thought I had heard this before, so I searched 'weaponized diversity' and 'winnar111'. I got nothing. Turns out it was the OP who first mentioned this concept. Lots of real gems in that thread:

http://forums.anandtech.com/me...1=weaponized+diversity

The OP is no winnar, that would be Patranus imo. The more this guy posts the more he sound like butterbean.

Yeah. ButterBean had a hard-on for his supposed Obama - Alinsky connection.

The only other poster I've ever heard bring up the topic of Alinsky is BarrySotero.

We have an FCC diversity Czar who wrote a book praising Alinksy. Van Jones praised Alinksy. Obama taught Alinksy tactics. Glen Beck, Rush, Kudlow, hugh Hewitt - all will discuss Alinksy. Alinsky is not some great secret.

Take a look at Van Jones manifesto for STORM. It's full of principles of Alinksy and Marx

http://web.archive.org/web/200...ocs/STORMSummation.pdf

tl;dr - but marked for later. This oughta be fun.

Without gettinig into your link, my initial impressions are - who cares? The connections are inconsequential at best and it seems you are looking for boogemen that aren't there. I see no evidence of malice or other nefarious intent here. I am not as familiar as most with Alinsky, but Marx is another story. Have you ever actually read Marx? If you do, keep in mind the society in which his ideas were presented and you will see that he does raise very good points. Marxist criticism is a powerful and indespensible tool in modern politics, literature, and even sociological situations. I may not agree with Marx a lot of the time, and I definitely don't agree with those who supposedly ascribe to his ideals - but you can't simply dismiss anything because of the commie boogeyman. This isn't 1953, and we are all adults capable of rational thought. Look at the situation for what it is... and don't simply listen to others saying there is a monster behind every bush... form your own opinion.
 

BarrySotero

Banned
Apr 30, 2009
509
0
0
Originally posted by: MovingTarget
[ Have you ever actually read Marx?


Yeah. I read a lot of his stuff and also know he didn't pay all his workers and had carbuncles on his butt from sitting too much. He had some interesting yet pedestrian observations about capitalism for the time. Only a turkey could take him serious now which is why Obama and Van Jones etc only skin Marx on the way to their own anti American mix.
 

Budmantom

Lifer
Aug 17, 2002
13,103
1
81
Originally posted by: Vic
What's wrong with Alinsky ?



Originally posted by: MovingTarget
Have you ever actually read Marx?

6-9 months ago all the leftist were going crazy Obama.. Alinsky/Marx you must be a racist now the wacko left on this forum defends Alinsky/Marx/Chavez/Communism and Socialism, this is kind of scary.




 

RedChief

Senior member
Dec 20, 2004
533
0
81
Originally posted by: Harvey
Originally posted by: BarrySotero

Nobody is more Authoritarian than Obama taking things over and wanting to limit speech/expression - as the far left usually wants to do.

And who was it that instituted warrantless domestic spying on American citizens and lied about it? Who was it that didn't raise an eyebrow to challenge it? :shocked:
[/quote]

Ok, quick answer here. It wasn't GWB.

If you educated yourself you would learn that wiretapping for domestic spying has been going on since the advent of the telegram. During the days of the telegram, all telegrams between the US and foreign countries were read by the government. It was a telegram that finally brought us into WW1 (although that one was decoded by the British).



 

Harvey

Administrator<br>Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
35,057
67
91
Originally posted by: RedChief

Originally posted by: Harvey

And who was it that instituted warrantless domestic spying on American citizens and lied about it? Who was it that didn't raise an eyebrow to challenge it? :shocked:

Ok, quick answer here. It wasn't GWB.[/quote]

Quick answer, here... < ennn-n-n-n-nh > (game show buzzer sound)

I'm sorry. Wrong answer. But maybe you never heard of Mark Klein and Room 641A in AT&T's San Francisco facility at 611 Folsom Street.

A Story of Surveillance
Former Technician 'Turning In' AT&T Over NSA Program

By Ellen Nakashima
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, November 7, 2007; Page D01

His first inkling that something was amiss came in summer 2002 when he opened the door to admit a visitor from the National Security Agency to an office of AT&T in San Francisco.

"What the heck is the NSA doing here?" Mark Klein, a former AT&T technician, said he asked himself.

A year or so later, he stumbled upon documents that, he said, nearly caused him to fall out of his chair. The documents, he said, show that the NSA gained access to massive amounts of e-mail and search and other Internet records of more than a dozen global and regional telecommunications providers. AT&T allowed the agency to hook into its network at a facility in San Francisco and, according to Klein, many of the other telecom companies probably knew nothing about it.

Klein is in Washington this week to share his story in the hope that it will persuade lawmakers not to grant legal immunity to telecommunications firms that helped the government in its anti-terrorism efforts.

The plain-spoken, bespectacled Klein, 62, said he may be the only person in the country in a position to discuss firsthand knowledge of an important aspect of the Bush administration's domestic surveillance program. He is retired, so he isn't worried about losing his job. He did not have security clearance, and the documents in his possession were not classified, he said. He has no qualms about "turning in," as he put it, the company where he worked for 22 years until he retired in 2004.

"If they've done something massively illegal and unconstitutional -- well, they should suffer the consequences," Klein said. "It's not my place to feel bad for them. They made their bed, they have to lie in it. The ones who did [anything wrong], you can be sure, are high up in the company. Not the average Joes, who I enjoyed working with."

In an interview yesterday, he alleged that the NSA set up a system that vacuumed up Internet and phone-call data from ordinary Americans with the cooperation of AT&T . Contrary to the government's depiction of its surveillance program as aimed at overseas terrorists, Klein said, much of the data sent through AT&T to the NSA was purely domestic. Klein said he believes that the NSA was analyzing the records for usage patterns as well as for content.

He said the NSA built a special room to receive data streamed through an AT&T Internet room containing "peering links," or major connections to other telecom providers. The largest of the links delivered 2.5 gigabits of data -- the equivalent of one-quarter of the Encyclopedia Britannica's text -- per second, said Klein, whose documents and eyewitness account form the basis of one of the first lawsuits filed against the telecom giants after the government's warrantless-surveillance program was reported in the New York Times in December 2005.

Claudia Jones, an AT&T spokeswoman, said she had no comment on Klein's allegations. "AT&T is fully committed to protecting our customers' privacy. We do not comment on matters of national security," she said.

The NSA and the White House also declined comment on Klein's allegations.

Klein is urging Congress not to block Hepting v. AT&T, a class-action suit pending in federal court in San Francisco, as well as 37 other lawsuits charging carriers with illegally collaborating with the NSA. He was accompanied yesterday by lawyers for the Electronic Frontier Foundation, which filed Hepting v. AT&T in 2006. Together, they are urging key U.S. senators to oppose a pending White House-endorsed immunity provision that would effectively wipe out the lawsuits. The Judiciary Committee is expected to take up the measure Thursday.

In summer 2002, Klein was working in an office responsible for Internet equipment when an NSA representative arrived to interview a management-level technician for a special job whose details were secret.

"That's when my antennas started to go up," he said. He knew that the NSA was supposed to work on overseas signals intelligence.

The job entailed building a "secret room" in an AT&T office 10 blocks away, he said. By coincidence, in October 2003, Klein was transferred to that office and assigned to the Internet room. He asked a technician there about the secret room on the 6th floor, and the technician told him it was connected to the Internet room a floor above. The technician, who was about to retire, handed him some wiring diagrams.

"That was my 'aha!' moment," Klein said. "They're sending the entire Internet to the secret room."

The diagram showed splitters, glass prisms that split signals from each network into two identical copies. One fed into the secret room, the other proceeded to its destination, he said.

"This splitter was sweeping up everything, vacuum-cleaner-style," he said. "The NSA is getting everything. These are major pipes that carry not just AT&T's customers but everybody's."

One of Klein's documents listed links to 16 entities, including Global Crossing, a large provider of voice and data services in the United States and abroad; UUNet, a large Internet provider in Northern Virginia now owned by Verizon; Level 3 Communications, which provides local, long-distance and data transmission in the United States and overseas; and more familiar names such as Sprint and Qwest. It also included data exchanges MAE-West and PAIX, or Palo Alto Internet Exchange, facilities where telecom carriers hand off Internet traffic to each other.[/quote]

Originally posted by: RedChief

If you educated yourself you would learn that wiretapping for domestic spying has been going on since the advent of the telegram. During the days of the telegram, all telegrams between the US and foreign countries were read by the government. It was a telegram that finally brought us into WW1 (although that one was decoded by the British).

And if you haven't educated yourself, or if you're even half honest about the facts, you'd know:

1. The U.S. Constitution, including the prohibition against unwarranted searches and seizures predates the telegraph by decades. Wire tapping and other searches and seizures are completely legal IF they are done under the authority of a lawful search warrant.

2. If you the wire tapping you claim has been going on "since the advent of the telegram" was done under the authority of a lawful search warrant, it was legal. If it wasn't it was as illegal, then, as the domestic spying done by your thankfully EX-Traitor In Chief and his criminal cabal of traitors, murderers, torturers, war criminals and war profiteers, and they should be held accountable for those crimes in a court of law.

Why do you hate the Constitution? :(
 

MotF Bane

No Lifer
Dec 22, 2006
60,801
10
0
Harvey, it looks to me like RedChief is trying to get at GWB wasn't the first to do it. Whether he's arguing about it being right or wrong though, I have no idea. I doubt any court would have served a warrant for all incoming and outgoing telegrams between the United States and foreign countries - that's an awfully damned broad warrant.

RedChief... uh, Lusitania?
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
87,713
54,709
136
Originally posted by: MotF Bane
Harvey, it looks to me like RedChief is trying to get at GWB wasn't the first to do it. Whether he's arguing about it being right or wrong though, I have no idea. I doubt any court would have served a warrant for all incoming and outgoing telegrams between the United States and foreign countries - that's an awfully damned broad warrant.

RedChief... uh, Lusitania?

I believe he is referring to the Zimmerman Telegram. Of course that was an intercept from Germany to an agent of a foreign government (in this case Mexico), so I'm not sure what that would have to do with warrantless anything here in America.

All of those points are fairly irrelevant though, because domestic spying had been significantly limited both by statute and USSC decisions since WW1.
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,422
14,337
136
Originally posted by: Budmantom
6-9 months ago all the leftist were going crazy Obama.. Alinsky/Marx you must be a racist now the wacko left on this forum defends Alinsky/Marx/Chavez/Communism and Socialism, this is kind of scary.

I didn't defend anything, troll, I asked a question. The OP clearly doesn't have a clue what he is talking about, as usual. And it's your wingnut ilk that have been acting scary in this thread and defending evils like McCarthyism and HUAC.
 

Robor

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
16,979
0
76
Originally posted by: BarrySotero
Dude your too morbid. Without the divine source of rights and sanctity as expressed in Constitution and Declaration of Independence you would have no sanctity or claim to rights and freedoms. Everything would be a toss up and there would be no sense arguing principles if there was no absolute truth and authority. A Marxist like Obama wants to play God and impose his will egotistically in violence of principles. He's a thug in a suit with Italian shoes with a drive to kill babies, embryos and now seniors. I have no idea what your on about with plagiarism and Google since I post news articles with my own summaries/comments as per instructions. The media ignores headcases like Van Jones so I go through his vids and articles and pull out the gems like "I give up the radical pose to achieve radical ends". I was writing about Jones months before Beck but WND exposed this guy first. I can take anyone seriously talking about principles and rights while Obama is obviously an angry resentful radical not worthy of the office. As history goes, people will look back one day and wonder how Americans could have been so stupid to vote their country away the way Germany did. Bad education and parenting is the cause here.

Thanks for again proving you're nothing more than an ignorant troll.

You're right about one thing though - you are the result of bad education and parenting.
 

MotF Bane

No Lifer
Dec 22, 2006
60,801
10
0
Originally posted by: BarrySotero
Dude your too morbid. Without the divine source of rights and sanctity as expressed in Constitution and Declaration of Independence you would have no sanctity or claim to rights and freedoms. Everything would be a toss up and there would be no sense arguing principles if there was no absolute truth and authority. A Marxist like Obama wants to play God and impose his will egotistically in violence of principles. He's a thug in a suit with Italian shoes with a drive to kill babies, embryos and now seniors. I have no idea what your on about with plagiarism and Google since I post news articles with my own summaries/comments as per instructions. The media ignores headcases like Van Jones so I go through his vids and articles and pull out the gems like "I give up the radical pose to achieve radical ends". I was writing about Jones months before Beck but WND exposed this guy first. I can take anyone seriously talking about principles and rights while Obama is obviously an angry resentful radical not worthy of the office. As history goes, people will look back one day and wonder how Americans could have been so stupid to vote their country away the way Germany did. Bad education and parenting is the cause here.

What is that shit? Divine source? What's next, divine right of kings again, as long as it suits your twisted and insane worldview? I bet the idea King George W. Bush makes you feel all warm and fuzzy.
 

BarrySotero

Banned
Apr 30, 2009
509
0
0
Originally posted by: MotF Bane
Originally posted by: BarrySotero
Dude your too morbid. Without the divine source of rights and sanctity as expressed in Constitution and Declaration of Independence you would have no sanctity or claim to rights and freedoms. Everything would be a toss up and there would be no sense arguing principles if there was no absolute truth and authority. A Marxist like Obama wants to play God and impose his will egotistically in violence of principles. He's a thug in a suit with Italian shoes with a drive to kill babies, embryos and now seniors. I have no idea what your on about with plagiarism and Google since I post news articles with my own summaries/comments as per instructions. The media ignores headcases like Van Jones so I go through his vids and articles and pull out the gems like "I give up the radical pose to achieve radical ends". I was writing about Jones months before Beck but WND exposed this guy first. I can take anyone seriously talking about principles and rights while Obama is obviously an angry resentful radical not worthy of the office. As history goes, people will look back one day and wonder how Americans could have been so stupid to vote their country away the way Germany did. Bad education and parenting is the cause here.

What is that shit? Divine source? What's next, divine right of kings again, as long as it suits your twisted and insane worldview? I bet the idea King George W. Bush makes you feel all warm and fuzzy.


Yo man - here be that divine source shit:

"When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of NATURE"S GOD entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their CREATOR with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. "

Even Bush was better than Obama who's inept at everything but fomenting chaos and Marxist gimmicks. He's a maniac

 

BarrySotero

Banned
Apr 30, 2009
509
0
0
Originally posted by: Robor
Originally posted by: BarrySotero
Dude your too morbid. Without the divine source of rights and sanctity as expressed in Constitution and Declaration of Independence you would have no sanctity or claim to rights and freedoms. Everything would be a toss up and there would be no sense arguing principles if there was no absolute truth and authority. A Marxist like Obama wants to play God and impose his will egotistically in violence of principles. He's a thug in a suit with Italian shoes with a drive to kill babies, embryos and now seniors. I have no idea what your on about with plagiarism and Google since I post news articles with my own summaries/comments as per instructions. The media ignores headcases like Van Jones so I go through his vids and articles and pull out the gems like "I give up the radical pose to achieve radical ends". I was writing about Jones months before Beck but WND exposed this guy first. I can take anyone seriously talking about principles and rights while Obama is obviously an angry resentful radical not worthy of the office. As history goes, people will look back one day and wonder how Americans could have been so stupid to vote their country away the way Germany did. Bad education and parenting is the cause here.

Thanks for again proving you're nothing more than an ignorant troll.

You're right about one thing though - you are the result of bad education and parenting.

Thanks again for saying nothing but snotty nonsense I must have said something right
 

MotF Bane

No Lifer
Dec 22, 2006
60,801
10
0
Originally posted by: BarrySotero
Yo man - here be that divine source shit:

"When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of NATURE"S GOD entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their CREATOR with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. "

Even Bush was better than Obama who's inept at everything but fomenting chaos and Marxist gimmicks. He's a maniac

:laugh:
 

BarrySotero

Banned
Apr 30, 2009
509
0
0
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: Budmantom
6-9 months ago all the leftist were going crazy Obama.. Alinsky/Marx you must be a racist now the wacko left on this forum defends Alinsky/Marx/Chavez/Communism and Socialism, this is kind of scary.

I didn't defend anything, troll, I asked a question. The OP clearly doesn't have a clue what he is talking about, as usual. And it's your wingnut ilk that have been acting scary in this thread and defending evils like McCarthyism and HUAC.

Lol - Obama has confessed communists working in administration and they are proposing all kids of garbage while praising Chavez and your whining about McCarthyism.

Yuri Bezmenov the KBG defector spoke about demoralizied people (people who lost their morals - as sought by KGB when he was there) and their inability to see reality.


"It takes from fifteen to twenty years to demoralize a nation. Why that many years? Because this is the minimum number of years which requires to ah, educate one generation of students in the country of, ah, of your enemy exposed to the ideology of the enemy. In other words Marxist-Leninism ideology is being pumped into the soft heads of at least three generations of American students without being challenged or counter-balanced by the basic values of Americanism, American patriotism. The result? The result you can see. Most of the people who graduated in the sixties, dropouts or half-baked intellectuals are now occupying the positions of power in the government, civil service, business, mass media, educational system. You are stuck with them. You cannot get rid of them. They are contaminated.

They are programmed to think and react to stimuli in a certain pattern. You cannot change their mind even if, if you expose them to authentic information. Even if you prove that white is white and black is black. You cannot change the basic perception and illogical behavior. In other words, in these people the process of demoralization is complete and irreversible. To get rid society of these people you have, you need another to have fifteen years to educate a new generation of patriotically-minded and, and ah, common, common sense people who would be acting in favor and in the interests of the ah, the, ah, United States society...

The demoralization process in the United States is basically completed already, for the last thirty-five years. Actually, it is over-fulfilled because ah, demoralization reaches such areas where previously, not even Comrade Andropov [1911-1984] and all his experts would even dream of such tremendous success. Most of it is done by Americans to Americans thanks to lack of moral standards. As I mentioned before ah, exposure to true information does not matter any more. A person who is demoralized is unable to assess true information. The facts tell nothing to him. Ah, even if I shower him with information, with authentic proof, with documents, with pictures. Even if I take him, by force, to the Soviet Union and show him concentration camp he will refuse to believe it until he, he is going to receive a kick in his, in his fat bottom. When the military boot crashes, then he will understand. But not before that. That is the tragedy of this situation of demoralization."

Well there you are

 

syrillus

Senior member
Jun 18, 2009
336
0
0
Originally posted by: BarrySotero
*snip*A Marxist like Obama wants to play God and impose his will egotistically in violence of principles.*snip*

I'm sorry, wtf does that even mean?

EDIT: fixed bolding fail