"There's another reason for working inside the system. Dostoevsky said that taking a new step is what people fear most. Any revolutionary "change" must be preceded by a passive, affirmative, non-challenging attitude toward "change" among the mass of our people. They must feel so frustrated, so defeated, so lost, so futureless in the prevailing system that they are willing to let go of the past and "change" the future. This acceptance is the reformation essential to any revolution. To bring on this reformation requires that the organizer work inside the system, among not only the middle class but the 40 per cent of American families - more than seventy million people - whose income range from $5,000 to $10,000 a year [in 1971]. They cannot be dismissed by labeling them blue collar or hard hat. They will not continue to be relatively passive and slightly challenging. If we fail to communicate with them, if we don't encourage them to form alliances with us, they will move to the right. Maybe they will anyway, but let's not let it happen by default  [highlighted by SM]

Rules for Radicals, by Sal Alinsky


Obama is following Sal Alinsky's Rules.  In fact, the entire DNC is following his rules.  Sal Alinsky was a Marxist.  Therefore, Obama by following his rules, is a Marxist and that is why the DNC has become the Communist Party DNC.  It is reality, not name calling.  They are who they are.

I guess i have to dumb down my posts to get you to understand them. I certainly can try.



Eyas: I don't know what this means.  A "GOP troop hating rant."? Does this mean that the "GOP" hates troops and rants about it.  Which troops?  Who in the GOP has said this?  Is this even what is meant by this sentence.  What is being twisted?

What does this MEAN?

Well it means that everything you say could ALSO be turned into a troop hating rant.  the way you lie about Kerry and Murtha ( ex. a scumbag like Jack Murtha)  for example. the way you would rather have our troops under equipped, with less benifits, and on extended tours instead of homw with their familes for instance.

Eyas: The "Phony Soldier" reference was related to ACTUAL "PHONY" soldiers, and was made BY Rush.  The appellation of ""Phony Soldier" Rush"" siply makes NO SENSE AT ALL.

After he was cought calling libs phoney soldiers of course. read the REAL TRANSCRIPT, not the RUSH edited version.
CALLER 2: And, you know, I'm one of the few that joined the Army to serve my country, I'm proud to say, not for the money or anything like that. What I would like to retort to is that, if we pull -- what these people don't understand is if we pull out of Iraq right now, which is about impossible because of all the stuff that's over there, it'd take us at least a year to pull everything back out of Iraq, then Iraq itself would collapse, and we'd have to go right back over there within a year or so. And --
LIMBAUGH: There's a lot more than that that they don't understand. They can't even -- if -- the next guy that calls here, I'm gonna ask him: Why should we pull -- what is the imperative for pulling out? What's in it for the United States to pull out? They can't -- I don't think they have an answer for that other than, "Well, we just gotta bring the troops home."
CALLER 2: Yeah, and, you know what --
LIMBAUGH: "Save the -- keep the troops safe" or whatever. I -- it's not possible, intellectually, to follow these people.
CALLER 2: No, it's not, and what's really funny is, they never talk to real soldiers. They like to pull these soldiers that come up out of the blue and talk to the media.
LIMBAUGH: The phony soldiers.
CALLER 2: The phony soldiers. If you talk to a real soldier, they are proud to serve. They want to be over in Iraq. They understand their sacrifice, and they're willing to sacrifice for their country.
LIMBAUGH: They joined to be in Iraq. They joined --
CALLER 2: A lot of them -- the new kids, yeah.
LIMBAUGH: Well, you know where you're going these days, the last four years, if you signed up. The odds are you're going there or Afghanistan or somewhere.


Eyas:  And, what does it mean "soldiers who don't question"?  Soldiers who don't question orders?  Yes, absolutely.  Soldiers who question orders throw the entire chain of command into anarchy.  The very NATURE of BEING a soldier IS obeying orders unquestioningly.

Exactly why we cannot blame the soldiers for the situation that they are put into by your fearless leader.  we can support the TROOPS but not the mission.

Eyas: No one has bashed any of these men except Kerry in this thread.

except for this of course IN THIS THREAD . LOL   Eyas: Is a hatred or dislike of a scumbag like Jack Murtha

Eyas: (in reference to purple heart band aide) I wish to heck I could understand what this even means.
  the way the GOP treats our veterans who fought for our country. disgracfull.

and we all use Smearboating as a verb meanign to SMEAR or to LIE about with impunity.  Because THAT IS WHAT IT MEANS.

the Yeti wrote:I guess i have to dumb down my posts to get you to understand them. I certainly can try.



Eyas: I don't know what this means. A "GOP troop hating rant."? Does this mean that the "GOP" hates troops and rants about it. Which troops? Who in the GOP has said this? Is this even what is meant by this sentence. What is being twisted?

What does this MEAN?

Well it means that everything you say could ALSO be turned into a troop hating rant. the way you lie about Kerry and Murtha ( ex. a scumbag like Jack Murtha) for example. the way you would rather have our troops under equipped, with less benifits, and on extended tours instead of homw with their familes for instance.

Eyas: The "Phony Soldier" reference was related to ACTUAL "PHONY" soldiers, and was made BY Rush. The appellation of ""Phony Soldier" Rush"" siply makes NO SENSE AT ALL.

After he was cought calling libs phoney soldiers of course. read the REAL TRANSCRIPT, not the RUSH edited version.
CALLER 2: And, you know, I'm one of the few that joined the Army to serve my country, I'm proud to say, not for the money or anything like that. What I would like to retort to is that, if we pull -- what these people don't understand is if we pull out of Iraq right now, which is about impossible because of all the stuff that's over there, it'd take us at least a year to pull everything back out of Iraq, then Iraq itself would collapse, and we'd have to go right back over there within a year or so. And --
LIMBAUGH: There's a lot more than that that they don't understand. They can't even -- if -- the next guy that calls here, I'm gonna ask him: Why should we pull -- what is the imperative for pulling out? What's in it for the United States to pull out? They can't -- I don't think they have an answer for that other than, "Well, we just gotta bring the troops home."
CALLER 2: Yeah, and, you know what --
LIMBAUGH: "Save the -- keep the troops safe" or whatever. I -- it's not possible, intellectually, to follow these people.
CALLER 2: No, it's not, and what's really funny is, they never talk to real soldiers. They like to pull these soldiers that come up out of the blue and talk to the media.
LIMBAUGH: The phony soldiers.
CALLER 2: The phony soldiers. If you talk to a real soldier, they are proud to serve. They want to be over in Iraq. They understand their sacrifice, and they're willing to sacrifice for their country.
LIMBAUGH: They joined to be in Iraq. They joined --
CALLER 2: A lot of them -- the new kids, yeah.
LIMBAUGH: Well, you know where you're going these days, the last four years, if you signed up. The odds are you're going there or Afghanistan or somewhere.


Eyas: And, what does it mean "soldiers who don't question"? Soldiers who don't question orders? Yes, absolutely. Soldiers who question orders throw the entire chain of command into anarchy. The very NATURE of BEING a soldier IS obeying orders unquestioningly.

Exactly why we cannot blame the soldiers for the situation that they are put into by your fearless leader. we can support the TROOPS but not the mission.

Eyas: No one has bashed any of these men except Kerry in this thread.

except for this of course IN THIS THREAD . LOL  Eyas: Is a hatred or dislike of a scumbag like Jack Murtha

Eyas: (in reference to purple heart band aide) I wish to heck I could understand what this even means.
the way the GOP treats our veterans who fought for our country. disgracfull.

and we all use Smearboating as a verb meanign to SMEAR or to LIE about with impunity. Because THAT IS WHAT IT MEANS.

You can say this until you are blue in the face, but it does not hold water. If you do not support the mission, you are having a direct, negative impact on troop morale. And, since you obviously don't know this, morale is the MOST important factor in combat. Weapons and training are nothing if the soldier does not possess the will to use them. That will is directly proportionate to morale.

Apparently I need to repeat this. Give him a rifle, teach him how to use it, pat him on the back, and then tell him to go lose. Logic dictates that if you do not support the mission you are supporting defeat, or you don't care about the outcome. In either case, you are not supporting the troops engaged in that mission, because combat is about victory or defeat. There isn't any gray area.

About the 'C'DND
I have never read any of Alinksy publications before but I found this article that in effect gives me a really good overview.  This is an article about exactly how Saul Alinksy laid out how to bring about a Revolution. A revolution of Change. John Perazzo has condensed Alinksy book down to some very key areas that highlight how, by following standard Communist tactics of infiltration, one can place themselves in a position of being able to subvert funds and souls.  Looking back, the DNC has been methodically and steadily taking control of this country for many many years. I don’t think that calling them a Communist Party is in doubt anymore. There is one possible disadvantage to doing so.  Following Alinksy own rules, the DNC could use it as a source for ‘the old fear tactic is being used once again by the Republican Party to beat you into submission to four more years of failed policy”. I don’t know. There are so many facets to the ‘C’DNC I’m having a hard time getting a solid handle on how to effectively pick one let alone poke a hole in one.
This article is long, but I found it very telling. Thanks SoldiersMum. This answers a lot of my questions on why I feel  “like practically overnight” this country in now in such danger of being destroyed.
I just hope this can be stopped. Years ago my instincts told me Hillary was dangerous. My instincts kicked in again, big time, with Obama. McCain does not make the hair on my neck rise like Obama’s but I am still wary of him. [Rick Davis and the Reform Institute]  

Democrats’ Platform for Revolution By John Perazzo
FrontPageMagazine.com | Monday, May 05, 2008
http://frontpagemag.com/articles/Read.a ... 1405F69704

The one thing I find quite interesting is the rule of “do not except any possible answer to a solution”. That will in effect derail the overall plan.
Our energy plan, or lack of one comes to mind right away. This is why the Democrats are so against the call for drilling and providing this country with meaningful energy. It takes away a platform that has been designed to bring about the ‘revolution’ and they are having a hard time defending themselves against inaction. Could this be the hole?

bedbug wrote:You can say this until you are blue in the face, but it does not hold water. If you do not support the mission, you are having a direct, negative impact on troop morale.

my OPINION on the mission has an affect on their morale?? dont you think the troops in Iraq know the mission is CRAP?? I know that all my friends that have come back say it is. even the far right wing war loving friends say that the mission is BS. NOT ONE sways from this opinion. My co workers kids, who was all for goin and killin some terrorists, just got back from his first tour and says THE SAME THING. we are not chinging sh!t over there. we need to wait until the generation dies and the kid who want to be westernized get control.  He said that everyone he was in contact with in iraq felt the SAME WAY !! and his dad is my Right wing arch enemy here ( which i have lunch with every day) and he says the Iraq war is a Loser.

bedbug wrote: And, since you obviously don't know this, morale is the MOST important factor in combat. Weapons and training are nothing if the soldier does not possess the will to use them. That will is directly proportionate to morale.

  I guess a sh!t mission, stop loss, extended tours, incompetant plan, and crap equipment (until the Dems took over and demanded it) etc.. will bring morale down more than ONE guy on a web site with 4 members. dont ya think??

bedbug wrote:Apparently I need to repeat this. Give him a rifle, teach him how to use it, pat him on the back, and then tell him to go lose. Logic dictates that if you do not support the mission you are supporting defeat, or you don't care about the outcome. In either case, you are not supporting the troops engaged in that mission, because combat is about victory or defeat. There isn't any gray area.

What a LOAD OF CRAP.  and you know it, dont you ?? I was on a flight to Texas and on a layover a GI was sitting alone eating dinner. I bought his dinner and had a couple shots with him. without provacation, he admitted that the MISSION was a pile of DUNG and all his fellow troops knew it. they were just there following orders until new REAL leadership gets into power.  This is from someone i did NOT even know.  that is how bad it is. Your moronic comments only show that YOU DONT HAVE A CLUE WHAT THE DOOR KICKER THINKS.  you just parrot gop talking poinst like it's fact and hope no one calls you on it.

the Yeti wrote:

bedbug wrote:
You can say this until you are blue in the face, but it does not hold water. If you do not support the mission, you are having a direct, negative impact on troop morale.

my OPINION on the mission has an affect on their morale?? dont you think the troops in Iraq know the mission is CRAP?? I know that all my friends that have come back say it is. even the far right wing war loving friends say that the mission is BS. NOT ONE sways from this opinion. My co workers kids, who was all for goin and killin some terrorists, just got back from his first tour and says THE SAME THING. we are not chinging sh!t over there. we need to wait until the generation dies and the kid who want to be westernized get control.  He said that everyone he was in contact with in iraq felt the SAME WAY !! and his dad is my Right wing arch enemy here ( which i have lunch with every day) and he says the Iraq war is a Loser.

bedbug wrote: And, since you obviously don't know this, morale is the MOST important factor in combat. Weapons and training are nothing if the soldier does not possess the will to use them. That will is directly proportionate to morale.

  I guess a sh!t mission, stop loss, extended tours, incompetant plan, and crap equipment (until the Dems took over and demanded it) etc.. will bring morale down more than ONE guy on a web site with 4 members. dont ya think??

bedbug wrote:Apparently I need to repeat this. Give him a rifle, teach him how to use it, pat him on the back, and then tell him to go lose. Logic dictates that if you do not support the mission you are supporting defeat, or you don't care about the outcome. In either case, you are not supporting the troops engaged in that mission, because combat is about victory or defeat. There isn't any gray area.

What a LOAD OF CRAP.  and you know it, dont you ?? I was on a flight to Texas and on a layover a GI was sitting alone eating dinner. I bought his dinner and had a couple shots with him. without provacation, he admitted that the MISSION was a pile of DUNG and all his fellow troops knew it. they were just there following orders until new REAL leadership gets into power.  This is from someone i did NOT even know.  that is how bad it is. Your moronic comments only show that YOU DONT HAVE A CLUE WHAT THE DOOR KICKER THINKS.  you just parrot gop talking poinst like it's fact and hope no one calls you on it.

Do you really expect us to believe this pile of dung heap?  My best friend is in Gitmo, he believes in the war.  Another one of my friends is a an Air Boss on a carrier, before that he was the CO of a fighter squadron, he believes in the war.  I also know a Marine RESERVIST going back for his 2nd tour and he believes in the war, etc, etc.  You just posted some fantasy crap in an attempt to back up your belief that the military is demoralized.

jokeness wrote:[Do you really expect us to believe this pile of dung heap?  My best friend is in Gitmo, he believes in the war.  Another one of my friends is a an Air Boss on a carrier, before that he was the CO of a fighter squadron, he believes in the war.  I also know a Marine RESERVIST going back for his 2nd tour and he believes in the war, etc, etc.  You just posted some fantasy crap in an attempt to back up your belief that the military is demoralized.

no fantasy,  but i know for you to handle the reality of the situation you need to claim that

Why is it that more military contributions are going to Obama and much more military vets are going to political service as DEMS ??

The latest:



a twenty year naval veteran who has decided to challenge (Florida Republican Congressman Adam) Putnam is his central Florida bastion east of Tampa. Formerly a strong Democratic district, dispirited Democrats didn’t even bother running a candidate in 2006. Tudor is shaking up politics in Polk County, not by trying to echo Republican talking points but by presenting a clear and powerful alternative, the alternative Americans want to hear. Predictably, the cowardly Democratic Establishment, which prefers Republican-lite candidates, is trying to ignore his grassroots race. Tudor, who traveled to Iraq over 30 times, has been endorsed by Democracy for America. His politics are strongly progressive across the board. He wants to end the war in Iraq. He defends a woman’s right to choice. He would never support inequality for any Americans and he supports the equal rights for gay men and women. He knows Bush will never end the war and in his campaign speeches he calls on Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and Florida Senator Bill Nelson to end the war. I had a feeling he might have something to say about warrantless wiretapping and retroactive immunity. He did:
“On five occasions during my Navy career, I raised my hand and affirmed ‘to protect and defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic.’ Members of Congress take a similar oath. I believe that those members who voted in favor of HR 6304 did so in violation of their oath of office. I would have voted against this bill.”

the Yeti wrote:

jokeness wrote:[Do you really expect us to believe this pile of dung heap?  My best friend is in Gitmo, he believes in the war.  Another one of my friends is a an Air Boss on a carrier, before that he was the CO of a fighter squadron, he believes in the war.  I also know a Marine RESERVIST going back for his 2nd tour and he believes in the war, etc, etc.  You just posted some fantasy crap in an attempt to back up your belief that the military is demoralized.

no fantasy,  but i know for you to handle the reality of the situation you need to claim that

Why is it that more military contributions are going to Obama and much more military vets are going to political service as DEMS ??

The latest:



a twenty year naval veteran who has decided to challenge (Florida Republican Congressman Adam) Putnam is his central Florida bastion east of Tampa. Formerly a strong Democratic district, dispirited Democrats didn’t even bother running a candidate in 2006. Tudor is shaking up politics in Polk County, not by trying to echo Republican talking points but by presenting a clear and powerful alternative, the alternative Americans want to hear. Predictably, the cowardly Democratic Establishment, which prefers Republican-lite candidates, is trying to ignore his grassroots race. Tudor, who traveled to Iraq over 30 times, has been endorsed by Democracy for America. His politics are strongly progressive across the board. He wants to end the war in Iraq. He defends a woman’s right to choice. He would never support inequality for any Americans and he supports the equal rights for gay men and women. He knows Bush will never end the war and in his campaign speeches he calls on Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and Florida Senator Bill Nelson to end the war. I had a feeling he might have something to say about warrantless wiretapping and retroactive immunity. He did:
“On five occasions during my Navy career, I raised my hand and affirmed ‘to protect and defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic.’ Members of Congress take a similar oath. I believe that those members who voted in favor of HR 6304 did so in violation of their oath of office. I would have voted against this bill.”

Wow, you quoted 1 article and now you're an expert on the military.  I'm impressed, NOT.  I noticed this guy didn't resign even though he disliked Bush's policies quite unlike those staff officers who resigned because of Clintons policies. Tell you what, you show me your DD214 and I'll show you mine.  If you don't have one or don't know what one is (be honest, don't google it in an attempt to "look" like you know) then stfu and go away.

jokeness wrote:[Wow, you quoted 1 article and now you're an expert on the military.  I'm impressed, NOT.  I noticed this guy didn't resign even though he disliked Bush's policies quite unlike those staff officers who resigned because of Clintons policies. Tell you what, you show me your DD214 and I'll show you mine.  If you don't have one or don't know what one is (be honest, don't google it in an attempt to "look" like you know) then stfu and go away.

He must be another "Phoney Soldier" since he does not walk the Bush party line of  stagnant wars for maximum profits.  

Lose a debate and start the DD214 talk.  What does your or my service have to do with what i wrote??

Why not address the FACT that Obama is getting more contributions from SOLDIERS and that a major majority of retired military that join the club in politics are doing it as DEMOCRATS ??

the article , AS I SAID, was just the LATEST  (in a long line)

the Yeti wrote:

jokeness wrote:[Wow, you quoted 1 article and now you're an expert on the military.  I'm impressed, NOT.  I noticed this guy didn't resign even though he disliked Bush's policies quite unlike those staff officers who resigned because of Clintons policies. Tell you what, you show me your DD214 and I'll show you mine.  If you don't have one or don't know what one is (be honest, don't google it in an attempt to "look" like you know) then stfu and go away.

He must be another "Phoney Soldier" since he does not walk the Bush party line of  stagnant wars for maximum profits.  

Lose a debate and start the DD214 talk.  What does your or my service have to do with what i wrote??

Why not address the FACT that Obama is getting more contributions from SOLDIERS and that a major majority of retired military that join the club in politics are doing it as DEMOCRATS ??

the article , AS I SAID, was just the LATEST  (in a long line)

I never called him a "phoney soldier", don't put words in my mouth internet thug.  Furthermore I didn't lose any debate.  You say "FACT" so often and yet you show no proof.  Like I said earlier stfu and go away.  Thanks for playing the internet.  Better luck next time.  The only "FACT" that I will concede is that you played the "innocent Libertarian" far longer than most trolls.  Congatulations!  Maybe you should be an actor.