Don't you mean gruesome?
Ben Carson plays the Lucifer card
- Thread starter christiefan915
- Start date
Don't you mean gruesome?
Airstrip One
Completely Effed
Fuck Lucifer.
Ben Carson, in Line at the Airport: The Liberal Media Made It Sound as If I’d Called Hillary a Devil-Worshipper
...A little while ago, I found myself in the TSA security line behind Ben Carson, where I had the chance to ask him the question that’s been on my mind since his speech on Tuesday, when he said, apropos of Hillary Clinton, “Are we willing to elect as president somebody who has as their role model somebody who acknowledges Lucifer?” I wanted to know: What is the connection between Clinton and the devil?
Carson thought this was an unfair question. He had merely said that Clinton was influenced by someone, Saul Alinsky, who praised Lucifer. (In an epigraph to his 1971 book Rules for Radicals, Alinsky described Lucifer as “the first radical known to man.”) The liberal media, Carson said, had twisted it to suggest that he’d called Clinton a devil-worshipper. But why, I asked, did he bring up Lucifer at all? Yes, Clinton wrote her senior thesis at Wellesley about Alinsky. But what’s the significance of a 45-year-old dedication on a book by someone Clinton admired in college? “If she admires somebody like that, that should tell you a lot,” he said. “My hope is that people will look up Saul Alinsky and read his book so that they know for themselves and don’t have to have somebody give them propaganda.”
What, I asked Carson, makes him think Clinton’s been influenced by the famed left-wing organizer since graduation? “Read the book. You’ll see exactly what I’m talking about,” he said. In what sense? “I’m not going to tell you. You’re going to have to read it yourself. That’s my whole plan. I want people to read for themselves. That’s part of our problem. We’re so ignorant, we have no idea what’s going on.” You could take that last line as an expression of self-awareness, but I don’t think he meant it that way.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slat...ds_lucifer_comment_about_hillary_clinton.html
...A little while ago, I found myself in the TSA security line behind Ben Carson, where I had the chance to ask him the question that’s been on my mind since his speech on Tuesday, when he said, apropos of Hillary Clinton, “Are we willing to elect as president somebody who has as their role model somebody who acknowledges Lucifer?” I wanted to know: What is the connection between Clinton and the devil?
Carson thought this was an unfair question. He had merely said that Clinton was influenced by someone, Saul Alinsky, who praised Lucifer. (In an epigraph to his 1971 book Rules for Radicals, Alinsky described Lucifer as “the first radical known to man.”) The liberal media, Carson said, had twisted it to suggest that he’d called Clinton a devil-worshipper. But why, I asked, did he bring up Lucifer at all? Yes, Clinton wrote her senior thesis at Wellesley about Alinsky. But what’s the significance of a 45-year-old dedication on a book by someone Clinton admired in college? “If she admires somebody like that, that should tell you a lot,” he said. “My hope is that people will look up Saul Alinsky and read his book so that they know for themselves and don’t have to have somebody give them propaganda.”
What, I asked Carson, makes him think Clinton’s been influenced by the famed left-wing organizer since graduation? “Read the book. You’ll see exactly what I’m talking about,” he said. In what sense? “I’m not going to tell you. You’re going to have to read it yourself. That’s my whole plan. I want people to read for themselves. That’s part of our problem. We’re so ignorant, we have no idea what’s going on.” You could take that last line as an expression of self-awareness, but I don’t think he meant it that way.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slat...ds_lucifer_comment_about_hillary_clinton.html
I never understood the Alinsky thing.... I never heard of him until that Mormon fella on tv brought him up in one of his wild plots.. I think Carson is playing/fighting last presidential election battles..
He is a foot note now, hopefully he sticks to cutting ppl open or whatever he is up to now days.......
He is a foot note now, hopefully he sticks to cutting ppl open or whatever he is up to now days.......
Lol @ the lawyer who didn't practice due diligence. Hillary wrote the thesis in 1969. Rules for Radicals was published in 1971. Only hacks like Carson and you would try to smear her with Alinsky's Lucifer comment two years before it was written.
PostmodernProphet
fully immersed in faith..
????....so you think Alinsky underwent a radical transformation (pun intended) between 69 and 71?......chances are he already felt highly about Lucifer's politics before he wrote the acknowledgement.......
Lucifer is totally a Republican.
Satan's a defender of personal liberty who rebelled against the tyranny of the Great Regulator. Why don’t Republicans like him?
Ben Carson suggested that Hillary Clinton is in league with the devil. Not that she, in the sleepy-eyed neurosurgeon’s view, is morally compromised. Not that she has evil intentions for the nation. That she actually harbors sympathies for the fallen angel, Lucifer, himself...
The idea of Lucifer as a rebel possibly worthy of admiration, a ruler of his own realm (however dark and sulfurous), is absolutely Miltonic...
If Milton’s Satan had a platform, it would definitely be against big government and for individual liberty. Satan couldn’t stand submitting to “he who reigns Monarch in Heaven,” especially because God’s power, “upheld by old repute / consent or custom,” seemed unearned. This resentment was compounded by the unilateral elevation—by executive order, basically—of the Messiah over the angels.
Even in defeat, Satan explains to his followers that they can, and should, still fight back against the Divine Regulator “since no deep within her gulf can hold/ Immortal vigor, though oppressed and fallen,/ I give not Heaven for lost: from this descent/ Celestial virtues rising will appear/ More glorious and more dread than from no fall.” And then, under the pretense that this whole Hell thing might have a silver lining, Satan’s speech in Book II takes on a populist tone: “To union, and firm faith, and firm accord,/ More than can be in Heaven, we now return/ To claim our just inheritance of old/ Surer to prosper than prosperity/ Could have assured us.”
Make angels great again!
Christiefan version.....
The TRUTHFUL version....
---------------------
Christiefans's claim...
So who falsely claimed that the book was dedicated to Lucifer ?
YOU DID, FOOL..YOU AND SALON...........Huffington got it right...
Who it was dedicated to isn't even the topic.......Carson didn't mention it....only you did....liar.
You must be drunk. Reread the article and also what YOU quoted.
PostmodernProphet
fully immersed in faith..
Lucifer is totally a Republican.
why would you worship a Republican?.....
PostmodernProphet
fully immersed in faith..
maybe the next time he posts here you can ask him.......
Claim: Author Saul Alinsky dedicated his 1971 political tome 'Rules for Radicals' to Lucifer.
Mostly False
WHAT'S TRUE: Saul Alinsky wrote an epigraph describing the rebellious angel Lucifer as 'the first radical known to man' in his book 'Rules for Radicals.'
WHAT'S FALSE: Alinsky dedicated 'Rules for Radicals' to Lucifer.
Origin: On 19 July 2016, former presidential candidate Dr. Ben Carson gave a speech before the Republican national Convention in which he claimed that Rules for Radicals author Saul Alinsky, who he said is "greatly admired" by Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, acknowledged Lucifer on the dedication page of the book:
Now, one of the things that I have learned about Hillary Clinton is that one of her heroes, her mentors, was Saul Alinsky. And her senior thesis was about Saul Alinsky. This was someone she greatly admired and that affected all of her philosophies subsequently. Now, interestingly enough, let me tell you something about Saul Alinsky.
He wrote a book called "Rules for Radicals." On the dedication page it acknowledges Lucifer, the original radical who gained his own kingdom. Now, think about that. This is a nation where our founding document, the Declaration of Independence, talks about certain inalienable rights that come from our creator, a nation where our Pledge of Allegiance says we are "One nation under God." This is a nation where every coin in our pockets and every bill in our wallet says, "In God We Trust." So are we willing to elect someone as president who has as their role model somebody who acknowledges Lucifer? Think about that.
But while it's true that one of three epigraphs on an introductory page (not a dedication page) of Rules for Radicals characterizes Lucifer as the "first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment," the book is neither dedicated to Lucifer, nor need it be read as an endorsement of devil worship or Satanism, despite what Carson seems to have implied.
This is the epigraph in question:
WHAT'S TRUE: Saul Alinsky wrote an epigraph describing the rebellious angel Lucifer as 'the first radical known to man' in his book 'Rules for Radicals.'
WHAT'S FALSE: Alinsky dedicated 'Rules for Radicals' to Lucifer.
Origin: On 19 July 2016, former presidential candidate Dr. Ben Carson gave a speech before the Republican national Convention in which he claimed that Rules for Radicals author Saul Alinsky, who he said is "greatly admired" by Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, acknowledged Lucifer on the dedication page of the book:
Now, one of the things that I have learned about Hillary Clinton is that one of her heroes, her mentors, was Saul Alinsky. And her senior thesis was about Saul Alinsky. This was someone she greatly admired and that affected all of her philosophies subsequently. Now, interestingly enough, let me tell you something about Saul Alinsky.
He wrote a book called "Rules for Radicals." On the dedication page it acknowledges Lucifer, the original radical who gained his own kingdom. Now, think about that. This is a nation where our founding document, the Declaration of Independence, talks about certain inalienable rights that come from our creator, a nation where our Pledge of Allegiance says we are "One nation under God." This is a nation where every coin in our pockets and every bill in our wallet says, "In God We Trust." So are we willing to elect someone as president who has as their role model somebody who acknowledges Lucifer? Think about that.
But while it's true that one of three epigraphs on an introductory page (not a dedication page) of Rules for Radicals characterizes Lucifer as the "first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment," the book is neither dedicated to Lucifer, nor need it be read as an endorsement of devil worship or Satanism, despite what Carson seems to have implied.
This is the epigraph in question:
Lest we forget at least an over-the-shoulder acknowledgment to the very first radical: from all our legends, mythology, and history (and who is to know where mythology leaves off and history begins — or which is which), the first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom — Lucifer.
— SAUL ALINSKY
http://www.snopes.com/saul-alinsky-dedicated-rules-for-radicals-to-lucifer/
— SAUL ALINSKY
http://www.snopes.com/saul-alinsky-dedicated-rules-for-radicals-to-lucifer/
PostmodernProphet
fully immersed in faith..
agreed......the claim that Carson said Alinski dedicated his book to Lucifer IS mostly false......several people have already corrected you on that......Claim: Author Saul Alinsky dedicated his 1971 political tome 'Rules for Radicals' to Lucifer.
Mostly False
however, your snopes link does actually prove that what he really said about Alinsky is 100% accurate......I believe this also has already been pointed out to you....when will you get tired of repeating the same error?.......
Truly you cannot follow a thread. I'm the one who said that Carson's claim was false in the first place. I OWN the book and KNOW it wasn't "dedicated" to Lucifer. When will you get tired of lying about it?
CARSON DID NOT CLAIM THE BOOK WAS DEDICATED TO LUCIFER....
AND YOUR READING COMPREHENSION SUCKS
Carson's 'claim' was not false.....your claim was false...
In your little mind, does that say Alinsky dedicated the book to Lucifer ?.....No it doesn't .... but that is what you're claiming Carson said....You're WRONG, admit it.
Acknowledge doesn't mean 'dedicated'.....
It does say that on that page...Alinsky mentions Lucifer....here it is..........
Last edited:
PostmodernProphet
fully immersed in faith..
you're being incredibly dense today.....Carson didn't claim the book was dedicated to Lucifer.......I didn't claim the book was dedicated to Lucifer......all God's chil'en didn't claim the book was dedicated to Lucifer.....therefore, we don't give a fuck if snopes says its false to say the book was dedicated to Lucifer......he said Alinsky "acknowledged" Lucifer and a direct quote of Alinsky by snopes has him acknowledging Lucifer......are you through being a dumbfuck now or do you plan to continue?......
Leonthecat
Racism Watchdog
PostmodernProphet
fully immersed in faith..
BucKKKle selfie.....
..