Skip to comments.Lawrence O'Donnell Grills Empty Chair
Posted on 08/31/2012 10:30:49 AM PDT by bugseye
After George Zimmerman's lawyer was a no-show, O'Donnell interviews an empty chair.
Did he think of this before or after Clint Eastwood’s speech at the RNC?
The video was from March 27th 2012. (sorry for not making that clear).
Mad Larry is such a creative fellow, doncha think? Wonder where he came up with that idea?
Perfect! Copycatting Eastwood and keeping the chair skit in the news, love it! The most sincere form of flattery. hehehehe
Wow... the “we DID build it!” meme is still standing strong, and here comes ANOTHER sturdy “framing” of the empty suit!
heh heh... Alinsky would be astonished at the way the (R)s have turned his own techniques against one of his star pupils. :-)
Our Empty-Seat-In-Chief would be proud.
Moron as usual.
Good job! Keep it up!
RULE 5: Ridicule is mans most potent weapon.
RULE 6: A good tactic is one your people enjoy.
RULE 8: Keep the pressure on. Never let up.
RULE 12: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.
“Using Alinsky against a Marxist — as sweet as using an AK-47 against a ChiCom platoon!”
What has more wrinkles, Larry O’Donnell’s panties or Helen Thomas’ face?
Enquiring minds do not want to think about it.
There is actually some truth to some of Alynsky’s methods in that they are stolen from very old group leadership manuals. Where Alynsky fell off the rails is his use of deceptive means to the end (ends justify the means) and destruction versus positive action.
But things like you pointed out- simplifying the message to a clear target, making sure people enjoy acting on your behalf, continued pressure, ridicule (humor), are pretty universal lessons.
Wherever he got them, there’s no question that in the hands of skilled practitioners Alinsky’s methods are very effective as a form of asymmetrical warfare.
And you may or may not agree with me on this — but I say we ARE engaged in a form of WAR with the socialists and marxists. The days of civil politics, where both sides essentially agree on fundamental values but disagree on techniques and practices, are over, at least for a while.
So I’m strongly in favor of using against the ‘rats whatever tools WORK. Including tools “their side” came up with.
I completely agree.
Unfortunately, I’ve seen too many who immediately shy away from ridicule saying ‘we don’t use Alynsky’.
You should be banned for life for using the words, "panties" and, "Helen Thomas" in the same sentence.
From what I’ve seen of U.S. cable news shows, (and heard on most talk radio shows); it would save the producers a lot of time, effort and money if they just provided the hosts with empty chairs to interview. (There’s so much bloviating, and talking over the “guest”, that the guests are just reduced to props anyhow.)
NOTHING is racist when a Democrat does it.
EVERYTHING is racist when a Republican does it.
NOTHING is divisive when a Democrat does it.
EVERYTHING is divisive when a Republican does it.
NOTHING is criminal when a Democrat does it.
EVERYTHING is criminal when a Republican does it.
NOTHING is objectionable when a Democrat does it.
EVERYTHING is objectionable when a Republican does it.
“What has more wrinkles, Larry ODonnells panties or Helen Thomas face?”
You should be banned for life for using the words, “panties” and, “Helen Thomas” in the same sentence.”
Duly noted, though in my defense, I *did* separate and distinguish panty possession between the two offending parties in this case.
That is mental ward material there, pal. Don’t answer the door.