Oh please go on. You said it had nothing to do with the GOP yet Dick Armey endorses it, thereby refuting your argument.
Your link was a JOKE SIGHT!!!!!! You have not a clue.... youre just running BS... you got hosed. ( drudge RETORT?)
Here ya go Travis, the Tribune did an article, too.
Gingrich and Alinsky: Newt Gingrich's secret love affair with Saul Alinsky's tactics - Chicago Tribune
There are two sources -- both conservative leaning: the Wall Street Journal, and Drudge. Give it up homey. Desperation is so unattractive.
WTF are you trying to spin here?.. you need to go into the proffession of spin...
Please... just stop..FAIL...
go run this BS to a bunch of stoned teenagers..
You can read correct? well if you read that it shows Newts DISDAIN for Obama and Alinsky...its an OPINION piece by some libtard trying to tear down Newt and its factless..just his libtard opinion that He think Newt does the same..
Pathetic.. give up on debate..
Calm down, Chief. Three sources all refute your claim. You're just looking more and more desperate. Relax, there are plenty of other bogus talking points for you to choose from. How about ol' Rev. Wright? :lol:
Go back to school.. fail...Politico is a vile Liberal site ..
who you jivin?... really... enough... adults know Rules is for LIBERAL...
have you read this book of BS?...
:lamo :lamo
The Wall Street Journal, Drudge, the Chicago Tribune, Politico, the Washington Post, CNN ... THEY'RE ALL LYING!!!!!!
Saul Alinsky lives on in GOP rhetoric - The Washington Post
My God... NONSENSE.... The Wapo?... thanks for the punch line.. the joke is even funnier now..again it was Drudge RETORT... and the whole thing is nonsense...
Next time try to sell me "Dreams of my Frank Marshall" is about the life of GWB....LOL
You can ignore the facts and three articles that refute your claim. You can cover your eyes and plug your ears, screaming "La La La La La." But, you see the letters up at the top that say "D-E-B-A-T-E?" Yeah, you aren't really engaging in that. You might want to go elsewhere and search for a forum that promotes emotional attachment to non-factually based claims.
re-posted just because it deserves to be readYou can ignore the facts and three articles that refute your claim. You can cover your eyes and plug your ears, screaming "La La La La La." But, you see the letters up at the top that say "D-E-B-A-T-E?" Yeah, you aren't really engaging in that. You might want to go elsewhere and search for a forum that promotes emotional attachment to non-factually based claims.
re-posted just because it deserves to be read
Yea sure... you are a powerful debator..
You got destroyed.. but the funniest part is it was YOU who took you down...
you are trying to prove that for some bizarre reason you think Rules by Alinsky is written for and used by the GOP.. when you are so out there that the book was writen as I said for liberals to use to try to take down the system... just becasue some light in the head libs want to say it does not make it true.. your links are joke, your premise is stupider then the links..
reality sucks..huh..?
It's used by both sides. That's called "bipartisanship" and you should try it sometime. You claim it was written for liberals "to use to try take down the system" which is funny because Cons like to fight the system as well. It is utilized by both sides so to stand up and proclaim otherwise is just ignorance on a massive level. Also, just because you want to say they're liberal does not make it so. If you disagree, they aren't automatically liberal. Finally, my premise is stupid? Well it's backed up by facts, it's not stupid. I'll let everyone else decide which is stupid: denying bipartisanship and facts, or stating facts and making an objective observation based on said facts.
FAIL... really..I love when a lib tries to tell me what us GOP care about or use..
let me know when you want to make a real point.. because your blathering about this invalid angle of your that sounds like some grade school homework assignment is a bore..your links were BS and DISPROVED YOU..
Its written for and and used by LIBERALS..it was the premise if the book..
have you read it?..do you know what the books is about?
Lib better be short for Libertarian.
Well if they are BS you should have no problem refuting them with facts. I'll be waiting.
It's about organizing movements. It's a "how-to" for activists.
yea sure it is... whatever you need to tell your teacher to get that A...
now please get back to the thread topic ..
Sorry, it showed up for me because I'm a subsriber. Here's the relevant part:
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?