Why using figures such as Glenn Beck, and others, is ok.

[Harris4LarouchePAC]

An introduction to Gestalt Physcology:

Most people in society are lead by Gestalts, regardless if they know it or not, for good or bad. Leaders of societies don't act on the individuals to change them, they act upon the gestalts to change them. The leaders know how to wield gestalts in such a manner to move the population. This is what generally puts them in the position to be a leader, and how the population is moved in directions without even knowing it. They know and understand that this is the basis for how human civilization, and society in general, is conducted. If you intervene on the gestalt, you then can move the population...for good or for bad.

Basically the idea of a Gestalt is that of a "Unitary Whole." Now before some here would say "well what about the individuality!?" I am not attempting to disregard the individual when I suggest these things in regards to why we should attempt to use figures such as Glenn Beck and others. The individuals combined in the sense of their "movement" as a population is what makes up the Unitary whole, thus the people that are acted upon by the leaders to move said individuals in the population are the "Gestalts."

Therefor there is nothing wrong with using figures that are like Gestalts to spread the word about the "message." If we do it, we are doing it for the "good" and if we dont do it, you can bet your ass someone else will do it for the "bad."

You have to think of these things with a sense of dynamics. You don't have to like Glenn Beck. I don't like him. Should we use to him to spread the message out preserving and returning to The Constitution? Hell Yes. This is how society and thus civilization functions. If you don't see this and understand it, then you will just go throughout life and judge things/people based upon your sense perception, and that is not reality.

I would encourage you to check out Gestalt Psycology. Particularly the works of Wolfgang Kohler on the matter. I can assure you that you will better understand what and how you have to do what is we are trying to get done.

And the really important thing to remember is: "The sum is not the whole of it's parts."

So its not about FOX news, its not about any individual such as glen beck, its about the Gestalt of Imperialism verses the Gestalt of Liberty, the Gestalt of Humanity's will to be free and just and the leaders that act upon them.

-Harris

[paulim]

Edit: Post maybe misleading and Off Topic.

[Harris4LarouchePAC]

A kind of symbolism. But I think you're wrong if you expect to USE people for the good as others use them for the bad. If you idolize people, they can choose their own path afterwards. The bad guys can do this, because they have absolute control over their created idol. Therefore you would need control and the next question would be: who has the power and so on.
I agree that a kind of symbolism is a missing brick and the reason the establishment is that successfull and people like Ron have such a hard time.
Think about the "Join or die" with the snake, or the LOVE in the Revolution. That are symbols people don't want to miss, but they are created bottom up.
Of course conza88 wouldn't admit that, because "everyone acts purposefull", but this believe in purposefull behavior is simply not enough to make a step beyond the kind of people who use logic in 80% of their daily decisions. That are not many.
I have no answer though how to solve this, and your idea seems questionable.

You completely missed the point.

Edit: I'm pretty sure that is my fault for lack of a better wording of the point.

[MsDoodahs]

I have removed the posts which were off the topic; those are now in a thread in Hot Topics titled "Conza's attempt to derail Harris' gestalt thread."

[Conza88]

The leaders know how to wield gestalts in such a manner to move the population.

I'd disagree with your use of the word leaders. The RULERS do. There is a difference between natural leaders, and artificial leaders. The artificial "leaders" are the rulers, those who exist in their position due to the initiation of violence. i.e See most of the MSM and the entire fourth estate.


They know and understand that this is the basis for how human civilization, and society in general, is conducted. If you intervene on the gestalt, you then can move the population...for good or for bad.

Ideology, the cloak of the state. Pay the intellectuals to whore themselves for the status quo. Simple. The basis for civilization is the division of labor and private property rights.


Therefor there is nothing wrong with using figures that are like Gestalts to spread the word about the "message." If we do it, we are doing it for the "good" and if we dont do it, you can bet your ass someone else will do it for the "bad."

"We" don't do anything. Individuals do. The messenger matters when the messenger changes the message. No? Especially when they have a history of doing so. Especially when they are the pawns of the establishment. Especially when I and other switched on folks called all of this and said exactly what would happen, and it all has.

Snake in the grass is evident... as I have always said, criticize him for being wrong previously, criticize him for everything he was previously, state why he is now correct on the issues he is, and then get the people to read Austrian Economics and Ron Paul... get them to turn the tv off.

Not "WATCH GLENN BECK HE SPEAKETH TEH TRUTH" don't fall for the trap. Don't use him to promote the message, we don't need to! Or have you learnt jack, since the campaign?


You have to think of these things with a sense of dynamics. You don't have to like Glenn Beck. I don't like him. Should we use to him to spread the message out preserving and returning to The Constitution? Hell Yes. This is how society and thus civilization functions. If you don't see this and understand it, then you will just go throughout life and judge things/people based upon your sense perception, and that is not reality.

Falling for the false left / right. Same old tripe. Go on promoting Glenn Beck as one of us at your own peril.


I would encourage you to check out Gestalt Psycology. Particularly the works of Wolfgang Kohler on the matter. I can assure you that you will better understand what and how you have to do what is we are trying to get done.

And the really important thing to remember is: "The sum is not the whole of it's parts."

So its not about FOX news, its not about any individual such as glen beck, its about the Gestalt of Imperialism verses the Gestalt of Liberty, the Gestalt of Humanity's will to be free and just and the leaders that act upon them.

-Harris

I'd encourage you to check out Ludwig Von Mises, Theory and History.



"Gestalt psychology passionately rejects the psychological doctrine of associationism. It ridicules the conception of "a sensory mosaic which nobody has ever observed" and teaches that "analysis if it wants to reveal the universe in its completeness has to stop at the wholes, whatever their size, which possess functional reality." 1 Whatever one may think about Gestalt psychology, it is obvious that it has no reference at all to the problems of society. It is manifest that nobody has ever observed society as a whole. What can be observed is always actions of individuals. In interpreting the various aspects of the individual's actions, the theorists develop the concept of society. There cannot be any question of understanding "the properties of parts from the properties of wholes." 2 There are no properties of society that cannot be discovered in the conduct of its members.

In contrasting society and the individual and in denying to the latter any "true" reality, the collectivist doctrines look upon the individual merely as a refractory rebel. This sinful wretch has the impudence to give preference to his petty selfish interests as against the sublime interests of the great god society.

1. K. Koffka, "Gestalt/' Encyclopaedia of the Social Sciences, 6, 644.
2. Ibid., p. 645.

:cool:

[Conza88]

Of course conza88 wouldn't admit that, because "everyone acts purposefull", but this believe in purposefull behavior is simply not enough to make a step beyond the kind of people who use logic in 80% of their daily decisions. That are not many.
I have no answer though how to solve this, and your idea seems questionable.

lol... What wouldn't I admit?

Purposeful behavior. i.e the action axiom. Every human chooses an end, and uses means to achieve them. Logic and rationality play no factor, nor does intent (in terms of praxeology), and the end result - only action does.

[tonesforjonesbones]

Why is it that everything positive about Glenn Beck has to be prefaced with "I don't like Glenn Beck but..".... Tones

[LibertyEagle]

A kind of symbolism. But I think you're wrong if you expect to USE people for the good as others use them for the bad. If you idolize people, they can choose their own path afterwards. The bad guys can do this, because they have absolute control over their created idol. Therefore you would need control and the next question would be: who has the power and so on.

Who said we should idolize Beck?

[paulim]

Who said we should idolize Beck?

Thats the way I understood the OP, although Harris said already that I misunderstood him... Gestalting Beck? You as an individual can have an influence on the views of others and your own. That does not change the subject, it only changes the perception. For me that looks like an idol. But forget whatever I said, because the OP should clarify what he means first, then there is a base for a comment.

[LibertyEagle]

Thats the way I understood the OP, although Harris said already that I misunderstood him... Gestalting Beck? You as an individual can have an influence on the views of others and your own. That does not change the subject, it only changes the perception. For me that looks like an idol. But forget whatever I said, because the OP should clarify what he means first, then there is a base for a comment.

You are misunderstanding what he's talking about.



Therefore there is nothing wrong with using figures that are like Gestalts to spread the word about the "message." If we do it, we are doing it for the "good" and if we dont do it, you can bet your ass someone else will do it for the "bad."

You have to think of these things with a sense of dynamics. You don't have to like Glenn Beck. I don't like him. Should we use to him to spread the message out preserving and returning to The Constitution? Hell Yes. This is how society and thus civilization functions. If you don't see this and understand it, then you will just go throughout life and judge things/people based upon your sense perception, and that is not reality.

I would encourage you to check out Gestalt Psychology. Particularly the works of Wolfgang Kohler on the matter. I can assure you that you will better understand what and how you have to do what is we are trying to get done.

And the really important thing to remember is: "The sum is not the whole of it's parts."

So its not about FOX news, its not about any individual such as glen beck, its about the Gestalt of Imperialism verses the Gestalt of Liberty, the Gestalt of Humanity's will to be free and just and the leaders that act upon them.



Also, go read this thread. It's along the same vein..
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=211112

[TGGRV]

I kept suggesting people to read Jean Francois Revel - The Flight from Truth: The Reign of Deceit in the Age of Information if they want to understand how ideology works. This book should be required reading for anyone that wanted to have a functional brain and not get dragged into the media-education-politics ideological field and have an open mind to filter information from ideology.

Actually all this crap about imperialism is an emanation of a said ideology that just doesn't want to die.

I could write a lot about the information vs ideology thing. Ideology has 4 purposes:
1. the instrument of "power"
2. mechanism of defending yourself against information
3. excuse to not be moral, sometimes approving of evil while knowing it is wrong
4. a mean to disregard experience, eliminating or suspending sometimes forever the failure/success criteria.
I can ramble about this forever.

[Harris4LarouchePAC]

So ok you take two lines, right? And they intersect with one another making a point. Now, try reconstructing a line with a series of points. It is impossible.

To not think of an individual in a dynamic way is just arrogant. So your saying that the human body and mind cannot be looked at as a "whole" but rather little particles splashing all around randomly serving no purpose as "individuals" and somehow the world turns because of that?

Get real man.

Mises is severely flawed in this respect.

[constituent]

I kept suggesting people to read Jean Francois Revel - The Flight from Truth: The Reign of Deceit in the Age of Information if they want to understand how ideology works. This book should be required reading for anyone that wanted to have a functional brain and not get dragged into the media-education-politics ideological field and have an open mind to filter information from ideology.

Actually all this crap about imperialism is an emanation of a said ideology that just doesn't want to die.

I could write a lot about the information vs ideology thing. Ideology has 4 purposes:
1. the instrument of "power"
2. mechanism of defending yourself against information
3. excuse to not be moral, sometimes approving of evil while knowing it is wrong
4. a mean to disregard experience, eliminating or suspending sometimes forever the failure/success criteria.
I can ramble about this forever.

...keep going

[Conza88]

So ok you take two lines, right? And they intersect with one another making a point. Now, try reconstructing a line with a series of points. It is impossible.

To not think of an individual in a dynamic way is just arrogant. So your saying that the human body and mind cannot be looked at as a "whole" but rather little particles splashing all around randomly serving no purpose as "individuals" and somehow the world turns because of that?

Nope. Maybe you should read the book an alleviate your ignorance.

http://mises.org/th.asp


Get real man.

Mises is severely flawed in this respect.

No, you and your mate Gastalt are severely flawed. Btw, I didn't see you present any kind of argument against mine or Mises. You asked a question.


"Finally there are the misconstructions caused by the organismic metaphor. We may compare society to a biological organism. The tertium comparationis is the fact that division of labor and cooperation exist among the various parts of a biological body as among the various members of society. But the biological evolution that resulted in the emergence of the structure-function systems of plant and animal bodies was a purely physiological process in which no trace of a conscious activity on the part of the cells can be discovered. On the other hand, human society is an intellectual and spiritual phenomenon.

In cooperating with their fellows, individuals do not divest themselves of their individuality. They retain the power to act antisocially, and often make use of it. Its place in the structure of the body is invariably assigned to each cell. But individuals spontaneously choose the way in which they integrate themselves into social cooperation. Men have ideas and seek chosen ends, while the cells and organs of the body lack such autonomy."

[Harris4LarouchePAC]

I dont copy and paste other people explaining things to attempt to put other's arguments down, and to pretend I know what im talking about.

It is obvious you don't understand Gestalt Psycology or else you would clearly understand the questions I asked. Both from a geometric and biological stance. It sounds to me that this Mises guy is a reductionist tool affiliated with that of the Eugenics movement in the USA in the post war period.

If the Gestalt theory is flawed, then explain to me why you cannot reconstruct the solar system without running into a "3 body problem" if you take all physical principled forces into consideration. Explain why is it you cannot make up a line with a series of points. Seriously Conza, I think you think we are just a bunch of protons, electrons, and nuetrons zooming around with no sense of purpose.

The sum is more than the whole of its parts. This is fact, and you can copy and paste whatever bullshit from Mises you want. That doesn't prove to me that you have any idea as to what you are talking about, and you don't. So go ahead...get to Mises.org or w/e the URL is, use the search feature, and begin to paraphrase the text into your own words to make yourself sound intelligent.

Harris

Edit: And please, refrain from attempting to claim that I am ignorant. You spend your time saying "left!" when others say right, "blue!" when others say red, "A!" when others say B. That is you. You and Tron hated one another, but in all honesty you are one in the same.

[Conza88]

I dont copy and paste other people explaining things to attempt to put other's arguments down, and to pretend I know what im talking about.

Oh, I'm sorry - you're not actually worth my time. So I paste the arguments that I agree with and I probably wouldn't have been able to do a better job of explaining.

I know what I'm talking about, pity you don't. Do you plan on responding to the rebuttal?


It is obvious you don't understand Gestalt Psycology or else you would clearly understand the questions I asked. Both from a geometric and biological stance. It sounds to me that this Mises guy is a reductionist tool affiliated with that of the Eugenics movement in the USA in the post war period.

Ignorance. Ignorance. Ignorance. (http://blog.mises.org/archives/005756.asp) Ignorance. Ignorance. Ignorance. (http://mises.org/web/2714#Ch.8)

Mises condemned eugenics in no uncertain terms (thanks to David Gordon for pointing this out):


It is vain for the champions of eugenics to protest that they did not mean what the Nazis executed. Eugenics aims at placing some men, backed by the police power, in complete control of human reproduction. It suggests that the methods applied to domestic animals be applied to men. This is precisely what the Nazis tried to do. The only objection which a consistent eugenist can raise is that his own plan differs from that of the Nazi scholars and that he wants to rear another type of men than the Nazis. As every supporter of economic planning aims at the execution of his own plan only, so every advocate of eugenic planning aims at the execution of his own plan and wants himself to act as the breeder of human stock.


If the Gestalt theory is flawed, then explain to me why you cannot reconstruct the solar system without running into a "3 body problem" if you take all physical principled forces into consideration. Explain why is it you cannot make up a line with a series of points. Seriously Conza, I think you think we are just a bunch of protons, electrons, and nuetrons zooming around with no sense of purpose.

There is a difference between the natural sciences and the social sciences you dimwit. EPISTEMOLOGICAL FAIL. Try again good sir. Btw, drop the strawmen, you keep insinuating what I must think. Tsk tsk., always wrong.


The sum is more than the whole of its parts. This is fact, and you can copy and paste whatever bullshit from Mises you want. That doesn't prove to me that you have any idea as to what you are talking about, and you don't. So go ahead...get to Mises.org or w/e the URL is, use the search feature, and begin to paraphrase the text into your own words to make yourself sound intelligent.

Harris

OH awesome and you can ignore the arguments that DESTROY yours and pretend I never posted them. Whoop whoop! :rolleyes:


Edit: And please, refrain from attempting to claim that I am ignorant. You spend your time saying "left!" when others say right, "blue!" when others say red, "A!" when others say B. That is you. You and Tron hated one another, but in all honesty you are one in the same.

I don't need to claim anything, you make that much obvious through your own actions.

[Harris4LarouchePAC]

There is a difference between the natural sciences and the social sciences you dimwit. EPISTEMOLOGICAL FAIL. Try again good sir. Btw, drop the strawmen, you keep insinuating what I must think. Tsk tsk., always wrong.



OH awesome and you can ignore the arguments that DESTROY yours and pretend I never posted them. Whoop whoop! :rolleyes:



I don't need to claim anything, you make that much obvious through your own actions.

There is a differece between Social Sciences and Natural Science, but the connections are dynamic, and obviously you don't see that. Also, there is nothing wrong with responding to a question with a question of your own, as I have done. The fact you refuse to answer the questions is a rebuttle to you within itself. The fact you keep chanting "ignorant! ingorance!" shows a lot about ones character.

And if those two realms of science differ, completely, as you say. Then why is it Vernadsky and Driesh adopted the gestalt to explain phenomenon outside of the field of social sciences, especially when problems began to surface with the quantam?

I'm just asking questions in response to your own. Those in which you refuse to answer in any form, even with a question. All you can say is "theres a difference!" or here *copies and paste* "read this!" and then there is the whole trend you often cling to shouting "ignorance."

And in particular, you really havent said much about the Gestalt theory being applied to the relevant figures such as Glenn Beck and others in regards to the movement. So in reality, once again, you haven't contributed anything to the discussion at hand. Just simply trying to derail the thread from the real issue at hand, insult the other repeatedly...same ole' shit Consa...same ole' shit.

You're predictable.

Edit: I wasn't accusing Mises of being involved directly with the eugenics movement. Moreso the rhetoric used sounded/looked a lot like that of the people opposing Kohler, Vernadsky, Driesch, and others in the mid-20th century.

[paulim]

about the Gestalt theory being applied to the relevant figures such as Glenn Beck and others in regards to the movement.
Can you help with that? I surely didn't try to derail your thread. How does this theory translate into politics and social science? Should I know by now? I agree with your geometry. You surely meant something else than the thread posted by libertyEagle.

[expendibleater]

An introduction to Gestalt Physcology:

Most people in society are lead by Gestalts, regardless if they know it or not, for good or bad. Leaders of societies don't act on the individuals to change them, they act upon the gestalts to change them. The leaders know how to wield gestalts in such a manner to move the population. This is what generally puts them in the position to be a leader, and how the population is moved in directions without even knowing it. They know and understand that this is the basis for how human civilization, and society in general, is conducted. If you intervene on the gestalt, you then can move the population...for good or for bad.

Basically the idea of a Gestalt is that of a "Unitary Whole." Now before some here would say "well what about the individuality!?" I am not attempting to disregard the individual when I suggest these things in regards to why we should attempt to use figures such as Glenn Beck and others. The individuals combined in the sense of their "movement" as a population is what makes up the Unitary whole, thus the people that are acted upon by the leaders to move said individuals in the population are the "Gestalts."

Therefor there is nothing wrong with using figures that are like Gestalts to spread the word about the "message." If we do it, we are doing it for the "good" and if we dont do it, you can bet your ass someone else will do it for the "bad."

You have to think of these things with a sense of dynamics. You don't have to like Glenn Beck. I don't like him. Should we use to him to spread the message out preserving and returning to The Constitution? Hell Yes. This is how society and thus civilization functions. If you don't see this and understand it, then you will just go throughout life and judge things/people based upon your sense perception, and that is not reality.

I would encourage you to check out Gestalt Psycology. Particularly the works of Wolfgang Kohler on the matter. I can assure you that you will better understand what and how you have to do what is we are trying to get done.

And the really important thing to remember is: "The sum is not the whole of it's parts."

So its not about FOX news, its not about any individual such as glen beck, its about the Gestalt of Imperialism verses the Gestalt of Liberty, the Gestalt of Humanity's will to be free and just and the leaders that act upon them.

-Harris

The problem with this theory that "Gestalt leaders are ok" is that they work for multi-national media companies who don't give a rats a$$ about the people who they are manipulating.

[Harris4LarouchePAC]

Can you help with that? I surely didn't try to derail your thread. How does this theory translate into politics and social science? Should I know by now? I agree with your geometry. You surely meant something else than the thread posted by libertyEagle.

Im not sure what questions you may have. If perhaps you can ask them more directly I can give a better answer.

The best I can do for now is this:

Gestalts such as beck, obama, and many others have certain influences on individuals. Leaders of society don't engage the idividual to bring about the changes, for good or for bad, they rather engage the gestalts to bring about the changes or agenda, whatever you wish to call it.

I am saying, as a movement, we have to press Beck to do certain things for the better. The reason for that is it is clear he acts as a Gestalt. If he didnt, people wouldn't have made a big uproar about Van Jones right? Think of the chants of the "obamabots" saying "YES WE CAN! YES WE CAN!" and now think of the Glen Beck "9/12ers" saying "USA! USA! USA!"

The fact of the matter is that individuals act in such a way that people come out to "lead" them. Even if the total purpose of the individuals participating in the process are for "individual liberty." There is still a gestalt at the tip of the movements of those people, even us...consider Ron Paul for example.

Humans feel the need to be a part of something larger than themselves, that is human nature. Sure, some don't but the mass majority...and a very very large majority do. Therefor the Gestalt theory is all around you in almost every aspect of phenomenon. If it wasn't, there would be no organized society. And those who don't "want to participate in society" in an "anti-social" way, even they have a dynamic impact on society...by simply not being a part of it....yet even they...subscribe to gestalts within the Libertarian party. Its funny to be honest, all the people who "just want to be left alone" often gather together with other people who also just "want to be left alone."

[Harris4LarouchePAC]

The problem with this theory that "Gestalt leaders are ok" is that they work for multi-national media companies who don't give a rats a$$ about the people who they are manipulating.

Doesn't matter if it causes a good or a bad impact on society...its still there and going on...regardless.

[expendibleater]

Doesn't matter if it causes a good or a bad impact on society...its still there and going on...regardless.

It doesn't matter???

Bottom line, the only way to escape these methods is to stop listening to these clowns.

[Wampy]

Let me couch my upcoming question in this manner.

I am a person who is looking to seriously get involved in working with a political party for the first time. The problem is fining one I can actually back. The Democrats have been taking over by various flavors of Marxists over the years and the Republicans seem quite content to grow government and limit liberty on their terms as well. While I might identify with republicans, generally speaking, my view is they still treat the Constitution as nice old thing to hang on the wall, but not really all THAT applicable to today’s government.

So, I take some time and get over that whole “a vote for some small 3rd party is a wasted vote” thing and I start looking. I like the Constitution and start searching there. I find the Constitution party. The only problem is that them seem to like the constitution, only up until it buts up against something they don’t like, then it’s ok to make more rules. That does not work for me.

So I finally come across the Libertarian party. According to all the views put forth in their issues and platform pages, they fit my views almost perfectly. With the exception of one issue, it’s a perfect fit. More than one could hope for really. Now what? If my desire is to be part of making the Constitution the law of the land again and shrinking the federal behemoth back down to a workable size, this sound like the place to be. The question is, would that be what I am joining, or am I just joining a social club for those who just like to quote Jefferson?

I have seen two threads here that caught my eye. One involved Glen Beck directly, the other ended up mentioning him a lot, though he was not the real subject. I suppose one might expect to find all the same personality types regardless of the group in question, but I don’t know what to make of what I am reading here. Let’s face it, the Libertarian party is not a big threat to win very much right now, though I think you could very much argue that this is the most opportune moment in decades for the Libertarians to make advances. The Libertarian platform is the absolute antithesis of exactly the issues driving popular discontent today.

So why isn’t the Libertarian party more widespread, more noticeable? The thing that seems odd to me is that I am reading so many comments about ignoring and shunning the only person on a televised news channel who I have ever heard talk about Libertarians, much less say the word out loud. I am reading a “purity of the movement” undercurrent. That seems terribly counter productive. If one’s goal is to grow the party and assume enough influence to put some brakes on out of control government.

I read one poster opine that they would jettison the only “viable” (I say that generously, in terms of national recognition and recognition of message) candidate that the party has, if he said the wrong thing about one issue. Another, in regards to Glen Beck, said:


Even if Beck was sincerely attempting to change, why would any of us want to empower or "support" somebody in a transitional phase? THAT is dangerous (and foolish).

To me, the outsider, that reads like I better have fully consumed my kool-aide before she will let me in the door. Hmmmm, think she’s gonna stay a four percenter for a REAL LONG time if the party takes that approach to growth and outreach.

Fact is, as far as the sheeple (as some call them) are concerned, you and your party do not exist. Be prepared to limiting your celebrations to winning the odd local school board seat. Take the ACORN story. How far would that story have gone if it were not for people like Beck, Hannity, O’Reilly, etc.? Fox news is the only mass media outlet for this party. No one else is going to give the Libertarians the time of day, much less exposure. So far, however, I can’t tell if the party has even gone as far as those two kids, their video camera, and the chinchilla coat. The new media is there. It’s making a difference, but a big component to it’s success is that it filters out to the mass media enough to be noticed. I don’t see that the party has figured out how to harness that yet. I had to look way too hard to find Libertarians in my area.

So, after all that analytical drivel, what is the silly question I mentioned at the beginning? Which group makes up most of the Libertarian party? The group that wants to seize every opportunity to “get the message out”, or the group that is more concerned with the purity of the message or the ideological purity of the person standing next to them? I think it would be fair thing for a person who had to go out of their way to find the libertarians (and, at the moment they do have to go out of their way to find the party) to know before putting their energy into the party. Otherwise, they might as well go back and shovel sand with whoever their “lesser of two evils” choice of party would be and fantasize about changing that party from within.

Based on the platform, based on the issues, based on the philosophy, the LP is the only place left to go. So I can’t help but wonder what the answer is. I mean, most in this country are resigned to the two party system because that is what they grew up with. Most will not come looking for the LP. Most will not bother looking at all. Will the party be looking for them? Is the party small because most people know about the party and don’t agree with it, or because they know nothing about the party or whether they would agree with it?

[expendibleater]

Why using figures such as Glenn Beck, and others, is ok.
It means the audience doesn't have to exercise their brain.

YouTube - Network (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MTN3s2iVKKI)

[Pericles]

Let me couch my upcoming question in this manner.

I am a person who is looking to seriously get involved in working with a political party for the first time. The problem is fining one I can actually back. The Democrats have been taking over by various flavors of Marxists over the years and the Republicans seem quite content to grow government and limit liberty on their terms as well. While I might identify with republicans, generally speaking, my view is they still treat the Constitution as nice old thing to hang on the wall, but not really all THAT applicable to today’s government.

So, I take some time and get over that whole “a vote for some small 3rd party is a wasted vote” thing and I start looking. I like the Constitution and start searching there. I find the Constitution party. The only problem is that them seem to like the constitution, only up until it buts up against something they don’t like, then it’s ok to make more rules. That does not work for me.

So I finally come across the Libertarian party. According to all the views put forth in their issues and platform pages, they fit my views almost perfectly. With the exception of one issue, it’s a perfect fit. More than one could hope for really. Now what? If my desire is to be part of making the Constitution the law of the land again and shrinking the federal behemoth back down to a workable size, this sound like the place to be. The question is, would that be what I am joining, or am I just joining a social club for those who just like to quote Jefferson?

I have seen two threads here that caught my eye. One involved Glen Beck directly, the other ended up mentioning him a lot, though he was not the real subject. I suppose one might expect to find all the same personality types regardless of the group in question, but I don’t know what to make of what I am reading here. Let’s face it, the Libertarian party is not a big threat to win very much right now, though I think you could very much argue that this is the most opportune moment in decades for the Libertarians to make advances. The Libertarian platform is the absolute antithesis of exactly the issues driving popular discontent today.

So why isn’t the Libertarian party more widespread, more noticeable? The thing that seems odd to me is that I am reading so many comments about ignoring and shunning the only person on a televised news channel who I have ever heard talk about Libertarians, much less say the word out loud. I am reading a “purity of the movement” undercurrent. That seems terribly counter productive. If one’s goal is to grow the party and assume enough influence to put some brakes on out of control government.

I read one poster opine that they would jettison the only “viable” (I say that generously, in terms of national recognition and recognition of message) candidate that the party has, if he said the wrong thing about one issue. Another, in regards to Glen Beck, said:



To me, the outsider, that reads like I better have fully consumed my kool-aide before she will let me in the door. Hmmmm, think she’s gonna stay a four percenter for a REAL LONG time if the party takes that approach to growth and outreach.

Fact is, as far as the sheeple (as some call them) are concerned, you and your party do not exist. Be prepared to limiting your celebrations to winning the odd local school board seat. Take the ACORN story. How far would that story have gone if it were not for people like Beck, Hannity, O’Reilly, etc.? Fox news is the only mass media outlet for this party. No one else is going to give the Libertarians the time of day, much less exposure. So far, however, I can’t tell if the party has even gone as far as those two kids, their video camera, and the chinchilla coat. The new media is there. It’s making a difference, but a big component to it’s success is that it filters out to the mass media enough to be noticed. I don’t see that the party has figured out how to harness that yet. I had to look way too hard to find Libertarians in my area.

So, after all that analytical drivel, what is the silly question I mentioned at the beginning? Which group makes up most of the Libertarian party? The group that wants to seize every opportunity to “get the message out”, or the group that is more concerned with the purity of the message or the ideological purity of the person standing next to them? I think it would be fair thing for a person who had to go out of their way to find the libertarians (and, at the moment they do have to go out of their way to find the party) to know before putting their energy into the party. Otherwise, they might as well go back and shovel sand with whoever their “lesser of two evils” choice of party would be and fantasize about changing that party from within.

Based on the platform, based on the issues, based on the philosophy, the LP is the only place left to go. So I can’t help but wonder what the answer is. I mean, most in this country are resigned to the two party system because that is what they grew up with. Most will not come looking for the LP. Most will not bother looking at all. Will the party be looking for them? Is the party small because most people know about the party and don’t agree with it, or because they know nothing about the party or whether they would agree with it?

Best post in this thread.

[Flash]

Why was Conza bad?


Oh, I'm sorry - you're not actually worth my time. So I paste the arguments that I agree with and I probably wouldn't have been able to do a better job of explaining.

I know what I'm talking about, pity you don't. Do you plan on responding to the rebuttal?



Ignorance. Ignorance. Ignorance. (http://blog.mises.org/archives/005756.asp) Ignorance. Ignorance. Ignorance. (http://mises.org/web/2714#Ch.8)

Mises condemned eugenics in no uncertain terms (thanks to David Gordon for pointing this out):


It is vain for the champions of eugenics to protest that they did not mean what the Nazis executed. Eugenics aims at placing some men, backed by the police power, in complete control of human reproduction. It suggests that the methods applied to domestic animals be applied to men. This is precisely what the Nazis tried to do. The only objection which a consistent eugenist can raise is that his own plan differs from that of the Nazi scholars and that he wants to rear another type of men than the Nazis. As every supporter of economic planning aims at the execution of his own plan only, so every advocate of eugenic planning aims at the execution of his own plan and wants himself to act as the breeder of human stock.



There is a difference between the natural sciences and the social sciences you dimwit. EPISTEMOLOGICAL FAIL. Try again good sir. Btw, drop the strawmen, you keep insinuating what I must think. Tsk tsk., always wrong.



OH awesome and you can ignore the arguments that DESTROY yours and pretend I never posted them. Whoop whoop! :rolleyes:



I don't need to claim anything, you make that much obvious through your own actions.

[JoshLowry]

Three day ban for using insults.

Dimwit. Telling a poster he is not worth his time.

They barely classify as an insult, but he was warned many times before to cut it out. He doesn't have as much tolerance from the mods anymore.

[Flash]

kk.

[tonesforjonesbones]

THIS!!!!!!!! Has been my point..who are we running OFF??? Come ON folks ...lets GROW THIS MOVEMENT!!!! TONES

Originally Posted by Wampy
Let me couch my upcoming question in this manner.

I am a person who is looking to seriously get involved in working with a political party for the first time. The problem is fining one I can actually back. The Democrats have been taking over by various flavors of Marxists over the years and the Republicans seem quite content to grow government and limit liberty on their terms as well. While I might identify with republicans, generally speaking, my view is they still treat the Constitution as nice old thing to hang on the wall, but not really all THAT applicable to today’s government.

So, I take some time and get over that whole “a vote for some small 3rd party is a wasted vote” thing and I start looking. I like the Constitution and start searching there. I find the Constitution party. The only problem is that them seem to like the constitution, only up until it buts up against something they don’t like, then it’s ok to make more rules. That does not work for me.

So I finally come across the Libertarian party. According to all the views put forth in their issues and platform pages, they fit my views almost perfectly. With the exception of one issue, it’s a perfect fit. More than one could hope for really. Now what? If my desire is to be part of making the Constitution the law of the land again and shrinking the federal behemoth back down to a workable size, this sound like the place to be. The question is, would that be what I am joining, or am I just joining a social club for those who just like to quote Jefferson?

I have seen two threads here that caught my eye. One involved Glen Beck directly, the other ended up mentioning him a lot, though he was not the real subject. I suppose one might expect to find all the same personality types regardless of the group in question, but I don’t know what to make of what I am reading here. Let’s face it, the Libertarian party is not a big threat to win very much right now, though I think you could very much argue that this is the most opportune moment in decades for the Libertarians to make advances. The Libertarian platform is the absolute antithesis of exactly the issues driving popular discontent today.

So why isn’t the Libertarian party more widespread, more noticeable? The thing that seems odd to me is that I am reading so many comments about ignoring and shunning the only person on a televised news channel who I have ever heard talk about Libertarians, much less say the word out loud. I am reading a “purity of the movement” undercurrent. That seems terribly counter productive. If one’s goal is to grow the party and assume enough influence to put some brakes on out of control government.

I read one poster opine that they would jettison the only “viable” (I say that generously, in terms of national recognition and recognition of message) candidate that the party has, if he said the wrong thing about one issue. Another, in regards to Glen Beck, said:



To me, the outsider, that reads like I better have fully consumed my kool-aide before she will let me in the door. Hmmmm, think she’s gonna stay a four percenter for a REAL LONG time if the party takes that approach to growth and outreach.

Fact is, as far as the sheeple (as some call them) are concerned, you and your party do not exist. Be prepared to limiting your celebrations to winning the odd local school board seat. Take the ACORN story. How far would that story have gone if it were not for people like Beck, Hannity, O’Reilly, etc.? Fox news is the only mass media outlet for this party. No one else is going to give the Libertarians the time of day, much less exposure. So far, however, I can’t tell if the party has even gone as far as those two kids, their video camera, and the chinchilla coat. The new media is there. It’s making a difference, but a big component to it’s success is that it filters out to the mass media enough to be noticed. I don’t see that the party has figured out how to harness that yet. I had to look way too hard to find Libertarians in my area.

So, after all that analytical drivel, what is the silly question I mentioned at the beginning? Which group makes up most of the Libertarian party? The group that wants to seize every opportunity to “get the message out”, or the group that is more concerned with the purity of the message or the ideological purity of the person standing next to them? I think it would be fair thing for a person who had to go out of their way to find the libertarians (and, at the moment they do have to go out of their way to find the party) to know before putting their energy into the party. Otherwise, they might as well go back and shovel sand with whoever their “lesser of two evils” choice of party would be and fantasize about changing that party from within.

Based on the platform, based on the issues, based on the philosophy, the LP is the only place left to go. So I can’t help but wonder what the answer is. I mean, most in this country are resigned to the two party system because that is what they grew up with. Most will not come looking for the LP. Most will not bother looking at all. Will the party be looking for them? Is the party small because most people know about the party and don’t agree with it, or because they know nothing about the party or whether they would agree with it

[JoshLowry]

Compromise, compromise, compromise!

Palin is more than welcome to be a true liberty supporter.

I however will never start supporting a few tyrannical policies so that someone else may find me more palatable.

When Palin says all the right things, not just some of them, then I will support her. If she gives me honey, honey, poison. She can go sit on a sharp stick for all I care.

It is Palin that needs to change, not the people who understand liberty and our constitution.

[tonesforjonesbones]

Well..Palin has disappointed me lately. I was referring to Beck. Did I post compromise? tones

[eOs]

Why is it that everything positive about Glenn Beck has to be prefaced with "I don't like Glenn Beck but..".... Tones

I think it's cuz they really don't like Glenn Beck, unless you think people are saying it to look cool.

Anyway, yea I don't really like Glenn Beck, but I'm gonna have to agree with Harris on this one. No matter what Beck is or isn't, if he can be utilized as a mouthpiece to further our cause, then I say why not. No need to follow him and further, jump ship when appropriate, I'm gonna have to agree with Harris on this one.

[tonesforjonesbones]

I do'nt know what's in their heads. I just find it kind of crazy to not be happy that he's doing a lot to spread the message. He has more viewers than any other talk show host. Why waste the opportunity? The judge is on a lot also. tones

[Conza88]

Why was Conza bad?

Why was I banned is the more correct question.

And the answer to that is, LaRouche is friends with LE and on VENT often. LE despises me and thus takes any opportunity to ban.

No, I'm not paranoid - I get pm's from friendly folks stating as such.

I called a supporter of FDR, Hamilton, Lincoln, and imo a laroachue propagandist who has stated he is going to leave, after dissing the forum, a dim wit..

Well shiver me timbers, surely thats worth a 2 week ban! :rolleyes:


Three day ban for using insults.

2 week ban from LE, but because you're not emotional about these things, you have no problem being reasonable and thus cut it down. Thanks :)

[LibertyEagle]

Why was I banned is the more correct question.

And the answer to that is, LaRouche is friends with LE and on VENT often. LE despises me and thus takes any opportunity to ban.

No, I'm not paranoid - I get pm's from friendly folks stating as such.

I called a supporter of FDR, Hamilton, Lincoln, and imo a laroachue propagandist who has stated he is going to leave, after dissing the forum, a dim wit..

Well shiver me timbers, surely thats worth a 2 week ban! :rolleyes:

Let's be honest, shall we. You have been rude and insulting to a number of people here for a very long time. You have told people they shouldn't engage in political activism. You have driven new people off of this board because they somehow did not pass your muster of pureness; some long-time activists have left because of your rude behavior and your never-ending attempts to convert onlookers and forum members to Rothbardian anarcho-capitalism. Your latest trick was to try to convince people that Ron Paul was some kind of anarchist, which he most clearly is not.

So, no, calling a forum member a dimwit and suggesting that they should not be here, will NOT be allowed. This name-calling is far from the only instance.

Here's just one of the many examples that exist:

Wrong newBITCH. Is English hard to understand? :cool:

Able to differentiate between a RULER and a Leader? Hmmm? No? Failed that part in primary school?

What a shame.. :rolleyes:

A typo, you claimed. A "typo" that you repeated THIRTEEN TIMES.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?p=2314607&highlight=newbitch#post2314607
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?p=2314605&highlight=newbitch#post2314605
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?p=2306958&highlight=newbitch#post2306958
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?p=2294305&highlight=newbitch#post2294305
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?p=2243046&highlight=newbitch#post2243046
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?p=2242144&highlight=newbitch#post2242144
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?p=2242142&highlight=newbitch#post2242142
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?p=2241782&highlight=newbitch#post2241782
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?p=2225665&highlight=newbitch#post2225665
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?p=2224269&highlight=newbitch#post2224269
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?p=2224267&highlight=newbitch#post2224267
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?p=2206514&highlight=newbitch#post2206514
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?p=2206454&highlight=newbitch#post2206454

If you start this behavior back up again, I will ban you again. Understand?


2 week ban from LE, but because you're not emotional about these things, you have no problem being reasonable and thus cut it down. Thanks :)

Josh is who wanted to reduce your ban; not me. I just want to make that clear.

By the way, most of your remarks toward Harris were split off to a new thread:
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=211086

Conza, you have the ability to be a real asset to this movement. When you take on the role of board bully, you become a liability. The two have to be weighed against each other. ie. a cost-benefit analysis. I truly hope you work this out.

[Liberty Star]

From other related discussion:

Glenn Beck completely destroys Bush era neocon with sheer force of his arguments for suggesting that removing missiles from Russian borders in Poland had put America on a chopping block and other explosive issues against empire building in his first major intervew since his apology few days ago. He's getting the libertarian message out with millions watching his show since ad boycott fiasco:


YouTube - Glenn Beck Clips 09-23-09 Seg5- John Bolton: Obama Speech to UN Most Radical Ever by Pres. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tifr101lGvQ)


All those who had called Beck a fraud or mentally unstable propagandist may have to take their words back and apologize to Beck.

[constituent]

Ok Children, let's take it to private messages.

(hahahaha :D)

[tonesforjonesbones]

LOOK...I don't like it that Beck has been pandering to neocons and zionists lately..and I notice he has...BUT, who do you think runs the media? What's he supposed to say? Wipe Israel off the map? He'd be fired for sure...and anything DECENT he says will also be lost...and he has said quite a bit of decent things. I'm starting to feel some real dissent on this board concerning Glenn Beck...it's ridiculous. TONES

[JoshLowry]

Uh, I don't think really any sort of group here wants to wipe Israel off the map.

Many of us do want them to quit lobbying our government for military aid.


Beck is a lapdog. Go after his supporters. No one here is going to praise him for following orders from his boss while trying to sneak in good bits of information.

[LibertyEagle]

I agree with Josh on this. Don't focus on Beck. Focus on his viewers/supporters.

[Wampy]

I agree with Josh on this. Don't focus on Beck. Focus on his viewers/supporters.

See, now that's simple sense. The exposure and support is what's important. My mind boggles to think that I had people, earlier today, that said we (libertarians) should be in Pittsburgh associating ourselves with violent socialist and anarchists. At the very same time, they probably would have turned around and said that we should never accept, support, or even be happy about Beck providing Libertarians with exposure....

I'd rather get mention, exposure, and whatever support might come up with Beck, than to have Libertarians lumped in with psycho rock throwing marxists. I don't think you are going to attract many independent and moderate voters from other parties with a stack of rap sheets. That's just me though.

Win the war of ideas, grow the party, get candidates elected, fix the law...

[Liberty Star]

As long as he grows America firsters movement, that's good news for spread of liberties.

Obama is helping greatly but people like Beck in MSM have to do their part too to make sure as many Republican convert as possible.

[Flash]

Why was I banned is the more correct question.

And the answer to that is, LaRouche is friends with LE and on VENT often. LE despises me and thus takes any opportunity to ban.

No, I'm not paranoid - I get pm's from friendly folks stating as such.

I called a supporter of FDR, Hamilton, Lincoln, and imo a laroachue propagandist who has stated he is going to leave, after dissing the forum, a dim wit..

Well shiver me timbers, surely thats worth a 2 week ban! :rolleyes:


lol, I actually meant 'banned' not 'bad.' That's what I get for typing posts late at night.

[MsDoodahs]

Go after his supporters. No one here is going to praise him for following orders from his boss while trying to sneak in good bits of information.

:)

Is there anything wrong with going after those more left leaning on issues that appeal to them where we have some common ground?

[Conza88]

Let's be honest, shall we. You have been rude and insulting to a number of people here for a very long time. You have told people they shouldn't engage in political activism.

That's a complete and utter lie. Don't lie LE, it's not good for your reputation as being intellectually honest. Oh, wait - that's already tarnished.

I've defended political activism constantly. So put down your vile falsehoods and act like an adult. Thanks.


You have driven new people off of this board because they somehow did not pass your muster of pureness; some long-time activists have left because of your rude behavior and your never-ending attempts to convert onlookers and forum members to Rothbardian anarcho-capitalism.

Another lie. As I have always stated, I defend the truth, liberty and Ron Paul's ideals - Natural Law, Natural Rights and Austrian Economics.

LE, where have the ancap wars gone? When was the last time you saw me post about anarcho-capitalism on here? Ever notice that certain people have stfu and stopped attacking it, and that I have then, haven't needed to defend it?

What is confusing to me is, me - now, compared to when I was posting when the minarchist trolls were about, I'd say I've improved considerably, in terms of not cussing or venting at anyone - since I haven't needed too... yet for some reason, the hatred against me, by you and others has grown considerably. :confused: lol


Your latest trick was to try to convince people that Ron Paul was some kind of anarchist, which he most clearly is not.

It's not a trick. And no, I'm against anarchy. Stop with the fallacies LE. They aren't valid arguments. Ron supports Natural law, natural rights and Austrian Economics. Are you implying Ron is not principally and logically consistent?

YouTube - MHD Joins Lew Rockwell on Ernest Hancock's "Declare Your Independence" to Discuss Anarchy In America (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MuV2pkXgZ0Y)


So, no, calling a forum member a dimwit

He's called people worse. I see no ban. Who else here has called someone else, something worse than a dimwit? Aye? Let's be honest now... how about you go ban yourself.


and suggesting that they should not be here, will NOT be allowed.

Another lie. I never suggested anything. I asked a question. He made a big fcken deal about leaving, I was naturally suprised to see him still posting. Nothing wrong with that, I couldn't care less if he stayed or went.


This name-calling is far from the only instance.

Here's just one of the many examples that exist:

A typo, you claimed. A "typo" that you repeated THIRTEEN TIMES.

If you start this behavior back up again, I will ban you again. Understand?

AHHHH yes, the minarchist troll days. Notice, once again - since that shit has stopped, I've been nothing but cordial, aye? Why bring up the past LE, that has nothing to do with this ban... and you know that.

Why bring it up? To try add weight behind your fundamentally childish reason for banning, to hide your emotional and profoundly unprofessional action.

What ban me again? I just got banned by you for calling someone a dimwit, for 2 weeks. You don't think the time away will make me change, you just want me gone, that's all.


Josh is who wanted to reduce your ban; not me. I just want to make that clear.

I know, let's do make that clear.


Conza, you have the ability to be a real asset to this movement. When you take on the role of board bully, you become a liability. The two have to be weighed against each other. ie. a cost-benefit analysis. I truly hope you work this out.

Be glad I'm on your side and not the others. Do as Ron does and don't defend the state, no problems. I only get agitated when folks here attack the logical and principled conclusion of Libertarianism, and that is when I bump and post certain articles. I already have it sorted out LE, it is those others who need to sort it out, and I believe - HAVE, which is why I haven't posted on anarcho-capitalism extensively here for weeks. Don't attack it, I won't defend it. Simple. ;)

[Conza88]

:)

Is there anything wrong with going after those more left leaning on issues that appeal to them where we have some common ground?

Exactly. And a way to instantly gain credence is to attack Glen Beck. It separates you from the astroturf. So tailoring it to the audience is a big factor.

Just like attacking Bush first, before going on to attack Obama... its so they don't instantly put you in the other camp.

[tonesforjonesbones]

I believe there is more success with the conservatives rather than the socialist liberals. Maybe if you can find some blue dawg democrats...that might work. The only thing we have in common with the socialist liberals that I can see is the war issue...but suddenly the wars are good now..since they are Obama's wars. Tones

[Conza88]

I believe there is more success with the conservatives rather than the socialist liberals. Maybe if you can find some blue dawg democrats...that might work. The only thing we have in common with the socialist liberals that I can see is the war issue...but suddenly the wars are good now..since they are Obama's wars. Tones

Well yeah, they are momentarily aligned with us, since faux news is now the anti-status quo channel. We just need to get people off the tubes, otherwise its pointless. "Convert" them to our position, doesn't stop at supporting the man, or policies. They need to know why, to have principles, or come the next election, or when they get in power / faux news starts chanting an anti liberty message, then they'll just change with the breeze.

[tonesforjonesbones]

Well I agree..the TV holds too much sway on the people..both sides of the fence. I have gotten so that I can filter things. I can't stand Levin..total neo con, and Hannity is too much into the false Left / right paradigm. Beck, on the other hand, mentioned the false left/right paradigm the other night. Whether Beck has been created (and the judge) to corral the liberty/alex jones type crowd..I dunno. I remember seeing Alex Jones on a podcast..on the Judges show touting The Obama Deception. It remains to be seen if Beck and the Judge are controlled opposition. If they lead us over the bridge to nowhere...I guess we will know. TONES

[squarepusher]

I believe there is more success with the conservatives rather than the socialist liberals. Maybe if you can find some blue dawg democrats...that might work. The only thing we have in common with the socialist liberals that I can see is the war issue...but suddenly the wars are good now..since they are Obama's wars. Tones

this is true, but overall I just saw a recent poll that said Democrats 6/10 oppose war in Afghanistan, and the national average was like 5/10 , like my brother even who voted for Obama, is anti-Afghanistan. I really think its a critical time now where Dem's will see, is Obama really anti-war? Obama can still get elected if he warmongers in Afghanistan, he may lose some dem votes, but will likely also pick up some rep/indep's so if he appeases the NWO, which likely means more war, I'm sure they will find a way to get him elected again for 2012 (even if some democrats feel that he betrayed him)

[tonesforjonesbones]

I keep waiting for the socialist democrats to admit he betrayed them...NAFTA, the Patriot Act, Iraq, wiretapping, gays are still on don't ask don' t tell, wars in Pakistan and now Somalia...but it's like the emperor's new clothes for them...strangest thing I've ever seen. tones

[MsDoodahs]

Exactly. And a way to instantly gain credence is to attack Glen Beck. It separates you from the astroturf. So tailoring it to the audience is a big factor.

Just like attacking Bush first, before going on to attack Obama... its so they don't instantly put you in the other camp.

Exactly what I was thinking.

Audience is key.

[Conza88]

I keep waiting for the socialist democrats to admit he betrayed them...NAFTA, the Patriot Act, Iraq, wiretapping, gays are still on don't ask don' t tell, wars in Pakistan and now Somalia...but it's like the emperor's new clothes for them...strangest thing I've ever seen. tones

Yeah, it's a good opportunity to put them on the back foot. Accept their position, agree with it, (i.e anti patriot act, nafta, iraq, wiretapping, gays, more wars) and then tell them Obama sold out, and so did they.

They are not principled. They just wanted their ruler in charge. DEEP DOWN they know it too. Obviously pleasantly go about the approach, "so in the Bush years, you were very vocal about being against the patriot act, iraq war etc. right?"

"Well what changed? :confused:"

"Still there... etc."

:)

[tonesforjonesbones]

I wish some of you would join me on paltalk. www.paltalk.com I could use the help! tones

[TGGRV]

It is hilarious if dimwit is worth banning for. Hamadeh called me worse, I reported him and nothing. :D

[eOs]

..

[JoshLowry]

It is hilarious if dimwit is worth banning for. Hamadeh called me worse, I reported him and nothing. :D

When you repeatedly use insults and are given many warnings, your tolerance with the admins and mods is going to go down.

It was a three day ban, not permanent - this time. ;)

[Liberty Star]

Using former fair weather pundits and neocons now and then is ok, but abusing them could be a problem - they should be used sparingly.

[Conza88]

It is hilarious if dimwit is worth banning for. Hamadeh called me worse, I reported him and nothing. :D

Haha, just befriend the forum moderator elite who are prone to emotional responses... That only really leaves one. Ways to do this include frequent vent and chat participation.

Another factor that is vitally important to have, that gains favor - is to have forum confrontations with those that they despise. That way you instantly become a fellow traveler and common allies. Should you be in this position, this certain someone will go out to bat for you in all occasions, no matter what you've said, threatened or done.

Sorry TGGRV, we haven't had any of them yet.. :(

[LibertyEagle]

Conza, follow the forum guidelines and respect the forum mission statement and you will have no problems. It is the fact that you chose not to, that led to your numerous infractions and temp bans. Take responsibility for you own actions and move on.

[Conza88]

Conza, follow the forum guidelines and respect the forum mission statement and you will have no problems. It is the fact that you chose not to, that led to your numerous infractions and temp bans. Take responsibility for you own actions and move on.

LE, I have taken responsibility for my own actions. Maybe you should - for starters... retracting your lies and falsehoods you said about me.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=2336676&postcount=45

You gave them as part of your reason for the ban. They are lies and wrong.

Moderation fail. I'll move on when you correct your mistakes.

[LibertyEagle]

LE, I have taken responsibility for my own actions. Maybe you should - for starters... retracting your lies and falsehoods you said about me.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=2336676&postcount=45

You gave them as part of your reason for the ban. They are lies and wrong.

Moderation fail. I'll move on when you correct your mistakes.

:rolleyes:


Another lie. I never suggested anything. I asked a question. He made a big fcken deal about leaving, I was naturally suprised to see him still posting. Nothing wrong with that, I couldn't care less if he stayed or went.

Oh really?



Why are you still here? :confused:

Don't strawman me thanks. That would be, i.e erecting bs arguments (fallacious) and then proceeding to attempt to knock them down. I said nothing of the sort, so fail. :)

I just asked, because you made a big deal about leaving, like an attention whore.. and I was just wondering why you were still here.

Oh, ok moneybomb... maybe you should have done your attention whoring, after you completed what you are sticking around for?

Hmm? Oh well.
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=211086




AHHHH yes, the minarchist troll days.
Minarchist trolls? Do you mean RP supporters who did not believe in anarchy, that you and your buddies over at Mises were plotting to rout out? Those, Conza?
From Minarchism to Anarchism in Ten Easy Steps
http://mises.org/Community/forums/p/8184/168000.aspx

Or do you mean Constitutionalists, like Ron Paul? Clearly, you see anyone who wants to end up with any government whatsoever, to be your nemesis.


Notice, once again - since that shit has stopped, I've been nothing but cordial, aye?
Do you mean since you either ran them off of this board ( many long-time members), or they put you on ignore?

You are acting like a board bully, Conza.




:confused: How about you DON'T DEFEND THE STATE, directly or indirectly - EVER. How about you realise - someone defending Liberty is working to help your cause, how about you call the overlords a criminal gang writ large and stfu when you think we're going "too far" eh? Then we can be chums all the way.

How about you be intellectually honest for a change?

What books have you read on anarcho-capitalism?

I've read the minarchists works, what have you read? List, them, now thanks.
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?p=2200690#post2200690


Why bring up the past LE, that has nothing to do with this ban... and you know that. Why bring it up? To try add weight behind your fundamentally childish reason for banning, to hide your emotional and profoundly unprofessional action.Yes, it does. You were pulling the same crap witih Harris that you were pulling with Newbitech just week before last. Thread (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=209067) Split/off-topic posts from that thread (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=210260)


It's not a trick. And no, I'm against anarchy. Stop with the fallacies LE. They aren't valid arguments. Ron supports Natural law, natural rights and Austrian Economics. Are you implying Ron is not principally and logically consistent?


You don't claim Ron Paul is an anarchist, nor an anarcho-capitalist, eh? Well then, what are these?



Funny, the burden of proof actually rests of you to back up your bullshit claim.

Yeah, you can't. Which is why you didn't.

Come again? This time make sense. Being sarcastic right? If you want to provide some kind of refutation then go ahead. Otherwise drop the childish attitude, because you're wrong.


Where does he not apply the theory of praxeology (science of human action) to the real world? Where does he mention the Constitution in that document? If anything, what you said - completely backs up my assertion Ron Paul is an closet anarcho-capitalist.

*YAWWWWWWWWWNNNNN*

Thanks for playing.
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=2313427&postcount=33


Originally Posted by Conza88
Ron Paul believes in natural law and natural rights.

See: He essentially uses it to make it easier, to get a pass on it. Soundbite. Rhetoric.

Washington Warp: Why Even Good People in the Beltway Can't Think Straight by Jeffery Tucker (25min):

"DC culture has the effect of turning people into secret nonarchists or secret totalitarians."

I think it's clear which way Ron would lean. ;)
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=2314616&postcount=63



~snipped for brevity~
See: He essentially uses it to make it easier, to get a pass on it. Soundbite. Rhetoric.

Washington Warp: Why Even Good People in the Beltway Can't Think Straight by Jeffery Tucker (25min):

"DC culture has the effect of turning people into secret anarchists or secret totalitarians."

I think it's clear which way Ron would lean.
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=2243357&postcount=5

I will say again, Conza, you have the ability to be a real asset to this movement. When you take on the role of board bully, you become a liability. The two have to be weighed against each other. ie. a cost-benefit analysis. I truly hope you work this out. Regardless, I'm done playing patty cake with you, Conza. Decide if you truly want to stay here, but if you do, it means cleaning up your act.

Conza, this ends now. I have sat here and put up with your temper tantrum since you came back from your last ban. That time is up. If you continue this on, I WILL ban you again. Understand?

[Conza88]

:rolleyes:

This is not a valid argument.


Oh really?

Really. And what you posted, backs up what I said. Thanks.


Minarchist trolls? Do you mean RP supporters who did not believe in anarchy, that you and your buddies over at Mises were plotting to rout out? Those, Conza?
From Minarchism to Anarchism in Ten Easy Steps
http://mises.org/Community/forums/p/8184/168000.aspx

No, I mean the trolls and they don't have to specifically be minarchists... like this one (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=199348):


http://img16.imageshack.us/img16/6523/anarchistflame.jpg

It is those who go out of their way to attack a truly free society, the logical and principled conclusion of Libertarianism. That which adheres to Natural Law, Natural Rights and Austrian Economics.... that all of which is what Ron Paul believes in. His arguments come from these positions, not because of a piece of paper. The ONLY reason he HAS HAD A POLITICAL CAREER IS BECAUSE OF AUSTRIAN ECONOMICS. <-- From the mans words. Not just spoken, but written & published.

LE, as I told RPH and who I guess didn't pass this onto the moderator forum, or maybe you're just ignoring it for conveniences sake:


"I was banned by LE, for a week for calling out optatron / josh_la as a troll.

I wasn't in the mood to defend a forum that had banned me, for no good reason."

Oh yeah, remember that? I also remember you denying it, me being correct, and you - wrong. I also remember asking how you suddenly knew it was him, after you had done all the background, ip etc checks. I never got a response to that, like I haven't got a response from you on a lot of things. Like the reason for getting warnings. How am I meant to alter my behavior, when you won't even elucidate as to why I got a warning. I asked, no response, standard ignore - that's all.


Or do you mean Constitutionalists, like Ron Paul? Clearly, you see anyone who wants to end up with any government whatsoever, to be your nemesis.

Clearly I don't, as I have constantly stated (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/search.php?searchid=4068279). Clearly you have no idea what you are talking about.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?p=2005882
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?p=2034745
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?p=2200808
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=2034757&postcount=29

You don't learn, or listen - because you don't want to. Shame, oh shame and thats just a taste.


Do you mean since you either ran them off of this board ( many long-time members), or they put you on ignore?

I didn't run anyone of this board. They left on their own free will. The truth hurts - and I'm sorry they are confronted with the fact that the emperor has no clothes. You can either A) run away, B) contemplate C) debate and discuss.


You are acting like a board bully, Conza.

The only person acting like a bully is you, LE. Go on - ban me for 2 weeks for nothing. History repeats itself.



http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?p=2200690#post2200690
Yes, it does. You were pulling the same crap witih Harris that you were pulling with Newbitech just week before last. Thread (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=209067) Split/off-topic posts from that thread (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=210260)

Wrong. That post was completely relevant. Read the thread, or at least the end. I think someone learnt something. Even if its not agreement, since folks stopped attacking anarcho-capitalism, I haven't needed to defend it.

Again, see any min/ancap wars recently? :rolleyes: Nope, which is why you've got to dig dig dig.

And by "same crap" you mean asking releveant questions? Sure.


You don't claim Ron Paul is an anarchist, nor an anarcho-capitalist, eh? Well then, what are these?

No, I said he wasn't an anarchist. (Traditional socialist). Don't add words to what I said LE, that would be intellectually dishonest. Thing is, you need to do so too try make your point. Your first example doesn't prove your point, it proves mine. Second quote is yep and the last one slipped through the net. But this clears it up:

Dearest Conza.... by Kludge (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=200787)

Wow, LE... you seemed to have missed this 9 page thread addressing your exact question.


Conza, this ends now. I have sat here and put up with your temper tantrum since you came back from your last ban. That time is up. If you continue this on, I WILL ban you again. Understand?

Translation: "if you continue to defend yourself and your reputation by refuting the lies I have said about you, I will ban you."

By the way, I just love it how you cherry pick with your responses. I always address everything, you always ignore the most important aspects.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=2336676&postcount=45

LE, did you manage to find any quote of me being against political activism? No? Ohhh but you obviously tried to, extensively - just as you tried with the other comments.

I believe you owe me an apology, or a redaction. I also believe I've done more for the movement from 12,000 miles away, than you have from 12. But if you want to go ban an activist, I'm sure there isn't much that will stop you. "Dimwit" is grounds for a 2 week ban according to you. I guess I have no doubt this unprofessionalism will continue.

Oh, forgot to address that video? Yes.. forgot to critique Ron's support of Natural Law, Natural Rights and Austrian Economics.. well yes.

"In reality, the Constitution itself is incapable of achieving what we would like in limiting government power, no matter how well written."
~ Dr. Ron Paul, End the Fed 2009

So wait... why is this person, who, according to you - is a strict constitutionlist... why is this Champion of Liberty writing in his book, that the Constitution is useless and "incapable of achieving limited government, no matter how well written"? Aye? Funny that.. that's something an anarcho-capitalist would say.

Go on, try rationalize it... maybe you should instead check your own premises and the legitimacy of your beliefs. No?

Alternatively, if you want me to stfu - don't attack me, or anarcho-capitalism / anti-monopolism / voluntaryism / self government / nonarchy / radical classical liberalism / principled and logically consistent libertarian / Austro-Libertarian... and I won't need to defend it with the truth, logic and sound reasoning. Said it over and over again, some people listen, some people don't. Basically everyone has listened, but not you LE. I only respond, remember that.

[muzzled dogg]

who the fuck is running this site?

dude got banned for nothing

[Joe3113]

^ Can say that again.

[cheapseats]

Glenn Beck is exceedingly well paid by Rupert Murdoch, who is an inordinately wealthy and powerful man. A Player. As well, Glenn Beck -- like seemingly everyone else -- has books to pimp. Books that have already been published. By major publishers. Glenn Beck is INvested in the dog-and-pony show. Big-time INvested. With uber big-time Players.

VS.

Grassroots Outrage.

Watchfulness, funnily enough, is the watchword as to who is using whom.

[LibertyEagle]

who the fuck is running this site?

dude got banned for nothing

He was banned for incessantly insulting forum members. By the time he was permanently banned, he had two pages worth of infractions for breaking the forum guidelines and had been temp-banned at least 3 times for the very same thing. He refused to stop. Thus, he is now gone. Suffice it to say, that he was given more chances than anyone in the history of RPFs.

[Pericles]

Good call - people have to be able to make a point and tolerate the views of others.

[ClayTrainor]

So Conza's gone for good?

I don't see any insults in this thread, and I've noticed conza has toned down his language and attitude A LOT since previous banning's, and i can't say he's any more disrespectful than some other members that never get banned. I won't mention any names, but even i have made some of these mistakes.

[LibertyEagle]

So Conza's gone for good?

Yes.

[ClayTrainor]

Yes.

hmmmmmm.... can't say i even remotely agree with that decision, but this forum is not my property.

I think Conza was a great contributor, and his positive effects on this forum far outweigh the negatives. I'll have to try and stay in touch with him another way, i enjoy learning from him.

[LittleLightShining]

hmmmmmm.... can't say i even remotely agree with that decision, but this forum is not my property.

I think Conza was a great contributor, and his positive effects on this forum far outweigh the negatives. I'll have to try and stay in touch with him another way, i enjoy learning from him.That's the problem.

This really sucks.

[Todd]

That's the problem.

This really sucks.

This article kinda validates some of what Conza was saying.

The Hate that Never Dies (http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/index.php/2009/10/07/the-hate-that-never-dies/)

If Beck and his ilk were such a real threat to the establishment, then why do the establisment weenies like him so much?

Jonah Goldberg has become one of the biggest neocon tools over the last 8 years and Piatek makes that point.


The clearest evidence that Beck and Limbaugh and indeed the tea parties pose no real threat to the governing elite is (Jonah) Goldberg’s praise for them.

[Mini-Me]

I've clashed a lot with Conza in the past, but he really had been seriously toning down his "attitude" over the past couple months or so. I definitely noticed a shift in his tone, and it's a shame to see him banned just after becoming more civil. :(