GeneralThis forum is for non-technical general discussion which can include both Linux and non-Linux topics. Have fun!
Notices
Welcome to LinuxQuestions.org, a friendly and active Linux Community.
You are currently viewing LQ as a guest. By joining our community you will have the ability to post topics, receive our newsletter, use the advanced search, subscribe to threads and access many other special features. Registration is quick, simple and absolutely free. Join our community today!
Note that registered members see fewer ads, and ContentLink is completely disabled once you log in.
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us. If you need to reset your password, click here.
Having a problem logging in? Please visit this page to clear all LQ-related cookies.
Get a virtual cloud desktop with the Linux distro that you want in less than five minutes with Shells! With over 10 pre-installed distros to choose from, the worry-free installation life is here! Whether you are a digital nomad or just looking for flexibility, Shells can put your Linux machine on the device that you want to use.
Exclusive for LQ members, get up to 45% off per month. Click here for more info.
Mr. Manning may be partially right in that our President is beholden to some evil people. He may be right that our President is acting in a way that is contrary to America's best interest. However, Obama is still the President of the United States of America, and I am, and I believe Mr. Manning is a citizen of that country. Therefore, it is our God-given responsibility to honour our President. That includes respect. In the first few moments of the clip, Mr Manning says not to respect the people who follow this Biblical command. It is a shame that he calls himself a pastor and does not know this.
This preacher Tony Smith is right in much of what he is saying, however, I don't believe that it is correct to attack other men, only their doctrine. A lot of what he is doing seems to be simply insulting the man instead of correcting his doctrine. Outside of his attitude, though, I give him credit for teaching holiness, which if a vital part of the gospel. It isn't taught near enough in our culture and is the reason the lost have justification to call us hypocrites.
It is the hypocrisy of Christians that is bringing the judgement of God upon America and allows us to be subject to a king such as Obama. We must learn to submit ourselves to our President and the judgement upon us, repent of our sins, and seek God. Only then, and with long forbearing can we persuade our princes and see our land restored.
flip to 6:00 and listen to his part on leadership...
then consider this text from the books Rules for Radicals, which describes HOW the tactic came to be, and the book Propaganda which explains what the effects are as of 1955.
and yes, I copied all of this straight from the book in < 10 minutes.
From "Their Own Petard" -- Rules for Radicals
The basic tactic in warfare against the Haves is a mass political jujitsu: the Have-Nots do not rigidly oppose the Haves, but yield in such planned and skilled ways that the superior strength of the Haves becomes their own undoing. For example, since the Haves publicly pose as the custodians of responsibility, morality, law, and justice (which are frequently strangers to each other), the can be constantly pushed to live up to their own book of morality and regulations. no organization, including organized religion, can live up to the letter of its own book.
You can club them to death with their "book" of rules and regulations. This is what that great revolutionary, Paul of Tarsus, knew when he wrote to the Corinthians: "Who also hath made us able ministers of the New Testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit; for the letter killeth." Let us take, for example, the case of the civil rights demonstrations of 1963 in Birmingham, when thousands of Negro children stayed out of school to participate in the street demonstrations.
The Birmingham Board of Education dusted off its book of regulations and threatened to expel all children absent for this reason. Here the civil rights leaders erred (as they did on other vital tactics) by backing off instead of rushing in with more demonstrations and pressing the Birmingham Board of Education between the pages of their book of regulations by forcing them to live up to the letter of their regulations and statements. The Board and the City of Birmingham would have been in an impossible situations with every Negro child expelled and loose on the streets--if they didn't reverse themselves before they acted, they would have reversed themselves one day later.
Another dramatic failure to understand tactics came during the second Chicago public school boycott in 1964, a struggle against a de facto segregated public school system.
We know that the efficacy of any action is in the reaction it evokes from the Haves, so that the cycle escalates in a continuum of conflict. lacking any reaction from the Haves (except public notice of the numbers of children involved), effects of the boycott were significantly over by the next day.
This boycott was what I call a terminal tactic, one that crests, breaks, and disappears live a wave. Terminal tactics do not arouse the reaction that is essential for the development of a conflict. A terminal tactic is to be exercised only to finish a conflict, for it is ineffective in the development of the rhythm of give and take that one must have while stepping up the war and building the movement.
Civil rights leaders could console themselves with the "psychological carry-overs," "public display of support," and similar prayerful hopes, but as for carrying on the conflict for integration, that was over and done with by the next day. Nice memory.
In Chicago the Haves slipped badly when both a judge and a district attorney muttered that the book of regulations banned attempts to induce the absence of public school students, and growled ominously about an injunction against all civil rights leaders taking part in the development of the boycott. here , as always, when ever the haves start living by their book they present a golden opportunity to the Have-Nots to transform what had been a terminal tactic into a sweeping advance on many fronts.
The children wouldn't need to be absent-- the leaders would be the only people who needed to act. Now was the time to start an intensive campaign of ridicule, insults, and taunting defiance, daring the district attorney and the judge either to live up to their regulations and issue the injunctions or stand publicly exposed as fearful frauds who were afraid to put the law where their mouths were.
Such behavior on the part of the Have-Nots would probably have resulted in the injunction. But by the time this boycott tactic would have had shaking consequences. Immediately following the boycott every civil rights leader in the city of Chicago involved in it would have been in violation of the court injunction.
But the last thing that the establishment wants is to indict and imprison every single civil rights leader (which would have included leaders of every religious organization in town) in the city of Chicago. Such a step would have shaken the power structure of Chicago, and certainly put the entire issue of school segregation policy on the line.
Without any question, the district attorney and the judge would have had to depend on postponements in the hope that everybody would just forget about it. At this point, now that the civil rights leaders had the powerful weapon of the book of laws of the haves, they would have to stand fast publicly--once against taunting, insulting, demanding that the judge and the district attorney "obey the law," charging that the district attorney and the courts had issued an injunction which they had publicly, willfully, and maliciously violated, and that they therefore must be compelled to pay the penalties for this action.
If the civil rights leaders insisted that they be arrested and tried, the Haves would be on the run and in complete confusion, caught in the strait jacket of their own book.
From "Propaganda and political leadership" --- Propaganda
The great political problem in our modern democracy is how to induce our leaders to lead. The dogma that the voice of the people is the voice of God tends to make elected persons the will-less servants of their constituents. This is undoubtedly part cause of the political sterility of which certain American critics constantly complain.
No serious sociologist any longer believes that the voice of the people expresses any divine or specially wise and lofty idea. The voice of the people expresses the mind of leaders in whom it believes and by those persons who posed of inherited prejudices and symbols and cliches and verbal formulas supplied to them by the leaders.
Fortunately, the sincere and gifted politician is able, by the instrument of propaganda, to mold and form the will of the people.
Disraeli cynically expressed the dilemma, when he said: "I must follow the people. Am I not their leader?" He might have added: "I must leader the people. Am I not their servant?"
Of course, though, Dubya, Clinton, et al would all face the same scrutiny had the public pursued them. Perhaps Obama's main goal IS to expose the corruption by being the most corrupt SOB ever. If that is the case, then I salute him for being a liar-to-prove-a-point.
In contrast to that other recent thread of yours (which is creative, inviting and has a non-volatile topic) this one exists of ninety-nine percent material made by somebody else, makes statements instead of inviting discussion, is (explicitly meant to be) derogatory against those who can not defend themselves and may well be highly irrelevant, in the direct sense, to approximately that ninety-nine percent of this forums population that would actually be interested in interesting, constructive political discussion (as opposed to political agitprop and pamphleteering).
I'd like to suggest your personal web log may be a better place for promoting strong political affections done this way.
Honestly I don't get it. Obama bowed to the Saudi King, he bowed to the Japanese Royal family, as well as the Queen of England, and the right is making a fuss. Yet the right didn't make much of a fuss when Bush was walking and HOLDING the Saudi King's HAND!
It is hard not to cut Obama a break on this one, when the right is just a bunch of hypocritical demagogues.
The basic tactic in warfare against the Haves is a mass political jujitsu: the Have-Nots do not rigidly oppose the Haves, but yield in such planned and skilled ways that the superior strength of the Haves becomes their own undoing. For example, since the Haves publicly pose as the custodians of responsibility, morality, law, and justice (which are frequently strangers to each other), the can be constantly pushed to live up to their own book of morality and regulations. no organization, including organized religion, can live up to the letter of its own book.
This is not Ju Jutsu.... ROFL
This is Aikido...
Or in Chess parlance, this is Like Alekhine defense...
1. e4 Nf6
2. e5 ??...
White wants it all : centre, development, initiative... well let them take it all, Black will get it all back PLUS WHITE'S KING!!...
Like Russel Crowe in the Coliseum Arena in "Gladiator"...
"... so they're coming...? let them come... fast "
Heh. He is paid by the Saudis until proven otherwise..
And freedom of religion as stated in your constitution applies to everyone. Apart from the US president obviously.
It was a lot of fun watching though. I wish I could talk like that. African American have the coolest way of talking
The idea of holding the right wing of any country to their own moral standards is terribly naive. Really naive.
And the person who is president is free to have a religion, it's the office of President of the United States that can't have a religion.
No no, Xavier, as history has evidenced, holding a group of rulesetters to their own rules is TERRIBLY effective at destroying them. Just LOOK at what it has done to the legal system, the education system, the law enforcement system, the transportation system, and everything else that can be ruined by exposing its imperfections.
As a result of constantly being abused, these institutions are 100% defensive against their own communities. Effectively they have been broken of their will, and made to follow the will of their abusers.
Outstanding. An innocent system (and honest, for the most part), that had great functionality in its infancy, is now beaten into submission and longs for the days that were good, or for mercy in execution.
But this happened because people organized to erode the integrity of the institutions by publicly humiliating them, forcing them to defend one position or the other and in any case, they'll come out looking totally incompetent and unworthy of their positions. In addition to that they pushed these organizations, in the same manner, to enforce new rules, and then make radical changes that would create or overtake the political process by an external group.
That is the point of the text from Rules for Radicals. Saul Alinsky was born in 1909, and from what I've gathered so far, the man has left a huge impact in the world of activism AND business. His vicious nature is not of a love for people but of a love for ruining the lives of people by using other people that have no lives.
In terms of the Republicans, how's that working? How many people that were anti-homosexual have resigned *before* being found out as homosexuals? And the same goes for any of their other sins.
In terms of the Republicans, how's that working? How many people that were anti-homosexual have resigned *before* being found out as homosexuals? And the same goes for any of their other sins.
Ted Haggard, Shepard Smith, Larry Craig, Bob Allen, Glenn Murphy Jr. All people who upheld ant-gay discrimination and all people who turned out to be gay. None of these people outed themselves. Now, they are supposed to be held to their principles and ideas all the time - they were all in positions of power - yet none of them came forward of the own volition and all of them voted against something which directly affected them.
Ted Haggard, Shepard Smith, Larry Craig, Bob Allen, Glenn Murphy Jr. All people who upheld ant-gay discrimination and all people who turned out to be gay. None of these people outed themselves. Now, they are supposed to be held to their principles and ideas all the time - they were all in positions of power - yet none of them came forward of the own volition and all of them voted against something which directly affected them.
Then perhaps Saul Alinsky's followers should have been organizing THEM!
Perhaps my words are not understood to you since I have an unfamiliar perspective on things as of late.
"people organized" means some people were organizing some other people.
"People organized to erode" means "people purposefully organized (other people) to erode <this thing>"
I find the most interesting aspect of it all is that to defend against this sort of behavior one need only to recall the old child-rearing instructions of, "Once you give in, you've lost."
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing
Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute
content, let us know.
