Wednesday March 12, 2014
Jump to content
The fact that you have never heard of them, Ted, is why you don't have a clue what your ideology, and its main messiah currently infesting our White House, really stand for.
If you think that was Saul Alinsky's philosophy, you are a bigger fool than I thought you were. Saul Alinsky's set forth his philosophy on the first page of his "Rules for Radicals": "What follows is for those who want to change the world from what it is to what they believe it should be. The Prince was written by Machiavelli for the Haves on how to hold power. Rules for Radicals is written for the Have-Nots on how to take it away."
Note he did not say "how to earn it," or "how to improve your life by establishing a work ethic," or "how to build a better mousetrap." No, he said "how to take it away." People who support the political ideology you support, Ted, are not people who want to produce anything, or enhance anyone's living standard, or improve the economy. They, like you, would rather "take it away" from those who do produce, who do enhance the living standard of all, who do improve the economy.
Maybe you should stop being so negative and start producing something people want, instead of supporting the robbery of everyone else so you can feel like a charitable person.
Oh, by the way: I don't know if Saul Alinsky was a Jew or not; I never thought about it and I don't care. But yes, I do hate what Commies stand for, because they stand for tyranny and oppression, and their ideology justified one of the major holocausts of around 20 million people, as well as the tyranny and oppression of many times that number. And here is one of their ideological slogans, from Vladimir Lenin himself (quoted, BTW, by Saul Alinsky): “They have the guns and therefore we are for peace and for reformation through the ballot. When we have the guns then it will be through the bullet."
You always leave yourself wide open, Ted: If you knew anything about history, you wouldn't be falling for every stupid "fresh idea" that has been tried before, sometimes dozens of times, and has always resulted in absolute tyranny and despotism. Your ideas are not "fresh;" they are as old as feudalism and their purpose is to restore the concept prevalent in the entire world prior to the American Revolution: The concept that "Kings govern by the Divine Right of Kings to Govern." We kicked that tyrannical concept out of our nation with extreme prejudice in 1776, Ted, but there are always those willing to sucker the low information types back into their clutches with promises of security in their old age, promises to bail them out with free this and free that when they make stupid life decisions and find out that stupidity has lifelong consequences. And they make those stupid life decisions because the consequences aren't important, almighty government, supported by the groaning taxpayer, will bail them out and make it all better. And before long those poor suckers find out that whoever the local party apparatchik may be, he owns them, body and soul, and if they don't like they way they are treated they can lay down their pickaxe and go talk to that jackbooted thug over there with the shotgun.
Your political ideology has consequences, Ted, you just have no understanding of how hard they are going to hit you, because you can't be bothered to learn about history.
I can offer one theory. It is probably not true in every case, but I've seen it often enough that I have to give it some credit. I knew a helicopter gunship pilot who served several tours of duty in Viet Nam, and he was one of the most progressive (read "Marxist useful idiot") I've ever met. He proudly bragged to me that he got more downchecks than anyone in his unit for making that helicopter do things its manufacturer said it could not do, and the mechanics in his unit were constantly griping over the extra work he caused them by actually exceeding the design envelope of the aircraft and popping rivets and tackwelds. He was proud of this, and now he was a CEO of some kind of design company, and he bragged about how all the "conservatives" in his employ said his ideas "couldn't be done," but he always made them do it anyway. There's your answer: Ted Paulk's kind of people are people who don't believe in rules, don't believe in limits, don't believe in hard and fast rights of anyone if those rights get in the way; don't believe in anything that gets in their way. It is a form of rampant narcissism, the type exemplified by the squadron commander in the movie Apocalypse Now who bragged "I just LOVE the smell of napalm in the morning!" The kind of guy who doesn't give a damn how many men he loses as long as he gets the glory for completing the mission.
(Sigh.) Since you don't understand the concept of a metaphor, Ted, I will explain it to you: The Koran is the "Bible" of Islam. Saul Alinsky's "Rules for Radicals" is the "Bible" of the Marxist community organizer (and, incidentally, several presidents and their Marxist Mafia infesting the Senate). The Communist "Rules for Revolution," supposedly found by Allied forces in 1946 may be a hoax, but the reason the alleged hoax is so effective is because the list of "Rules" given in the hoax is exactly the game plan (aka "Bible") of the Old Communist Party, the New Communist Party, and the covert Neo-Marxists that have been infesting our federal (and many State) governments since the close of WWII. They were designed by Lavrenty Beria, First Deputy Premier of the Soviet Union under Josef Stalin, and the most ruthless murderer (short of Stalin himself) ever to hold office in that bogus dictatorship. The use of these "rules" have already achieved the first phase of the Communist Plan; to wit, putting a majority of their covert apparatchiks into the U.S. Senate so their Manchurian Candidate, the incompetent sock-puppet Barry Soetoro (alias Obama), cannot be tried on Articles of Impeachment. Clearly, you are not "at a loss for words" when a legitimate alarm is sounded in our local paper; you do exactly what Marxist apparatchiks and their useful idiots always do when their game is exposed: Hurl vile epithets at the messenger in hopes that no one will take him seriously, and he will take his hurt feelings and go hide. Newsflash, Ted: Ain't going to happen: We know your game and the game of those you support, and we will stand toe-to-toe with you in every forum in the land if necessary and slug it out. Your game is done, Ted.
No, we didn't miss it, Ted. It is the typical excuse wannabe tyrants have always used, since time immemorial, to control the flow of information so they could work their will on the people with impunity. We see through you, Ted, because we learn from history.
Nah, Ted; when we don't, we just consider the source.
No, it wasn't. And you jump to more conclusions with less justification than anyone I know.
Mr. Verhulst, you didn't need to tell me you are a Democrat; I picked that almost immediately -- in fact, about the time you said "I am not for smaller government, ... " and then thought you were being consistent when you followed that with the claim that you believe in more effective, efficient government.
Newsflash, Mr. Verhulst: More effective, efficient government is more oppressive, tyrannical government. Hitler's regime was very effective, and very efficient. Stalin's regime was very effective, and very efficient.
OTOH, maybe you WERE being consistent: Both of those regimes were huge in their control of the people and the pursuit and murder of their opponents and those merely thought to be their opponents.
Oh, by the way: You ask, "So, what would Christ really do when confronted with homeless, hungry and medically needy citizens?" Answer: He helped them. He DID NOT, as you are doing, advocate government point a gun at everyone's head and order them to help the less fortunate in a cheap ploy to get their votes in the next election.
Who the hell are you to invoke Christ's name in support of robbery and government tyranny, Mr. Verhulst? Is that who you think Christ is?
You think you sound so charitable, but you are just another charlatan taking Christ's name in vain in support of robbery by a bunch of Marxist thugs. If you are a fiscal conservative, stop trying to rob citizens blind to make you look like a false Christ. We'll do charity according to our lights, Mr. Verhulst; not yours. And we will support the federal government doing what it is delegated the authority by the Constitution to do, and nothing else.
Very well-said and very accurate, Mr. Oestmann. FYI, I recently had a fairly highly-placed member of the Arizona legislature recently tell me he has become convinced the objective of the federal government is to dissolve the States or render them completely moot and replaced our federalist government with a national government: One government fits all. Of course, this has always been the objective of tyrants: The bigger the government, and the more layers of government, the less any one thug can be held accountable for his tyranny.
Last login: Saturday, February 22, 2014