Punish Law Abiding Citizens and Ignore Criminals. Great Plan. Fucking Idiots.

[2233boys]

FYI...Yes they do work. They are incredibly effective. This entire thread is evidence of the effectiveness. Divide and conquer. Pervert the language. It works with simpletons that rely on Comedy Central as their main source of information from which they develop their world views.

Wow

 

[JBond]

Wow

Poorly constructed sentence? Or do you beleive the Alinsky tactics are not effective?

 

[2233boys]

Poorly constructed sentence? Or do you beleive the Alinsky tactics are not effective?

I found it amusing that you would make that kind of claim.

I used to say the same thing about people with your viewpoints, instead I would say you sound like a Fox News broadcast or its like I'm listening to Rush Limbaugh. I've tried to quit doing that because I don't believe it fosters dialogue. There is a real problem in our country and it comes in the form or ideologues on both sides. Honest Discussion and debate are the only things that will move our country forward. I don't think comments like the one I bolded are helpful. To be fair, the pictures I posted also aren't helpful but I did only post them by themselves not attached to anyone's opinion. I also thought they were funny.

 

[JBond]

I could have thrown out any source of "news". That is not the point. You are focusing on the wrong thing. The point I was making is that simple people are easily swayed by Alinsky tactics. Either side can use them. Do you disagree they are not effective?

In this thread people have perverted the language and have responded to feelings developed from misinformation rather than facts. Textbook Alinsky.

 

[junk]

I'd bet I work just as much as you and have about 20x the potential you ever had. As a matter of fact I'd bet my life on the fact that I will be at least 1,000x more successful than you ever will.

Keep portraying all gun supporters as dumb hicks. It further supports the idea that you're just as dumb as we think you are.

What? 20x more potential and 1000x more successful? At what? You might not want to bet your life on that

I'll admit my characterizations were unfair though so I do apologize for that

I stand by my argument however.

 

[2233boys]

I could have thrown out any source of "news". That is not the point. You are focusing on the wrong thing. The point I was making is that simple people are easily swayed by Alinsky tactics. Either side can use them. Do you disagree they are not effective?

In this thread people have perverted the language and have responded to feelings developed from misinformation rather than facts. Textbook Alinsky.

What does this have to do with the discussion? To be honest I don't care. Can simple people be swayed sure the can, and so can intelligent people when someone develops a critically thought out response. It doesn't make any difference unless you are trying to minimize every opposing view in this thread.

 

[Minimalist]

Wow this is followed up by your post to me?

Yes. I'm under the impression he was insinuating that I don't work and is assuming all gun rights supporters are hicks and dumb. I could have misinterpreted what he said but from how I interpreted it my response was justified. If I misinterpreted it then it's simply a mistake.

 

[ThaBigP]

What does this have to do with the discussion? To be honest I don't care. Can simple people be swayed sure the can, and so can intelligent people when someone develops a critically thought out response. It doesn't make any difference unless you are trying to minimize every opposing view in this thread.

Like responding to a deluge of sources, when you guys demand evidence, with giggle emoticons, asking for their manifesto and calling them a domestic terrorist? Sure, it's all tongue-in-cheek, but does that constitute a "critically-thought-out response"?

 

[JBond]

What does this have to do with the discussion? To be honest I don't care. Can simple people be swayed sure the can, and so can intelligent people when someone develops a critically thought out response. It doesn't make any difference unless you are trying to minimize every opposing view in this thread.

Sigh...I responded to minimalist regarding tactics he believed do not work when you chimed in. You choose to respond. What exactly are you confused about regarding the flow of conversation?

 

[Minimalist]

What? 20x more potential and 1000x more successful? At what? You might not want to bet your life on that

I'll admit my characterizations were unfair though so I do apologize for that

I stand by my argument however.

At life. Making $$$. Having a career. Playing a significant role in society.

It's irrelevant now though. I'm not trying to make this personal. Not everyone who supports gun rights is a moron. There are facts(history) that support a reason to acknowledge the possibility, however small it may be, of government running amok. The likelihood shouldn't matter though. The slim possibility should be enough.

 

[2233boys]

Sigh...I responded to minimalist regarding tactics he believed do not work when you chimed in. You choose to respond. What exactly are you confused about regarding the flow of conversation?

I think I answered you but let me know if I didn't.

 

[2233boys]

Like responding to a deluge of sources, when you guys demand evidence, with giggle emoticons, asking for their manifesto and calling them a domestic terrorist? Sure, it's all tongue-in-cheek, but does that constitute a "critically-thought-out response"?

Fair enough

 

[junk]

Yes. I'm under the impression he was insinuating that I don't work and is assuming all gun rights supporters are hicks and dumb. I could have misinterpreted what he said but from how I interpreted it my response was justified. If I misinterpreted it then it's simply a mistake.

No where did I imply you don't work.

As I said, some of my characterizations were probably poorly worded and I apologize. I struggle with the idea of a group of gun owners organizing and being well enough equipped/trained to repel this hypothetical invading Chinese Army.

I also never said gun owners were dumb.....just that I felt that particular argument is dumb. Most of my family are gun owners and I've owned guns in the past

 

[Minimalist]

What? 20x more potential and 1000x more successful? At what? You might not want to bet your life on that

I'll admit my characterizations were unfair though so I do apologize for that

I stand by my argument however.

At life. Making $$$. Having a career. Playing a significant role in society.

It's irrelevant now though. I'm not trying to make this personal. Not everyone who supports gun rights is a moron. There are facts(history) that support a reason to acknowledge the possibility, however small it may be, of government running amok. The likelihood shouldn't matter though. The slim possibility should be enough.

 

[ThaBigP]

At life. Making $$$. Having a career. Playing a significant role in society.

It's irrelevant now though. I'm not trying to make this personal. Not everyone who supports gun rights is a moron. There are facts(history) that support a reason to acknowledge the possibility, however small it may be, of government running amok. The likelihood shouldn't matter though. The slim possibility should be enough.

I think it's a head-scratcher to characterize "government-run-amok" as a rare event. Quite the contrary, liberty and the equitable rule of law is the "red-headed nerd" of history. The vast majority of people who've trod this earth have toiled under tyranny of some sort or fashion, whether it be monarchy, fascism, communism, oligarchy, or even anarchy (mob rule, usually by criminal gangs). And even anarchy reforms under tyranny as people are so desperate they will support anybody who will restore "order". Whatever order they may have in mind.

 

[Minimalist]

No where did I imply you don't work.

As I said, some of my characterizations were probably poorly worded and I apologize. I struggle with the idea of a group of gun owners organizing and being well enough equipped/trained to repel this hypothetical invading Chinese Army.

I also never said gun owners were dumb.....just that I felt that particular argument is dumb. Most of my family are gun owners and I've owned guns in the past

Got it. On the same page now

 

[Iamtdg]

At life. Making $$$. Having a career. Playing a significant role in society.

It's irrelevant now though. I'm not trying to make this personal. Not everyone who supports gun rights is a moron. There are facts(history) that support a reason to acknowledge the possibility, however small it may be, of government running amok. The likelihood shouldn't matter though. The slim possibility should be enough.

This is what it boils down to ultimately. Once you give them up, you never get them back. So, if that 1% chance happens you're fucked even though it was just a 1% chance.

 

[superpunk]

Like responding to a deluge of sources, when you guys demand evidence, with giggle emoticons, asking for their manifesto and calling them a domestic terrorist? Sure, it's all tongue-in-cheek, but does that constitute a "critically-thought-out response"?

If you're gonna be such an enormous baby maybe you should go back to conservatopia or renegade republiklan radio. Sure there isn't any discussion but at least you'll get your taint licked for your loquacious nonsense.

 

[JBond]

If you're gonna be such an enormous baby maybe you should go back to conservatopia or renegade republiklan radio. Sure there isn't any discussion but at least you'll get your taint licked for your loquacious nonsense.

How to Make Your Gerbil Happy

http://www.wikihow.com/Make-Your-Gerbil-Happy

 

[superpunk]

ty buddy