PDA

View Full Version : The Jon Stewart / Steven Colbert Rally and it's True Intentions




SamuraisWisdom
11-01-2010, 07:16 PM
There seems to be a lot of people here who believe that the Stewart/Colbert Rally held over the weekend was supposed to be some sort of left-leaning Obama love-fest. Well, after having watched the whole thing (3 hours) it was apparent that politics was the last thing this rally was actually about. Nobody was pushing for any agenda, or supporting any candidate, or hinting toward any ideology.

The purpose of the event was to rally people around the concept of intelligent and civil discourse in politics and to expose the farce which we have today from both sides of the isle. This doesn't just include the people working in Washington, but the whole country. They raised awareness to the fact that there are many groups of people who yell so loud that they drown out the average person trying to stand up for their own beliefs. They exposed the media as being perpetrators of fear (which they do regularly on their shows as well) and in fact dedicated a solid hour or so to just that, including a montage.

I know there are a lot of people on here who don't like Jon Stewart because they believe he uses his show as some sort of left-leaning propagator, but this rally had nothing to do with being left/right/up/down or any other direction you could think of.

Although most of the rally was meant to be funny, Stewart did take about 15 minutes at the end to give a solemn speech. I suggest to anyone who didn't see the rally to listen to it and hopefully you'll get a better idea as to what he was trying to get across.

YouTube - Jon Stewart's speech at the Rally For Sanity. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jXmbzLI3pnk&feature=topvideos)

AlexMerced
11-01-2010, 07:21 PM
I agree, Jon Stewart is lefty, but he's the fairest one on television.

He articulate his point of view very well, and really taps into the common perception of the typical smart than average persons frustrations, and also reflects the lack of understanding they have about a lot of things.

Jon Stewart never seems like he isn't willing to new ideas, but we got to ackowledge the lefts positions are an easier sell on the surface, it takes a lot of studying a inner contemplation to get to the place most of us are.

awake
11-01-2010, 07:26 PM
"the concept of intelligent and civil discourse in politics", well, it is quite literally the equivalent of sitting down to tea with your local neighborhood thief to discuss his principled stance on property rights in general.

AuH20
11-01-2010, 07:31 PM
Stewart would have really hit a homerun if he focused on the government instead of something as so supplementary as cable news. The government is the one who divides us into classes, propping up one group, while degrading the rights of others. The government is one that distrusts its population so much that it maintains an exhaustive list of laws, from dietary prohibitions to cyber surveillance. The government breeds contempt among us and accentuates our divisions.

Anti Federalist
11-01-2010, 07:34 PM
The purpose of the event was to rally people around the concept of intelligent and civil discourse in politics and to expose the farce which we have today from both sides of the isle.

I can't think of a civil thing to say to somebody that supports the bombing of Pakistan without any, as far as I can tell, congressional approval, that think it's perfectly OK to assassinate US citizens by executive fiat, that strip searching and feeling up 8 year old girls at the airport is needed to "keep us safe", and that black bagging and rendering US citizens to parts unknown for torture and execution is acceptable "policy".

I wasn't prepared to talk civilly with the mouth breathing "kill 'em all and turn it into a glass parking lot" crowd, and I'm not prepared to talk civilly with the calm, soothing, Mr. Macky school psychiatrist crowd either.

"Why so serious and angry, hmmm? No need to be that way, mmm, kay."

People are pissed, and for good reason and about goddamn time too.

The last thing we need is some cable TV comedians telling everybody to go back to sleep, calm down and everything will be fine, mmm, kay.

SamuraisWisdom
11-01-2010, 07:46 PM
Stewart would have really hit a homerun if he focused on the government instead of something as so supplementary as cable news. The government is the one who divides us into classes, propping up one group, while degrading the rights of others. The government is one that distrusts its population so much that it maintains an exhaustive list of laws, from dietary prohibitions to cyber surveillance. The government breeds contempt among us and accentuates our divisions.

See that would have fallen under the category of perpetuating a political stance, which was not the point of the rally. He just wanted to get out the idea that the environment that the government creates in conjunction with the media is such that it divides the country and makes it seem like we're on the brink of oblivion. If we just took a step back from 24 hour cable tv and listened to each other instead of those on the screen and in Washington, we'd find that we don't really have that many differences and might find it easier to work together on issues that are important and get things done.

zade
11-01-2010, 08:16 PM
Yep I agree with the OP. Media and the theatrics of electoral politics have been entirely successful in convincing people who don't really know anything that this whole circus of democrats vs republicans is a meaningful ideological struggle, when really it is just a diversion and makes people think they are aware of what's going on. This is of course complete propaganda as both parties, as most of us here know, are pretty much for the same things.

But I feel there's another facet of propaganda, perhaps more subtle, that is meant to divide and conquer not the know-nothings rallying behind one of the two parties, but principled people who really do understand what's going on, understand the systems of exploitation that are corporatism and state-capitalism. People like us.

This line of propaganda I feel many libertarians have bought into. This is what has this forum yelling about how all our problems amount to radical Marxism or "cultural Marxism" or globalist communism, and what has principled progressives (I can hear the shouts coming now, "there are no principled progressives!") yelling about how all our problems are radical capitalism and the conservative order. Neither claim is true.

By dividing us this way, as well as along partisan lines, the owners have stopped the people who "get it" from ever working together to shake up the system that they are both against. Really there are broad areas of agreement. That's why Ron Paul had that whole thing with Nader to bring together the principled parties. It's a shame nothing ever amounted from that from what I can see. It doesn't whatsoever threaten the power structure that you guys have decided to label everything as Marxism. It just further removes us from the possibility of becoming a force for the "owners" of this country to reckon with.

goopc
11-01-2010, 08:56 PM
There can never be “civil discourse” about government. How can you debate rationally and calmly when there is a “gun in the room?” Whoever wins the debate gets to point the gun; whoever loses the debate gets the gun pointed at them.

This is one of the biggest myths in American politics (especially among moderates). It’s rationally impossible to debate logically contradictory ideas. For example, it’s impossible to protect property rights while providing socialized healthcare. Debates regarding how property rights will be protected while property is simultaneously stolen to provide healthcare cannot be settled in a rational way. The irresolvable conflict of rights at the philosophical level translates into conflicts at the political level, which are played out through the rhetoric, demagoguery, propaganda, yelling, hate, and “insanity” which Stewart criticizes so heavily.

Also, Jon Stewart’s attacks on the media are factious. As a left liberal he believes that democratic socialism could work if only we “get the right people in charge,” and this requires an informed electorate. He doesn’t want the media to spread a libertarian message, he wants the media to be an educator for the great national socialist government – educating voters so they choose the right politicians for our country’s central planning.

Indy Vidual
11-01-2010, 09:30 PM
There can never be "civil discourse" about government. How can you debate rationally and calmly when there is a “gun in the room?” Whoever wins the debate gets to point the gun; whoever loses the debate gets the gun pointed at them...

+1774:

+1776 for the clear, descriptive visual image
-2 for "There can never be..."


"Never say never, because limits, like fears, are often just an illusion." ~Michael Jordan.

SamuraisWisdom
11-01-2010, 09:43 PM
There can never be “civil discourse” about government. How can you debate rationally and calmly when there is a “gun in the room?” Whoever wins the debate gets to point the gun; whoever loses the debate gets the gun pointed at them.

This is one of the biggest myths in American politics (especially among moderates). It’s rationally impossible to debate logically contradictory ideas. For example, it’s impossible to protect property rights while providing socialized healthcare. Debates regarding how property rights will be protected while property is simultaneously stolen to provide healthcare cannot be settled in a rational way. The irresolvable conflict of rights at the philosophical level translates into conflicts at the political level, which are played out through the rhetoric, demagoguery, propaganda, yelling, hate, and “insanity” which Stewart criticizes so heavily.

Also, Jon Stewart’s attacks on the media are factious. As a left liberal he believes that democratic socialism could work if only we “get the right people in charge,” and this requires an informed electorate. He doesn’t want the media to spread a libertarian message, he wants the media to be an educator for the great national socialist government – educating voters so they choose the right politicians for our country’s central planning.

It's not about winning or losing, it's about understanding each others' positions and working together to come up with a compromise that works. And that last paragraph is putting a lot of words in his mouth.

DjLoTi
11-01-2010, 09:56 PM
I went, and no one can really 'judge' me. I am a unique individual. So when you try to 'categorize' the attendees and the meaning of this rally, keep in mind, you're trying to categorize over 100,000 unique reasons why they attended. Everybody's different. I don't judge the people who went to this rally. I don't judge the people who went to the Glen Beck rally. Maybe they were just people in DC that wanted to go check it out? lol, ok, but see... there, I am judging the crowd. I am saying the ppl in the crowd are from DC.

The point is, there is no way to classify everything and everybody. It's not about classification. It's about right and wrong. I think that's the point. At least, I think it would be nice if that was the point =)

LibertyEagle
11-01-2010, 09:56 PM
See that would have fallen under the category of perpetuating a political stance, which was not the point of the rally. He just wanted to get out the idea that the environment that the government creates in conjunction with the media is such that it divides the country and makes it seem like we're on the brink of oblivion. If we just took a step back from 24 hour cable tv and listened to each other instead of those on the screen and in Washington, we'd find that we don't really have that many differences and might find it easier to work together on issues that are important and get things done.

Samurai, with all due respect, I don't want government to "get things done", unless it is for them to UNDO previous things that they have "done".

Promontorium
11-01-2010, 10:01 PM
Every episode of Stewart and Colbert's shows suggest otherwise. Where they have helped convince the nation that Tea Partiers are pure racists. He can say all he wants at that rally, but it's right back to bashing "Teabaggers" the next day.

Ask most of those people who attended after the rally if they will continue to refer to Tea Partiers as inherent racists, if they will continue to refer to anyone pro second amendment as "nuts", if Ron Paul is a psycho, if Rand Paul is a idol worshipping kidnapper and Ayn Rand freak. I'd like to hear of just 1 person who came out of that rally any less hateful and ignorant.

No, no. The line has been crossed. I'm pissed. I've lost hope for my state, maybe not for America. But this lip service means nothing coming out of the side of Stewart's mouth.

SamuraisWisdom
11-01-2010, 10:08 PM
I went, and no one can really 'judge' me. I am a unique individual. So when you try to 'categorize' the attendees and the meaning of this rally, keep in mind, you're trying to categorize over 100,000 unique reasons why they attended. Everybody's different. I don't judge the people who went to this rally. I don't judge the people who went to the Glen Beck rally. Maybe they were just people in DC that wanted to go check it out? lol, ok, but see... there, I am judging the crowd. I am saying the ppl in the crowd are from DC.

The point is, there is no way to classify everything and everybody. It's not about classification. It's about right and wrong. I think that's the point. At least, I think it would be nice if that was the point =)

Well, what you get out of the rally is completely up to you. But to the person who puts on the rally, there is a specific reason as to why he/she did it. And that is the general overtone of what the whole thing is about.

SamuraisWisdom
11-01-2010, 10:11 PM
Every episode of Stewart and Colbert's shows suggest otherwise. Where they have helped convince the nation that Tea Partiers are pure racists. He can say all he wants at that rally, but it's right back to bashing "Teabaggers" the next day.

Ask most of those people who attended after the rally if they will continue to refer to Tea Partiers as inherent racists, if they will continue to refer to anyone pro second amendment as "nuts", if Ron Paul is a psycho, if Rand Paul is a idol worshipping kidnapper and Ayn Rand freak. I'd like to hear of just 1 person who came out of that rally any less hateful and ignorant.

No, no. The line has been crossed. I'm pissed. I've lost hope for my state, maybe not for America. But this lip service means nothing coming out of the side of Stewart's mouth.

Just keep in mind that his show and Colbert's are there for comedy. It's just to make you laugh at how ridiculous politics in this country can be sometimes. Is it annoying when he singles out the Tea Party and makes fun of them? Of course. But he does to to everybody. He makes fun of Obama, msnbc, Reid/Palozi all the time.

DjLoTi
11-01-2010, 10:14 PM
I guess I just look of things as right and wrong. People disagreed with my Ron Paul 2012 sign, but I told them, "only 1 will end the war". Not everyone agrees with Ron Paul on everything, but the fact of the matter is, only 1 president will end the war. Unless Ron Paul doesn't run. Then who knows

Vessol
11-01-2010, 10:19 PM
YouTube - Bill Hicks on politics (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nXpdJLJqG9U)

SamuraisWisdom
11-01-2010, 10:19 PM
I guess I just look of things as right and wrong. People disagreed with my Ron Paul 2012 sign, but I told them, "only 1 will end the war". Not everyone agrees with Ron Paul on everything, but the fact of the matter is, only 1 president will end the war. Unless Ron Paul doesn't run. Then who knows

Well people have different views at to what's right and what's wrong. That's why we have conservatives and liberals and everything in between. But there will always be common ground somewhere, and that's what we need to focus on.

Vessol
11-01-2010, 10:21 PM
What common ground is there? As far as I am concerned, the "differences" are meaningless as both parties are exactly the same. Liberalism and conservatism are exactly the same thing.

You're debating who gets to take a turn stealing from you by gunpoint.

How is that civil discourse?

SamuraisWisdom
11-01-2010, 10:27 PM
What common ground is there? As far as I am concerned, the "differences" are meaningless as both parties are exactly the same. Liberalism and conservatism are exactly the same thing.

You're debating who gets to take a turn stealing from you by gunpoint.

How is that civil discourse?

The political parties don't reflect real liberalism and real conservatism. And there is always common ground. Just as an example: If a person is sick they should have access to the medicines to cure their sickness. That's the common ground. The difference in philosophy is how to go about achieving that goal. And what should happen is both sides sit down and work out a plan that both can agree to which works.

Zatch
11-01-2010, 10:29 PM
There seems to be a lot of people here who believe that the Stewart/Colbert Rally held over the weekend was supposed to be some sort of left-leaning Obama love-fest. Well, after having watched the whole thing (3 hours) it was apparent that politics was the last thing this rally was actually about. Nobody was pushing for any agenda, or supporting any candidate, or hinting toward any ideology.

The purpose of the event was to rally people around the concept of intelligent and civil discourse in politics and to expose the farce which we have today from both sides of the isle. This doesn't just include the people working in Washington, but the whole country. They raised awareness to the fact that there are many groups of people who yell so loud that they drown out the average person trying to stand up for their own beliefs. They exposed the media as being perpetrators of fear (which they do regularly on their shows as well) and in fact dedicated a solid hour or so to just that, including a montage.

I know there are a lot of people on here who don't like Jon Stewart because they believe he uses his show as some sort of left-leaning propagator, but this rally had nothing to do with being left/right/up/down or any other direction you could think of.

Although most of the rally was meant to be funny, Stewart did take about 15 minutes at the end to give a solemn speech. I suggest to anyone who didn't see the rally to listen to it and hopefully you'll get a better idea as to what he was trying to get across.

YouTube - Jon Stewart's speech at the Rally For Sanity. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jXmbzLI3pnk&feature=topvideos)

Stewart is great but his followers are turds.

goopc
11-01-2010, 10:29 PM
It's not about winning or losing, it's about understanding each others' positions and working together to come up with a compromise that works.

The free market it about compromise, government is never about compromise. In the free market you are free to support the things you like while I can support the things I like. That’s compromise.

Government is the opposite: I argue with you, you argue with me. Whatever “compromise” we reach is enforced through violence on anyone who disagrees.


And that last paragraph is putting a lot of words in his mouth.

Seriously, show me some evidence that Stewart is not a democratic socialist and instead believes that we would be better off if government left us alone.

Vessol
11-01-2010, 10:33 PM
The political parties don't reflect real liberalism and real conservatism. And there is always common ground. Just as an example: If a person is sick they should have access to the medicines to cure their sickness. That's the common ground. The difference in philosophy is how to go about achieving that goal. And what should happen is both sides sit down and work out a plan that both can agree to which works.

Which one of these sides will say

"I'd rather not have a sick man have his medicine paid for by extracting money from others by gunpoint?"

Neither. That's why there is no differences. They are just two sides arguing about how they want the Mafia to spend the money that it extracted forcefully from them.

SamuraisWisdom
11-01-2010, 10:40 PM
The free market it about compromise, government is never about compromise. In the free market you are free to support the things you like while I can support the things I like. That’s compromise.

Government is the opposite: I argue with you, you argue with me. Whatever “compromise” we reach is enforced through violence on anyone who disagrees.

Well, the free market is just an economic entity. There are many people who don't support a fully free market with zero government involvement. So that's where you have to compromise and find ways to please both sides. Are you going to get an anarcho-capitalist society? No. But they won't get a socialist society either.



Seriously, show me some evidence that Stewart is not a democratic socialist and instead believes that we would be better off if government left us alone.

I can't prove that anybody ISN'T something, but I can say with confidence that he came out strongly against many of the laws passed by the Bush administration involving wiretapping/spying against American citizens just as a small example.

SamuraisWisdom
11-01-2010, 10:52 PM
Which one of these sides will say

"I'd rather not have a sick man have his medicine paid for by extracting money from others by gunpoint?"

Neither. That's why there is no differences. They are just two sides arguing about how they want the Mafia to spend the money that it extracted forcefully from them.

Well there are, first of all, people who believe in a free market health system and those who don't. And the income tax is a completely different issue. But neither example is the point that's trying to be made. The bigger picture is about opposing sides finding common ground and working to achieve that goal.

Vessol
11-01-2010, 10:56 PM
I'll keep that in mind next time I'm being mugged.

"Hey man, why don't we find a common ground. Instead of taking my watch AND my wallet, why don't you just take my watch?"

SamuraisWisdom
11-01-2010, 10:59 PM
I'll keep that in mind next time I'm being mugged.

"Hey man, why don't we find a common ground. Instead of taking my watch AND my wallet, why don't you just take my watch?"

I'm just going to assume that you're smarter than that statement.

EDIT: And also, not all people view taxation as robbery.

Vessol
11-01-2010, 11:11 PM
It's not a view, taxation IS robbery.

rob·ber·y
   /ˈrɒbəri/ Show Spelled[rob-uh-ree]
–noun,plural-ber·ies.
1.
the act, the practice, or an instance of robbing.
2.
Law. the felonious taking of the property of another from his or her person or in his or her immediate presence, against his or her will, by violence or intimidation.

Unless I give my money to someone voluntarily, it is robbery. Taxation is involuntary by definition and there is intimidation used directly or indirectly to make sure you keep paying.

SamuraisWisdom
11-01-2010, 11:17 PM
It's not a view, taxation IS robbery.

rob·ber·y
   /ˈrɒbəri/ Show Spelled[rob-uh-ree]
–noun,plural-ber·ies.
1.
the act, the practice, or an instance of robbing.
2.
Law. the felonious taking of the property of another from his or her person or in his or her immediate presence, against his or her will, by violence or intimidation.

Unless I give my money to someone voluntarily, it is robbery. Taxation is involuntary by definition and there is intimidation used directly or indirectly to make sure you keep paying.

They keyword there is "felonious" which implies there must be a law making the act illegal to begin with. The 13th amendment makes the income tax legal. Therefore, the taxation of income is not robbery. But again, this thread isn't about the morality of taxation so let's move on.

KurtBoyer25L
11-01-2010, 11:30 PM
I can't think of a civil thing to say to somebody that supports the bombing of Pakistan without any, as far as I can tell, congressional approval, that think it's perfectly OK to assassinate US citizens by executive fiat, that strip searching and feeling up 8 year old girls at the airport is needed to "keep us safe", and that black bagging and rendering US citizens to parts unknown for torture and execution is acceptable "policy".

But isn't this an example of a common argumentative fallacy that fuels divisiveness and smearing? You are extrapolating the worst possible results of a policy or political position & using that as a straw man to oppose.

Consider the executive powers issue. I stand firmly with Ron Paul on all issues of war. But let's say somebody thinks that executive emergency powers are needed for certain things -- this doesn't automatically imply that the person in question is in favor of the bombing of Pakistan or in favor of assassinating citizens. Yes, the person may to his/her discredit actually support pre-emptive war or assassinations. But the first view does not necessarily imply the second, nor are we taking into account the best-possible-scenario result of a policy, which if the person is speaking honestly must be in the front of their mind, not a positive "support" for the dangers of said policy. All mothers are women; not all women are mothers.

Another example is the feeling-up of 8 year old girls. You're implying that anyone taking a position in favor of increased airport security must be a secret pervert or enjoys making children uncomfortable. I will agree that government-regulated & funded airport security is a moral, practical & ethical mistake. But I'm not ready to assume that everyone in favor of it is thereby in favor of child molestation, even in the sense of passive apathy to the issue. Perhaps they have solutions in mind to prevent any such wrongdoing. Perhaps the positive goals of the policy -- safety, security -- are on their minds, even though we can illustrate through (civil) argument that the statist solution achieves neither.

If you want to argue that some issues are so binary, so simple, that to favor a certain side is to actively (or passively) support the worst possible result occurring, such as "should we attack Iran or not," then okay. But how integral has this type of rhetorical slant been in the oppression of Libertarians? Always these accusations of voodoo & leprosy that stem from extrapolating a well-intended view into a negative, mean-spirited stance, implying a shallowness & bankruptcy of compassion on behalf of the subject.

It would help to remember how ridiculous & pervasive this tactic grew before Ron Paul rose to prominence. We were dismissed as dangerous freaks via a negative & two-dimensional spin on all policy views. Libertarians wanted the government out of people's bedrooms; this meant that we were in favor of child pornography. We wanted to abolish the welfare system -- that meant we were in favor of people starving in the streets. Nobody stopped & looked into Libertarian writing about the efficiency & potential of private charities, compared to bureaucrats, in taking care of the poor. Nobody gave us credit for having a dynamic, thoughtful & compassionate worldview -- it was (& is) easier for statists to claim that we simply hate old people & kittens.

Just look at Rand Paul's Senate race. He has suffered great indignity via the same tactic. If he says he's against the drug war, that means he is in favor of kids using meth. If he's against the 10th provision of the Civil Rights Act, that means he favors segregation. Rand explained to anyone who'd listen that he was rather simply in favor of local, peaceful methods for exposing and fighting racism. But that didn't stop Olbermann from bluntly reporting that Rand was in favor of problems or in favor of injustice.

Even concerning "social" issues such as abortion, we should not equate for instance an anti pro-choice view with a militantly anti-abortion view. There are so often more than two binary/opposed positions to choose from.

There is no problem with allowing views to be stated in neutral language & defined by goals, not worst possible pitfalls, then criticizing and correcting the folly of modern statism wherever it is called for. But straw-manning by saying your opponents consciously support treachery, child porn & the abolition of hot dogs is not only unfair, it furthers the culture war & prevents honest exchange & education -- the valuing of which should define the Liberty movement itself.

Anti Federalist
11-02-2010, 12:12 AM
Consider the executive powers issue. I stand firmly with Ron Paul on all issues of war. But let's say somebody thinks that executive emergency powers are needed for certain things -- this doesn't automatically imply that the person in question is in favor of the bombing of Pakistan or in favor of assassinating citizens. Yes, the person may to his/her discredit actually support pre-emptive war or assassinations. But the first view does not necessarily imply the second, nor are we taking into account the best-possible-scenario result of a policy, which if the person is speaking honestly must be in the front of their mind, not a positive "support" for the dangers of said policy. All mothers are women; not all women are mothers.

Another example is the feeling-up of 8 year old girls. You're implying that anyone taking a position in favor of increased airport security must be a secret pervert or enjoys making children uncomfortable. I will agree that government-regulated & funded airport security is a moral, practical & ethical mistake. But I'm not ready to assume that everyone in favor of it is thereby in favor of child molestation, even in the sense of passive apathy to the issue. Perhaps they have solutions in mind to prevent any such wrongdoing. Perhaps the positive goals of the policy -- safety, security -- are on their minds, even though we can illustrate through (civil) argument that the statist solution achieves neither.



I would argue that, just by keeping silent on these issues, makes the prima facie case that you would favor such actions.

Clearly government now holds us to the same standards, you are liable to prosecution if you see or know of a crime, without having any direct involvement with it, and fail to report it to the "authorities".

But it's late, and I'll revisit your post in the morning, since there are valid points there.

Let me add this as well: I'll never make the case that I'm any kind of expert persuader or master of rhetoric and debate.

I'm a simple working man who is very, some would say obsessively, passionate about what I see happening to the nation, to the world and to liberty and individual freedom. My comments here are exactly what I say to people in person, which is to say they are as subtle as a rhinoceros charge and as nuanced as a grenade.

I say it's long past time that people got angry, and anything that dims that passion, that righteous anger, is looked at skeptically by me.

susano
11-02-2010, 02:54 AM
I can't think of a civil thing to say to somebody that supports the bombing of Pakistan without any, as far as I can tell, congressional approval, that think it's perfectly OK to assassinate US citizens by executive fiat, that strip searching and feeling up 8 year old girls at the airport is needed to "keep us safe", and that black bagging and rendering US citizens to parts unknown for torture and execution is acceptable "policy".

I wasn't prepared to talk civilly with the mouth breathing "kill 'em all and turn it into a glass parking lot" crowd, and I'm not prepared to talk civilly with the calm, soothing, Mr. Macky school psychiatrist crowd either.

"Why so serious and angry, hmmm? No need to be that way, mmm, kay."

People are pissed, and for good reason and about goddamn time too.

The last thing we need is some cable TV comedians telling everybody to go back to sleep, calm down and everything will be fine, mmm, kay.

Bravo.

Modern_Matthew
11-02-2010, 03:20 AM
They keyword there is "felonious" which implies there must be a law making the act illegal to begin with. The 13th amendment makes the income tax legal. Therefore, the taxation of income is not robbery. But again, this thread isn't about the morality of taxation so let's move on.

All taxation is theft. I don't care that a piece of paper says it's legal.

Back on topic:

I've been calling this the Rally To Restore Docility.

purplechoe
11-02-2010, 03:32 AM
The 13th amendment makes the income tax legal. Therefore, the taxation of income is not robbery. But again, this thread isn't about the morality of taxation so let's move on.

BULLSHIT!!! Show me the law!!!

YouTube - Aaron Russo Interviews Former IRS Commissioner (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s1Sl17CZf_c)

YouTube - Paying income tax in America is Voluntary (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R7mRSI8yWwg)

YouTube - Aaron Russo talks with Ron Paul (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UaUhGpBNBtk)

BenIsForRon
11-02-2010, 07:00 AM
Jon Stewart wasn't telling us to "go back to sleep", though, some probably interpreted it that way.

Jon Stewart was basically saying "Ignore the divisive forces of media and politics, and use reason and civility to make policy".

dean.engelhardt
11-02-2010, 07:09 AM
Aqua Buddha

Tea Baggers are Racist

Iran is a nuclear threat to the U.S.

Death Panels

These beliefs are fine if you want to make tons of money in the media. Excercise your freedom of speech to to get rich off these. Expect the majority of Americans to regard you as ignorant or crazy.

Don't expect to be taken serious for political office.

This is what I got from the rally. I enjoyed attending. I did not feel anyone pushed their liberal or democrat agenda on me.

goopc
11-02-2010, 07:17 AM
There are many people who don't support a fully free market with zero government involvement. So that's where you have to compromise and find ways to please both sides.

If you want a "government" to watch over you, regulate your activities, and keep you safe then you are fully free to create and support such an institution. I however do not want to partake in your "oversight organization." Are you willing to let me opt out? If you force me to join, pay taxes, and follow the governments commands then I'm not free and you are supporting violence, theft, and coercion.

You seem to think that ethics are subjective and if a majority agree that an action is right (taxation) then that actions becomes ethical. However, ethics aren't subjective to the will of the majority, there are objectively true ethics and the will of the majority has no bearing no whether an action if just or unjust.

t0rnado
11-02-2010, 08:10 AM
It was just an overly hyped outdoors stand up show for potheads and basement dwellers.

jazzloversinc
11-02-2010, 08:59 AM
Stewart and Colbert are socialists and NO friend to liberty..neither is Maddow. These are SOCIALISTS...they are not for limited government , they hate the founders. Come on...just because you are young and influenced by pop culture it's time to read between the lines. Do you want to be popular or a patriot?

SamuraisWisdom
11-02-2010, 09:12 AM
BULLSHIT!!! Show me the law!!!

Sorry I meant the 16th Amendment.

AMENDMENT XVI

Passed by Congress July 2, 1909. Ratified February 3, 1913.

Note: Article I, section 9, of the Constitution was modified by amendment 16.

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

moostraks
11-02-2010, 09:16 AM
But isn't this an example of a common argumentative fallacy that fuels divisiveness and smearing? You are extrapolating the worst possible results of a policy or political position & using that as a straw man to oppose.

Consider the executive powers issue. I stand firmly with Ron Paul on all issues of war. But let's say somebody thinks that executive emergency powers are needed for certain things -- this doesn't automatically imply that the person in question is in favor of the bombing of Pakistan or in favor of assassinating citizens. Yes, the person may to his/her discredit actually support pre-emptive war or assassinations. But the first view does not necessarily imply the second, nor are we taking into account the best-possible-scenario result of a policy, which if the person is speaking honestly must be in the front of their mind, not a positive "support" for the dangers of said policy. All mothers are women; not all women are mothers.

Another example is the feeling-up of 8 year old girls. You're implying that anyone taking a position in favor of increased airport security must be a secret pervert or enjoys making children uncomfortable. I will agree that government-regulated & funded airport security is a moral, practical & ethical mistake. But I'm not ready to assume that everyone in favor of it is thereby in favor of child molestation, even in the sense of passive apathy to the issue. Perhaps they have solutions in mind to prevent any such wrongdoing. Perhaps the positive goals of the policy -- safety, security -- are on their minds, even though we can illustrate through (civil) argument that the statist solution achieves neither.

If you want to argue that some issues are so binary, so simple, that to favor a certain side is to actively (or passively) support the worst possible result occurring, such as "should we attack Iran or not," then okay. But how integral has this type of rhetorical slant been in the oppression of Libertarians? Always these accusations of voodoo & leprosy that stem from extrapolating a well-intended view into a negative, mean-spirited stance, implying a shallowness & bankruptcy of compassion on behalf of the subject.

It would help to remember how ridiculous & pervasive this tactic grew before Ron Paul rose to prominence. We were dismissed as dangerous freaks via a negative & two-dimensional spin on all policy views. Libertarians wanted the government out of people's bedrooms; this meant that we were in favor of child pornography. We wanted to abolish the welfare system -- that meant we were in favor of people starving in the streets. Nobody stopped & looked into Libertarian writing about the efficiency & potential of private charities, compared to bureaucrats, in taking care of the poor. Nobody gave us credit for having a dynamic, thoughtful & compassionate worldview -- it was (& is) easier for statists to claim that we simply hate old people & kittens.

Just look at Rand Paul's Senate race. He has suffered great indignity via the same tactic. If he says he's against the drug war, that means he is in favor of kids using meth. If he's against the 10th provision of the Civil Rights Act, that means he favors segregation. Rand explained to anyone who'd listen that he was rather simply in favor of local, peaceful methods for exposing and fighting racism. But that didn't stop Olbermann from bluntly reporting that Rand was in favor of problems or in favor of injustice.

Even concerning "social" issues such as abortion, we should not equate for instance an anti pro-choice view with a militantly anti-abortion view. There are so often more than two binary/opposed positions to choose from.

There is no problem with allowing views to be stated in neutral language & defined by goals, not worst possible pitfalls, then criticizing and correcting the folly of modern statism wherever it is called for. But straw-manning by saying your opponents consciously support treachery, child porn & the abolition of hot dogs is not only unfair, it furthers the culture war & prevents honest exchange & education -- the valuing of which should define the Liberty movement itself.


Funny you would choose to wrap up your argument on being on point by making the statement that he was "straw-manning by saying your opponents consciously support treachery, child porn & the abolition of hot dogs is not only unfair". Did you not just commit the same injustice you are pleading against as this was not what he said and you yourself are taking artistic liberty to make his post seem even more polarizing and ridiculous???

It helps if you spend some time here getting to know the personality of people before you make assumptions. AF is rather passionate and preaching to the choir by his previous comment to those that are aware of his post history. He is not unaware of the variations of ideology of the individual.

That said, can you deny that there are some that do support scorched earth policy? That some agree with the need that everyone submit to strip searches (this is not an exaggeration but the reality of the new machines being utilized with your alternate choice being a pat down of an extreme nature) no matter how young or old in public establishments without regard to its ramifications to those so inflicted? Are you aware that extreme renditions and execution without trial of american citizens has been authorized? Are you also unaware of the serious consideration of viewing political dissent as a psychological disorder?

So while you are busy telling people to focus on the middle of the road scenarios heinous atrocities are being committed and are under construction by those in power or those seeking the control in the near future. We wouldn't want to be divisive though would we?

SamuraisWisdom
11-02-2010, 09:19 AM
If you want a "government" to watch over you, regulate your activities, and keep you safe then you are fully free to create and support such an institution. I however do not want to partake in your "oversight organization." Are you willing to let me opt out? If you force me to join, pay taxes, and follow the governments commands then I'm not free and you are supporting violence, theft, and coercion.

You seem to think that ethics are subjective and if a majority agree that an action is right (taxation) then that actions becomes ethical. However, ethics aren't subjective to the will of the majority, there are objectively true ethics and the will of the majority has no bearing no whether an action if just or unjust.

That mentality is part of the problem. People want it all their way or nothing at all, and nobody is willing to compromise. But the problem is that we all live in the same country, 300 million of us. We all have different views on how society should be. If one person were to get their way entirely, then 299,999,999 people would have to conform to that person. In order for any group of people to get along there has to be compromises made along the way which all people can live with. I'm sure there are ways that we can shape society that will both allow for a free market and have some sort of "regulatory" system in place.

SamuraisWisdom
11-02-2010, 09:24 AM
It was just an overly hyped outdoors stand up show for potheads and basement dwellers.

Just like the Ron Paul movement? ;)


Stewart and Colbert are socialists and NO friend to liberty..neither is Maddow. These are SOCIALISTS...they are not for limited government , they hate the founders. Come on...just because you are young and influenced by pop culture it's time to read between the lines. Do you want to be popular or a patriot?

If you listen to their shows, in particular Stewart's since Colbert is in character all of the time, when he gets sincere and explains his positions it is clear that he's not what people would consider a "socialist." He's not in the same league as 1930s Italy or Germany or Hugo Chavez. He's a person who believes that the government can have a role is helping the country develop. That does not equate to socialism.

moostraks
11-02-2010, 09:27 AM
That mentality is part of the problem. People want it all their way or nothing at all, and nobody is willing to compromise. But the problem is that we all live in the same country, 300 million of us. We all have different views on how society should be. If one person were to get their way entirely, then 299,999,999 people would have to conform to that person. In order for any group of people to get along there has to be compromises made along the way which all people can live with. I'm sure there are ways that we can shape society that will both allow for a free market and have some sort of "regulatory" system in place.

By bringing legislation of issues down to the most local level and getting the federal government out of all the micromanaging it is insistent upon doing we will achieve the goals of reflecting the views of the constituency more effectively. Which is why so many would view secession as an option as it nullifies the federal authority now reigning tyranny so effectively upon the individual as well as bankrupting them...

AuH20
11-02-2010, 09:28 AM
That mentality is part of the problem. People want it all their way or nothing at all, and nobody is willing to compromise. But the problem is that we all live in the same country, 300 million of us. We all have different views on how society should be. If one person were to get their way entirely, then 299,999,999 people would have to conform to that person. In order for any group of people to get along there has to be compromises made along the way which all people can live with. I'm sure there are ways that we can shape society that will both allow for a free market and have some sort of "regulatory" system in place.

The problem is we're not even given a sliver of pie. We're not even in a position to warrant a compromise. We're mocked and derided as the disastrous status quo continues unabated.

farrar
11-02-2010, 09:34 AM
I think many of you all are missing the point. We are so used to say so staunch and principled with our libertarian axioms, we forget that just because a rally didn't say "end the Fed" or "government is coercion" that it is a bunch of liberal tripe.

It doesn't have to be left or right, up or down. Isn't that the very thing so many of us try so hard to escape here on the ron paul forums? These silly indications of "what direction politics"?

Look at it objectively. In many ways he argued much of the same things we do.

The media lies...

You know, fear helps any movement... liberty and statist. But I tell you what, there are some people who are really really scared about the future... some probably a bit more fearful than they should be. At least most of us here, when we fear the future we have a plan, we have the comfort of a strong belief system that guides us to our salvation (sound money, etc). Others who watch the media don't know what to think or do. All the ideas they hear are just as promising as the next:

Nuclear war
Government gridlock will lead to chaos in the next few years.
Hyperinflation
Druggie filled streets

We can handle these things, because we know what they are and what of them actually will come. We understand their certainty and their reality because of our libertarian axioms and such. Others hear these things and they fear. They don't know what to believe. And many of us will agree... that some of the above is bullshit....

(I understand that many of us believe in an impending dollar collapse... but our beliefs aside... it looks a hell of a lot like everything else on the media resume. To assume that a majority of Americans are going to pick that one out of a line up, or think of us as any different as the other media drug pushers.... is pretty ignorant)

I don't want to look at this in terms of "how libertarian" because that wasn't the point. The point was the media and all its propaganda kool aid has gone to far, and we need to stop looking to them for logic and think for ourselves.

I can appreciate it for that at the least. Besides, that how many of us libertarians start out anyways... It just may have a small + for liberty in the long run.

SamuraisWisdom
11-02-2010, 09:35 AM
By bringing legislation of issues down to the most local level and getting the federal government out of all the micromanaging it is insistent upon doing we will achieve the goals of reflecting the views of the constituency more effectively. Which is why so many would view secession as an option as it nullifies the federal authority now reigning tyranny so effectively upon the individual as well as bankrupting them...

Most people in the country don't want secession. And in fact the purpose of the 10th amendment is to allow states more freedom as opposed to outright seceding.


The problem is we're not even given a sliver of pie. We're not even in a position to warrant a compromise. We're mocked and derided as the disastrous status quo continues unabated.

The rally wasn't aimed at just our corner of the political spectrum, it was aimed at everybody. And the status quo you're talking about is coming from Washington, not the general population. People are beginning to realize that and it's our responsibility as a nation to elect representatives who truly share our views and goals. That doesn't happen over night. And as a side note, today's elections could be viewed as a first step in that direction, although we'll see how the results pan out and what the newly elected officials do afterwards.

moostraks
11-02-2010, 10:37 AM
Most people in the country don't want secession. And in fact the purpose of the 10th amendment is to allow states more freedom as opposed to outright seceding.



I didn't say most I said many(in pockets in some areas attempting to create voting blocks). You will see an increase as the federal government becomes increasingly oppressive if it continues along its current trajectory. Many still have bought into the illusion that they can elect a gun to enforce their own view of utopia.

How's that state's freedom thing working anyways? They take the taxpayers money and then use it as a carrot to foment cooperation with federal mandates in order for the state to try and get their constituents monies returned to them...

Anti Federalist
11-02-2010, 11:01 AM
Let's revisit this.

I'm not going to address each point individually, since they all are reinforcing the same theme, that being, that I'm engaging in the same sort verbal rhetoric that is used against freedom, liberty or libertarian people.

But is that really the case?

The "strawman" or red herring arguments that are used against freedom folks run along these lines: "You hate government spending for social programs, so therefore, you must want grandma to starve in the street."

A classic non sequitur type of argument, that follows every attempt to roll back or cut government, "Oh you want to decriminalize pot, you must be in favor of crack being sold to kids" and so on and on.

Now, if I'm understanding you properly, you are claiming that I am doing the same thing.

I disagree.

You said:


You're implying that anyone taking a position in favor of increased airport security must be a secret pervert or enjoys making children uncomfortable

If I did indeed say that, I would be following a non sequitur type of argument.

But I never said that or implied that. I stated a simple fact, 8 year old girls are getting felt up by incredibly intrusive pat downs at airports. That fact cannot be argued. The government is radiating people at airports with potentially dangerous levels of radiation, they have been caught keeping these images, after claiming that they do not, and minor children are being exposed to this, rendering images of their bodies that, if the feds found them on your computer, you would be going to jail. And if you "fail" this intrusive electronic strip search or "opt out" of it, you will be subjected to an even more intrusive physical "pat down" that includes direct, prolonged contact with genitals and breasts.

Same thing with the war comments. I'm not reaching into the future and claiming that one follows the other, I'm stating simple fact: torture, rendering and execution of US citizens by secret military tribunals is an established fact of law. Predator drones are dropping real phosphorus bombs on real people and really incinerating them in Pakistan.

I'm not saying that this will happen, it is happening, and I want it to stop.


But isn't this an example of a common argumentative fallacy that fuels divisiveness and smearing? You are extrapolating the worst possible results of a policy or political position & using that as a straw man to oppose.

Consider the executive powers issue. I stand firmly with Ron Paul on all issues of war. But let's say somebody thinks that executive emergency powers are needed for certain things -- this doesn't automatically imply that the person in question is in favor of the bombing of Pakistan or in favor of assassinating citizens. Yes, the person may to his/her discredit actually support pre-emptive war or assassinations. But the first view does not necessarily imply the second, nor are we taking into account the best-possible-scenario result of a policy, which if the person is speaking honestly must be in the front of their mind, not a positive "support" for the dangers of said policy. All mothers are women; not all women are mothers.

Another example is the feeling-up of 8 year old girls. You're implying that anyone taking a position in favor of increased airport security must be a secret pervert or enjoys making children uncomfortable. I will agree that government-regulated & funded airport security is a moral, practical & ethical mistake. But I'm not ready to assume that everyone in favor of it is thereby in favor of child molestation, even in the sense of passive apathy to the issue. Perhaps they have solutions in mind to prevent any such wrongdoing. Perhaps the positive goals of the policy -- safety, security -- are on their minds, even though we can illustrate through (civil) argument that the statist solution achieves neither.

If you want to argue that some issues are so binary, so simple, that to favor a certain side is to actively (or passively) support the worst possible result occurring, such as "should we attack Iran or not," then okay. But how integral has this type of rhetorical slant been in the oppression of Libertarians? Always these accusations of voodoo & leprosy that stem from extrapolating a well-intended view into a negative, mean-spirited stance, implying a shallowness & bankruptcy of compassion on behalf of the subject.

It would help to remember how ridiculous & pervasive this tactic grew before Ron Paul rose to prominence. We were dismissed as dangerous freaks via a negative & two-dimensional spin on all policy views. Libertarians wanted the government out of people's bedrooms; this meant that we were in favor of child pornography. We wanted to abolish the welfare system -- that meant we were in favor of people starving in the streets. Nobody stopped & looked into Libertarian writing about the efficiency & potential of private charities, compared to bureaucrats, in taking care of the poor. Nobody gave us credit for having a dynamic, thoughtful & compassionate worldview -- it was (& is) easier for statists to claim that we simply hate old people & kittens.

Just look at Rand Paul's Senate race. He has suffered great indignity via the same tactic. If he says he's against the drug war, that means he is in favor of kids using meth. If he's against the 10th provision of the Civil Rights Act, that means he favors segregation. Rand explained to anyone who'd listen that he was rather simply in favor of local, peaceful methods for exposing and fighting racism. But that didn't stop Olbermann from bluntly reporting that Rand was in favor of problems or in favor of injustice.

Even concerning "social" issues such as abortion, we should not equate for instance an anti pro-choice view with a militantly anti-abortion view. There are so often more than two binary/opposed positions to choose from.

There is no problem with allowing views to be stated in neutral language & defined by goals, not worst possible pitfalls, then criticizing and correcting the folly of modern statism wherever it is called for. But straw-manning by saying your opponents consciously support treachery, child porn & the abolition of hot dogs is not only unfair, it furthers the culture war & prevents honest exchange & education -- the valuing of which should define the Liberty movement itself.

KurtBoyer25L
11-02-2010, 01:05 PM
Funny you would choose to wrap up your argument on being on point by making the statement that he was "straw-manning by saying your opponents consciously support treachery, child porn & the abolition of hot dogs is not only unfair". Did you not just commit the same injustice you are pleading against as this was not what he said and you yourself are taking artistic liberty to make his post seem even more polarizing and ridiculous???

No, because those silly examples are meant to illustrate what jingoist liberals say about us, and the scare tactics & superstitions that typify criticism of all political independents. I did make a mistake with a pronoun that was rude, and I will apologize to AF for that.


It helps if you spend some time here getting to know the personality of people before you make assumptions. AF is rather passionate and preaching to the choir by his previous comment to those that are aware of his post history. He is not unaware of the variations of ideology of the individual.

In counter-argument, it helps if you spend some time getting to know the personality of people before you make assumptions. (that applies to politics too.)


That said, can you deny that there are some that do support scorched earth policy? That some agree with the need that everyone submit to strip searches (this is not an exaggeration but the reality of the new machines being utilized with your alternate choice being a pat down of an extreme nature) no matter how young or old in public establishments without regard to its ramifications to those so inflicted? Are you aware that extreme renditions and execution without trial of american citizens has been authorized? Are you also unaware of the serious consideration of viewing political dissent as a psychological disorder?

Yes but I don't want to fight against a demonic, obtuse, manufactured image of those people and lose my fairness & integrity in the process. The reality of authoritarianism is bad enough. I will say that Obama signs up because he's apathetic to the dangers, likes all measures of federal control, or doesn't truly respect human rights. BUT I'm not going to say he wakes up in the morning, twiddles his handlebar mustache to jangly piano chords & calls airports demanding that more nuns & children get strip-searched.


So while you are busy telling people to focus on the middle of the road scenarios heinous atrocities are being committed and are under construction by those in power or those seeking the control in the near future. We wouldn't want to be divisive though would we?

I'm not telling people to focus on anything. I'm asking if we can try to avoid a rhetorical tactic that is exactly what authoritarians have used on us for centuries. If we use the same arguments and political tactics as the (armed) opposition, don't you see that reinforces the illusion that Libertarian is just another radical, fringe ideology, trying to win control of the mechanisms of violence and power -- instead of a uniquely consistent movement for civil rights, respect & nonviolence.

And how can we spread the Revolution & teach people if we refuse civil discourse? By claiming that those who disagree with us are all evil, malevolent, in favor of bad things happening? It's intellectually unsound & makes us look as screwed as everyone else.

Go back to the first Greyson/Paul debate. What statement did Trey Greyson -- corporate, authoritarian, purchased, owned statist -- make about abortion in his opening remarks? He said that Rand's idea was that if an unborn baby wasn't conceived in Kentucky, "Just go ahead and kill 'em!". THAT is the perfect example of stating a possible danger as the actual conscious goal of the opposition.

Was Greyson lying? Well, not exactly. Rand believes in States' Rights on abortion. Maybe if some state decided not to make late-term abortions illegal, Rand would politically support their right to do so even as he lamented or campaigned against the decision (we actually don't know this about Rand yet). Maybe in that scenario, an unwed mother in that state would abort a late-term fetus making Greyson's claim "correct" in the sense that she would be, in fact, "killin' em."

But would Rand's GOAL be to make that happen? Was it fair of Greyson to state Rand's position with the worst possible result = the motive & wishes of the opponent?

Of course, one can't have -- and shouldn't want to have -- a civil discourse with a person who *likes* or takes comfort in the idea of arresting & locking up political dissenters. But often, we *can* have a civil discourse with someone who is not a political dissenter. Can't teach anyone without trying -- as respectfully & patiently as possible.

moostraks
11-02-2010, 02:36 PM
No, because those silly examples are meant to illustrate what jingoist liberals say about us, and the scare tactics & superstitions that typify criticism of all political independents. I did make a mistake with a pronoun that was rude, and I will apologize to AF for that.



In counter-argument, it helps if you spend some time getting to know the personality of people before you make assumptions. (that applies to politics too.)

The reality of authoritarianism is bad enough. I will say that Obama signs up because he's apathetic to the dangers, likes all measures of federal control, or doesn't truly respect human rights. BUT I'm not going to say he wakes up in the morning, twiddles his handlebar mustache to jangly piano chords & calls airports demanding that more nuns & children get strip-searched.



I'm not telling people to focus on anything. I'm asking if we can try to avoid a rhetorical tactic that is exactly what authoritarians have used on us for centuries. If we use the same arguments and political tactics as the (armed) opposition, don't you see that reinforces the illusion that Libertarian is just another radical, fringe ideology, trying to win control of the mechanisms of violence and power -- instead of a uniquely consistent movement for civil rights, respect & nonviolence.

And how can we spread the Revolution & teach people if we refuse civil discourse? By claiming that those who disagree with us are all evil, malevolent, in favor of bad things happening? It's intellectually unsound & makes us look as screwed as everyone else.

Go back to the first Greyson/Paul debate. What statement did Trey Greyson -- corporate, authoritarian, purchased, owned statist -- make about abortion in his opening remarks? He said that Rand's idea was that if an unborn baby wasn't conceived in Kentucky, "Just go ahead and kill 'em!". THAT is the perfect example of stating a possible danger as the actual conscious goal of the opposition.

Was Greyson lying? Well, not exactly. Rand believes in States' Rights on abortion. Maybe if some state decided not to make late-term abortions illegal, Rand would politically support their right to do so even as he lamented or campaigned against the decision (we actually don't know this about Rand yet). Maybe in that scenario, an unwed mother in that state would abort a late-term fetus making Greyson's claim "correct" in the sense that she would be, in fact, "killin' em."

But would Rand's GOAL be to make that happen? Was it fair of Greyson to state Rand's position with the worst possible result = the motive & wishes of the opponent?

Of course, one can't have -- and shouldn't want to have -- a civil discourse with a person who *likes* or takes comfort in the idea of arresting & locking up political dissenters. But often, we *can* have a civil discourse with someone who is not a political dissenter. Can't teach anyone without trying -- as respectfully & patiently as possible.


I don't have the patience right now for someone who likes to dissect posts into individual snippets and recants what appears to me as a very obvious personal attack on pp comment while maintaining he has taken some linguistic high road. I have a problem with how this is what "they" are saying about the liberty minded when you are directing the argument at AF as having proposing straw-man fallacies.

I took what AF said and expanded it by asking you point blank if indeed these situations do not indeed exist in our society today and your response is:"Yes but I don't want to fight against a demonic, obtuse, manufactured image of those people and lose my fairness & integrity in the process." Really? demonic, obtuse, manufactured image? Lose fairness and integrity? Try a google search and every situation I proposed to you exists in the here in now and is supported by sweeping numbers of individuals and/or supported by legislation instituted by the wonderful participants in our two party system.


You went on the same bent with my post as you did with AF's by belittling my post to likening the present threats to saying "he wakes up in the morning, twiddles his handlebar mustache to jangly piano chords & calls airports demanding that more nuns & children get strip-searched. " WTH???

As for your little dig at my need to "spend some time getting to know the personality of people before you make assumptions. (that applies to politics too.)" I offered you some advice you will see is often proposed here to new posters. Once again do not jump to conclusions about those who have been here awhile until you get a feel for things here. You are relatively new. I am not making any assumptions regarding your own background but defending a person whom you could have easily have done a post history search on to develop a character sketch of before you formed an attack. If I was making assumptions about you I would not have questioned you regarding your stance on the issues you seem uninterested in discussing...

Some of us here are through with talking gently and finding middle ground. It is not our calling to play mediator. General politics is a place for discussion by people with various view points. It is the heart felt stance of some of us that there is no compromise and we must remain aware just had bad the situation is or can become. You will not persuade someone with your rhetoric who has spent a great deal of time here esp. if your method is to defend your pov as being the high road.