doublegunshop.com - home Forums Who Is Saul Alinsky

Gary, whose history are you reading? You live in a country with a mixed economy, a public/private amalgam of socialism and capitalism---terms that now can only be used broadly because neither no longer exists. Some members of the hard-right claim it's now a dictatorship, sliding into totalitarianism. Others say rightly that democracy allows change---by and for the people. What's executive orders for the goose is executive orders for the gander. On the evidence, your country became the most powerful and influential in the world under liberal and conservative stewardship. Or as Dave in New Hampshire puts it: "divided" governance under House and Senate representation. It's a good way to think of it, even if it includes liberals and community organizers!

You're on slippery ice, Ken, when you talk about morality of any kind with the smothering hypocrisy of the way constitutional and international laws are twisted for political ends every day. Look to the First and Second Amendments. Think Snowden and gun rights. There's been flagrant abuse for decades of the First, a travesty, and the Second seems partial to where citizens live.

On your notion of individual freedom and equality, you'd be hard-pressed to get agreement from African-Americans who only began to get some freedom and equality after 200 years from a reluctant government's gunpoint to enforce the Constitution. Please consider also there was nothing sociopathic about your countrymen who threw off their British yoke.

"Subjective morality behind the ideology"? Dear god, Ken. Remember the little black girl at a demonstration against segregated schools in Arkansas? The TV clip that flashed around the world? The girl, about four or five, was asked why she was at the demonstration with her parents. "Fee-dom." And the subjective morality of Iraq and 4,500 dead and counting of America's best?

So, no, there's nothing unconstitutional in Alinsky's teaching disadvantaged citizens how to gain their civil and constitutional rights, nor citizens and the NRA demonstrating forcefully and peacefully to keep them. It's a long American tradition. Gun owners have organized to prevent arbitrary intrusions on their constitutional rights.

(Your "statism" has no meaning here.)

Quote:
"On your notion of individual freedom and equality, you'd be hard-pressed to get agreement from African-Americans who only began to get some freedom and equality after 200 years from a reluctant government's gunpoint to enforce the Constitution."

What a crock of B.S. i.e Affirmative Action which I guess can be conveniently ignored! And this is the same guy who accuses me of misattributing what one of the worst demagogues of the 20th century had to say about destroying the U S Constitution and creating a socialist state. I guess if you're going to lie at least tell a whopper.
I beginning to think someone is slipping him LSD. No one can be this far off from reality.

Jim, there's a noble tradition to affirmative action. You're old enough to remember when blacks couldn't get jobs regardless of qualifications. Before that was the same discrimination against Irish and Catholics. I remember when blacks, Acadians and Catholics couldn't sail on fishing schooners because of colour and faith. I set up the first affirmative action program in Nova Scotia for these reasons nearly 50 years ago with very satisfactory results. From what you've disclosed of yourself, of your interest in your community and church, I believe you would have done similarly.

On the veracity of what you quoted of my post, you were a bit young when wholesale murdering, lynching, kangaroo courts produced, with the Quaker ethos and strategic genius of Bayard Rustin, the passive resistance of the civil rights movement which compelled a reluctant Kennedy to enforce the Constitution. I was there up-close with MLK, JFK, Rustin, Robert and Ted, the murders and marches, the victory for the entire US which within 50 years of darkness elected a black for president. I admire you for it.

It's history, Jim. Look it up.

Quote:
"Jim, there's a noble tradition to affirmative action. You're old enough to remember when blacks couldn't get jobs regardless of qualifications. Before that was the same discrimination against Irish and Catholics."

And herein lies the MAJOR difference. Catholics, the Irish, French Canadians, and Italians were NEVER given any special consideration even though they were discriminated against. They developed respect due to their work and moral ethics and their willingness to become responsible Americans.
This has also been the case as well with later groups such as the various Asians who have immigrated here.
Now just compare this with 50 years of "special treatment" given Blacks most of whom aren't any more integrated into mainstream American society today then they were 50 years ago. This I might add is after the expenditure of over 1 trillion dollars of the taxpayers money.
There is nothing "noble" about affirmative action and it has done Blacks a major disservice in perpetuating the belief that they are inferior and required special treatment.
You King have trapped yourself in your own convoluted socialists "beliefs" and I believe everyone on this forum can see right through you.

The MAJOR difference, Jim, is that US majorities legislated, made into law, that blacks would not enjoy the life, liberty and pursuit of happiness of other citizens, warranted by the Constitution, including Catholics, Irish, French Canadians and Italians. The Constitution provided a sacred promise for all citizens, states said sorry not for blacks, and I was there in Oxford's leafy town square when mostly black 82nd Airborne companies with fixed bayonets scattered the cashiered General Walker's rabble and put end to the constitutional travesty.

MLK took me with him to Oslo for the Prize. He was horrified by the breakfast I ordered in a great hotel off London's Hyde Park. I thought his order of grits disgusting. As a devout churchman, you will be pleased to know that the National Council of Churches came out on his side. Really something when the Atlanta YMCA wouldn't allow MLK in its swimming pool; he used the black YMCA's. He never expected to survive his crusade. Neither did I at times.

Don't fret about how the blacks are doing. From all accounts, they are doing exceedingly well, moving forward faster in influence than any other ethnic group in US history. And you won't have to wait for the Hispanics. Within your lifetime, whites will be a minority so it's a pretty good idea to be thinking of more harmonious and productive relationships now.

Again more generalized B.S. I grew up in New England and we had Blacks living there and this was BEFORE the CRA of 1964. Were they discriminated against there? No not in housing, schools or anything else you can name. We attended the same schools, ate in the same restaurants, shopped in the same stores etc.
After 1964 ALL discrimination against Blacks was removed and they've had 50 years of affirmative action(special and discriminatory treatment against Whites). And what have they done with this unprecedented and 1 trillion dollar opportunity?
Why stayed for the most part just like they were prior to 1964 In Ghettos, uneducated, unmarried, raising illegitimate children* on welfare and demanding more and more from the government and those responsible persons who work.
None of your Libtard explanations for this will stand up to any realistic scrutiny. The only reason you don't hear or see what I just stated publicly is the 1st thing you'll get thrown back is the racist card.

*The illegitimacy rate for Blacks is now 72% and of course this must be due to "discrimination". The "White Trash" illegitimacy rate in this Country is around 40% and you can attribute this to whatever you may wish.
BTW It's no coincidence that this is the core of Obama's support.

The Northeast US, New England is culturally a different stock, abjured often by the rest of the country for its notions and Romneycare, and as described when you lived there 50 years ago. I have relatives there, a frequent visitor.

I believe you're judging blacks unfairly for not doing better after 1964, a relatively short time considering generations of slavery and all that entailed, and only 100 years after the Civil War which was supposed to have freed them.

But it didn't. The same narrow thinking that a Catholic couldn't become president---and I was with JFK in Wisconsin and West Virginia when Americans said to hell with that---prevailed for black citizens with "separate but equal" notions.

It's taken hundreds of years to build your wonderful country. You're only now trying to introduce (badly) a system of healthcare enjoyed by all other developed Western countries for generations. Your education system has more of the worst than the best.

It will take the US a long time to make up for slavery.

Jim, a separate note on "racist" card. I've said anything should be able to be discussed as long as it is not perceived by others as mean and mischievous. I made a career of asking questions, all sorts of questions, and it's not hard to tell whether they were in the public interest or mean, racist, intended to hurt.

Nothing you just posted is racist to me. I've confidence in the numbers you relate (or I would check if I didn't). Misfires, however, is often a mean place. There's a tendency to be rude, to make accusations of lying where they may not be warranted, and a quickness to impute motives where they may not exist.

I try not to be rude or accuse of lying or impute motives. I haven't disappointed myself here in these respects. It's not wisdom. I learned it at home before I graduated from an Atlantic fishing village's one-room school of 45 students in 11 grades with an outside toilet.

Are mean and rude subjective emotional adjectives. I wonder what type of adjectives are most likely to result in an emotional response. Never mind, I'd doubt they'd be mean and rude, but what if the adjectives were vague and open to 180* interpretation. We're not toying with the proletariat, are we.