Originally Posted by InChiefsHell
I was not comparing them apples to apples. It was a poorly drawn analogy, admittedly, but an analogy nonetheless. I was trying to illustrate the concept that even if someone hasn't heard of someone, it doesn't mean that person was insignificant. It seems that you base the importance of Alinsky to his "notariety" rather than what his philosophy was and who subscribes to that philosophy.
This is why I hate arguing on this board. People seize on non-substantive shit to win an argument, rather than to just think about the intended meaning.
You should hate arguing on this board, because you aren't very good at it. The reason you used Hitler and Stalin is because you couldn't think of an actual analogous right wing equivalent.
I don't care about winning an argument, but don't try to tell me that throwing Hitler and Stalin into your argument is non-substantive. You probably thought it was pretty stupid when liberals were doing it with Bush.