Zeitgeist Movement.... LAUNCHES TOMORROW

[muzzled dogg]

http://www.thezeitgeistmovement.com/

[JasonC]

zeitgeistmovement is like NWO lite. I'll pass.

[werdd]

yeah lets all submit to a one world goverment, not.

[Alawn]

I recently wrote G Edward Griffin about Zeitgeist Addendum and he posted a response about it on his news site. Here is what he had to say.


ZEITGEIST ADDENDUM - A CRITICAL REVIEW
Hello Mr. Griffin.
I'm sure you have heard of the popular movie on the internet, Zeitgeist. It had three separate parts about Christianity being fake, the Federal Reserve being a conspiracy and bad, and that the government was involved in 9/11. Well the sequel just came out, Zeitgeist Addendum, and it seems very dangerous. This movie screams controlled opposition/false solution propaganda more than anything I have ever seen.

The movie starts off with why the Federal Reserve is bad. It seems to latch onto valid concerns that the freedom movement/Ron Paul supporters have been worried about. But its solution is really, really bad and is already sending a lot of people in the wrong direction. It goes on to say that money is evil and has caused every problem in the world. If only we abolished all money and private property everything would be great. All resources should collectively belong to all humans of the world. Intelligent management of resources and technology could allow everyone to be free. The world would turn into some utopia. All crime would go away and greed and corruption would go away. We should be a one world community. It even specifically says that voting for liberty candidates like Ron Paul is the wrong thing to do. I guess we should give up all hope and let bad politicians do whatever they want to us.

It is full of doublespeak, wild assumptions, and crazy socialist propaganda. It also put in more about how religion is bad. I am convinced this thing was specifically made to stop the liberty movement from achieving anything. It puts in just enough truths that we believe in to trick people into following the wrong path.

I think statements about what is wrong with this film from liberty organizations like Freedom Force International would do a lot of good and would prevent some people from going in the wrong direction. Some people might think the best idea is to just ignore it and it will go away. But it appears to be incredibly popular online and gaining support. Even the most popular Ron Paul website posted the video. And the most popular Ron Paul message board has three threads with hundreds of posts talking about it. Here is the video link.
Jonathan, 2008 Oct 6

REPLY FROM EG:

Jonathan, I don't like to criticize anything that is helping to spread the truth about the Federal Reserve and 9/11 but I must agree with the substance of what you have said about this video. I watched it two nights ago and was deeply disturbed by its message. At first, I thought it would be best to just let it play itself out in expectation that most viewers would cross it off as whacky. However, the production value is high, the effects and sound score are compelling, and there is enough truth embedded in the beginning to capture the attention and possibly the trust of many within the freedom
movement. So here are my comments on a few items of concern:

1. The information about the Federal Reserve is, for the most part, right on target. However, I practically fell out of my chair when the program repeated that old, silly argument about the Fed not creating enough money to cover the cost of interest on debt; and, therefore, the world must forever be in debt. I knew right there that the writer did not read The Creature from Jekyll Island or, if he did, he forgot my analysis of this common myth. For those who are interested in that topic, it is fund on pages 191-192 of The Creature.

2. The next jolt came when the program praised Civil War Greenbacks, calling them debt-free. Actually, Greenbacks were contrary to the U.S. Constitution and, although they were not fiat money issued by the
banks, they were fiat money issued by the government. That was better than paying interest on nothing to bankers, but they still wiped out the purchasing power of American money through massive inflation. They
can not correctly be called debt-free, either, because they represented debt on the shoulders of the government, which means, of course, on the shoulders of the taxpayers. It never ceases to amaze me how people think
that the solution to money created out of nothing by those big, bad bankers is to have money created out of nothing by those nice, trustworthy politicians. Yet, that is what this program supports.

3. There is a lengthy segment in which the author of I Was an Economic Hit Man, John Perkins, tells the story of how propagandists in the U.S. manipulated public opinion to support military action against several Latin American countries. Then Perkins says that these propagandists scared Americans by telling them that the leaders of these countries were Marxists who were aligned with the Soviets. This, of course, is a half truth that is just as dangerous as a total lie. It is true about the propagandists and
their strategy to scare the public into supporting military intervention in those countries, but it is false to portray those dictators as great humanitarians who cared only for the well being of their people. That is total bunk. They WERE aligned with the Soviet Union and they WERE part of a Marxist/Leninist strategy to dominate Latin America; a strategy that continues to this day.

There was plenty not to like on both sides of that struggle, but objective historians would never depict the Rhodesians (the CFR crowd in the U.S.) as bad guys but depict the Soviet puppets as good guys. In his book, Perkins reveals this same slant. He exposes the foul tactics of international corporations, the IMF, and World Bank, but he never mentions a Leftist dictator, such as Fidel Castro or Hugo Chavez without praising them. Perkins is a collectivist aligned with the Left, and that strongly influences his telling of this story. Yet the producers of the video make no mention of this bias and give him an inordinate amount of time to present his slanted view without challenge.

4. Perhaps the biggest insult to our intelligence is the main theme of the program. It is that profits are the root of all our problems today. That being the case, we must change mankind to reject profit and we must work together on some other basis. It is never quite clear what that basis is, but, whatever it is, it will be administered and directed by an elite group, at least in the beginning. I was stunned by the fact that this is pure Marxism. Mark theorized that people had to be re-educated (in labor camps, if necessary) to cleanse their minds of the profit motive. He and his disciples, such as Lenin and Stalin and Khruschev, said that, eventually, the character of man would be purged of greed, and then the state would wither away because it no longer would be needed. Sure! We saw that in the Soviet Union and China, right? Yet this Marxist nonsense is exactly what is offered in this video program. It is Communism without using the name.

The profit motive is neither good nor bad. It can be applied either way depending on social and political factors. The desire for profit is merely the desire to be compensated for our labor, our creativity, our knowledge, or even for our risk. Without profit, very little would be accomplished in the world - not even if everyone spent a few years in labor camps to be re-educated. It is a basic part of man's nature and is the mainspring of human progress, as Henry Grady Weaver described it in his book by that same title. Throughout history, whenever man lived in a system that allows him to be rewarded for his work, there has been great productivity and abundance. By contrast, where social engineers gained control of the state and restricted people from receiving the fruits of their labor, productivity fell, and scarcity was the norm.

The profit motive functions differently in different political systems. In a free system where government does not intervene in the market place, the profit motive always will manifest itself as competition, each person or each company trying to deliver better quality products and services at lower prices. That was how it used to be in the early days of America, and that is what led to the greatest outpouring of productivity and abundance the world has ever seen. However, in a collectivist system where government controls every conceivable aspect of economic and commercial activity (the system that now exists in America), the profit motive always manifests itself as a quest for political influence and laws to favor one group over another. The net effect is to eliminate competition in the market place. Under collectivism, success is achieved, not by creating better products and services for less cost, but by controlling legislators and government agencies. It is a system of legalized plunder, as Frederic Bastiat called it in his famous treatise, The Law. Unfortunately, it is the system that dominates most of the world today.

Zeitgeist Addendum ignores this reality. At one point the narrator even says that the greatest evil in the world today is "the free enterprise system." That's an incredible statement, especially inasmuch as the free enterprise system has been dead for several decades. It lives in name only. The whole world now is in the grips of non-competitive monopolies and cartels that have forged partnerships with governments. All of the evils to which this program alludes are the result, not of the free enterprise system, but of
the abandonment of free enterprise and the adoption of collectivism. This program creates a mythological boogeyman and then advocates more of the very thing that has brought us to the mess we are in today.

The enemy of mankind is not profit. It is a political system of big government. Yet, this program is supportive of some of the most notable big-government collectivist on the planet. Marxist/Leninists may be enemies of collectivists in Washington, DC, but they are collectivists in their own right. The Communist model is no better than the Nazi model.

There is much more that could be said about other program topics such as technology supposedly being our salvation, about the a future world in which no one has to work, and about common ownership of land, oceans, natural resources, etc. but, for the most part, these merely are sub issues to the ones already described, so I will spare my readers the pain of further discourse.

In summary, this program does NOT offer a cure. It offers a mega dose of the disease itself.

Ed Griffin, 2008 Oct 9

http://www.realityzone.com/currentperiod.html

[muzzled dogg]

zeitgeistmovement is like NWO lite. I'll pass.

how do you figure?

[Alawn]

how do you figure?

Read the above post where G Edward Griffin explains how bad of an idea it is.


Then watch these videos on why it is bad.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EyQtN4HY4Ko
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-fv16-DftRE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JR7ZfTmxBjE

[muzzled dogg]

Read the above post where G Edward Griffin explains how bad of an idea it is.


Then watch these videos on why it is bad.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EyQtN4HY4Ko
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-fv16-DftRE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JR7ZfTmxBjE

i'm watchin the shit now and i do not see how the anarcho-communists intend to:

1) impose their school of thought on anyone, and

2) eliminate the current state and the current monetary institution simultaneously.

i'll let them worry about that. until then, i do not see how we cannot work with these folks to overthrow the state. why not work together for the anarcho-oriented goal?

are you afraid that they're gonna eventually wanna take your money? or are you afraid that eventually you'll wanna share?

[Conza88]

i'm watchin the shit now and i do not see how the anarcho-communists intend to:

1) impose their school of thought on anyone, and

2) eliminate the current state and the current monetary institution simultaneously.

i'll let them worry about that. until then, i do not see how we cannot work with these folks to overthrow the state. why not work together for the anarcho-oriented goal?

are you afraid that they're gonna eventually wanna take your money? or are you afraid that eventually you'll wanna share?

Anarcho-commune - ists...


I can't, believe, anyone, with half a brain, in this movement, would support anything as retarded as this.... please go re-take a look at the film, look closely, listen closely... G. E Griffin is spot on.



Ok, so anarcho-commune - ism is what you want, right? Even let's say it is anarcho-socialism, all voluntary there is no compulsion = awesome, you all go live with your robots and no work etc... leave the rest of us the f--- alone.

But I'll just let you know; anarcho-communism - tribes since the dawn of man. Aboriginals, American Indians, Tribes in the Amazon, Congo etc etc etc....

You want to regress back to before civilization?

Like I said; go - ahead... there are numerous planes waiting you can take...


"But there are no robots there etc..."

Yeah - because you need CAPITALISM to produce stuff... you need PRIVATE PROPERTY rights, the foundation of civilization.

[muzzled dogg]

Ok, so anarcho-commune - ism is what you want, right?


no, it's what they want



Even let's say it is anarcho-socialism, all voluntary there is no compulsion = awesome, you all go live with your robots and no work etc....

i hope they do


leave the rest of us the f--- alone..

dude they're peaceful, why not welcome their help in trying to end the state and dump the fed?

[dannno]

yeah lets all submit to a one world goverment, not.

Actually they believe in no government.

[dannno]

dude they're peaceful, why not welcome their help in trying to end the state and dump the fed?


It is tempting..


I do hope that teen4RonPaul person reads G Edward's rebuttal..


I have no problem with the Venus Project, as long as they are ultimately in favor of individual liberty (which they seem to be..) and peace.. I don't think they want to force people to do anything, they just want to break off the shackles so they can create their utopia.. And if it works, and currency becomes obsolete naturally, without force, I would be alright with that as well.


I guess it comes down to whether you think this whole Zeitgeist movement came about from random people or whether it was organized by a larger group..with alterior motives..

[yoshimaroka]

The Zeitgeist sequel is pretty horrible.

Please define anarcho-communism because it's oxymoron.

[dannno]

Please define anarcho-communism because it's oxymoron.

Communism without a state, aka pure communism..

[yoshimaroka]

The problem with socialism and communism, even in their pure forms, is that it only takes one person to blow it all to hell and subvert it into an unequal system. A person, or small group of persons, can quickly take control and use the entire infrastructure for their own ends, unopposed. (Hint: this is called the 'government' in these cases.) These systems *require* people to act selflessly and never in their own interests. This is impossible.


How does communism work without a state? Can you please elaborate on 'anarcho-communism'.

[Conza88]

How does communism work without a state? Can you please elaborate on 'anarcho-communism'.

Anarcho-COMMUNE (ism) or anarcho-socialism...

No state + collectivism.... (tribes)

i.e No property rights... etc.


Simply think tribes in the amazon, american indians, aboriginals etc etc.

[muzzled dogg]

Simply think tribes in the amazon, american indians, aboriginals etc etc.

according to the vid, resources were more scarce back then and we have technologies that can eliminate mundane tasks now

people can be free to paint and not to work a 40 hour work week doing something they hate, and still have food cause robots are workin the fields or some shit

[yoshimaroka]

OOooohhh

Communes.

I wouldn't want to be part of one. Under a limited government and free market system, people would be allowed to purchase land and not pay any taxes. You can have as many local communes as you want and not be bothered.

Freedom rulez.

[paulitics]

Anarcho-communism. Great idea, wrong species.

[yoshimaroka]

according to the vid, resources were more scarce back then and we have technologies that can eliminate mundane tasks now

people can be free to paint and not to work a 40 hour work week doing something they hate, and still have food cause robots are workin the fields or some shit

Who makes and services the robots? Whoever has the monopoly on robotics controls the whole system.

Local communes can work, but when it reaches a bigger scale, things turn ugly.

[muzzled dogg]

Who makes and services the robots? Whoever has the monopoly on robotics controls the whole system.

Local communes can work, but when it reaches a bigger scale, things turn ugly.

i'm not gonna pretend to know

i assume some dudes who are hungry

[Conza88]

i'm not gonna pretend to know

i assume some dudes who are hungry

Haha, yeah... that's the thing with this; they leave out pretty much every concievable detail in terms of obtainment... They set a goal.... but like communism it is pure fantasy... the movie says there is "no human nature"... :rolleyes: They set out practicaly, no details, what so ever...

It's an advocation of collectivism / communism whilst avoiding the labels and names completely. Abolition of money - Marxism. Abolition of private property (means of production) Marxism...

"according to the vid, resources were more scarce back then and we have technologies that can eliminate mundane tasks now"

Yes indeed. Now ask yourself, what social system got us this far, with all the immense hurdles government and state intervention through up in it's way? The Free market, capitalism. Regressing back past several thousand years of progress in terms of political system, ain't exactly smart. No private property rights? :confused: Kiss all progress and innovation good bye...

:)

[Thomas_Paine]

Anarcho-communism. Great idea, wrong species.

+1

Zietgeist = hive consciousness

[reduen]

Most retarded video I have seen in a long time. (Well ,ever really...)

My advice, do not waist your time on this....:rolleyes:

[phoobaar]

What I find bizarre is that so many so-called libertarians are baring their claws in response to this. Writing letters to G. Edward Griffin in search of a denouncement from on high? Is this warranted? Seriously? What's next, a seance to contact Joe McCarthy?

Can someone please explain to me how the Venus Project (http://www.thevenusproject.com/) is threatening? I'm looking at it, and perhaps I'm blind, but I don't see anything worth expending any energy against. I see no calls to bring on the dictatorship of the proletariat. They appear to have a different ultimate goal than we do, but it looks to be equally peaceful, and they're calling for the same means to achieve their end: dismantling the current rotten system and rebuilding one based on peace and freedom and equality. So what if they have a different understanding of what that means? So what if some futurist-hippies want to do their own thing? Why should we care? Some of us are not behaving like libertarians.

Sorry to burst whatever bubble you were gazing at, but libertarianism means that some people are going to create hippie communes and want nothing to do with laissez-faire orthodoxy. Anyone who growls at that idea is exposing themselves as an authoritarian; and a collectivist, for that matter. "You're not behaving correctly! Get your toe back on the ideological line! Impure thoughts will be exposed!" How ironic that I'm envisioning libertarian gulags right now.

I suspect some of us are just miffed over the perceived snub of Dr. Paul, and the strong words about religion. Well, get over it. None of that matters. What's matters is that these hippie-dippy-futurists want to dismantle all the same stuff we do. Thus, they are our allies -- unless you're a dogmatic, authoritarian, ideology-thumping wingnut, in which case I'll go stand with the hippies and start chopping away at the roots of this crappy system while you guys argue over who should be allowed to pick up an axe.

P.S. I find it telling, and troubling, that the disapproval of Zeitgeist is about as loud as the approval of Chuck Baldwin. Yet the former proposes a path of more freedom, for all, while the latter proposes a path of less freedom, for some. I suspect that many will find that statement controversial, but if you think very carefully about it I'm sure you'll understand why I made it. I'm intentionally not dropping any hints, because I want you to really think about it.

[AutoDas]

^ I have a problem with this movement because suddenly we get accounts that haven't been active for months or new accounts and they start spamming this RON PAUL forum with this nonsense.

[yoshimaroka]

What I find bizarre is that so many so-called libertarians are baring their claws in response to this. Writing letters to G. Edward Griffin in search of a denouncement from on high? Is this warranted? Seriously? What's next, a seance to contact Joe McCarthy?

Can someone please explain to me how the Venus Project (http://www.thevenusproject.com/) is threatening? I'm looking at it, and perhaps I'm blind, but I don't see anything worth expending any energy against. I see no calls to bring on the dictatorship of the proletariat. They appear to have a different ultimate goal than we do, but it looks to be equally peaceful, and they're calling for the same means to achieve their end: dismantling the current rotten system and rebuilding one based on peace and freedom and equality. So what if they have a different understanding of what that means? So what if some futurist-hippies want to do their own thing? Why should we care? Some of us are not behaving like libertarians.

Sorry to burst whatever bubble you were gazing at, but libertarianism means that some people are going to create hippie communes and want nothing to do with laissez-faire orthodoxy. Anyone who growls at that idea is exposing themselves as an authoritarian; and a collectivist, for that matter. "You're not behaving correctly! Get your toe back on the ideological line! Impure thoughts will be exposed!" How ironic that I'm envisioning libertarian gulags right now.

I suspect some of us are just miffed over the perceived snub of Dr. Paul, and the strong words about religion. Well, get over it. None of that matters. What's matters is that these hippie-dippy-futurists want to dismantle all the same stuff we do. Thus, they are our allies -- unless you're a dogmatic, authoritarian, ideology-thumping wingnut, in which case I'll go stand with the hippies and start chopping away at the roots of this crappy system while you guys argue over who should be allowed to pick up an axe.

P.S. I find it telling, and troubling, that the disapproval of Zeitgeist is about as loud as the approval of Chuck Baldwin. Yet the former proposes a path of more freedom, for all, while the latter proposes a path of less freedom, for some. I suspect that many will find that statement controversial, but if you think very carefully about it I'm sure you'll understand why I made it. I'm intentionally not dropping any hints, because I want you to really think about it.

From Page 2:

"OOooohhh

Communes.

I wouldn't want to be part of one. Under a limited government and free market system, people would be allowed to purchase land and not pay any taxes. You can have as many local communes as you want and not be bothered.

Freedom rulez."

[phoobaar]

^ I have a problem with this movement because suddenly we get accounts that haven't been active for months or new accounts and they start spamming this RON PAUL forum with this nonsense.

Oh get over yourself. I've been a supporter of Dr. Paul and continuously active @ DailyPaul for a year. I bailed when that place turned into a witch hunt for non-Christians and non-Baldwin supporters. They scare everybody away by checking their history and crying "TROLL!" and "SHILL!" if a "n00b" speaks out of line. It would be funny if it wasn't so sad. I've lurked here all along and I still lurk there. Somebody there linked to this thread, so I chimed in with my $0.02 because this anti-Zeitgeist paranoia is nothing but ridiculous, misplaced McCarthyism and red-baiting.

But I don't have to explain myself to a self-appointed movement-cop. You haven't even been here as long as me, yet you question my "street cred." This paranoia is absurd. I'd hoped this place wasn't as bad as DailyPaul.

This is you:

http://www.t-nation.com/img/photos/2008/08-atomicdog-008/image005.jpg

Now, would you like to tell me why my post was "nonsense," or are you just on a witch hunt?

[Conza88]

What I find bizarre is that so many so-called libertarians are baring their claws in response to this. Writing letters to G. Edward Griffin in search of a denouncement from on high? Is this warranted? Seriously? What's next, a seance to contact Joe McCarthy?

Can someone please explain to me how the Venus Project (http://www.thevenusproject.com/) is threatening? I'm looking at it, and perhaps I'm blind, but I don't see anything worth expending any energy against. I see no calls to bring on the dictatorship of the proletariat. They appear to have a different ultimate goal than we do, but it looks to be equally peaceful, and they're calling for the same means to achieve their end: dismantling the current rotten system and rebuilding one based on peace and freedom and equality. So what if they have a different understanding of what that means? So what if some futurist-hippies want to do their own thing? Why should we care? Some of us are not behaving like libertarians.

Sorry to burst whatever bubble you were gazing at, but libertarianism means that some people are going to create hippie communes and want nothing to do with laissez-faire orthodoxy. Anyone who growls at that idea is exposing themselves as an authoritarian; and a collectivist, for that matter. "You're not behaving correctly! Get your toe back on the ideological line! Impure thoughts will be exposed!" How ironic that I'm envisioning libertarian gulags right now.

I suspect some of us are just miffed over the perceived snub of Dr. Paul, and the strong words about religion. Well, get over it. None of that matters. What's matters is that these hippie-dippy-futurists want to dismantle all the same stuff we do. Thus, they are our allies -- unless you're a dogmatic, authoritarian, ideology-thumping wingnut, in which case I'll go stand with the hippies and start chopping away at the roots of this crappy system while you guys argue over who should be allowed to pick up an axe.

P.S. I find it telling, and troubling, that the disapproval of Zeitgeist is about as loud as the approval of Chuck Baldwin. Yet the former proposes a path of more freedom, for all, while the latter proposes a path of less freedom, for some. I suspect that many will find that statement controversial, but if you think very carefully about it I'm sure you'll understand why I made it. I'm intentionally not dropping any hints, because I want you to really think about it.

Ohhh great, another sub posted Nov 07 fool... :rolleyes: Where do you all come from? Can't all you guys just come out at once at the same time? Instead of running one account into the ground, getting banned or humiliated and then moving onto the next? :confused: It's getting rather tiring.. (Edit: I'm sure you loved Invasion of the Body Snatchers... the whole conclusion of the movie. NO?)

You guys never debate the arguments.... go on you've read G.E Griffin's piece, respond to it. It's pretty much exactly what I've been saying all along.

If you want to see why it's worthy of being blown out of the water; here's a new visual review..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EyQtN4HY4Ko
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-fv16-DftRE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JR7ZfTmxBjE

Coercion has been called for; it's mentioned in part 3. :)

[yoshimaroka]

Anyway, to reiterate:

I'm not religious. I'm a supporter of the Freedom movement. I really do not dig the solutions proposed by the Zeitgeist movement. However; people should have the freedom to live in whichever system they want. That's not what Globalism and Internationalism aspire to.

So you can at least count one user, phoobaar.

[ClockwiseSpark]

Ohhh great, another sub posted Nov 07 fool... :rolleyes: Where do you all come from? Can't all you guys just come out at once at the same time? Instead of running one account into the ground, getting banned or humiliated and then moving onto the next? :confused: It's getting rather tiring.. (Edit: I'm sure you loved Invasion of the Body Snatchers... the whole conclusion of the movie. NO?)

You guys never debate the arguments.... go on you've read G.E Griffin's piece, respond to it. It's pretty much exactly what I've been saying all along.

If you want to see why it's worthy of being blown out of the water; here's a new visual review..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EyQtN4HY4Ko
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-fv16-DftRE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JR7ZfTmxBjE

Coercion has been called for; it's mentioned in part 3. :)

Have you read some of those comments? A lot of people are really eating this up. It's rather concerning.

[Mini-Me]

What I find bizarre is that so many so-called libertarians are baring their claws in response to this. Writing letters to G. Edward Griffin in search of a denouncement from on high? Is this warranted? Seriously? What's next, a seance to contact Joe McCarthy?

Can someone please explain to me how the Venus Project (http://www.thevenusproject.com/) is threatening? I'm looking at it, and perhaps I'm blind, but I don't see anything worth expending any energy against. I see no calls to bring on the dictatorship of the proletariat. They appear to have a different ultimate goal than we do, but it looks to be equally peaceful, and they're calling for the same means to achieve their end: dismantling the current rotten system and rebuilding one based on peace and freedom and equality. So what if they have a different understanding of what that means? So what if some futurist-hippies want to do their own thing? Why should we care? Some of us are not behaving like libertarians.

Sorry to burst whatever bubble you were gazing at, but libertarianism means that some people are going to create hippie communes and want nothing to do with laissez-faire orthodoxy. Anyone who growls at that idea is exposing themselves as an authoritarian; and a collectivist, for that matter. "You're not behaving correctly! Get your toe back on the ideological line! Impure thoughts will be exposed!" How ironic that I'm envisioning libertarian gulags right now.

I suspect some of us are just miffed over the perceived snub of Dr. Paul, and the strong words about religion. Well, get over it. None of that matters. What's matters is that these hippie-dippy-futurists want to dismantle all the same stuff we do. Thus, they are our allies -- unless you're a dogmatic, authoritarian, ideology-thumping wingnut, in which case I'll go stand with the hippies and start chopping away at the roots of this crappy system while you guys argue over who should be allowed to pick up an axe.

P.S. I find it telling, and troubling, that the disapproval of Zeitgeist is about as loud as the approval of Chuck Baldwin. Yet the former proposes a path of more freedom, for all, while the latter proposes a path of less freedom, for some. I suspect that many will find that statement controversial, but if you think very carefully about it I'm sure you'll understand why I made it. I'm intentionally not dropping any hints, because I want you to really think about it.

I've argued so much with Teenforpaul08 over the Venus Project's logical fallacies that I can't bear to discuss them again, but I wanted to commend you nevertheless for making the best-written and most coherent post in this entire thread. :) I may not agree with everything you say, and I do see some danger in the Venus Project (and especially in the pro-government way some may be interpreting it), but I'm always glad to see well-formed posts.

In contrast: Conza, you know I agree with you on the Venus Project issue, but I think you're mistaken about phoobaar's intentions. He appears to be a whole lot more thoughtful than Teenforpaul08 was, and I think if you were more polite with him, he'd be a lot more likely to listen to your concerns and seriously consider them. I could be wrong of course, and it's always possible that he's a very subtle troll who will become more obvious later, but I highly doubt it. I haven't seen a single red flag, and I think he deserves the benefit of the doubt before anyone starts piling on the scorn.

Notice that I'm not offering to debate him myself: I'm tired and going to bed. Love you, goodnight. :p

[Conza88]

Have you read some of those comments? A lot of people are really eating this up. It's rather concerning.

*shakes head*


http://nickmilne.files.wordpress.com/2008/06/facepalm2sn8.jpg

Ah well... not the people on here though, think poll was at 80% thumbed it down... :D

[phoobaar]

Ohhh great, another sub posted Nov 07 fool... :rolleyes: Where do you all come from? Can't all you guys just come out at once at the same time? Instead of running one account into the ground, getting banned or humiliated and then moving onto the next? :confused: It's getting rather tiring..

Can you read?


You guys never debate the arguments.... go on you've read G.E Griffin's piece, respond to it. It's pretty much exactly what I've been saying all along.

There's nothing to debate, because nobody's making an argument except the paranoid delusionals who are on the warpath against a movie. And all the movie did was dare to want to dream of picking up the pieces after the system is dismantled and put them together in their own way.


If you want to see why it's worthy of being blown out of the water; here's a new visual review..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EyQtN4HY4Ko
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-fv16-DftRE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JR7ZfTmxBjE

Coercion has been called for; it's mentioned in part 3. :)

Patent nonsense. Visit the site for yourself. It's an old man who lives in some concrete domes and builds futuristic models to pass the time.

The root of all this is authoritarianism; you're afraid of a truly free society because it means people will be free to roll their eyes at your ideas and go do their own thing -- and you'll have no power to stop them.

But go ahead and waste your time on this if it makes you feel useful. I'm not here to convince you to manage your time better. But I can think of some genuine big-government collectivists who are more deserving of your vitriol. One of them is going to be president in a month....

Oh, and isn't it funny that it's perfectly OK to ally with some serious, hardcore leftists (Nader and McKinney) as long as Dr. Paul gives the thumbs-up? Some of us have turned this into a personality cult:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/chartier/stalin-with-kids.jpg

It's really quite scary. :(

Oh hey, while you're trawling YouTube, see if you can find the clips where Dr. Paul said this movement isn't about him and that we shouldn't elevate him to that kind of spooky status.

If you really want to follow Dr. Paul, don't be such a follower.

[NerveShocker]

I agree with Edward Griffins analysis on this. He is the expert of experts on these issues in my opinion.

[phoobaar]

I've argued so much with Teenforpaul08 over the Venus Project's logical fallacies that I can't bear to discuss them again, but I wanted to commend you nevertheless for making the best-written and most coherent post in this entire thread. :) I may not agree with everything you say, and I do see some danger in the Venus Project (and especially in the pro-government way some may be interpreting it), but I'm always glad to see well-formed posts.

Well thanks for the even-tempered reply. But remember, it doesn't matter if there are logical fallacies, because they're not trying to force you to agree with them. But if you feel obligated to point out logical fallacies, there are much bigger targets (e.g., the entire US government).

The people gnashing their teeth over this are behaving as though the re-emergence of the Soviet Union were imminent. It's a movie, where some dreamers talk about tearing down the same garbage we want to tear down. Once it's gone, they plan on building a futurist-hippie-utopia from the rubble. Unless we libertarians plan on creating a global government with enforced laissez-faire capitalism, then this should be of no concern to us. It's a big world.

And I'll just note once again that I didn't see any of us ripping on Nader or McKinney when Dr. Paul suggested we ally with them. In fact I saw many of us posting words of friendship towards them.

[Conza88]

Can you read?

Can you? (http://mises.org/money.asp)


There's nothing to debate, because nobody's making an argument except the paranoid delusionals who are on the warpath against a movie. And all the movie did was dare to want to dream of picking up the pieces after the system is dismantled and put them together in their own way.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/search.php?searchid=2694878

I didn't think it was too hard to search... technically a 3 year old could do it. ;)


Patent nonsense. Visit the site for yourself. It's an old man who lives in some concrete domes and builds futuristic models to pass the time.

The root of all this is authoritarianism; you're afraid of a truly free society because it means people will be free to roll their eyes at your ideas and go do their own thing -- and you'll have no power to stop them.

Keep going with the strawmen and I'm gonna start calling you a farmer. You're afraid of the free market, both in real life and in money, you're afraid of capitalism & profit, you're afraid of corporations. You've got a right to be willfully ignorant, & I've thus got a right to despise you for being part of the problem.


But go ahead and waste your time on this if it makes you feel useful. I'm not here to convince you to manage your time better. But I can think of some genuine big-government collectivists who are more deserving of your vitriol. One of them is going to be president in a month....

Oh, and isn't it funny that it's perfectly OK to ally with some serious, hardcore leftists (Nader and McKinney) as long as Dr. Paul gives the thumbs-up? Some of us have turned this into a personality cult:

It's really quite scary. :(

Oh hey, while you're trawling YouTube, see if you can find the clips where Dr. Paul said this movement isn't about him and that we shouldn't elevate him to that kind of spooky status.

If you really want to follow Dr. Paul, don't be such a follower.

The only person defending (anarcho) collectivism here is you. :) You really should re-watch the movie, you know... understand what you're supporting / defending. :D

This is an internet forum... you know; private property - something the movie wants to get rid of.... ;)
You're acting as if purges are taking place. Settle pettle. :p

[ClockwiseSpark]

Can you read?



There's nothing to debate, because nobody's making an argument except the paranoid delusionals who are on the warpath against a movie. And all the movie did was dare to want to dream of picking up the pieces after the system is dismantled and put them together in their own way.



Patent nonsense. Visit the site for yourself. It's an old man who lives in some concrete domes and builds futuristic models to pass the time.

The root of all this is authoritarianism; you're afraid of a truly free society because it means people will be free to roll their eyes at your ideas and go do their own thing -- and you'll have no power to stop them.

But go ahead and waste your time on this if it makes you feel useful. I'm not here to convince you to manage your time better. But I can think of some genuine big-government collectivists who are more deserving of your vitriol. One of them is going to be president in a month....

Oh, and isn't it funny that it's perfectly OK to ally with some serious, hardcore leftists (Nader and McKinney) as long as Dr. Paul gives the thumbs-up? Some of us have turned this into a personality cult:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/chartier/stalin-with-kids.jpg

It's really quite scary. :(

Oh hey, while you're trawling YouTube, see if you can find the clips where Dr. Paul said this movement isn't about him and that we shouldn't elevate him to that kind of spooky status.

If you really want to follow Dr. Paul, don't be such a follower.

This has been discussed. A lot.

If this is the thread you were linked to you are a couple days behind.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=161090

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=161991


There are more but that should keep you busy for some time.

[phoobaar]

... people should have the freedom to live in whichever system they want.

Precisely. That is libertarianism in a nutshell.

[Conza88]

Precisely. That is libertarianism in a nutshell.

Libertarianism in a nut shell is the non aggression axiom + property rights.

I wonder what the film advocates for the second factor, you know... where all rights are precisely derived from property... :rolleyes:

To further your education in this area please read: (http://www.lewrockwell.com/block/block26.html)

Excerpt:


The non-aggression axiom is the lynchpin of the philosophy of libertarianism. It states, simply, that it shall be legal for anyone to do anything he wants, provided only that he not initiate (or threaten) violence against the person or legitimately owned property of another. That is, in the free society, one has the right to manufacture, buy or sell any good or service at any mutually agreeable terms. Thus, there would be no victimless crime prohibitions, price controls, government regulation of the economy, etc.

If the non-aggression axiom is the basic building block of libertarianism, private property rights based on (Lockean and Rothbardian) homesteading principles are the foundation.

[Mini-Me]

This has been discussed. A lot.

If this is the thread you were linked to you are a couple days behind.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=161090

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=161991


There are more but that should keep you busy for some time.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=161444
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=161429

[phoobaar]

...

Buddy, you are missing the point. I'm a libertarian. I'm right there with you. I'm not defending the ideas of Zeitgeist. Seriously, I really must question your reading comprehension. But this bizarre reaction against Zeitgeist is so far out of proportion to its importance that it begs explanation. There is a visceral fear of it among this movement, which is entirely unwarranted. You illustrated this perfectly with your search link. Why so many topics? Why so much effort to debunk something so irrelevant? Was the same effort expended to debunk the openly socialist platforms of Nader and McKinney, who are actually running for president, right here, right now, in the real world?

Frankly, I don't care if some futurist hippies want to live in a moneyless commune of concrete domes and robots. Hippies, and their ideas, are not new. They don't rattle me. Anyone baring their fangs over this is either fresh off the turnip truck or bored.

If you're in need of dragons to slay, I suggest you point your horse towards Capitol Hill.

[phoobaar]

This has been discussed. A lot.

If this is the thread you were linked to you are a couple days behind.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=161090

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=161991


There are more but that should keep you busy for some time.

Thanks but I'm not here to argue the points of the movie. I'm here to argue the idiocy of arguing the points of the movie.

[ClockwiseSpark]

Thanks but I'm not here to argue the points of the movie. I'm here to argue the idiocy of arguing the points of the movie.

Trust me, the answers you are looking for are in those threads.

[Mini-Me]

Libertarianism in a nut shell is the non aggression axiom + property rights.

I wonder what the film advocates for the second factor, you know... where all rights are precisely derived from property... :rolleyes:

To further your education in this area please read: (http://www.lewrockwell.com/block/block26.html)

Except:



It's still possible for people to voluntarily pool their property together via contract and then live in a commune where the property is "public," at least with respect to the commune. This obviously cannot scale well without some serious economic problems (among other things), but it's still perfectly compatible with the framework of a libertarian society that respects property rights. As David Boaz once said, "The difference between libertarianism and socialism is that libertarians will tolerate the existence of a socialist community, but socialists can't tolerate a libertarian community." You know this. :p

I argued against Teenforpaul08's misconceptions and the Venus Project's logical fallacies because he wouldn't stop spamming it all over the whole forum and attacking the free market out of hand, and I was hoping he was a reasonable person who would acknowledge valid arguments for the free market and against the basic fallacies of the Venus Project (he wasn't). Also, he seemed to flip-flop a little on whether he believed the system should be brought about and maintained coercively, and I do think that many proponents of the Venus Project would support a forced conversion to the system, even if the actual Venus Project page does not explicitly advocate this. This concerns me, especially considering the almost religious way Teenforpaul08 blindly sang its praises. Now, I haven't bothered studying their page closely enough to determine whether they explicitly support coercion or not - maybe they do, maybe they don't - but since this seems to be the major wedge between you and phoobaar, and he's claiming the Venus Project supports no use of force, I'd suggest finding quotes from their page which prove they do in fact support coercion, assuming such quotes exist. Making that effort is the only way you're going to come to an understanding.

As for me, I already said I was going to bed. I lied. Hopefully I'm telling the truth this time, because I have to get up in three hours.

[phoobaar]

Libertarianism in a nut shell is the non aggression axiom + property rights.

I wonder what the film advocates for the second factor, you know... where all rights are precisely derived from property... :rolleyes:

To further your education in this area please read: (http://www.lewrockwell.com/block/block26.html)

Excerpt:



Please, please don't quote anything about libertarianism to me. I realize you don't know me, but please believe that I am well-versed on the subject. Further "lessons" will insult me.

Those are indeed maxims of libertarianism, but you are making the common mistake that a libertarian society must be doctrinaire. Property rights doesn't preclude a bunch of hippies from creating a commune. It would not be libertarian to deny them that right, it would be authoritarian.

The root word of libertarian is liberty.

You seem to believe that if a group of people want to go off on their own and abolish property rights among themselves, that this somehow diminishes your property rights where you live. It does not. And if you try to enforce it on them, you immediately forfeit all claims to libertarianism, as per non-aggression.

[phoobaar]

Trust me, the answers you are looking for are in those threads.

I'm not looking for answers. I dropped by to say "lighten up." There are some rather silly hippie-types who want to tear down the same institutions as we do. Whatever futurist fantasies they may have are so entirely irrelevant that you're wasting your mental energy debating them. Here in there real world, there are institutions to dismantle. All around us, the call is going up. Yet all we can do is slam on the brakes and start bickering over whether we should drive thru McDonalds or Burger King.

But I can see that I've stepped on a DailyPaul-style hornet's nest. You guys seem to feed on this irrelevant nonsense, so I'll leave you to it.

I'll keep lurking though. :)

[phoobaar]

I'd suggest finding quotes from their page which prove they do in fact support coercion, assuming such quotes exist. Making that effort is the only way you're going to come to an understanding.

Just to reiterate, I am not here to argue for the Venus Project. I'm here to argue that arguing against it is completely ridiculous. You might as well debate the merits of a movie plot.

I'm saying that our efforts would be better spent by coming to agreements with these "Zeitgeist Movement" people -- as we did with Nader and McKinney, et al -- based on our common ground. The Venus Project is a wet dream. If they said they wanted to build an elevator to the moon, terraform it, and build a communist utopia there, would you debate the merits of that? No, you'd laugh and wish them luck. If you had any sense of perspective, that is.

Back here on Earth, there is a movement underway, and this movement has some very immediate goals in mind. Goals we share. This is where the effort belongs.

[Conza88]

Buddy, you are missing the point. I'm a libertarian. I'm right there with you. I'm not defending the ideas of Zeitgeist. Seriously, I really must question your reading comprehension. But this bizarre reaction against Zeitgeist is so far out of proportion to its importance that it begs explanation. There is a visceral fear of it among this movement, which is entirely unwarranted. You illustrated this perfectly with your search link. Why so many topics? Why so much effort to debunk something so irrelevant? Was the same effort expended to debunk the openly socialist platforms of Nader and McKinney, who are actually running for president, right here, right now, in the real world?

Buddy, you are missing the point. You are indirectly defending the movie by trying to attack those who are pointing out it's sheer lunacy, socialistic tendencies & proposed solutions.

Seriously, I really must question your reading comprehension. I like it how you chose to not quote me, instead chose to supplement it with some dots... In that post; I articulated exactly why - the movie deserves to be bashed for what it is.

The movie attacks: profit, sound money, capitalism, free markets, corporations & free enterprise....

And some god damn fools are falling for it, with it's abundance of half-truths... the obvious wish to Abolish money entirely (Marxism) and the private ownership of production... with robots... You've got to ask yourself, well whom owns the means of production then? - PUBLIC Ownership or some elite, it doesn't answer that, like it ignores and doesn't answer a lot of things. (Marxism)

You don't think bullshit theories such as these, should be beaten with the "reality / truth / logical reason"... stick? You think I should let these little "teen08's" and ever other ideological fool, try to influence other peoples opinions with their failed / flawed dogma?

You ask me why?

“Truth is not only violated by falsehood; it may be equally outraged by silence” ~ Henri Frederic Amiel

“Nothing strengthens authority so much as silence.” ~ Charles de Gaulle

“History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people.” ~ Martin Luther King, Jr


Frankly, I don't care if some futurist hippies want to live in a moneyless commune of concrete domes and robots. Hippies, and their ideas, are not new. They don't rattle me. Anyone baring their fangs over this is either fresh off the turnip truck or bored.

If you're in need of dragons to slay, I suggest you point your horse towards Capitol Hill.

You must care... otherwise why else are you here "arguing about the idiocy of arguing about the points of the movie"... :rolleyes:


Thanks but I'm not here to argue the points of the movie. I'm here to argue the idiocy of arguing the points of the movie.

Probably one of the most idiotic things I've heard in a long time... In capable of seeing the irony? :confused: or hypocrisy ?

What is Capitol Hill? It's socialistic, you know - big state, nanny state, coercion, theft, collectivism.

That's what it is. Here's another reason to refute you're argument; about why I shouldn't be arguing about the bullshit spewing from this film..

“When I tell the truth, it is not for the sake of convincing those who do not know it, but for the sake of defending those that do.” ~ William Blake

I've never started one thread up about it... How about you tell the clowns who are trying to promote it and it's ideas... to stop & stfu, go on their way?

Why are you only addressing those that seek to refute the bullshit?

[ClockwiseSpark]

I'm not looking for answers. I dropped by to say "lighten up." There are some rather silly hippie-types who want to tear down the same institutions as we do. Whatever futurist fantasies they may have are so entirely irrelevant that you're wasting your mental energy debating them. Here in there real world, there are institutions to dismantle. All around us, the call is going up. Yet all we can do is slam on the brakes and start bickering over whether we should drive thru McDonalds or Burger King.

But I can see that I've stepped on a DailyPaul-style hornet's nest. You guys seem to feed on this irrelevant nonsense, so I'll leave you to it.

I'll keep lurking though. :)


What I find bizarre is that so many so-called libertarians are baring their claws in response to this.

Can someone please explain to me how the Venus Project (http://www.thevenusproject.com/) is threatening? So what if some futurist-hippies want to do their own thing? Why should we care? Some of us are not behaving like libertarians.






You seem to have questions.

[phoobaar]

You seem to have questions.

Rhetorical.

[Conza88]

It's still possible for people to voluntarily pool their property together via contract and then live in a commune where the property is "public," at least with respect to the commune. This obviously cannot scale well without some serious economic problems (among other things), but it's still perfectly compatible with the framework of a libertarian society that respects property rights. As David Boaz once said, "The difference between libertarianism and socialism is that libertarians will tolerate the existence of a socialist community, but socialists can't tolerate a libertarian community." You know this. :p

Of course I know it, I think I've probably quoted that more times here on RPF than you have, if not even - you've been using it alot lately... lol :) http://www.libertarianquotes.com/quotes1.html ? :p


Please, please don't quote anything about libertarianism to me. I realize you don't know me, but please believe that I am well-versed on the subject. Further "lessons" will insult me.

Those are indeed maxims of libertarianism, but you are making the common mistake that a libertarian society must be doctrinaire. Property rights doesn't preclude a bunch of hippies from creating a commune. It would not be libertarian to deny them that right, it would be authoritarian.

The root word of libertarian is liberty.

You seem to believe that if a group of people want to go off on their own and abolish property rights among themselves, that this somehow diminishes your property rights where you live. It does not. And if you try to enforce it on them, you immediately forfeit all claims to libertarianism, as per non-aggression.

Yeah, the maxims are right... :cool: Well if you got it right, I wouldn't have to the correct ones to you... I ain't a mind reader. And no I don't believe what you profess I do..

You really need to go read those other threads... the reason they are there is largely because of those ignorant enough to support this. Keep on creating new ones... Why so much defence against lies? I dunno.... I guess it's the nature of Ron Paul movement... :rolleyes:

[ClockwiseSpark]

Rhetorical.

Only if you already know the answer.

[Mini-Me]

Just to reiterate, I am not here to argue for the Venus Project. I'm here to argue that arguing against it is completely ridiculous. You might as well debate the merits of a movie plot.

I'm saying that our efforts would be better spent by coming to agreements with these "Zeitgeist Movement" people -- as we did with Nader and McKinney, et al -- based on our common ground. The Venus Project is a wet dream. If they said they wanted to build an elevator to moon, terraform it, and build a communist utopia there, would you debate the merits of that?

Back here on Earth, there is a movement underway, and this movement has some very immediate goals in mind. Goals we share. This is where the effort belongs.

I never once implied you're here to argue for the Venus Project. However, you are here making a claim that we shouldn't even be wasting our time arguing against it, and one of your stated reasons for feeling this way is that they supposedly don't support coercion and therefore aren't dangerous. That led me to believe that if you could be convinced that they do support coercion, it would be an entirely different story, and you might then understand why some of us have spent some time trying to dispel any delusions the Venus Project's advocates may have, at least while they post on these forums.

In any case, this has been a several-day-long ordeal on these forums, and it basically started with Teenforpaul08 incessantly spamming plugs for the Venus Project all over the forum and ranting wildly against the free market. In the beginning, nobody was searching for dragons; the dragons came here and breathed fire all over town! If you bothered to look through this week's history, you'd understand what I'm talking about. Nobody's arguing against Nader and McKinney's policies because Nader and McKinney's supporters didn't come here looking to convert anyone. I'm perfectly happy to embrace our similarities and work alongside them...but if they come to these forums to argue economics, they will indeed have an argument. Besides, a good chunk of this forum is dedicated to academic debate of issues anyway (such as economics), presumably to give people a better grasp of them. If you feel that's a waste of time or "ridiculous," that's your prerogative, but I can assure you that not everyone will agree.

Now, was this thread entirely necessary? Eh, probably not...but after this week, I can understand why it was made.

[phoobaar]

...

I'm done with you. You refuse to read my posts.

You're going after Zeitgeist because you're bored and it's an easy target because it's so goofy. I think you're wasting your time. I think all your slobbering would be better spent on real-world targets rather than Star Trek fantasies.

But go ahead and rant about a hippie pipe dream when there are real-world socialists you could be picking apart. Go ahead and alienate the thousands of people who might have never heard of the Campaign for Liberty but might have been brought into the fold be our outreach. Go ahead. Do that. All for a stupid ideological battle with a fantasy.

Reality called. It wants its soldiers back. There are walls to tear down.

[phoobaar]

Only if you already know the answer.

I do. People are threatened because they are authoritarians masquerading as libertarians, and they are bored enough to battle paper tigers but not quite brave enough to focus on the genuine article.

[Conza88]

I never once implied you're here to argue for the Venus Project. However, you are here making a claim that we shouldn't even be wasting our time arguing against it, and one of your stated reasons for feeling this way is that they supposedly don't support coercion and therefore aren't dangerous. That led me to believe that if you could be convinced that they do support coercion, it would be an entirely different story, and you might then understand why some of us have spent some time trying to dispel any delusions the Venus Project's advocates may have.

In any case, this has been a several-day-long ordeal on these forums, and it basically started with Teenforpaul08 incessantly spamming plugs for the Venus Project all over the forum and ranting wildly against the free market. In the beginning, nobody was searching for dragons; the dragons came here and breathed fire all over town! If you bothered to look through this week's history, you'd understand what I'm talking about. Nobody's arguing against Nader and McKinney's policies because Nader and McKinney's supporters didn't come here looking to convert anyone. Besides, a good chunk of this forum is dedicated to academic debate of issues anyway (such as economics), presumably to give people a better grasp of them. If you feel that's a waste of time or "ridiculous," that's your prerogative, but I can assure you that not everyone will agree.

He accuses others of wasting time arguing against it, yet doesn't think "arguing against the people who are arguing against it" isn't a waste of time?

:confused: -> LMAO :D

I would love to see that logic.. :rolleyes: Please explain that to me poobar, I'm all ears... So why's it matter to you poobar? :confused:

Mate, you DO realise all the arguments & pretty much every single person has moved on besides those who continue to support it... Well, that was until you re-entered the "debate." Haha... :rolleyes:

[ClockwiseSpark]

I do. People are threatened because they are authoritarians masquerading as libertarians, and they are bored enough to battle paper tigers but not quite brave enough to focus on the genuine article.

No, that is incorrect. If you took the time to read the discussion in those threads you would understand the reason for the backlash, which you were wondering about. Your initial assumptions were incorrect, take a moment and look into it.

[phoobaar]

... you are here making a claim that we shouldn't even be wasting our time arguing against it, and one of your stated reasons for feeling this way is that they supposedly don't support coercion and therefore aren't dangerous.

Actually, allow me to nix that right now by saying that it wouldn't matter to me if they were openly calling for a techno-Marxist uprising in the distant future. It still wouldn't be worth debating, because it's like debating Trekkies.

Back on this planet, in the here-and-now, they, like us, wish to dismantle the current rotten system. We can seduce them with economics after we make friends with them.

[Mini-Me]

Actually, allow me to nix that right now by saying that it wouldn't matter to me if they were openly calling for a techno-Marxist uprising in the distant future. It still wouldn't be worth debating, because it's like debating Trekkies.

Back on this planet, in the here-and-now, they, like us, wish to dismantle the current rotten system. We can seduce them with economics after we make friends with them.

Read my second paragraph again, slowly. The dragons came here, and we responded.

[phoobaar]

Well folks, I came to make a friendly suggestion but was quickly and rather viciously savaged for it, so I'll respect your evident wish for me to stick my suggestions where the sun don't shine.

This place is even more of a piranha pool than DailyPaul. :(

[Mini-Me]

Well folks, I came to make a friendly suggestion but was quickly and rather viciously savaged for it, so I'll respect your evident wish for me to stick my suggestions where the sun don't shine.

This place is even more of a piranha pool than DailyPaul. :(

Would you really consider any of my comments vicious? Conza might have been, but I was not. Reread through our exchanges, and you'll notice that I've been more polite to you than you have been to me. You've been on the attack this whole time, and I've been on the defense, merely trying to explain myself and what's been going on. Would you really consider that an example of me "viciously savaging" you? Like a piranha? Honestly...

[ClockwiseSpark]

Read my second paragraph again, slowly. The dragons came here, and we responded.

Didn't you say you were going to bed? Less than 3 hours sleep is less than fun. :p


Don't force me to give you the...


http://echosphere.net/star_trek_insp/insp_mindmeld_preview.jpg

[Conza88]

Well folks, I came to make a friendly suggestion but was quickly and rather viciously savaged for it, so I'll respect your evident wish for me to stick my suggestions where the sun don't shine.

This place is even more of a piranha pool than DailyPaul. :(

You came here trying to 'argue there was no point in people arguing' against the film.. ONCE all the arguing had pretty much been completed, finished, done for..

What did you expect? A ticket parade? Seriously, get some perspective. ;)

"This place is even more of a piranha pool than DailyPaul."

Don't be such a collectivist. We're all individuals here. :D

[Mini-Me]

Didn't you say you were going to bed? Less than 3 hours sleep is less than fun. :p


Don't force me to give you the...


http://echosphere.net/star_trek_insp/insp_mindmeld_preview.jpg

I did, but then I decided trying to make peace would be a better use for my time than sleeping...I was wrong. :(

[AutoDas]

http://blog.canoe.ca/mediam/manson1a.jpg
DailyPaul

All Hail Ron Paul! Let the Venus Project take off!

I hear they're accpeting new recruits at Waco.