Red meat from redstate
 

This is a swipe from KOS I thought hysterical:



Well, surprise, surprise, it seems that some on the right actually have
learned something from this election cycle.

I'm sure we all remember Sarah Palin's hateful RNC speech where she
compared herself to Barack Obama by saying that she "guessed" being a
small town mayor was kinda, sorta, yup, yup, you betcha like being a
community organizer, except with "actual responsibilities." Oh, how the
Republicans laughed at the stupid community organizer who thought his
stupid organizing abilities could win him the Presidency. The extremely
white GOP got a good laugh at the idea that a black man with experience
in motivating and organizing urban communities to action could translate
into success in electoral politics.

Well, they're not laughing anymore. In fact, it looks like at least a
few have figured out the joke's on them if tonight's foray to Redstate
blog is any indication. In a discussion about the future of their woeful
party, I learned several are reading Saul Alinsky's "Rules for Radicals"
and hoping to use Obama's playbook to defeat us next time:

I agree with you--and look forward to an engaging discussion on
conservative principles and issues.

But I wonder if we need some thoughtful discussion on tactics. I
have been reading Alinsky and have come to realize that the current
Democrat victories are linked to smart tactics described by Alinsky 37
years ago.

I wouldn't propose that we use the Radical's tactics, but we better
learn from them and develop tactics of our own for dealing with our
current situation.

I was thinking about reading Alinsky

How pertinent are you finding him? I'm especially thinking about
community organizing and whether or not we could put that to use.

Luckily for us, most GOPers are too stupid to recognize a good idea when
they hear one, judging by this follow-up comment:

You should read Rules for Radicals as a know your enemy course. You
can't use it much to organize the kinds of people Republicans draw from
though. It really only works with the young, the poor, the stupid, or,
preferably, those who are a combination of those.

Thank God there are so many of us "young, poor and stupid people" around
and we can now sit back and laugh at all of the old, rich and
oh-so-intelligent citizens who voted for McCain/Palin. It does make me
smile, though, that they are eating their anti-community organizer words
and I just wanted to share this.

Red meat from redstate
 

The Kos?? Yeah, they are about as honest as you are but don't fret,
after the fairness doctrine (censorship doctrine) is passed this will
be the only news we will have... Pffffttttt...

Red meat from redstate
 

Red meat from redstate
 

On Nov 20, 8:07*am, Boater wrote:
wrote:
The Kos?? Yeah, they are about as honest as you are but don't fret,
after the fairness doctrine (censorship doctrine) is passed this will
be the only news we will have... *Pffffttttt...

If the possibility of reinstating the fairness doctrine drives you as
nutso as it seems to, well, then, it is worth reimposing.

Yes, in a typically selfish manner you are willing to throw out the
Constitution just for your own personal satisfaction... We know Harry,
as long as you have yours..

Red meat from redstate
 

On Nov 20, 7:55*am, wrote:
The Kos?? Yeah, they are about as honest as you are but don't fret,
after the fairness doctrine (censorship doctrine) is passed this will
be the only news we will have... *Pffffttttt...

Ya know, Scotty, I'm pretty liberal in nature, but that fairness
doctrine is a bunch of crap! When liberal thinking people go so far
overboard, it ****es me off because then people who are not liberal
tend to lump us all together and claim we are ignorant. I overheard a
debate on the radio last night where one dude was espousing the good
of the fairness doctrine. He came off sounding like an idiot.

Red meat from redstate
 

Red meat from redstate
 

On Nov 20, 8:31*am, Boater wrote:
wrote:
On Nov 20, 8:07 am, Boater wrote:
wrote:
The Kos?? Yeah, they are about as honest as you are but don't fret,
after the fairness doctrine (censorship doctrine) is passed this will
be the only news we will have... *Pffffttttt...
If the possibility of reinstating the fairness doctrine drives you as
nutso as it seems to, well, then, it is worth reimposing.

Yes, in a typically selfish manner you are willing to throw out the
Constitution just for your own personal satisfaction... We know Harry,
as long as you have yours..

*From what little I read about it, reimposition of the doctrine would
require broadcast stations to broadcast competing views on the issues of
the day. So?

You should really get informed about the issues before you spout off,
seems to be a trend... Are you sure you graduated High School?

Red meat from redstate
 

Boater wrote:
wrote:
The Kos?? Yeah, they are about as honest as you are but don't fret,
after the fairness doctrine (censorship doctrine) is passed this will
be the only news we will have... Pffffttttt...


If the possibility of reinstating the fairness doctrine drives you as
nutso as it seems to, well, then, it is worth reimposing.

What I want to know is what the Progressive/Liberal/Democrats are afraid
of from the right? Why do they have this urge to silence those that
disagree with them. If the last election has any meaning then
conservative talk radio and Fox News failed. Why try to silence them if
they have been found or proved to be ineffective?

2010 will provide all of the answers.

Red meat from redstate
 

Boater wrote:
wrote:
On Nov 20, 8:07 am, Boater wrote:
wrote:
The Kos?? Yeah, they are about as honest as you are but don't fret,
after the fairness doctrine (censorship doctrine) is passed this will
be the only news we will have... Pffffttttt...
If the possibility of reinstating the fairness doctrine drives you as
nutso as it seems to, well, then, it is worth reimposing.

Yes, in a typically selfish manner you are willing to throw out the
Constitution just for your own personal satisfaction... We know Harry,
as long as you have yours..

From what little I read about it, reimposition of the doctrine would
require broadcast stations to broadcast competing views on the issues of
the day. So?

Does that apply to TV too? If no, why not?

Red meat from redstate
 

Red meat from redstate
 

On Nov 20, 8:48*am, BAR wrote:
Boater wrote:
wrote:
On Nov 20, 8:07 am, Boater wrote:
wrote:
The Kos?? Yeah, they are about as honest as you are but don't fret,
after the fairness doctrine (censorship doctrine) is passed this will
be the only news we will have... *Pffffttttt...
If the possibility of reinstating the fairness doctrine drives you as
nutso as it seems to, well, then, it is worth reimposing.

Yes, in a typically selfish manner you are willing to throw out the
Constitution just for your own personal satisfaction... We know Harry,
as long as you have yours..

*From what little I read about it, reimposition of the doctrine would
require broadcast stations to broadcast competing views on the issues of
the day. So?

Does that apply to TV too? If no, why not?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You should really look into this, it is a dangerous bill. It will put
assholes like Harry, Nancy Pelosi, and the rest of their dishonest ilk
in charge of the media. It has been in the planning stages for many
years. That's why even though several surveys say Fox news is the most
balanced news channel, the left has been pushing the bias tag on them
for so long. How many times have you heard someone say Fox is not
fair. Then ask them how they know, if they watch. No, they don't
watch, "someone told them it was". One lady I talked to told me "my
son sent me a warning from College not to watch Fox".. She just sucked
it up...

Basically, the way it works is someone like say, Al Sharpton gets to
decide what is left and what is right leaning radio. Remember, no one
wants to listen to Air America, it's boring and full of hate.. So the
radio stations want to play Rush, or Mike because it brings in
listeners and ad dollars. Al Frankin brings in nothing but must be
played after Rush meaning the radio station must basically give away
half of it's resources instead of bringing in ad revenue.. This will
force the radio stations to stop playing "right leaning" airtime all
together. Who can afford to give away half the farm? It already
started with the censorship squad Obama sent to Ohio. It was manned
with prosecutors and sherrifs who went to several stations to tell
them if they played a particular NRA add during the election,they
would be froghopped out of their executive suits and charged with
fraud.. Even though the ads simply noted that Obama had indeed signed
on to gun bans several times..

It is censorship, wait till it goes into effect. They will claim "The
Daily Kos" to be balanced, and "The New York Lies" to represent the
right snerk

Red meat from redstate
 

Red meat from redstate
 

On Thu, 20 Nov 2008 07:53:06 -0500, Boater wrote:


Thank God there are so many of us "young, poor and stupid people" around

You got one out of three right. Not bad.


and we can now sit back and laugh at all of the old, rich and
oh-so-intelligent citizens who voted for McCain/Palin. It does make me
smile, though, that they are eating their anti-community organizer words
and I just wanted to share this.

--
John H.

Red meat from redstate
 

On Thu, 20 Nov 2008 05:20:32 -0800 (PST), wrote:

On Nov 20, 7:55*am, wrote:
The Kos?? Yeah, they are about as honest as you are but don't fret,
after the fairness doctrine (censorship doctrine) is passed this will
be the only news we will have... *Pffffttttt...

Ya know, Scotty, I'm pretty liberal in nature, but that fairness
doctrine is a bunch of crap! When liberal thinking people go so far
overboard, it ****es me off because then people who are not liberal
tend to lump us all together and claim we are ignorant. I overheard a
debate on the radio last night where one dude was espousing the good
of the fairness doctrine. He came off sounding like an idiot.

The liberals I've talked to haven't heard about it, unless they've
accidentally watched Fox News and heard more than the daily pablum
presented by NBC. Once it's explained to them, they're very opposed to it.
But none of the major media, or major players on the hill (like Pelosi or
Reed) will explain the *real* ramifications of the act.

Obviously, Harry gets all his news from Brian Williams and didn't know what
the 'Fairness Doctrine' was an attempt to do. His attitude, 'If it does
away with Rush Limbaugh, it has to be good,' is typical of those with their
heads buried to the shoulders in their asshole.

They don't realize that it's nothing more than an act to squelch free
speech. Glad you got to hear something about it, and that you saw through
the bull****.
--
John H.