Are you a "Useful Idiot"? DISCUSS

[1ViciousGSX]

This thread has gone just about the way I figured it would. I didn’t create the post; I just shared it for open discussion.
Rather than look at it on the merits of what it implies or ask, the thread went straight on to discredit the person who wrote it because the original author stated it was Saul Alinsky who said it. Of course it wasn't Saul Alinsky. But that's all that was focused on to discredit it (except AwdGSX13, he got it).
And that seems to be the way of left vs right, liberal vs conservative, black vs white, Christian vs Atheist, etc. as a way to not talk about what it really says. It's really is a sad state of affairs for everybody.
Ok, so let’s remove the "Saul Alinsky didn't write it" part out of it and say he did write it, or Mickey Mouse wrote it, doesn't really matter. Tell yourself somebody wrote it and now discuss it for the merits of what it says and not who wrote it or why.

[polishmafia]

I have to completely disagree with you. The majority of us know that opening discussing topics such as this on a car forum is basically an exercise in futility.

Basically its a waste of time.

[1ViciousGSX]

Originally Posted by polishmafia

I have to completely disagree with you. The majority of us know that opening discussing topics such as this on a car forum is basically an exercise in futility.

Basically its a waste of time.

I disagree. What difference does it make if its a car forum, a guitar forum, or a house painting forum? It's in the Political section. So if you can't seperate the two it's not our fault.

[Goat Blower]

NABR went on this same path just before it went extinct. No car talk, just political bickering.

[A//// Guy]

Originally Posted by polishmafia

I have to completely disagree with you. The majority of us know that opening discussing topics such as this on a car forum is basically an exercise in futility.

Basically its a waste of time.

Yep, nothing good ever really comes of it, people just get fed up with the other sides viewpoint, because its always wrong and they post meaningless gifs and images instead.

Waste of time indeed.

[polishmafia]

Originally Posted by 1ViciousGSX

I disagree. What difference does it make if its a car forum, a guitar forum, or a house painting forum? It's in the Political section. So if you can't seperate the two it's not our fault.

Sheesh. So literal. Let me correct my statement.

Originally Posted by polishmafia

I have to completely disagree with you. The majority of us know that opening discussing topics such as this ON THEM INTERNETS is basically an exercise in futility.

Basically its a waste of time.

Better?

[1ViciousGSX]

Originally Posted by polishmafia

Sheesh. So literal. Let me correct my statement.



Better?

Why even waste your time and ours if you have nothing to add to the discussion?

[polishmafia]

Originally Posted by 1ViciousGSX

Why even waste your time and ours if you have nothing to add to the discussion?

[A//// Guy]

Gooo US And A!

[jeremy1375]

Originally Posted by 1ViciousGSX

This thread has gone just about the way I figured it would. I didn’t create the post; I just shared it for open discussion.
Rather than look at it on the merits of what it implies or ask, the thread went straight on to discredit the person who wrote it because the original author stated it was Saul Alinsky who said it. Of course it wasn't Saul Alinsky. But that's all that was focused on to discredit it (except AwdGSX13, he got it).
And that seems to be the way of left vs right, liberal vs conservative, black vs white, Christian vs Atheist, etc. as a way to not talk about what it really says. It's really is a sad state of affairs for everybody.
Ok, so let’s remove the "Saul Alinsky didn't write it" part out of it and say he did write it, or Mickey Mouse wrote it, doesn't really matter. Tell yourself somebody wrote it and now discuss it for the merits of what it says and not who wrote it or why.

The post says that Saul Alinsky wrote the "How to create a social state". He didn't. The point of the rumor thread was to create a link between Obama and Hillary since they had written about Alinsky and imply they are following the 8 levels of control - which Alinsky didn't write.

Since Alinsky didn't write How to create a social state, what is the point of discussing it?

[AwdGSX13]

If you forget about who wrote it and ignore the link between obama and hillary, is that something that you see today? That is what he is getting at. Is it even possible that if they do control those 8 levels that it would have some truth?

[Goat Blower]

[jeremy1375]

Ok, let's call this thing here the 8 level of a 1st world country. An alternate version of the initial post.

1) Healthcare - Universal health care
2) Poverty - Unlike 3rd world countries, the majority of people do not live in poverty
3) Debt - A central bank exists where all money is created from an equal amount of debt
4) Gun Control - All first world countries have some level of gun control
5) Welfare - There is a safety net system in place to help those who are struggling.
6) Education - The highest levels of education exist here.
7) Religion - No religions should be given priority
8) Class Warfare - As has always existed in history class warfare exists. Economists are working on the best way to handle this.

I just wrote this now. Do you see my point yet?

[1ViciousGSX]

So, once again, rather than discuss the topic at hand, you'd rather deflect the discussion and insert your own?

[jeremy1375]

So rather than address the validity of the 8 levels of control, you just are willing to give them merit since they suit your beliefs?

[A//// Guy]

socialist pear says lol wut

[jeremy1375]

We should just rename the whole politics section to "Of course the liberal agenda is evil and going to destroy our country, if you think otherwise you're an idiot."

[1ViciousGSX]

Its not about what I believe, it never was. Nowhere in this thread have I stated an opinion about the validity of it. Nice try though.

[jeremy1375]

If validity is not important in the post, then what is?

[1ViciousGSX]

Originally Posted by jeremy1375

If validity is not important in the post, then what is?

The question of "Could there be some truth to the message?" outside of the Alinsky referrence?

Was the original poster trying to offer up something that made you think for a moment, outside of our predetermined assumptions, a view point that looking from the outside in could make those statements seems true? Or at least plausible? Or just rediculous?