Pat Boone Calls The President A Marxist

[slapout9]

Alinsky suggests in Rules that we have three basic groups: Haves, Have Nots and Have Some & Want Mores. While his tactics are not inherently left or right, they are inherently useful only to an "outsider" group - to Have Nots vs Haves and/or Have Some & Want Mores (e.g., his community activism in Chicago); or to Have Some & Want Mores vs Haves (e.g., his later advocacy of stockholder activism).

That is straight up Marxism. Marx called the proletariat (have nots) the Bourgeoisie (the haves) and the petite(Sometimes called petty) bourgeoisie(have some and want some more/middle class/small businesses)

Should Alinsky's personal political ideology (as opposed to his tactics, which are not so classifiable) be classified as "markist", "socialist", "populist"; or as an individualistic blend belonging to no group ? He claimed the last.

yes he does say that but his recomended actions dipute that...such as a rent strike again that is straight up Marxism

As to President Obama, my belief is that he tends to be more "socialist-populist" on domestic issues than any thing else. He has certainly tied into the Haves and Have Nots dichotomy; and has used that issue very effectively against the Republicans in general, and against Mitt Romney in particular.

Yes and that is almost straight out of Alinsky's book

Using the Haves and Have Nots dichotomy may be as much pragmatism as ideology on the President's part. It ties into what a substantial segment of Americans perceive (and therefore, believe).

Again that is almost Alinskyism (just invented that) word for word.

Regards

Mike

PS: the infiltration of canines into the feline Tidy Cat world began innocently enough:
but allowed the bloodhound to get his nose into the tent. After that, the rest was "his story". Really, a classic in infiltration and subversion.

Glad to hear that.... wouldn't want to be accused of having anything to do kitty napping or strange disappearances.

[Fuchs]

As an outsider who's not driven by partisan views I tell you that you are projecting.

The Haves and have-nots thing here mirrors the 47% discussion from the last presidential election and you guys demonstrate that it's now a if not THE framework for your thinking.

I cannot spot any confirmation for your suspicions from my informed outsider perspective.

Instead, the high profile Democratic policies look to me basically like the policies of a party that thinks the government is meant to work for the people, while Republican policies look to me a lot like they think the U.S. is a military with a government for Pentagon financing and enforcement of morals.


Whatever you seemed to imply here in regard to haves and have-nots and stuff can easily fit into the framework I just gave you. That may be projection on my part, but it should still show your view isn't the only possible one.


P.S.: Whoever says Obama is a Marxist only displays that he's either not serious or is clueless about Marxism, period.

[J Wolfsberger]

Instead, the high profile Democratic policies look to me basically like the policies of a party that thinks the government is meant to work for the people, while Republican policies look to me a lot like they think the U.S. is a military with a government for Pentagon financing and enforcement of morals.


Whatever you seemed to imply here in regard to haves and have-nots and stuff can easily fit into the framework I just gave you. That may be projection on my part, but it should still show your view isn't the only possible one.

It is projection on your part. Not very well informed projection, either.