What you will now see from the Media

[Conza88]

In particular; I will focus on Fox News.

Since the President has changed, the party has changed, the INTENDED perception has changed, so does the media's overt agenda for each channel.

For the last 8 years Fox News has blatantly been pro-war, pro-fascism, pro-bush, pro-whatever they were told to be.

In those 8 years, it became to be seen for what it was - a propaganda network. It WASN'T just limited to them, but they were the obvious douchebags, they were the ones defending the state, the wars, Bush, etc.

Now, over the same last few years, in particular, all the attacks of Bush etc.... have been coming from the likes of Keith Olberman, MSNBC, etc. all the "lefties".

During this time, they gained credibility etc. Denounced wars, whatever. They "told it like it is". No real obvious "propaganda". (Obviously MASSIVE AMOUNTS, I'm just taking this from a laymans perspective... the general sheeple, who are now following Obama like drones)

Anyway, now that Obama is President, the script is going to flip.

MSNBC, CNN, Hardball, Olberman etc. THEY will become the propaganda outlets. THEY will be the NEW FAUX NEWS!

They speak out against the regime, when their "side" is not in power. NOTHING ever gets done, its all chatter in the wind, it SEEMS like there is vocal opposition to the status quo, but it really means jack squat.

This is why Glenn Beck moved to Fox News. They are now the ANTI-STATUS QUO CHANNEL. See his show? He's calling government



Glenn Beck Seems to Understand
Posted by Thomas DiLorenzo at January 27, 2009 07:58 AM

This morning on Faux News he said, "the government has become just like the mob." He was referring to how the Fed ORDERED several banks to take bailout money, and then ORDERED them to lend it. He also used the "S" word to describe Obama's "economic plan."

Funny how Faux News supported Bushian fascism with every ounce of its energy, but is now becoming a critic of a slightly different form of socialism.
- http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/025007.html

This is, there ain't nothing funny about it. FISHY is more like it.

So expect to start questioning yourself when Fox News actually say shit that makes sense, like Libertarian style stuff. (Won't be all the time, but more so than ever) Like actual Conservative, Glen Beck type of comments. All the trolls start to appear ok. It is because they are the new anti-status quo channel, who won't do shit against the other tide of public opinion and media.

People go, Fox News attacking Obama? Yeah, no wonder they supported Iraq, Bush, Neocons etc. They'll instantly dismiss whatever it is, and kling to the MSNBC, CNN BULLSHIT that will be thrown at them.

*sigh*

It is all part of the false paradigm. It is all coerced. It doesn't "just" happen.

</hopefully sensical rant>

[pacelli]

Great analysis. I can't stand to watch any of the mass media news channels, so I can't really comment in depth about what Fox or MSNBC is doing. I know that Fox's message has definitely changed, based on a few programming changes. Propaganda programming. My distaste for these channels means that I don't have conversations about some missing kid, a murdering mom, or some flip comment by a politician.

[smithtg]

I had nbc on last night and I wanted to puke. ABC, CBS and others are nearly as bad. Beck is barely standable and Hannity is just a warmonger who somehow thinks smaller government includes a huge defense department and just cant get over the "Fox of the past" to turn it to that channel. Hannity is funny when he goes off about obamamania though, but again the rules dont apply when someone questions him about "W"

Really is there any good TV news anymore? Ill stick to internet outlets for (some of) the truth

[sevin]

People go, Fox News attacking Obama? Yeah, no wonder they supported Iraq, Bush, Neocons etc. They'll instantly dismiss whatever it is, and kling to the MSNBC, CNN BULLSHIT that will be thrown at them.

wow. Yeah, that sounds about right. Whenever we speak out against Obama, we'll automatically be associated with the neocons. ugh

[Chosen]

I know what you are saying about Fox News and it is infuriating how they ignored the RINO agenda and anti-Constitutional behavior of the Bush administration.

One example moment was when Bill O'Reilly was trying to coax Americans into accepting the Amnesty proposal, saying it was the best deal we are gonna get. It was probably the most overt propaganda I had ever seen. The funny thing was the actual legislation had not been released yet, it had only been drafted by lulac, mecha, Ted Kennedy, other dems, Bush and McCain/Graham, Ed Gillespie and Harry Reid in a backroom. Even Tom Tancredo had only been able to get pieces of it...No person had read it completely, so to have Bill trumpet it for acceptance was extreme to say the least.

In a defense of Glenn Beck, he is saying much the same thing that got him canned from CNN and from what I understand is creating some friction at fox. I do know that O'Reilly and he are at odds. It has been said that O'Reilly thinks he has an outdated view (translation speaks to what people are really saying/thinking).

But I do agree with the too little too late approach, they had a chance to help expose and they did not. After all, Rupert Murdock is a Hillary supporter and sees the Obama election as profitable. This is the case for many so-called Conservative talk show hosts. They let Bush slide and didn't ratchet up the heat when they should of, on purpose it seems.

[akihabro]

That's why I watch CNN, CSPAN, FOX, BBC, MSNBC(rarely) and use the net.

[heavenlyboy34]

wow. Yeah, that sounds about right. Whenever we speak out against Obama, we'll automatically be associated with the neocons. ugh

We were pegged as lefties when we demonstrated against the neocons too...seems to be a lose-lose trap they've tried to set for us. :p Fuck their little matrix-I'll oppose 'em all the way. ;):D:) NWO fails!

[slothman]

One example moment was when Bill O'Reilly was trying to coax Americans into accepting the Amnesty proposal, saying it was the best deak we are gonna get.

What is this you are talking about?
I don't watch "faux news" so I don't know.
The only thing I can think of is the immigrants.
In either case it sounds like he is the DA.
Amnesty sounds like we commited a crime and we need a good deal.

[eOs]

You talk as if these show hosts are writing their own programs. 'Glenn Beck is good some of the time.' They are all talking heads. If you are discouraged with the government, watch our show at 4:30. If you like our government, tune in at 5! It's all viewer/rating type bullshit. This is a business. I wouldn't believe any of these guys if they told me their real names.

[paulitics]

Fox news is actually benefitting from this Obamamania. They have all but put an end to MSNBC's surge. Unfortunately, they are still defining conservative as war and police state, and this is all their sheep will regurgitate back to you, when you try to explain the simple difference between small and big government.

[Original_Intent]

Very nice observation. Thanks for the insight, OP!

[slacker921]

The sad thing was hearing the rants from FOX (including Glenn Beck) over the closure of Gitmo. They're still clinging to the War on Terror and probably will until the very end.

I'm not sure anything has really changed - the "liberal" outlets have always been propaganda machines for the Democrats and they continue to be. Fox is still the outlet for the neoconservatives who now see that their best line of attack is economics. The only change is FOX has changed from defensive tactics to offensive.

[yokna7]

I can find no credibility with either side considering they supported either McCain or Obama. Olbermann will definately lose viewers because the "change has happened" - hilarious. And the "underdog" will always garner increasing support.

But you hit on it right. The media is a tool to emphasize the slight differences between the two sides of congress. When we know in reality the foreign policy, economic/fiscal are relatively the same.

It is all spectacle. You may be better off watching Yale play Harvard, because it is more of an issue of "rivalry" than actual substance. All spectacle.

[Conza88]

Ok, this is the bs I'm talking about. On dailypaul (http://www.dailypaul.com) front page:

"It seems Ron Paul has taught Glenn Beck well" (http://www.dailypaul.com/node/81073)

Now, look at what is being said! :eek: Good fcken GAWD.

THe ONLY REASON: it is being said NOW, is because it DOES NOT MATTER to them.

It is ALL about Fox News, re-capturing it's base. The sad thing is, it's not because Glen Beck is learning or anything - it's because he's now been given the ABILITY to attack outright. Because the higher ups have allowed it.

Why couldn't he do this on his show ALL THROUGHOUT the campaign? :rolleyes: i.e Because it mattered then, it may have swayed peoples votes.

So I guess, it's hard - you spread this; you give fox news credibility. But I guess, you should point out, this in some way, and then get folks to read AUSTRIAN ECONOMICS. OR - RON PAUL was RIGHT ALL ALONG.

Use the outlet, but convert them before Fox News changes tune again and they follow like sheep.

[jkr]

down is up and black IS white

[Chosen]

Ok, this is the bs I'm talking about. On dailypaul (http://www.dailypaul.com) front page:

"It seems Ron Paul has taught Glenn Beck well" (http://www.dailypaul.com/node/81073)

Now, look at what is being said! :eek: Good fcken GAWD.

THe ONLY REASON: it is being said NOW, is because it DOES NOT MATTER to them.

It is ALL about Fox News, re-capturing it's base. The sad thing is, it's not because Glen Beck is learning or anything - it's because he's now been given the ABILITY to attack outright. Because the higher ups have allowed it.

Why couldn't he do this on his show ALL THROUGHOUT the campaign? :rolleyes: i.e Because it mattered then, it may have swayed peoples votes.

So I guess, it's hard - you spread this; you give fox news credibility. But I guess, you should point out, this in some way, and then get folks to read AUSTRIAN ECONOMICS. OR - RON PAUL was RIGHT ALL ALONG.

Use the outlet, but convert them before Fox News changes tune again and they follow like sheep.
From what I understand it is because he was walking on egg shells with CNN. Between he and Lou Dobbs there was a massive activist attendance which was contradictory to the far left agenda of Ted and Co. They started to put the two in the same time slot, then canned Beck when he began to speak of pitchforks and torches and have them on the set. They canned him from what I have heard was due to Republican anger during the election cycle (the GOP voice was McCain Left).

As consolation he received the Fox gig, but only after the election.

[Matt Collins]

wow. Yeah, that sounds about right. Whenever we speak out against Obama, we'll automatically be associated with the neocons. ughAnd that is a very real danger. But it's why we must scream at the top of our lungs to distinguish ourselves from the big-government conservative crowd.

[Matt Collins]

It is all part of the false paradigm. It is all coerced. It doesn't "just" happen.If you think this is all some sort of conspiracy theory then you are off your rocker :rolleyes:



That being said there is some truth to what you are saying about the noticeable differences. But what is happening is that the neo/conservatives are aligning with the libertarians not necessarily because of principle, but because of partisanship. For example... not a single Republican in the house voted for the stimulus package. However many of them did vote for the first Wall Street bailout. I think many would've voted for this one if it wasn't the opposition in the White House. It's easy to throw stones at your opponent but it takes real resolve to throw stones at members of your own party.


So I say we start educating and milking the media coverage for all it's worth to hopefully explain libertarianism and the philosophical foundation thereof. This way when the neo/conservatives split in the future we can have more people with us than previously.

[Athan]

I don't watch fox news. I youtube it from you guys.

[Conza88]

If you think this is all some sort of conspiracy theory then you are off your rocker :rolleyes:

What, like you're off your rocker if you believe there is a move towards world government? Please don't insult Ron Paul like that.


That being said there is some truth to what you are saying about the noticeable differences. But what is happening is that the neo/conservatives are aligning with the libertarians not necessarily because of principle, but because of partisanship. For example... not a single Republican in the house voted for the stimulus package. However many of them did vote for the first Wall Street bailout. I think many would've voted for this one if it wasn't the opposition in the White House. It's easy to throw stones at your opponent but it takes real resolve to throw stones at members of your own party.

Perceived opposition. Every Republican will "oppose it" <- LOL. But the bill will STILL GET PASSED. Just you watch. And if it fails like last time, they'll come back again.

In the mean time, the rest of America who OPPOSE the bailouts, instead of going MAN, the Democrats AND Republicans - SUCK BALLS. What about the Libertarian party?!?

They are all filtered back into the Republican party, which is controlled.

How The Elite Control Politics (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fTahZE4q90U)

^ Wake the fck up.


So I say we start educating and milking the media coverage for all it's worth to hopefully explain libertarianism and the philosophical foundation thereof. This way when the neo/conservatives split in the future we can have more people with us than previously.

Ummm, yeaaah this is exactly what I've said. Point people to it, but also acknowledge it for the message, and SHOW THEM OTHER MATERIAL: show them it is being discussed on the mainstream news, then point them to LEWROCKWELL.COM and MISES.ORG - use the mainstream media, to help give credibility.

But if we start going, WATCH fox News, watch Glen Beck - all that happens is, they eventually change their tune. AS THEY WILL. Then all the work goes wasted, the drones you were telling to watch Glen Beck, are now going to get confused when you say - "Don't watch Glen Beck, we really aren't terrorists!"

[Ex Post Facto]

So not only do the elite play both political parties, the play both types of news networks to give people something to bitch about. Now the NAU is no longer conspiracy theory, it's something in the works.

2/3 of the world will accept the Mark of the Beast...You should see the thread in civil liberties section to understand what this mark is. It really is happening.

[Anti Federalist]

The Undertaker (R - Seventh level of hell)

We are at war with Jihadism! Some rights must be curtailed to protect our democracy! The banks must be relieved of their bad assets in order to stimulate the economy!

http://z.about.com/d/prowrestling/1/0/o/C/-/-/undertaker.jpg

Andre the Giant (D - Land of happy thoughts and fuzzy feelings)

We are at war with Jihadism! Some rights must be curtailed to protect our democracy! Government must stimulate the economy!

http://listverse.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/10/andrejake3.jpg

[Matt Collins]

What, like you're off your rocker if you believe there is a move towards world government? Please don't insult Ron Paul like that. A move towards world government doesn't = conspiracy theory. :rolleyes:




They are all filtered back into the Republican party, which is controlled.For now... but if we work on it we can change this. I have seen proof firsthand.



Point people to it, but also acknowledge it for the message, and SHOW THEM OTHER MATERIAL: show them it is being discussed on the mainstream news, then point them to LEWROCKWELL.COM and MISES.ORG - use the mainstream media, to help give credibility.

But if we start going, WATCH fox News, watch Glen Beck - all that happens is, they eventually change their tune. AS THEY WILL. Then all the work goes wasted, the drones you were telling to watch Glen Beck, are now going to get confused when you say - "Don't watch Glen Beck, we really aren't terrorists!"You make a very very good point and I absolutely agree. But being able to say that Ron was on Cavuto 35+ times, or that Beck has frequently interviewed libertarians only lends credibility among the masses to our cause.

[Conza88]

A move towards world government doesn't = conspiracy theory. :rolleyes:

Good. So the fact that the Media is the Fourth Estate and is owned by the global elite, also isn't a conspiracy theory. :cool:


For now... but if we work on it we can change this. I have seen proof firsthand.

I don't think you'll ever be able to reform the Republican party. Just my opinion. I think the only real change can come about, by pointing out that the BOTH parties suck. So try for the LP party and spread the message. But I realise, with Ron Paul in the Republican party, there is still hope and should probably be given a real good effort to take it over.

The problem is; there is a limited number of seats, districts running etc. Thomas Jefferson intended that there be 1 representative for every 30,000 people.

House of Representatives should have 10,000 congressman to be fully representative. I'd like to see two party system try manage THAT! Ron Paul folks wld literally destroy and take over.

So much harder when that isn't the case though.


[You make a very very good point and I absolutely agree. But being able to say that Ron was on Cavuto 35+ times, or that Beck has frequently interviewed libertarians only lends credibility among the masses to our cause.

Whatever it is, it should be too give us credibility. And to point out relentlessly that the media is also defunct. Use it as transition to get folks to our resources, not stay pinned on theirs. :)

[Matt Collins]

I don't think you'll ever be able to reform the Republican party. Just my opinion. I have seen firsthand evidence to the contrary.



I think the only real change can come about, by pointing out that the BOTH parties suck. So try for the LP party and spread the message.Of course both parties suck, which is why we are trying to change one of them. Unfortunately the LP is not viable and won't be for some years to come. Why? Well for many reasons which I don't have the time to list but largely because the GOP and Dems won't allow ballot access in many places.



But I realise, with Ron Paul in the Republican party, there is still hope and should probably be given a real good effort to take it over.Exactly. And we are working towards this end. Why rebuild a car from scratch when you can simply jump on board another one and hijack it? :D




Whatever it is, it should be too give us credibility. And to point out relentlessly that the media is also defunct. Use it as transition to get folks to our resources, not stay pinned on theirs. :)Of course. It's only the first of many stepping stones into a large base of knowledge.

[Conza88]

Ron Paul: Gold Standard 1/30/09 Fox Business (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nHPSmslIOfc)

^ Check that shit out!

They are helping him explain the point! People picture carrying around gold, when you mention the gold standard.. they set that money gag up, so they could help the viewers connect with what he is saying, ISN'T insane.

Proves my point exactly... FOX HELPING RON MAKE HIS POINT?! :eek:

His message NEVER CHANGED. They were bemoaning him a few months ago, "GOLD STANDARD?! ROFLCOPTER" "KOOK"

And whats even more hilarious, it was that same guy...

This ain't genuine, this again - just trying to bring people into the fold.

Point being, move people in the direction of lewrockwell.com and mises.org WHILE YOU CAN. :)

[Conza88]

Sean Hannity is now a Libertarian!!!

The esoteric agenda continues! :mad:

[JoshLowry]

You've explained it very well Conza.

I am on the same page as you. Beck and Hannity are not "waking up" to these new ideas. I've seen lots of people think that Beck is now a friend.

They are following a script day in and day out.

[pacelli]

Sean Hannity is now a Libertarian!!!

The esoteric agenda continues! :mad:

You definitely called it in your first post. I hope this thread sticks around, because when people re-join the forums in 3 years, we'll have a lot of people who have bought into the conditioning.

This Beck-Hannity thing is a bunch of baloney.

[dannno]

The OP is absolutely correct.

[acptulsa]

From what I understand it is because he was walking on egg shells with CNN. Between he and Lou Dobbs there was a massive activist attendance which was contradictory to the far left agenda of Ted and Co. They started to put the two in the same time slot, then canned Beck when he began to speak of pitchforks and torches and have them on the set. They canned him from what I have heard was due to Republican anger during the election cycle (the GOP voice was McCain Left).

As consolation he received the Fox gig, but only after the election.

Back story soap opera. They'll play this crap out all day and all night, just hoping that you won't notice who's getting screwed when they go 'bi-partisan'. I just heard one of the bastards on the radio saying this was no time for ideals, we need responsible governance. No room for ideals in responsible governance, apparently. Yet how can you have the one without the other??!

This false dichotomy isn't technically our enemy, but it sure is our enemy's best weapon. We must neutralize it!



If you think this is all some sort of conspiracy theory then you are off your rocker :rolleyes:

They're creating one world government without conspiring in the process? So one person is creating one world government with no help from anyone? Wow...

I want to meet this god. :cool:

[heavenlyboy34]

You definitely called it in your first post. I hope this thread sticks around, because when people re-join the forums in 3 years, we'll have a lot of people who have bought into the conditioning.

This Beck-Hannity thing is a bunch of baloney.

+1

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

In particular; I will focus on Fox News.

Since the President has changed, the party has changed, the INTENDED perception has changed, so does the media's overt agenda for each channel.

For the last 8 years Fox News has blatantly been pro-war, pro-fascism, pro-bush, pro-whatever they were told to be.

In those 8 years, it became to be seen for what it was - a propaganda network. It WASN'T just limited to them, but they were the obvious douchebags, they were the ones defending the state, the wars, Bush, etc.

Now, over the same last few years, in particular, all the attacks of Bush etc.... have been coming from the likes of Keith Olberman, MSNBC, etc. all the "lefties".

During this time, they gained credibility etc. Denounced wars, whatever. They "told it like it is". No real obvious "propaganda". (Obviously MASSIVE AMOUNTS, I'm just taking this from a laymans perspective... the general sheeple, who are now following Obama like drones)

Anyway, now that Obama is President, the script is going to flip.

MSNBC, CNN, Hardball, Olberman etc. THEY will become the propaganda outlets. THEY will be the NEW FAUX NEWS!

They speak out against the regime, when their "side" is not in power. NOTHING ever gets done, its all chatter in the wind, it SEEMS like there is vocal opposition to the status quo, but it really means jack squat.

This is why Glenn Beck moved to Fox News. They are now the ANTI-STATUS QUO CHANNEL. See his show? He's calling government



This is, there ain't nothing funny about it. FISHY is more like it.

So expect to start questioning yourself when Fox News actually say shit that makes sense, like Libertarian style stuff. (Won't be all the time, but more so than ever) Like actual Conservative, Glen Beck type of comments. All the trolls start to appear ok. It is because they are the new anti-status quo channel, who won't do shit against the other tide of public opinion and media.

People go, Fox News attacking Obama? Yeah, no wonder they supported Iraq, Bush, Neocons etc. They'll instantly dismiss whatever it is, and kling to the MSNBC, CNN BULLSHIT that will be thrown at them.

*sigh*

It is all part of the false paradigm. It is all coerced. It doesn't "just" happen.

</hopefully sensical rant>

In a profound sense, the word national means federal. While the main need for a Federal level to destroy things foreign to the body politic, we create things on the local level. So, quit watching the Federal news. Simple enough.
Instead, make a conscious effort to watch your local news. Why? Because we create small, inventive companies on the local level. Likewise, our economy is being destroyed on the Federal level where major corporations have turned to lobbying the Federal government for their survival.

[acptulsa]

The threads infested by trolls get all the bumps. This is the kind of thread that actually deserves them.

[eOs]

You've explained it very well Conza.

I am on the same page as you. Beck and Hannity are not "waking up" to these new ideas. I've seen lots of people think that Beck is now a friend.

They are following a script day in and day out.


+1. There is definitely a false paradigm of left vs. right. It's so obvious and easy to see that we've been accustomed to it. Look at Obama keeping Gither and other members of the Bush administration. Look at the ease of "transfer of power." Look at, as the OP pointed out, the back and forth dribble from the supposed left and right networks. One party, keeping control by deceiving people into arguing minor issues that don't interfere with a broader agenda that each party shares.

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

The threads infested by trolls get all the bumps. This is the kind of thread that actually deserves them.

By NeoAmericans, I mean those who don't understand the difference between the complexity of European culture and the simplicity of the American one.

[Conza88]

Peter Schiff: Obamanomics = Food Lines (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uTjjN04XEcE)

Lmao. LOOK at that introduction from Fox NEWS presenter.

Again, more and more evidence. Flick, of, the, switch.

Edit: First guest: "I agree with Peter Schiff straight off the bat."

:eek: Hahaha... saaaaay what?! rofl.

[gilliganscorner]

+1. There is definitely a false paradigm of left vs. right. It's so obvious and easy to see that we've been accustomed to it. Look at Obama keeping Gither and other members of the Bush administration. Look at the ease of "transfer of power." Look at, as the OP pointed out, the back and forth dribble from the supposed left and right networks. One party, keeping control by deceiving people into arguing minor issues that don't interfere with a broader agenda that each party shares.

+1. This is a good thread.

There is no Left vs. Right in a Feudal system. Only Top and Bottom. Lords and Serfs.

This quote (I am sure that most of you have seen this before) nailed it:


Capital must protect itself in every possible manner by combination and legislation. Debts must be collected, bonds and mortgages must be foreclosed as rapidly as possible. When, through a process of law, the common people lose their homes they will become more docile and more easily governed through the influence of the strong arm of government, applied by a central power of wealth under control of leading financiers. This truth is well known among our principal men now engaged in forming an imperialism of Capital to govern the world. By dividing the voters through the political party system, we can get them to expend their energies in fighting over questions of no importance. Thus by discreet action we can secure for ourselves what has been so well planned and so successfully accomplished.

– US Bankers Magazine, Aug 25, 1924

Is it true? I don't know. If it were, would the sheeple do anything about it?

[Conza88]

"Libertarian ideas to stimulate economy" (http://edition.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/02/05/miron.libertarian.stimulus/index.html)

More BS esoteric, filled with lies article on front page of CNN.

[Andrew-Austin]

"Libertarian ideas to stimulate economy" (http://edition.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/02/05/miron.libertarian.stimulus/index.html)

More BS esoteric, filled with lies article on front page of CNN.

Back in September:
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/29/miron.bailout/index.html

The same dude sometimes contributes to Reason Mag: http://www.reason.com/news/show/129580.html

Not that I don't think this thread is full of win.

[Conza88]

Back in September:
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/29/miron.bailout/index.html

The same dude sometimes contributes to Reason Mag: http://www.reason.com/news/show/129580.html

Not that I don't think this thread is full of win.

Good point and catch.

Should have done more background, but really, his most recent article is filled with fail.

Increase carbon taxes. Libertarian? :confused: lol

[Conza88]

ARE you fcken KIDDING ME?!

http://michellemalkin.com/ (Don't click if you can, lol)

MAIN story:


Michelle Malkin
Tea Party U.S.A.: The movement grows
By Michelle Malkin • February 21, 2009 04:16 AM


http://michellemalkin.cachefly.net/michellemalkin.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/teaparty.jpg


Seattle on Monday. Denver on Tuesday. Mesa AZ on Wednesday. Overland Park, Kansas today. What a week, huh? We got the anti-stimulus, anti-entitlement protest ball rolling — and now the movement, spurred further by CNBC host Rick Santelli’s call for a “Chicago Tea Party,” is really taking off.

David Hogberg at Investor’s Business Daily has a nice piece out today spotlighting the growing taxpayer revolt the rest of the MSM won’t cover. He interviewed our registered commenters Liberty Belle Keli Carender, who spearheaded the Seattle anti-pork protest, and HuskerGirl Amanda Grosserode, who organized today’s anti-stimulus demonstration against Democrat Rep. Dennis Moore in Overland Park, KS.

I’m happy to report on several new protest events now on the docket.

My friend Michael Patrick Leahy of Top Conservatives on Twitter and his crew are spearheading “simultaneous local tea parties around the country, beginning in Chicago, and including Washington DC, Fayetteville NC, San Diego CA, Omaha Nebraska, and dozens of other locations” for next Friday.

Time: February 27, 2009 from 12pm to 1pm
Location: Chicago, Washington DC, other cities, Twitter
Go to OfficialChicagoTeaParty.com for all the info.

Co-sponsors of the events with #TCOT include #DONTGO, Smart Girl Politics, Americans for Tax Reform, Heartland Institute, and American Spectator Magazine. The tea parties will be “simultweeted” with the hashtag #teaparty. You can find me tweeting here.

There’s a Facebook page here for the DC Tea Party. I hear that PJTV will also be stepping up to the plate.

If you are in the Dallas/Fort Worth area, reader Mark Christopher Frimmel has come forward to put a Tea Party ‘09 event together. He put up an ad on Dallas Craigslist, has contacted local radio and TV, and wants you to be there. The protest will be held on the outside stage at The Cowtown Bar & Grill on Friday, Feb. 27, from 3pm to 7pm, located at 7108 Camp Bowie Blvd Fort Worth, TX. Music, food, and great fiscal conservative company guaranteed.

Are you in Georgia? Reader Patrick e-mails that he’s “getting a tax protest off the ground in Atlanta. I’d appreciate it if you’d pass on the word. The blog is http://atlantataxprotest.blogspot.com.” He needs your help. Calling Neal Boortz!

Here’s a snippet from Hogberg’s IBD piece to get your motors running:

As unemployment soars and anger over Wall Street bailouts mounts, public outrage will seek an outlet. Populism could go in many directions — and could easily ebb when the economy revives. But if it takes shape as an anti-spending movement, it could revive conservatives much as the 1970s tax protests did.

To be sure, the protest sizes so far are a far cry from the left’s anti-globalization and anti-war demonstrations of the past decade. But they appear to have grass-roots origins. The organizer of the Kansas protest, Amanda Grosserode, calls herself a home-schooling mom who is “fed up” with the spending in Washington. She has been a member of Fair Tax Kansas City since last fall.

“My husband and I were feeling frustrated that the stimulus had passed with very little debate and no one had read it,” she told IBD. “I said, ‘We need to do something.’ ” She began contacting family and friends, and eventually received attention via Fair Tax Kansas City and local talk radio.

Grosserode received considerably more publicity after e-mailing popular conservative commentator and blogger Michelle Malkin.

“I think the taxpayer revolt is the new counterculture,” said Malkin, who has been publicizing the protests on her blog. “People want to stand up and say, ‘Hey, I’m paying for that, I do not support that.’ “

Brendan Steinhauser has a terrific set of detailed tips on how to organize your own tea party protest.

Don’t wait for someone else to do it.

Don’t make excuses.

Don’t think you can pull one off because you’ve never done it before? Look at mom-bloggers Liberty Belle and HuskerGirl.

Yes, you can!

***

I’ve put together a playlist of tunes for Tea Party USA — and several parodies submitted by commenters and readers. Bailoutmania is apparently bringing out the songwriters in you, too.

AGAIN, left / right paradigm... keep everyone in it. :mad:

[Chester Copperpot]

good analysis conza.. this is why its good for all of us to check in here on a regular basis.. we all get to benefit from each others' brains.

[Conza88]

Limbaugh the Hayekian?
Posted by Lew Rockwell at February 25, 2009 01:42 PM


Writes Richard Potter:

A guy at my job insists on listening to Rush Limbaugh everyday at lunch. I nearly choked on my roast beef sub today when I heard Rush praising F.A. Hayek (calling him a brilliant economist) and trashing Barney Frank for preventing Ron Paul from slamming Ben Bernanke during a committee hearing.

At least he may pique the interest of some of his listeners, huh? Keep up the excellent work!

UPDATE: Here is the transcript and MP3.

This is becoming nuts. RUSH LIMBAUGH. God damn all these people are bought and sold.

Get ya friends to stop listening if you can, after getting them to check out Ron Paul and Mises.org and LewRockwell.com :eek:

No-one honestly thinks we converted Rush Limbaugh, or he is being genuine, right? :eek:

[ihsv]

Conza, absolutely flippin' correct!!!!! Excellent analysis/observation.

[mczerone]

That's why I watch CNN, CSPAN, FOX, BBC, MSNBC(rarely) and use the net.

It seems your life would be much simpler if you just said "That's why I ... use the net."

[Conza88]

Rush Limbaugh, one of the most hated personalities in America. Normal people just don't like him.

Rush Limbaugh: "I LOVE RON PAUL."

Stop drinking the kool-aid folks.

[Conza88]

The Demise of the Media (http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/025685.html)
Posted by Butler Shaffer at March 5, 2009 12:36 PM


With the change in administrations in Washington, have Fox News and MSNBC also switched roles as outlets for the absurd in "news" reporting? MSNBC's Keith Olbermann - who did a fairly decent job criticizing George Bush and much of his administration in recent years - has, thus far, failed to offer significant criticism of Obama. Indeed, with Bush now having been out of office for more than six weeks, the main thrust of Olbermann's program has been a continuing critique of Bush, with occasional lampoons of the buffoonish Rush Limbaugh thrown in for comic relief. Nor has MSNBC's Chris Matthews shown any retreat from his earlier statement "to do everything to make [the Obama presidency] work." Nor can I overlook Andrea Mitchell's [Mrs. Alan Greenspan] interviews with "experts" addressing current economic problems!

When I turned on MSNBC this morning, the big story had to do with live helicopter coverage of Michael Jackson's bus driving through the streets of London. Can more stories of water-skiing squirrels be far behind?

I wonder if the purveyors of this intellectual slush have even the remotest idea why their readership and viewership are rapidly collapsing? I can't help recalling Jefferson's line: "Indeed, I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just."

MORE BLIND STARK REALITY.

[carlangaslangas]

Great thread. Conza describes exactly how I feel about the media and the bipolar-party system.

The two main parties take turns gnawing the constitution like rats. It's disgusting.

[Conza88]

'Libertarian' Hero (http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/025706.html)
Posted by Lew Rockwell at March 6, 2009 10:19 AM


This morning on CNBC's Squawk Box, the guest host was ex-Dallas Fed head Bob McTeer. He handed out the usual baloney, that Keynesian economics is the cure for what ails us; that Keynes was a great investor [think he might have had insider info?]; that Keynes's 'paradox of thrift' is true, that is, that saving is wrong and we we should spend every depreciated dime. He has shilled, no surprise, for every bailout and other Fed theft. That is, he is typical state official. So why was I livid? Because McTeer has been endlessly praised by regime libertarians as a free-market, sound money guy. They have given him the Adam Smith Prize, and a plush no-show job at one of their many think-tanks. When he issued, with printing press money, a very expensive publication praising Frederic Bastiat, this was held out by "libertarians" as a libertarian act, rather than the use of a great and good man to cover evil.

I only met once the head of the "libertarian" think-tank that has done the most for McTeer. He immediately launched into a vicious and personal attack on Murray Rothbard. But then, that is the calling card of anyone on the Koch Brothers' payroll.

Btw, thanks Carlangaslangas. :o

[Roxi]

i got one for ya..... open your window, stick your head out and yell "im mad as hell and im not going to take it anymore" then throw your tv out of it.

[Conza88]

i got one for ya..... open your window, stick your head out and yell "im mad as hell and im not going to take it anymore" then throw your tv out of it.

Ha! :D

The irony in that scene is the people only do it - because a talking head of TV told them to do it...

[Conza88]

So, the [behind the scenes] Oligarchs are now removing the "brown shirts" (i.e. front-men shills) as a sacrificial offering to the public.

They did this in Nazi Germany..... and they've been using this technique for thousands of years... the front-men shills always do their bidding and then get payback in the end as part of the effort to quell the anger of the masses.

Ho hummm.... this is like watching paint dry.... these guys never ever change their techniques. They pretend like they are so brilliant and possess so much power, but all they're doing is following really old recipe books to the letter. Why 'o why does the public never figure this shit out?

Video link for reference:
http://www.breitbart.tv/?p=296683

Cramer's Fall (Daily Show) (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?p=2014843)

[Conza88]

Hell just froze over.... Sean Hannity Defends Ron Paul... (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=184550)

[brandon]

bump

[Conza88]

Pat Buchanan's Great Article on Economics (http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/025987.html)
Posted by Stephen Carson at March 24, 2009 12:14 PM

I can't believe I just wrote that! But, well, read it yourself:

"The first panacea for a mismanaged nation," said Ernest Hemingway, "is inflation of the currency; the second is war. Both bring a temporary prosperity; both bring a permanent ruin. But both are the refuge of political and economic opportunists."

...inflation is theft. It make liars and cheats of governments. By eroding the value of a currency, inflation punishes savers and creditors and rewards debtors. And what nation is the biggest debtor of them all? The United States of America.


Pat....

[Conza88]

The Neocons are Trying to Blur the line between THEM and US

http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009/mar/24/books-liberty-and-tyranny-a-conservative-manifesto/

http://media.washingtontimes.com/media/img/photos/2009/03/24/20090323-183349-pic-699943947_r350x200.jpg?0babd24c675f3097b9d1ff106ec 8653055db7939

GTFO.

[Original_Intent]

The Neocons are Trying to Blur the line between THEM and US

http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009/mar/24/books-liberty-and-tyranny-a-conservative-manifesto/

http://media.washingtontimes.com/media/img/photos/2009/03/24/20090323-183349-pic-699943947_r350x200.jpg?0babd24c675f3097b9d1ff106ec 8653055db7939

GTFO.

Gawd, could he look any more condescending on that cover? I can tell it is people like him that started the divine right of kings bullshit, and I don't even know the man.

[brandon]

bump

[SWATH]

A "Conservative Manifesto" my ass. I've listen to that guy before and here is a 110% frothing at the mouth unapologetic neocon boot-licker. It is no wonder he HATES Ron Paul. Levin is the guy who told people on air to call Ron Paul's congressional phone number and tell him to drop dead, he then challenged Ron Paul supporters to call his show and defend him. During the show, so many Ron Paul supporters called it shut down his phone lines so he could field calls from the usual neocon rabble. So Levin just sits there on air playing music for 3 hours because he has nothing to talk about except to occasionally chime in and say no Ron Paul supporters are calling so they must not exist.

Now he wants to write a book about liberty and tyranny and call it a "conservative manifesto"? Someone needs to tell him the real manifesto has already been written, by Ron Paul.

Levin is a copy-cat sack of shit. He forgot to wrap that flag on the cover around a cross and nail himself to it.

[Conza88]

Sean Hannity just said... (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=186729)

[Bruno]

A "Conservative Manifesto" my ass. I've listen to that guy before and here is a 110% frothing at the mouth unapologetic neocon boot-licker. It is no wonder he HATES Ron Paul. Levin is the guy who told people on air to call Ron Paul's congressional phone number and tell him to drop dead, he then challenged Ron Paul supporters to call his show and defend him. During the show, so many Ron Paul supporters called it shut down his phone lines so he could field calls from the usual neocon rabble. So Levin just sits there on air playing music for 3 hours because he has nothing to talk about except to occasionally chime in and say no Ron Paul supporters are calling so they must not exist.

Now he wants to write a book about liberty and tyranny and call it a "conservative manifesto"? Someone needs to tell him the real manifesto has already been written, by Ron Paul.

Levin is a copy-cat sack of shit. He forgot to wrap that flag on the cover around a cross and nail himself to it.

well said :)

[Conza88]

Sean Hannity and Dick Morris say CONSPIRACY THEORISTS WERE RIGHT! (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=186733)

MAnn Coulter Endorses Ron Paul in 2012 (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=186842)

[Mini-Me]

I just hope that in their attempt to regain some credibility by admitting to some truth, these guys unwittingly help people wake up to a much greater extent than they ever intended. I never expected them to openly say the conspiracy theorists were right about the NWO...but if they repeat things like that enough times, they just might accidentally convince more Average Joe's to actually start listening to us and maybe take our warnings about the globalist agenda a bit more seriously in the future.

[Conza88]

http://mises.org/books/betrayal.pdf


The individualists and laissez-faire liberals were stunned and embittered, not just by the mass desertion of their former allies, but also by the abuse these allies now heaped upon them as “reactionaries” “fascists,” and “Neanderthals.” For decades Men of the Left, the individualists, without changing their position or perspectives one iota, now found themselves bitterly attacked by their erstwhile allies as benighted “extreme right-wingers.” Thus, in December 1933, Nock wrote angrily to Canon Bernard Iddings Bell: “I see I am now rated as a Tory. So are you—ain’t it? What an ignorant blatherskite FDR must be! We have been called many bad names, you and I, but that one takes the prize.” Nock’s biographer adds that “Nock thought it odd that an announced radical, anarchist, individualist, single-taxer and apostle of Spencer should be called conservative.”2

...

But the intriguing point is that, as the far larger and more respectable conservative groups took up the cudgels against the New Deal, the only rhetoric, the only ideas available for them to use were precisely the libertarian and individualist views which they had previously scorned or ignored. Hence the sudden if highly superficial accession of these conservative Republicans and Democrats to the libertarian ranks.

Thus, there were Herbert Hoover and the conservative Republicans, they who had done so much in the twenties and earlier to pave the way for New Deal corporatism, but who now balked strongly at going the whole way. Herbert Hoover himself suddenly jumped into the libertarian ranks with his anti-New Deal book of 1934, Challenge to Liberty, which moved the bemused and wondering Nock to exclaim: “Think of a book on such a subject, by such a man!”

A prescient Nock wrote: Anyone who mentions liberty for the next two years will be supposed to be somehow beholden to the Republican party, just as anyone who mentioned it since 1917 was supposed to be a mouthpiece of the distillers and brewers.3

...

In fact, the individualists were in a bind at this sudden accession of old enemies as allies. On the positive side, it meant a rapid acceleration of libertarian rhetoric on the part of numerous influential politicians. And, furthermore, there were no other conceivable political allies available. But, on the negative side, the acceptance of libertarian ideas by Hoover, the Liberty League, et al., was clearly superficial and in the realm of general rhetoric only; given their true preferences, not one of them would have accepted the Spencerian laissez-faire model for America. This meant that libertarianism, as spread throughout the land, would remain on a superficial and rhetorical level, and, furthermore, would tar all libertarians, in the eyes of intellectuals, with the charge of duplicity and special pleading.


Sound familiar? :eek:

[idiom]

Lol, who the hell put History on Loop?

[Conza88]

The "Left" has a turn. Then its the "Right"'s turn...

It's like a god damn seesaw. The only way to get out of the loop, is to convince others there are better games to play.

Like "Hide and Go seek".

The State should go hide, and leave everyone the hell alone, whilst the rest of us go seek out a peaceful co-existence of Liberty and prosperity.

:)

[Josh_LA]

The "Left" has a turn. Then its the "Right"'s turn...

It's like a god damn seesaw.

is there anything that isnt?

Capitalism vs socialism?
Democrat in office vs Republican?
Inflation vs deflation?

Did you have a point you thought we were too stupid and not know already?

[Conza88]

is there anything that isnt?

Capitalism vs socialism?
Democrat in office vs Republican?
Inflation vs deflation?

Did you have a point you thought we were too stupid and not know already?

Capitalism vs socialism? - Capitalism without the state? Sure.
Democrat in office vs Republican? - Libertarian Party for starter.
Inflation vs deflation? - Neither. Free market in money.

Any other false paradigms? Sure.

But yeah, duality seems about right.


http://www.foo.is/~baldur/retard-prize.jpg

No offense intended to the bloke who is receiving a trophy. Sorry you had to be compared to Josh_LA.

[devil21]

Good thread. I fully agree with your assessment. Is someone getting paid to do what they do? If so, they can and will follow orders to keep that check coming. Even if it's selling out their country.

[Conza88]

Lol, who the hell put History on Loop?

Holy shit. Pg 185 (http://mises.org/books/betrayal.pdf)



In the light of hindsight, we should now ask whether or not a major objective of National Review from its inception was to transform the right wing from an isolationist to global warmongering anti-Communist movement; and, particularly, whether or not the entire effort was in essence a CIA operation. We now know that Bill Buckley, for the two years prior to establishing National Review, was admittedly a CIA agent in Mexico City, and that the sinister E. Howard Hunt was his control. His sister Priscilla, who became managing editor of National Review, was also in the CIA; and other editors James Burnham and Willmoore Kendall had at least been recipients of CIA largesse in the anti-Communist Congress
for Cultural Freedom. In addition, Burnham has been identified by two reliable sources as a consultant for the CIA in the years after World War II.10

Moreover, Garry Wills relates in his memoirs of the conservative movement that Frank Meyer, to whom he was close at the time, was convinced that the magazine was a CIA operation. With his Leninist-trained nose for intrigue, Meyer must be considered an important witness.

Furthermore, it was a standard practice in the CIA, at least in those early years, that no one ever resigned from the CIA. A friend of mine who joined the Agency in the early 1950s told me that if, before the age of retirement, he was mentioned as having left the CIA for another job, that I was to disregard it, since it would only be a cover for continuing Agency work. On that testimony, the case for NR being a CIA operation becomes even stronger. Also suggestive is the fact that a character even more sinister than E. Howard Hunt, William J. Casey, appears at key moments of the establishment of the New over the Old Right. It was Casey who, as attorney, presided over the incorporation of National Review and had arranged the details of the ouster of Felix Morley from Human Events.

:eek:


"At any rate, in retrospect, it is clear that libertarians and Old Rightists, including myself, had made a great mistake in endorsing domestic red-baiting, a red-baiting that proved to be the major entering wedge for the complete transformation of the original right wing. We should have listened more carefully to Frank Chodorov, and to his splendidly libertarian stand on domestic redbaiting: “How to get rid of the communists in the government? Easy. Just abolish the jobs.”11 It was the jobs and their functioning that was the important thing, not the quality of the people who happened to fill them."

...


It was Kirk, in fact, who brought the words “Conservatism” and “New Conservatism” into general acceptance on the right wing. Before that, knowledgeable libertarians had hated the word, and with good reason; for weren’t the conservatives the ancient enemy, the eighteenth- and nineteenth-century Tory and reactionary suppressors of individual liberty, the ancient champions of the Old Order of Throne-and-Altar against which the eighteenth- and nineteenth-century liberals had fought so valiantly?

And so the older classical-liberals and individualists resisted the term bitterly: Ludwig von Mises, a classical liberal, scorned the term; F.A. Hayek insisted on calling himself an “Old Whig”; and when Frank Chodorov was called a “conservative” in the pages of National Review, he wrote an outraged letter declaring, “As for me, I will punch anyone who calls me a conservative in the nose. I am a radical.” 15

They branded him a Conservative.. when it was basically insane to do so. JUST LIKE NOW, they're trying to corrupt the differentiation between real Libertarians and the NEO-CON scum.

[devil21]

Ron Paul = Frank Chodorov

Off to Google this Chodorov guy.

Hmm....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Chodorov

Frank Chodorov (1887–1966) was a U.S. thinker and member of the Old Right, a group of libertarian ideologists who were minarchist, anti-war, anti-imperialist, and (later) anti-New Dealers.

That sounds familiar. Kinda freaked out now.

[BuddyRey]

This is a really, really great thread!!! :)

You've done it again, Conza. Took the words right out of my mouth!

We started winning over a lot of liberals during Ron Paul's campaign, and the sudden clammy embrace of FAUX News, Glen Beck, and Ann Coulter is a clear-cut attempt to rub some of their RINO stank off on us in the eyes of sympathetic but easily deluded Obamatons.

[Conza88]

Frank Chodorov, R.I.P. by Murray N. Rothbard (http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard141.html)

Chodorov's archives at LewRockwell.com (http://www.lewrockwell.com/chodorov/chodorov-arch.html)

He was on par with Albert Jay Nock, Mencken etc. The Old Right radicals.

The difference between then and now though; is that Rothbard considered the need to make alliances, with the anti status quo wing of the day. With the left at one stage, and the right in another. So they could get published and tried to convert the others in those movements to Libertarianism.

Today though - we have the internet. We have LewRockwell.com, LvMI, C4L, YAL, all of which is starting to snow ball.

This is the difference. :) We don't need alliances. We need more joining our ranks. :D

[Johnnybags]

to get the masses of asses stirred up. Beck,Malkin,Coulter are just setting up their "book sales" based on the rising anger in America. They go where the money flows and its flowing towards populism and the constitution rebirth books. Mark my words, a Beck book will be forthcoming.

[Conza88]

[Mitt Romneys sideburns] Damn, john stewart is an ass. There was a clip where he was showing a bunch of Fox News people talking about how fascism has come to America. He had Napalitano on here, suggesting that Napalitano just started up when Obama got elected. When in truth, Napalitano calls just about every politician a fascist.

[BuddyRey]

[Mitt Romneys sideburns] Damn, john stewart is an ass. There was a clip where he was showing a bunch of Fox News people talking about how fascism has come to America. He had Napalitano on here, suggesting that Napalitano just started up when Obama got elected. When in truth, Napalitano calls just about every politician a fascist.

Really?!

Wow, what an ass Stewart is. Napolitano has been railing against Gov't for years.

[Josh_LA]

Capitalism vs socialism? - Capitalism without the state? Sure.
Democrat in office vs Republican? - Libertarian Party for starter.
Inflation vs deflation? - Neither. Free market in money.

Any other false paradigms? Sure.

But yeah, duality seems about right.



Not saying they're true paradigms, just saying that they swing back and forth, not saying there aren't other options out there.

[Josh_LA]

Good thread. I fully agree with your assessment. Is someone getting paid to do what they do? If so, they can and will follow orders to keep that check coming. Even if it's selling out their country.

I agree, why is that wrong?

Nobody owes his country or his community anything (or simply, nobody owes another person anything unless he agreed to it)

[devil21]

I agree, why is that wrong?

Nobody owes his country or his community anything (or simply, nobody owes another person anything unless he agreed to it)

Actually, people do owe their country and their community something. It's called loyalty. When you are disloyal to your country it is called TREASON. When media types go out of their way to support the globalist agenda, the false right/left, etc they are committing treason. They are only helping to end the sovereignty of the nation.

[NMCB3]

Peter Schiff: Obamanomics = Food Lines (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uTjjN04XEcE)

Lmao. LOOK at that introduction from Fox NEWS presenter.

Again, more and more evidence. Flick, of, the, switch.

Edit: First guest: "I agree with Peter Schiff straight off the bat."

:eek: Hahaha... saaaaay what?! rofl.Glad to see you have it figured out. I have seen the "flick of a switch" many times before. All the propagandists will be for a certain position then something will change and the next day you flick through the stations listening and presto! just like flicking a switch they all have changed their position at the exact same time in the exact same way. To me it is beyond obvious what is going on but sadly to the mob, and many on this forum, they are unable to see it. They actually think these vermin have changed, nothing could be further from the truth. They get their talking points straight from their respective democratic and republican party's. How do you guys think these vermin get a national radio show?.... first they must play ball at the local level, they pal around with the local party, meet the national party goons, say all the right things on their local show and if their talented enough, lucky enough, and kiss all the right party asses they are rewarded with a national propaganda broadcast of their own. Then they get to hang out with the party big shots, make money and generally stroke their own ego`s because now they are part of the elite. Its group think at its finest and 90% of Americans are sucked into it...Orwell would recognize it for what it is immediately.

[NMCB3]

The Neocons are Trying to Blur the line between THEM and US

http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009/mar/24/books-liberty-and-tyranny-a-conservative-manifesto/

http://media.washingtontimes.com/media/img/photos/2009/03/24/20090323-183349-pic-699943947_r350x200.jpg?0babd24c675f3097b9d1ff106ec 8653055db7939

GTFO.Your absolutely right, Levin doesn't give two shits about liberty, he`s a neocon to the bone. The scary part is how good they are at this game,the vast majority will be sucked in then sold down the river once the republicans regain power. Its like the movie groundhog day...the same shit over and over albeit with a seemingly inexhaustible supply of dupes available to keep the charade going. :)

[Conza88]

Since Hannity is Highjacking The Tea Parties (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=188318)

The NWO Is Taking Over the Patriot and Truth Movements (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=188390)

[Maverick]

Godammit, that fat hypocritical douchebag Rush Limbaugh has me really steamed right now. I heard him on his radio show today defending the Somali pirates in ways completely out of his character and totally contradictory to just about everything he's said for the past 8 years.

"President Obama personally ordered the deaths of these 3 teenagers" he says with dismay. The people whom the rest of the world have been referring to as "gun-toting pirates" Rush Limbaugh refers to as "teenagers" (mind you he cited they were 17-19, so at least one of them is obviously even an "adult" by our own standards) and "merchant marine organizers." What's with this use of non-inflammatory language by Rush all of a sudden to describe a non-state violent organization? It's almost as if he's...coddling these pirates.

Imagine the scenario this way: President Bush orders the deaths of several individuals - some of them teenagers and/or children - belonging to a non-state violent organization. You think Rush Limbaugh is going to rise up and attack the president's actions? Hell no, he was right there defending him every step of the way.

Remember the whole fiasco with Haditha and what John Murtha said? Rush has never let him live that down. He called him every name in the book, a vile un-American traitor and so forth. Yet Rush Limbaugh is now saying the same thing, only in a slightly different manner. Murtha targeted the marines for criticism, but Rush has been hammering on Obama. What about the Navy Seals that actually did the shooting? Why isn't this spun as "Rush Limbaugh disgraces the honor of our Navy Seals" the same way it was said that Murtha "disgraced our fine men and women in the Marines?"

The whole thing is really astonishing. Under Bush, Rush never cared how many men, women, and children we blew up for the sake of fighting "terrorists." Now Obama wants to fight some "pirates" and Rush cries foul. Isn't he being a "terrorist-hugger" by his own definition? Whenever anyone opposed Bush's targeting of "terrorists" Rush never missed the opportunity to label them a "terrorist-hugger" or some other such term.

You can bet that had this whole pirate scenario played out under Bush's watch Rush would've been the head of the cheerleading squad. He and other neo-cons would be howling for retribution for the seizure of an American ship. If Bush had acted on the situation in the exact same fashion as Obama had, Rush would be praising him for "getting tough" and "not backing down," and demonizing opposition as "pirate-huggers" and "America-haters."

Rush Limbaugh has always been a hypocrite, so this should all come as no surprise. But this rhetoric, and this incident, it just seems so over-the-top to me, even for him. He's so transparent I don't know how he thinks that we can't just see right through him. He's simply using the situation as an opportunity to smear Obama, nothing more. He hasn't had any sort of change of heart (if he even has a heart) about foreign policy, and he sure as hell doesn't really give a damn about any Somali kids.

[ghengis86]

He's so transparent I don't know how he thinks that we can't just see right through him.

We can see through him, but the republican sheeple cannot, or will not, even if they're lives depended on it (they do, suprise, suprise). i work with people who have his show on every morning and hang on every word. its sickening how brainwashed they are.

the false left/right dichotomy is so blatantly obvious, you have to be a complete idiot not to see

[pacelli]

Anyone who has been following this thread from the beginning must admit-- you can't complain that nobody told you. Conza88 was way way way ahead of the game on this. And it is just the beginning. Just wait until Alex Jones gets his own FoxNews show.

[Dripping Rain]

bump for relevance

[carlangaslangas]

http://mises.org/books/betrayal.pdf

Sound familiar? :eek:

Thanks for the link!! I really enjoyed "Man, Economy and State", and this one is next on my list. But now I don't have to buy it. :D

[1000-points-of-fright]

Godammit, that fat hypocritical douchebag Rush Limbaugh has me really steamed right now. I heard him on his radio show today defending the Somali pirates in ways completely out of his character and totally contradictory to just about everything he's said for the past 8 years.

"President Obama personally ordered the deaths of these 3 teenagers" he says with dismay. The people whom the rest of the world have been referring to as "gun-toting pirates" Rush Limbaugh refers to as "teenagers" (mind you he cited they were 17-19, so at least one of them is obviously even an "adult" by our own standards) and "merchant marine organizers." What's with this use of non-inflammatory language by Rush all of a sudden to describe a non-state violent organization? It's almost as if he's...coddling these pirates.

Imagine the scenario this way: President Bush orders the deaths of several individuals - some of them teenagers and/or children - belonging to a non-state violent organization. You think Rush Limbaugh is going to rise up and attack the president's actions? Hell no, he was right there defending him every step of the way.

Remember the whole fiasco with Haditha and what John Murtha said? Rush has never let him live that down. He called him every name in the book, a vile un-American traitor and so forth. Yet Rush Limbaugh is now saying the same thing, only in a slightly different manner. Murtha targeted the marines for criticism, but Rush has been hammering on Obama. What about the Navy Seals that actually did the shooting? Why isn't this spun as "Rush Limbaugh disgraces the honor of our Navy Seals" the same way it was said that Murtha "disgraced our fine men and women in the Marines?"

The whole thing is really astonishing. Under Bush, Rush never cared how many men, women, and children we blew up for the sake of fighting "terrorists." Now Obama wants to fight some "pirates" and Rush cries foul. Isn't he being a "terrorist-hugger" by his own definition? Whenever anyone opposed Bush's targeting of "terrorists" Rush never missed the opportunity to label them a "terrorist-hugger" or some other such term.

You can bet that had this whole pirate scenario played out under Bush's watch Rush would've been the head of the cheerleading squad. He and other neo-cons would be howling for retribution for the seizure of an American ship. If Bush had acted on the situation in the exact same fashion as Obama had, Rush would be praising him for "getting tough" and "not backing down," and demonizing opposition as "pirate-huggers" and "America-haters."

Rush Limbaugh has always been a hypocrite, so this should all come as no surprise. But this rhetoric, and this incident, it just seems so over-the-top to me, even for him. He's so transparent I don't know how he thinks that we can't just see right through him. He's simply using the situation as an opportunity to smear Obama, nothing more. He hasn't had any sort of change of heart (if he even has a heart) about foreign policy, and he sure as hell doesn't really give a damn about any Somali kids.

You're sarcasm detector is broken.

[Bruno]

Anyone who has been following this thread from the beginning must admit-- you can't complain that nobody told you. Conza88 was way way way ahead of the game on this. And it is just the beginning. Just wait until Alex Jones gets his own FoxNews show.

+ 1

Great thread, Conza!

[carlangaslangas]

Actually, people do owe their country and their community something. It's called loyalty. When you are disloyal to your country it is called TREASON. When media types go out of their way to support the globalist agenda, the false right/left, etc they are committing treason. They are only helping to end the sovereignty of the nation.

I am as frustrated as you are. But I prefer to think in terms of loyalty to the Constitution. And the first amendment gives MSM, and our forums, the right to express our opinion.

It's going to be hard to break the two party system, when the media has so much money invested in maintaining it. After all, the bipolar system has been sooo good for ratings. The masses love to see people attacking, insulting, berating each other: Fox vs MSNBC, Dems vs GOP. And the MSM just profits from it. It's easy to blame the media, but you can't blame them for that. They'll always play whatever people want to hear. No, I believe it's our Congress, and the citizens that elected these douchebags representatives. But mostly I blame those that do not even care to vote, or have not spent enough time researching the candidates.

[JdotRdot]

I blame those that do not even care to vote, or have not spent enough time researching the candidates.
i believe less people should vote, till eventually nobody votes
i wonder what would happen in such an event

i've only ever voted once in my entire life, & it was just to get my voting card punctured for ID purposes...i have absolutely no faith in the political system, many people feel the same way i do, they see voting as a wasted effort...the voter turn out for this last election was 60 something %

not voting shows that less & less people believe in politics...Obama sure did conjure up a lot of emotion in apathetic people, but come next election i expect the numbers to drop back down, maybe even lower than before

voting serves no purpose when the options are so limited & when we have so many idiots out there, what we need is re-education to hit these disillusioned souls

[devil21]

I am as frustrated as you are. But I prefer to think in terms of loyalty to the Constitution. And the first amendment gives MSM, and our forums, the right to express our opinion.

It's going to be hard to break the two party system, when the media has so much money invested in maintaining it. After all, the bipolar system has been sooo good for ratings. The masses love to see people attacking, insulting, berating each other: Fox vs MSNBC, Dems vs GOP. And the MSM just profits from it. It's easy to blame the media, but you can't blame them for that. They'll always play whatever people want to hear. No, I believe it's our Congress, and the citizens that elected these douchebags representatives. But mostly I blame those that do not even care to vote, or have not spent enough time researching the candidates.

I liken the MSM and it's agenda pushing to a First Amendment exclusion like yelling "FIRE!!" in a crowded theater. You are free to say what you wish as long as you aren't directly harming anyone else or infringing anyone else's rights. The MSM harms everyone and their agenda infringes our rights.

[eOs]

you guys are wayyy behind on the times.....conza posted a great piece on the MSM that will really open your eyes
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=177088&page=1

oh wait..

[paulitics]

I am as frustrated as you are. But I prefer to think in terms of loyalty to the Constitution. And the first amendment gives MSM, and our forums, the right to express our opinion.

It's going to be hard to break the two party system, when the media has so much money invested in maintaining it. After all, the bipolar system has been sooo good for ratings. The masses love to see people attacking, insulting, berating each other: Fox vs MSNBC, Dems vs GOP. And the MSM just profits from it. It's easy to blame the media, but you can't blame them for that. They'll always play whatever people want to hear. No, I believe it's our Congress, and the citizens that elected these douchebags representatives. But mostly I blame those that do not even care to vote, or have not spent enough time researching the candidates.


I wish it were all about ratings for the media. It is not, it is about control. The media's ratings are abysmal due to their lack of investigative journalism and integrity reporting the news. Do you know how many stories not being reported or investigated by the media? We are living in incredible times, where corruption exceeds the watergate scandal on a daily basis. Ratings could be through the roof, and in the meantime our republic could resist tyrrany through an honest media.

No, the big media outlets are a giant filter that only presents a naive and ignorant view of the world. Any show that has decent ratings now, are the ones that speak a modicum of truth to power (although it is just a glimmer of true reality) Most breaking news stories come from blogs that do not have million dollar payrolls or any payrolls, or harvard degree journalists. The media giants are owned and controlled by a few corporations and a few very wealthy elite that have a different agenda than what is good for America and her sovereignty.

If it were a truly free market, the message of liberty and individual responsibility would rival the statist, big daddy government loving networks and newspapers today, and keep them in check. When ever single one of them have the same big government loving view of the world, you have a problem, you have a monopoly.

There are talks of bailouts for GE (owns msnbc and others), or for some establishment newspapers. This should tell you all you need to know about the relationship between the government and the media. It is not about ratings, but about control.

[Conza88]

...

[Theocrat]

In particular; I will focus on Fox News.

Since the President has changed, the party has changed, the INTENDED perception has changed, so does the media's overt agenda for each channel.

For the last 8 years Fox News has blatantly been pro-war, pro-fascism, pro-bush, pro-whatever they were told to be.

In those 8 years, it became to be seen for what it was - a propaganda network. It WASN'T just limited to them, but they were the obvious douchebags, they were the ones defending the state, the wars, Bush, etc.

Now, over the same last few years, in particular, all the attacks of Bush etc.... have been coming from the likes of Keith Olberman, MSNBC, etc. all the "lefties".

During this time, they gained credibility etc. Denounced wars, whatever. They "told it like it is". No real obvious "propaganda". (Obviously MASSIVE AMOUNTS, I'm just taking this from a laymans perspective... the general sheeple, who are now following Obama like drones)

Anyway, now that Obama is President, the script is going to flip.

MSNBC, CNN, Hardball, Olberman etc. THEY will become the propaganda outlets. THEY will be the NEW FAUX NEWS!

They speak out against the regime, when their "side" is not in power. NOTHING ever gets done, its all chatter in the wind, it SEEMS like there is vocal opposition to the status quo, but it really means jack squat.

This is why Glenn Beck moved to Fox News. They are now the ANTI-STATUS QUO CHANNEL. See his show? He's calling government



This is, there ain't nothing funny about it. FISHY is more like it.

So expect to start questioning yourself when Fox News actually say shit that makes sense, like Libertarian style stuff. (Won't be all the time, but more so than ever) Like actual Conservative, Glen Beck type of comments. All the trolls start to appear ok. It is because they are the new anti-status quo channel, who won't do shit against the other tide of public opinion and media.

People go, Fox News attacking Obama? Yeah, no wonder they supported Iraq, Bush, Neocons etc. They'll instantly dismiss whatever it is, and kling to the MSNBC, CNN BULLSHIT that will be thrown at them.

*sigh*

It is all part of the false paradigm. It is all coerced. It doesn't "just" happen.

</hopefully sensical rant>

It's inevitable.

[BenIsForRon]

Hey speaking of conspiracy, Bill Moyers Journal only comes on very late on friday nights, so nobody will watch it. I wonder who at PBS decided to put it in such a terrible timeslot?

[JoshLowry]

bump all you need to read is the first post in this thread

[Conza88]

bump all you need to read is the first post in this thread

:o Thanks Josh :D

relevant bump. (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=205836)

[pacelli]

Becoming more relevant every day!

[Conza88]

Becoming more relevant every day!

Yeap, mr becky beck beck.

[kahless]

Foxnews has dropped some of the Neocon rhetoric while MSNBC and CNN are still cheerleaders for the left. Olbermann never had any credibility. Not much has really changed other than some here stopped drinking the MSNBC Kool Aid.

[Pennsylvania]

When has Glenn Beck ever been anything but opposition to the Democratic Party? Have any of us heard his complete denunciation of the Iraq War, ON THE AIR? You know, the same war Ron Paul has been denouncing since its very beginning, as well as every other sham false-flag op TPTB could throw at him? I'm so sick of Beck's opportunistic pandering and I'm sick of seeing decent people sucked into it.

[Vessol]

When has Glenn Beck ever been anything but opposition to the Democratic Party? Have any of us heard his complete denunciation of the Iraq War, ON THE AIR? You know, the same war Ron Paul has been denouncing since its very beginning, as well as every other sham false-flag op TPTB could throw at him? I'm so sick of Beck's opportunistic pandering and I'm sick of seeing decent people sucked into it.

I'm a libertarian at heart---I WAS FOR THE PATRIOT ACT!

[kahless]

I'm a libertarian at heart---I WAS FOR THE PATRIOT ACT!

"I WAS" past tense.

He came around just like the sheeple are coming around. The tactic of some here to be unforgiving of past mistakes will kill this movement. Even if it is a deception we should use the opportunity rather than knock those that are now giving us a voice.

[paulitics]

Foxnews has dropped some of the Neocon rhetoric while MSNBC and CNN are still cheerleaders for the left. Olbermann never had any credibility. Not much has really changed other than some here stopped drinking the MSNBC Kool Aid.

Olbermann and Msnbc spoke out on Bush's ant-constitutional policies. Patriot act, wiretapping, military comissions act, torture. Now, it is dead silence.

Fox news was an around the clock war propaganda machine and an apolgist for anti-constitutional policies in the name of the war on terror.

MSNBC was the anti-establishment channel, and the most libertarian of the 3. Now, Fox is the most libertarian of the 3.

The only thing that has changed is that some are drinking the Fox News koolaid, esp if they are too stuck in the right/left paradigms to notice it.

Conza nailed this one. Even as cynical as I am, the changes are far less subtle than I had expected.

[RM918]

"I WAS" past tense.

He came around just like the sheeple are coming around. The tactic of some here to be unforgiving of past mistakes will kill this movement. Even if it is a deception we should use the opportunity rather than knock those that are now giving us a voice.

It's not about being unforgiving. It's about not being naive. People are raising this guy up like he's a hero and telling all their friends to watch and support when they have no proof of how solid his stances are.

[paulitics]

When has Glenn Beck ever been anything but opposition to the Democratic Party? Have any of us heard his complete denunciation of the Iraq War, ON THE AIR? You know, the same war Ron Paul has been denouncing since its very beginning, as well as every other sham false-flag op TPTB could throw at him? I'm so sick of Beck's opportunistic pandering and I'm sick of seeing decent people sucked into it.

There has not been complete denunciation of any of it. Today, he was railing on Obama for caving into Russia, by not installing a missle shield in their back yard. Can you imagine Judge Napolitano or Ron Paul saying something like this? No, because the thought does not even enter their mind. The difference is they have core principles, are logically consistant, and are truthful.

[kahless]

Olbermann and Msnbc spoke out on Bush's ant-constitutional policies. Patriot act, wiretapping, military comissions act, torture. Now, it is dead silence.

I agree about the dead silence but their coverage of such was fraught with distortion and outright lies. They could have covered this accurately however chose to propagandize.



Fox news was an around the clock war propaganda machine and an apolgist for anti-constitutional policies in the name of the war on terror.


Ok. Like I said they have dropped much of the Neocon rhetoric.



MSNBC was the anti-establishment channel, and the most libertarian of the 3. .

Sorry, but this sentance is absolutely absurd. You must have been watching a different channel. MSNBC has been pushing big government and critical of anything remotely Libertarians to point of associating those beliefs with that of outright domestic terrorists since the 90s.

[kahless]

There has not been complete denunciation of any of it.

Not true since I have heard him denouce some of it even just last Saturday come out against CIA kidnaping, etc.



Today, he was railing on Obama for caving into Russia, by not installing a missle shield in their back yard. Can you imagine Judge Napolitano or Ron Paul saying something like this? No, because the thought does not even enter their mind. The difference is they have core principles, are logically consistant, and are truthful.

I did not hear the radio show today. Beck may have or may not have blown some credibility he gained these last few months for the purpose of getting a few Obama jabs in. I would like to hear his reasoning technically why we need a system in those locations to protect our homeland and if this is to protect the European Union why should WE, a practically bankrupt nation pay for it. EDIT: The need in those locations were for protection against long range nukes that could hit us here. Why would we not want that?

Regardless of this one issue he is still one of the few that is not openly hostile to us, is giving us a voice on some issues and thus we need to use him to our advantage.

[paulitics]

Not true since I have heard him denouce some of it even just last Saturday come out against CIA kidnaping, etc.



I did not hear the radio show today. On the surface, if true then today Beck may have blown some credibility he gained these last few months for the purpose of getting a few Obama jabs in. I would like to hear his reasoning technically why we need a system in those locations to protect our homeland and if this is to protect the European Union why should WE, a practically bankrupt nation pay for it.

Regardless of this one issue he is still one of the few that is not openly hostile to us, is giving us a voice on some issues and thus we need to use him to our advantage.

Yes, he is against CIA kidnapping, which I commend him for. He could gain instant credibility with the libertarians and some democrats by making this a huge issue, and pointing out the hypocrisy of Obama, Clinton, and other prominant Dems who don't have a problem with rendition.

The problem is that in the same breath, he will defend torture. 3 or 4 months ago, when Cheney was on his torture tour around the country, Beck defended the heroic Jack bauer's in the CIA for doing what was "right" despite the law.
90% of his show is attacking democrats, and not the glaring corruption and evil of the neocons that has wrecked our country.

The problem is that he lacks credibility because he is all over the place in his beliefs. Extremely important and urgent issues like the the 4th amendment, wiretapping, patriot act abuses, etc Judge Napalotano talks about every day. With Glenn Beck, it is maybe once a month at best (and being extremely generous with that), and the rest of the time he just bashes the Dems. Do you see the difference?

[kahless]

Yes, he is against CIA kidnapping, which I commend him for. He could gain instant credibility with the libertarians and some democrats by making this a huge issue, and pointing out the hypocrisy of Obama, Clinton, and other prominant Dems who don't have a problem with rendition.

The problem is that in the same breath, he will defend torture. 3 or 4 months ago, when Cheney was on his torture tour around the country, Beck defended the heroic Jack bauer's in the CIA for doing what was "right" despite the law.
90% of his show is attacking democrats, and not the glaring corruption and evil of the neocons that has wrecked our country.

The problem is that he lacks credibility because he is all over the place in his beliefs. Extremely important and urgent issues like the the 4th amendment, wiretapping, patriot act abuses, etc Judge Napalotano talks about every day. With Glenn Beck, it is maybe once a month at best (and being extremely generous with that), and the rest of the time he just bashes the Dems. Do you see the difference?

The issue sounds like he is not covering what you want him to cover but yet is giving us a voice on other issues.

Why are you against the missile defense shield? I understand the part about Russia not being our enemy but it is my understanding the stated purpose is to prevent a long range nuke from Iran. Why would we not want this?

I have heard people say if we change our foreign policy then they would not want to nuke us but there is no guarantee with the lunatics in Iran. Why not have that protection?

[paulitics]

The issue sounds like he is not covering what you want him to cover but yet is giving us a voice on other issues.

Why are you against the missile defense shield? I understand the part about Russia not being our enemy but it is my understanding the stated purpose is to prevent a long range nuke from Iran. Why would we not want this?

I have heard people say if we change our foreign policy then they would not want to nuke us but there is no guarantee with the lunatics in Iran. Why not have that protection?

Would you want Russia putting a missle defense shield at our border in Mexico? At the same time, would you be ok with it, if Russia had an alliance with half the world and had built up troops in Mexico? Of course, Russia would just be protecting Mexico from Ecuador who could strike at any moment.

Short answer. It is none of our business, we are on the other side of the world. Let them deal with their own problems.

[1000-points-of-fright]

Why are you against the missile defense shield? I understand the part about Russia not being our enemy but it is my understanding the stated purpose is to prevent a long range nuke from Iran. Why would we not want this?

The question is not why would we not want this. You should be asking what right do we have to put missiles in other countries. It pisses people off. What if Iran put a defensive missile shield in Venezuela? You think we might get a little anxious?

[paulitics]

The issue sounds like he is not covering what you want him to cover but yet is giving us a voice on other issues.


Kieth Olbermann gave us voice on other issues. He was the only guy in the media consistantly covering the assault on our Bill of Rights during the Bush years. What good is that now?

Perhaps economics is more important to you than civil liberites, but you need to understand that civil liberties is paramount to protecting economic freedom. In fact, economic tyrrany can't last long unless civil liberties are severely restricted, but economic liberty will prevail as long as civil liberties remain intact.

99% of all media pundits are logically inconsistant, which makes them prone to lying, hypocrisy, partisanship. They are doing a damn good job, dividing this country up.

[Mini-Me]

The issue sounds like he is not covering what you want him to cover but yet is giving us a voice on other issues.

Why are you against the missile defense shield? I understand the part about Russia not being our enemy but it is my understanding the stated purpose is to prevent a long range nuke from Iran. Why would we not want this?
To add something to 1000-points-of-fright's post, consider the fact that the USA is now known to start preemptive wars. Installing a missile defense shield somewhere could very well be seen as a setup for launching an attack (by us, Israel, etc.) without fear of retaliation.


I have heard people say if we change our foreign policy then they would not want to nuke us but there is no guarantee with the lunatics in Iran. Why not have that protection?
During the Cold War, the doctrine of "mutually assured destruction" is what saved us all from nuclear war. Although the world is a very different place today, the same basic idea exists. Creating such a one-sided advantage would essentially erase the "mutually" part and make a lot of people very, very nervous. This would certainly upset the current geopolitical balance and could even lead to war, either by one side becoming overconfident or the other side becoming too fearful of imminent attack by an overconfident opponent. Remember, we came close to nuclear war as recently as 1995...all over a misunderstanding and poor communication. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norwegian_rocket_incident)

In the long term, I think a missile defense shield here is a good idea. That said, in this particular case, it would be best to cooperate with other countries (even unfriendly ones) in terms of advance notice, releasing design plans, heavy diplomacy, etc. That way, many countries with differing interests could take steps toward protect themselves (and ultimately the survival of the human race) without making someone nervous enough to start a war. In other words, such a move would safely change the nuclear warfare status quo from, "mutually assured destruction," to, "mutually assured futility."

[kahless]

Would you want Russia putting a missle defense shield at our border in Mexico? At the same time, would you be ok with it, if Russia had an alliance with half the world and had built up troops in Mexico? Of course, Russia would just be protecting Mexico from Ecuador who could strike at any moment.

Short answer. It is none of our business, we are on the other side of the world. Let them deal with their own problems.


The question is not why would we not want this. You should be asking what right do we have to put missiles in other countries. It pisses people off. What if Iran put a defensive missile shield in Venezuela? You think we might get a little anxious?

These replies above have also been my opinion. However I began to change my opinion when I hear that they are needed protect the US from a long range intercontinental missile from Iran or rogue terrorist groups that are determined to get their hands on one. The host countries welcome these systems and we could save a U.S. city of millions. I also remember something about diplomacy to get Russia involved to convince them of the intention was not protection from them but the intended purpose above.

How could this then not be in our best interests?

[paulitics]

These replies above have also been my opinion. However I began to change my opinion when I hear that they are needed protect the US from a long range intercontinental missile from Iran or rogue terrorist groups that are determined to get their hands on one. The host countries welcome these systems and we could save a U.S. city of millions. I also remember something about diplomacy to get Russia involved to convince them of the intention was not protection from them but the intended purpose above.

How could this then not be in our best interests?

Iran can't launch an interconintental missle across the atlantic, nor if they had the capability would they dare. It's an absurd notion along the same lines as Saddaam Hussein attacking us on 911, and having the weapons to blow up the world.

Our real intent is that of meddling in the affairs of that part of the world when we shouldn't be. Russia has stated that if the shield was built, they would consider that an act of war and would shoot it down. That is their policy. Do you want a war with Russia? This would trigger one, as Russia has stated. I don't know if I want to call their bluff.

It sounds like you agree or are at least sympathetic with the necons on foreign policy. These are the same guys that got us in to two quagmires that is nothing but a giant black hole of fraud with trillions of our $$$ gone.

[kahless]

Iran can't launch an interconintental missle across the atlantic, nor if they had the capability would they dare. It's an absurd notion along the same lines as Saddaam Hussein attacking us on 911, and having the weapons to blow up the world.

Our real intent is that of meddling in the affairs of that part of the world when we shouldn't be. Russia has stated that if the shield was built, they would consider that an act of war and would shoot it down. That is their policy. Do you want a war with Russia? This would trigger one, as Russia has stated. I don't know if I want to call their bluff.

It sounds like you agree or are at least sympathetic with the necons on foreign policy. These are the same guys that got us in to two quagmires that is nothing but a giant black hole of fraud with trillions of our $$$ gone.

Like I said I agree with the points made here but since this is a self defense issue against losing a U.S. city I do not believe this is a Neocon issue. There are conflicting reports on Iran's capability but forgetting them for a minute it could be Pakistan or Russia that loses a nuke to a terrorist group or rogue region. A not all that far out scenario considering instability in Pakistan where they have had to repel direct attacks on thier nuclear installations.

I also vaguely remember something about possibly including Russia in the shield and involving them in command and control. I am not sure if that was ever presented or it just did not fly with Russia or with the Pentagon. If we are involving them at that point it negates all the points made above and gives legitimacy to fear of such a rogue launch.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/19/world/europe/19iht-nato.4.7966307.html


U.S. officials said the offer to Russia contained three main elements:

First, the antimissile defense system in Poland and the Czech Republic would be deployed on the basis of threat. The United States and Russia would jointly decide the nature of the threat.

"Our missile defense program is threat-based," said Fried. "If that threat went away, or more realistically was greatly attenuated then obviously we would be much freer to make programmatic adjustments. Our program with the Poles and Czechs is threat-based.

"Russia is interested in this idea," said Fried. "It has concerns about Iran, too. This could be a beginning in defining together the threats."

The second element would involve Russian plans to build its own shield in Gabala, Azerbaijan, which Putin announced in July at a G-8 summit meeting in Germany in response to the U.S plan. Obering said "this could be linked up to the U.S. plan through sharing data."

"By being able to share data across those networks, even at the very preliminary level, to be able to cut radars and that type of thing, you get increased capability," Obering said. "Then, if you actually tie it to where you could get a radar data all the way through from one U.S radar, for example, or a European radar into the Russian system and vice versa, that's when you start getting this expansion of capability."

Third, Russia would also be able to monitor what the U.S. was doing in Poland and the Czech Republic, provided both countries agreed. The plan is that Russia could send liaison officers to these countries. "We said we would be in a position to offer things with respect to our own facilities and command and control elements," Fried said.

[paulitics]

Like I said I agree with the points made here but since this is a self defense issue against losing a U.S. city I do not believe this is a Neocon issue. There are conflicting reports on Iran's capability but forgetting them for a minute it could be Pakistan or Russia that loses a nuke to a terrorist group or rogue region. A not all that far out scenario considering instability in Pakistan where they have had to repel direct attacks on thier nuclear installations.

I also vaguely remember something about possibly including Russia in the shield and involving them in command and control. I am not sure if that was ever presented or it just did not fly with Russia or with the Pentagon. If we are involving them at that point it negates all the points made above and gives legitimacy to fear of such a rogue launch.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/19/world/europe/19iht-nato.4.7966307.html

You can make that same sensationalist argument (the Jack Bauer scenario) of losing an American city and apply it to any neocon policy.

Torture, wiretapping, extraordianary rendition, limiting free speech, shuttting down the internet, and any power grab by the government all become fair game. Afterall we are talking about millions of people.

The whole premise is a false premise, that we are more safe by interfering with Russian affairs, and encircling them with NATO troops, etc.. We are much less safe.

I'm going to repeat it again. Installing the missle shield is an act of war as stated Russian policy. This is no different than our policy if the situation was reversed. Do you want to go to war with Russia? Do you know how friggin dangerous that is? That is what is going to set off a nucleur war.

[Conza88]

WTF happened during the Bush years on the "left" side of politics?

Think ffs... did they change anything?

What the hell do you think is taking place right now?!

You'll look back on this...

"WTF happened during the Obama years on the "right" side of politics?

For crying out loud... when Ron Paul supporters don't learn, what fcken hope is there?

Drop the kool-aid folks.

[Romulus]

Glen's ahead of the curve as well folks. So far ahead he's dropped the neo-con shtick and started with the 'libertarian' one. So now, libertarians are nothing more than neo-con republicans. Were all the same backwoods-hick-right wing-extremists and make make up one party called the republicans.

He's grouping us right in.

[brandon]

bump

[Joe3113]

bump

Good idea. :)


Hannity was discussing Keynesian vs Austrian economics
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=217353

[sofia]

Why are you against the missile defense shield? I understand the part about Russia not being our enemy but it is my understanding the stated purpose is to prevent a long range nuke from Iran. Why would we not want this?

I have heard people say if we change our foreign policy then they would not want to nuke us but there is no guarantee with the lunatics in Iran. Why not have that protection?

the missiles are aimed at underming Russia, NOT defending against a NON EXISTENT Iranian threat.

RUSSIA IS THE ULTIMATE TARGET OF THE NWO GANG

[sevin]

the missiles are aimed at underming Russia, NOT defending against a NON EXISTENT Iranian threat.

RUSSIA IS THE ULTIMATE TARGET OF THE NWO GANG

I'm not very familiar with this theory. What exactly do they have planned for Russia?

[Andrew-Austin]

Bump.

Folks don't be foolish, you don't need Fox news or Glen Beck, you don't need the mainstream media. You don't even need to turn on those channels just to see what the MSM is feeding people, just use the internet to hear what they are saying instead of watching entire programs and boosting their ratings. You don't need to be some hardcore conspiracy theorist to figure this one out, just look at the past and search your gut.

[LittleLightShining]

You've explained it very well Conza.

I am on the same page as you. Beck and Hannity are not "waking up" to these new ideas. I've seen lots of people think that Beck is now a friend.

They are following a script day in and day out.


You definitely called it in your first post. I hope this thread sticks around, because when people re-join the forums in 3 years, we'll have a lot of people who have bought into the conditioning.

This Beck-Hannity thing is a bunch of baloney.

Makes me sad that Conza's gone :( The guy was brilliant and insightful and contributed so much to this place.

[Romulus]

Makes me sad that Conza's gone :( The guy was brilliant and insightful and contributed so much to this place.

ditto

[Paulitical Correctness]

:)

[MsDoodahs]

:)

[ClayTrainor]

:)

[Pennsylvania]

:)

[dannno]

:)

[Ekrub]

:)

[Anti Federalist]

///

[No1ButPaul08]

I'm going to bump this every time someone posts how great Glenn Beck is.

[sevin]

I'm going to bump this every time someone posts how great Glenn Beck is.

:D

[Trigonx]

:)

[No1ButPaul08]

We had a Glenn Beck thread go 24 posts before someone had to come in and post how great he is.

Bump.

[No1ButPaul08]

bump

[sevin]

yea, more beck threads that past few days. bumpity bump bump

[sofia]

keep your eye on the ball...i.e., who does he endorse?....Thats all that matters.

In Texas, it was Rick Perry over Debra Medina

In Connecticut, he remains silent as the brilliant Peter Schiff struggles for name recognition.

In Arizona, he's suddenly silent as McCain is challenged

In Indiana, he gave election day airtime to neo-con Stultzman while ignoring liberty candidate Hostettler.

In 2012, Beck will endorse Palin or Romney over Ron Paul (if he runs)....taking lots of our lesser informed brethren with him.

He's a disgusting, Israeli controlled snake....using the Judge's show to shamefully troll for libertarians who can be led astray.

[Bruno]

bump

[paulitics]

More libertarian stuff, mixed with insanity like Obama (and all progressives) wants to kill all the Jews from Beck the last few days.

[Paulitical Correctness]

:)

[DamianTV]

Well I hate to try to pop your Glen Beck Bubble, but Ron is no fan of Glen...

http://www.digitalmeetingcenter.com/ron-pauls-shocking-message-to-the-tea-party/851883/

(I already posted that as a separate thread, btw...)

[ClayTrainor]

Conza = Prophet :)

[pacelli]

Conza = Prophet :)

I'd say Conza is a highly intelligent person who was adept at watching the patterns and accurately predicted the media's response.

[devil21]

I'd say Conza is a highly intelligent person who was adept at watching the patterns and accurately predicted the media's response.

It is all rather predictable when you consider that it happens every time the government changes party hands. Once you snap out of the matrix and can look at it from the outside, seeing the dynamics of the mass manipulation of the people at work, you can pretty easily predict the big picture future. It all tends to follow the same playbook over and over. Why? Because people are dumb and fall for the same stuff over and over.

[BuddyRey]

Please come back, Conza88! :(

[bunklocoempire]

Election bump.

[RonPaulwillWin]

Tell me the CA lotto numbers please

[bunklocoempire]

The Hannity coming around and isn't so bad bump. lol


The RPF super secret crystal ball. Tell no one of this!

[Conza88]

Hahah! Repeats itself... in circles we go.