Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. 09 Feb '14 14:05
    As most of us know, Saul Alinsky was a Marxist radical who wished to promote political change. And as we all know, he is linked to Obama because he too was a community organizer in Chicago and is someone that Obama was familiar with and studied. However, are the charges that Obama follows in his footsteps valid? The best way to find out is to present the rules for radicals and then try to see if Obama seems to be following them.

    1. Always remember the first rule of power tactics. Power is not only what you have, but what the enemy thinks you have.

    2. Never go outside the experience of your people. When an action is outside the experience of the people, the result is confusion, fear, and retreat.

    3. Whenever possible, go outside the experience of the enemy. Here you will have held what he perceives to be the power.

    4. Make the enemy live up to their 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.

    5. The fourth rule carries within it the fifth rule; Ridicule is a man's most potent weapon. It is almost impossible to counter attack ridicule. Also, it infuriates the opposition, who then react to your advantage.

    6. A good tactic is one that people enjoy. If your people are not having a ball doing it, there is something very wrong with the tactic.

    7. A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag. Man can sustain militant interest in any issue for only a limited time, after which it becomes a ritualistic commitment, like going to church on Sundays.

    8. Keep the pressure on, with different tactics and actions, and utilize all events of the period for your purposes.

    9. The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.

    10. The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition. It is this unceasing pressure that results in the opposition that are essential for success of the campaign.

    11. If you push a negative hard enough and deep enough, it will break through into its counter side; this is based on the principle that every positive has a negative.

    12. The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative. You cannot risk being trapped by the enemy in his sudden agreement with your demand and saying, "You're right, we don't know what to do about this issue. Now you tell us."
  2. 09 Feb '14 14:15 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by whodey
    As most of us know, Saul Alinsky was a Marxist radical who wished to promote political change. And as we all know, he is linked to Obama because he too was a community organizer in Chicago and is someone that Obama was familiar with and studied. However, are the charges that Obama follows in his footsteps valid? The best way to find out is to present the r ...[text shortened]... demand and saying, "You're right, we don't know what to do about this issue. Now you tell us."
    I think some of the regular posters here, ones that have the strongest agendas, follow some of these rules.

    Edit: Example:

    8. Keep the pressure on, with different tactics and actions, and utilize all events of the period for your purposes.

    On this forum: No matter what bit of news comes out about your enemy, spin it negative.
  3. 09 Feb '14 14:15 / 1 edit
    I will start the ball off by analyzing our favorite policy that Obama passed that we have all grown to know and love, Obamacare.

    Now it seems that Obama violated rule #2 by going outside his area of expertise. After all, Obama is not a doctor. He is not a business man, etc., he is merely a charismatic organizer.

    However, did he have a choice? This seems to be an inherent problem of the collectivist, for the collectivist wishes to run every aspect of our lives whether it be what doctor we see, what teacher in school we have, or what type of light bulb we wish to use, etc. Therefore, I submit that the collectivist must break rule #2, and as such, should be exploited by their opponents. To counter this, the collectivist must be portrayed as intellectually gifted. He or she must be portrayed as "having all the answers". And this is what we see with the far left. Anyone who leads the way is seen as an intellectual giant and any opposition is seen as a buffoon of sorts.

    Also, I think my most favorite rule is #8. As chess players, we can all appreciate it. Keep the pressure on!! We all know that the key to winning chess is making the other player react to you instead of doing what they want. And this is what we see from President Obama. He seems to always be going on the offensive, never letting up. But is this the result of Obama studying Alinsky or simply following common sense regarding tactics.
  4. 09 Feb '14 14:18 / 2 edits
    Originally posted by JS357
    I think some of the regular posters here, ones that have the strongest agendas, follow some of these rules.
    Absolutely. It is good to brush up on left winged tactics no matter which side you may be on.

    It's like Patton reading Rommel before fighting him. The more books they write, the weaker they become.

    I think the one most used on me has been #5 as well as other posters here that are not radical left wingers. The object is to ridicule your opponent. This usually promotes anger and nasty responses, from which they can use for ammo. But if they don't respond, then the ridicule tends to appear as having some legitimacy. It is a very potent weapon.
  5. 09 Feb '14 14:20 / 3 edits
    Originally posted by JS357
    On this forum: No matter what bit of news comes out about your enemy, spin it negative.[/b]
    Every side has a negative. To ignore this is to ignore reality.

    However, if one side wishes to become all powerful and without dissent, then this negative expands and continually grows.

    I think the best method to combat this problem is to create an adversary that appears to oppose you, but does not really. I think this to be the role of the GOP. After all, what have they done for conservatives over the years? Nothing. The GOP has been on a never ending quest to cower and cave.
  6. 09 Feb '14 15:02
    Originally posted by whodey
    Every side has a negative. To ignore this is to ignore reality.

    However, if one side wishes to become all powerful and without dissent, then this negative expands and continually grows.

    I think the best method to combat this problem is to create an adversary that appears to oppose you, but does not really. I think this to be the role of the GOP. Afte ...[text shortened]... ervatives over the years? Nothing. The GOP has been on a never ending quest to cower and cave.
    Have you considered medication to battle your paranoid delusions?
  7. 09 Feb '14 15:26 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    Have you considered medication to battle your paranoid delusions?
    Um....I did not write the book spanky.

    Stop using rule #5!!
  8. 09 Feb '14 15:44
    Originally posted by whodey
    Um....I did not write the book spanky.

    Stop using rule #5!!
    No one is as good at ridiculing you as you, whodey.
  9. Subscriber AThousandYoung
    Poor Filipov :,(
    09 Feb '14 18:59
    Whodey, you left out Sasquatch's favorite - personalize your enemy.

    Sas especially likes to talk about taking Obama's pants off and looking at his penis.
  10. 09 Feb '14 19:11 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by whodey
    Absolutely. It is good to brush up on left winged tactics no matter which side you may be on.

    It's like Patton reading Rommel before fighting him. The more books they write, the weaker they become.

    I think the one most used on me has been #5 as well as other posters here that are not radical left wingers. The object is to ridicule your opponent. Thi ...[text shortened]... spond, then the ridicule tends to appear as having some legitimacy. It is a very potent weapon.
    It denigrates the right, to call these "left winged tactics" expecially since right wingers have embraced them. They are not too far afield from what Machiavelli or Sun Tzu would advise if they were in Alinski's role. Useful advice to those willing to follow it.

    I'd say Sarah Palin embodies #5, ridicule, giving as well and she gets, and also #6, "A good tactic is one that people enjoy. If your people are not having a ball doing it, there is something very wrong with the tactic. "
  11. Donation rwingett
    Ming the Merciless
    10 Feb '14 01:26
    Originally posted by whodey
    As most of us know, Saul Alinsky was a Marxist radical who wished to promote political change. And as we all know, he is linked to Obama because he too was a community organizer in Chicago and is someone that Obama was familiar with and studied. However, are the charges that Obama follows in his footsteps valid? The best way to find out is to present the r ...[text shortened]... demand and saying, "You're right, we don't know what to do about this issue. Now you tell us."
    The only ones who have ever heard of Saul Alinsky are right wingers. Left wingers had no idea who he was until the right started carping on about him non-stop.
  12. 10 Feb '14 01:34
    Originally posted by rwingett
    The only ones who have ever heard of Saul Alinsky are right wingers. Left wingers had no idea who he was until the right started carping on about him non-stop.
    "During the 1960’s Alinsky set up institutes to train other organizers, and his reputation as a visionary organizer and activist began to spread. None other than Hillary Clinton chose his work as the topic for a Wellesley College thesis in 1969. According to a 2007 Boston Globe article, Clinton interviewed Alinsky twice for the paper, which was entitled “There is Only the Fight: An Analysis of the Alinsky Model.”"

    ...

    "Alinsky published his third book, Rules for Radicals, A Pragmatic Primer for Realistic Radicals, in 1971, and it’s become popular even outside the communities and audiences he called his own. One prominent example: Dick Armey’s FreedomWorks, a conservative advocacy organization that assists tea party groups, has distributed Alinsky’s books in training sessions."

    http://billmoyers.com/content/who-is-saul-alinsky/

    My opinion is that Alinski's suggestions can apply to grass roots efforts by the right as easily as easily as to efforts by the left. Think Tea Party and NRA.
  13. Donation rwingett
    Ming the Merciless
    10 Feb '14 01:51
    Originally posted by JS357
    "During the 1960’s Alinsky set up institutes to train other organizers, and his reputation as a visionary organizer and activist began to spread. None other than Hillary Clinton chose his work as the topic for a Wellesley College thesis in 1969. According to a 2007 Boston Globe article, Clinton interviewed Alinsky twice for the paper, which was entitled “There ...[text shortened]... ots efforts by the right as easily as easily as to efforts by the left. Think Tea Party and NRA.
    I know who he is NOW. But I didn't until the right wingers made him their bogeyman of choice.
  14. 10 Feb '14 13:35
    Originally posted by rwingett
    The only ones who have ever heard of Saul Alinsky are right wingers. Left wingers had no idea who he was until the right started carping on about him non-stop.
    I didn't know who he was until whodey opened a thread about him claiming that "most" know him.

    Apparently, people like whodey need to dig up some random hippie who died in 1972 in order to somehow criticize Obama/progressives/Democrats/Hitler. Surely it is not hard to criticize someone as incompetent as Obama for what he's actually doing?
  15. 10 Feb '14 15:03
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    I didn't know who he was until whodey opened a thread about him claiming that "most" know him.

    Apparently, people like whodey need to dig up some random hippie who died in 1972 in order to somehow criticize Obama/progressives/Democrats/Hitler. Surely it is not hard to criticize someone as incompetent as Obama for what he's actually doing?
    The thread is not about whether you know him. The thread is about the fact that Obama studied him and whether or not he uses his tactics.