What "wild things"? "Dangerous" how? Doesn't the "radical left" (per definition of "radical" that pertains to potential calls to violence) mostly consist of, I dunno, PETA? Your innuendo is weak, child.
But of course, throughout history when dangerous, radical men have offered themselves up for leadership, their moderate supporters have rationalized their early support by hoping that the dangerous man is really a sensible man like them and doesn't believe some of those wild things he has said to his more fervent followers.
But as the campaign clock ticks down to its last days and hours, prudent people have to consider the possibility that beneath that easy manner and calming voice is the pulsating heart of a genuine man of the radical left.
(Obama) was a natural, the undisputed master of agitation, who could engage a room full of recruiting targets in a rapid-fire Socratic dialogue, nudging them to admit that they were not living up to their own standards. As with the panhandler, he could be aggressive and confrontational. With probing, sometimes personal questions, he would pinpoint the source of pain in their lives, tearing down their egos just enough before dangling a carrot of hope that they could make things better.Awesome! Why should I care that Obama can mindrape people?
So...you are complaining that he is teaching people how to protest against perceived injustice? Wow. Is your problem with this that they didn't just lie down and accept their lot in life, that they want to have a government that is actually beneficial to the general populace, or that they didn't use weaponry to make their displeasure known? Seriously, I would like to know.
The agitator's job, according to Alinsky, is first to bring folks to the 'realization' that they are indeed miserable, that their misery is the fault of unresponsive governments or greedy corporations, then help them to bond together to demand what they deserve, and to make such an almighty stink that the dastardly governments and corporations will see imminent 'self-interest' in granting whatever it is that will cause the harassment to cease. "In these methods, euphemistically labeled 'community organizing,' Obama had a four-year education,
But those accurate, in context words of Obama must raise in the mind of any reasonable person the suspicion that Obama's heart and soul is dangerously close -- if not fully seized of -- a Marxist (or perhaps Marxist Christian liberation theology) view of human and economic relations.LOLWUT? He said that the Warren Court wasn't too radical because it didn't deal with redistribution of wealth, said that redistribution of wealth isn't a practice that the federal government was designed to do, and that whatever redistribution we need needs to be done at a local, grassroots level. If merely mentioning money changing hands outside of market transactions, and that we have a major problem when it comes to wealth distribution that cannot be resolved through free market activity alone, counts as Marxism, I would hate to know what you call actual Marxists.
An envious world smells a momentarily vulnerable America. The political beneficiary of Republican failure believes our Constitution is fatally flawed. He may be a committed Marxist. And if he held the presidency for four years, it would be the longest stretch that he ever held a full-time job."Envious world"? Conceited of you. They are not so much envious, as pissed that we are arrogant enough to assume that every problem they have with us is due to envy. Obama thinks that the Constitution has one flaw, in that it does not explicitly mention methods of dealing with market activity. And he is not a committed Marxist. The smear machine is being brought up to 11. They are in a pinch. Please...please...don't mess this up America!