NBC Censors Edward Snowden's 9/11 Comments

[No1butPaul]

They (the 9/11 commission) found that we had all of the information we needed as an intelligence community...to detect this plot.

"Statements made by NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden regarding the 9/11 terror attacks were edited out of his NBC Nightly News interview with Brian Williams Wednesday in what appears to be an attempt to bolster legitimacy for the agency’s controversial surveillance programs."


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OEv1-4hFa4I

http://www.infowars.com/nbc-censors-snowdens-critical-911-comments-from-prime-time-audience/

[Brian4Liberty]

Nothing to see here. It was edited to fit in the timeslot. Politics and spin would never, ever factor into how they edit.

Of course they did make it available online, so maybe this was a plot to drive traffic to their website?

[No1butPaul]

Nothing to see here. It was edited to fit in the timeslot. Politics and spin would never, ever factor into how they edit.

Of course they did make it available online, so maybe this was a plot to drive traffic to their website?

Not so sure. Maybe they felt it would be just a bit too controversial for their tv audience ... taboo. I can't imagine they would forego tv ratings for some web traffic.

[MRK]

What's Ed's username on RPF so I can +rep him for that segment? That was brilliant.

[Matt Collins]

Can we please stop posting stuff from Infowars?

They are not a credible source, they are factually inaccurate a lot of the time, they post hyperbole and conjecture frequently, and associating with them makes this site, and thus our community, look bad.

[NewRightLibertarian]

Can we please stop posting stuff from Infowars?

They are not a credible source, they are factually inaccurate a lot of the time, they post hyperbole and conjecture frequently, and associating with them makes this site, and thus our community, look bad.

You know what makes the movement look bad? Working with Mitch McConnell to crush the tea party. Once again, your political ambitions have clouded your judgment.

[liberty2897]

I figured we probably still had 1 to 1 1/2 years to go before the "you're making the movement look bad" messages would start up again... better get used to it I guess.

Great interview segment with Snowden. Wish he could run for office here.

[HOLLYWOOD]

Last month I posted about a debate on the legalities and effectiveness of the NSA labyrinth spying between Washington Post(Snowden files journalist)Barton Gellmen and former; 4 star USAF general, CIA director, and NSA drector Michael Hayden. (I call him the true American Nazi)

Maybe most missed my post, or the coverage on C-SPAN, maybe I should of opened a separate thread about the debate, but it was extremely shocking and revealing, that Michael Hayden trying to counter Gellmen's point(which the NSA doesn't catch terrorists), disclosed information that the NSA and CIA knew explicit details about the 9/11 hijackers. Hayden even when into their(hijackers) phone calls, the calls to Yemen, etc, (note: Not Iraq), even the details of their families and the exact conversations they had across the planet. Hayden was trying to prove the point that the NSA is useful and the NS/CIA did capture critical information about terrorists ref. 9/11 hijackers.

I was shocked for such a senior US government executive in the intelligence community, admitting, this amount of detail. Shocked that this detailed information was never acted upon and of course not released to the public... If you put the pieces together, 9/11 was gross negligence by multiple government officials and agencies as a minimum, BUT maybe they decided not to act, knowing they could increase massive funding and dictatorial polices, afterwards(Never Let a Crisis Go To Waste), eh?

Also, from the video, a crucial part of the interview edited, confirms that Edward Snowden is absolutely correct, Hayden and the US government lied to Americans and the world, and NBC/MSNBC is just another Fascist Main Stream Media (MSM) corporation which is basically the unofficial public relations firms and propaganda machines for Washington DC government.


There aren't any doubts...

[Matt Collins]

You know what makes the movement look bad? Working with Mitch McConnell to crush the tea party. Once again, your political ambitions have clouded your judgment.huh? wut? that doesn't even make any sense? What does that have to do with the subject at hand in the OP? The only political ambitions I have are to win back our liberties through non-violent systemic changes.

[kcchiefs6465]

Last month I posted about a debate on the legalities and effectiveness of the NSA labyrinth spying between Washington Post(Snowden files journalist)Barton Gellmen and former; 4 star USAF general, CIA director, and NSA drector Michael Hayden. (I call him the true American Nazi)

Maybe most missed my post, or the coverage on C-SPAN, maybe I should of opened a separate thread about the debate, but it was extremely shocking and revealing, that Michael Hayden trying to counter Gellmen's point(which the NSA doesn't catch terrorists), disclosed information that the NSA and CIA knew explicit details about the 9/11 hijackers. Hayden even when into their(hijackers) phone calls, the calls to Yemen, etc, (note: Not Iraq), even the details of their families and the exact conversations they had across the planet. Hayden was trying to prove the point that the NSA is useful and the NS/CIA did capture critical information about terrorists ref. 9/11 hijackers.

I was shocked for such a senior US government executive in the intelligence community, admitting, this amount of detail. Shocked that this detailed information was never acted upon and of course not released to the public... If you put the pieces together, 9/11 was gross negligence by multiple government officials and agencies as a minimum, BUT maybe they decided not to act, knowing they could increase massive funding and dictatorial polices, afterwards(Never Let a Crisis Go To Waste), eh?

Also, from the video, a crucial part of the interview edited, confirms that Edward Snowden is absolutely correct, Hayden and the US government lied to Americans and the world, and NBC/MSNBC is just another Fascist Main Stream Media (MSM) corporation which is basically the unofficial public relations firms and propaganda machines for Washington DC government.


There aren't any doubts...
If you wouldn't mind posting it again, or creating a thread on it, I have some free time tonight to watch it.

[HOLLYWOOD]

If you wouldn't mind posting it again, or creating a thread on it, I have some free time tonight to watch it.

http://www.c-span.org/video/?318674-1/debate-nsa-privacy-laws


http://kwout.com/cutout/s/wp/k4/x5a_bor.jpg

Debate NSA Privacy Laws | Video | C-SPAN.org (http://www.c-span.org/video/?318674-1/debate-nsa-privacy-laws)

[kcchiefs6465]

Holy shit, did this war criminal just say that...


Let me walk you through the arch of American history here when it comes to espionage. I mean, look, there are other secrets, I mean, the American intelligence community isn't the only one that keeps secrets, alright. The Federal Reserve, they. keep. secrets [chuckle]. Okay, I mean there are a lot of organs of government where the general welfare is improved by the government being closed and secretive.

13 minute mark.

I'll probably chip a tooth.

[francisco]

What's Ed's username on RPF so I can +rep him for that segment? That was brilliant.

Good Question! I'd give him a rep too!

[phill4paul]

Not anything new for anyone who has even taken a mild interest in what went down on 9/11. Many investigative reporters have put together the sorted pieces of the puzzle, the fact that there was actionable intelligence known by the intelligence community that was not acted upon. Unfortunately, putting a "boot in the ass" of the government isn't "the American way" any longer.

[Todd]

Snowden is smarter than the average MSM boob or Political Class clown. They better watch out when interviewing him.

[cajuncocoa]

huh? wut? ...The only political ambitions I have are to win back our liberties through non-violent systemic changes.
LOL

[DamianTV]

Nothing to see here. It was edited to fit in the timeslot. Politics and spin would never, ever factor into how they edit.

Of course they did make it available online, so maybe this was a plot to drive traffic to their website?

Just says NBC is a-okay with tracking, in fact, they like it because they can profit from it. I used to work for the cocksuckers. No suprise about editing either. Editing for time is one thing, editing to misconstrue context is what they were best at.

[jjdoyle]

I figured we probably still had 1 to 1 1/2 years to go before the "you're making the movement look bad" messages would start up again... better get used to it I guess.

Great interview segment with Snowden. Wish he could run for office here.

Comments containing truth, based on facts, are already being deleted, while Matt's digital diarrhea propaganda posts like this one can continue all day long. Notice how it's an ad hominem post from Matt. Nothing about the ACTUAL video posted, just "infowars iz bad. no mur posts frum it puhlease."

Not addressing one single point of the video. Not actually REPLYING to another person in the thread. Just coming here trying to be a "big tent, small tent..." person. "We're big enough for you, if you agree 100% with us, if not...GET OUT!"

"The problem with mass surveillance, is that we're piling more hay on a haystack we already don't understand." I thought was a great point. I may actually share this on my Facebook page, and I haven't shared a political video in a long-time.
Edward Snowden doing more to raise legitimate points on problems with our (illegal) surveillance programs, than politicians in DC. Who would have thought?

[FindLiberty]

...maybe I should of opened a separate thread about the debate...

... If you put the pieces together, 9/11 was gross negligence by multiple government officials and agencies as a minimum, BUT maybe they decided not to act, knowing they could increase massive funding and dictatorial polices, afterwards (Never Let a Crisis Go To Waste), eh?

Also, from the video, a crucial part of the interview edited, confirms that Edward Snowden is absolutely correct, Hayden and the US government lied to Americans and the world... ...public relations firms and propaganda machines for Washington DC government.

There aren't any doubts...

100% - Great points in your post #8.

I only wonder if that "maybe" was "moral hazard - guber SNAFU" or a "deliberate evil act of omission" made by a select few...

Not public, but well before 9/2001, >80,000 employees got repeated internal "need direct CEO approval to fly" memos giving advanced warning of some impending act of terrorism involving domestic air flights.

Maybe too much info was already being collected by the NSA prior to 9/11, and with all the ham-fisted layers of gubermnt, simply FUBAR'd under piles of new incoming chatter.

[Philhelm]

Snowden is smarter than the average MSM boob or Political Class clown. They better watch out when interviewing him.

But he doesn't have a college degree! :eek:

[Warlord]

Can we please stop posting stuff from Infowars?

They are not a credible source, they are factually inaccurate a lot of the time, they post hyperbole and conjecture frequently, and associating with them makes this site, and thus our community, look bad.

INFOWARS has broken many important stories and is regularly linked by Drudge and others so try again

[HOLLYWOOD]

Holy shit, did this war criminal just say that...

13 minute mark.
Let me walk you through the arch of American history here when it comes to espionage. I mean, look, there are other secrets, I mean, the American intelligence community isn't the only one that keeps secrets, alright. The Federal Reserve, they. keep. secrets [chuckle]. Okay, I mean there are a lot of organs of government where the general welfare is improved by the government being closed and secretive.
I'll probably chip a tooth.Let me point something out that is very serious, the Dept. of Homeland security (DHS) through leaked Fusion Center directors, that anyone speaking about Auditing the Federal Reserve is a subversive terrorist. That from the DHS to all Fusion Centers, when I find the document, I'll post a snapshot.


..."The problem with mass surveillance, is that we're piling more hay on a haystack we already don't understand." I thought was a great point. I may actually share this on my Facebook page, and I haven't shared a political video in a long-time.
Edward Snowden doing more to raise legitimate points on problems with our (illegal) surveillance programs, than politicians in DC. Who would have thought?You know, the system manifests upon itself, it's like the borg, where they keep growing the collective cube. They will ask for more analysts, more programmers, more lines of code, more specialty centers to sniff through those piles of hay. The bribed, extorted, or mentality deranged on these intelligence committees will rubberstamp more funds, more assets, and more data mining.


But he doesn't have a college degree! :eek:Oh the biggies about Snowden repeatedly broadcasted over corporate Fascist Media news/infotainment, 'High School Dropout' AND 'Discharged from the US Army because he was unable to preform" (of course they didn't mention Snowden broke both legs parachuting).

[brandon]

Jesus... they didn't "censor" anything. They recorded a long continuous interview and then edited it down to the parts they thought were most relevant. And they did a very nice job.

FWIW, I saw at least half of that youtube video on TV.

[CaptUSA]

Dammit, Infowars...

I can't keep it straight. Is Snowden a government asset, or is it NBC that is consorting with the government?! Was 9-11 an inside job, or was it blowback?!

[ClydeCoulter]

Dammit, Infowars...

I can't keep it straight. Is Snowden a government asset, or is it NBC that is consorting with the government?! Was 9-11 an inside job, or was it blowback?!

That's the problem with trying to find the truth. Propaganda is controlled on every front. It's called controlled opposition, and it obfuscates every avenue.

[Occam's Banana]

[...] Notice how [...] from Matt [it's nothing] about the ACTUAL video posted, just "infowars iz bad. no mur posts frum it puhlease."

Not addressing one single point of the video. [...]

And then - when someone else replies to him - he complains, "What does that have to do with the subject at hand in the OP?" :rolleyes:

Plank in someone else's eye, meet the beam in Matt's own. Beam, plank ...

[Matt Collins]

INFOWARS has broken many important stories and is regularly linked by Drudge and others so try againThat doesn't mean that they have any credibility.

[Dr.3D]

But he doesn't have a college degree! :eek:
A college degree doesn't mean somebody is smart, it only means they used to have some money and now the college has it.

[anaconda]

CIA knew explicit details about the 9/11 hijackers. Hayden even when into their(hijackers) phone calls, the calls to Yemen, etc,


Where is any credible evidence that there was so much as even one Islamic fundamentalist was aboard any of the four alleged flights?

[CaptUSA]

That's the problem with trying to find the truth. Propaganda is controlled on every front. It's called controlled opposition, and it obfuscates every avenue.No, that's the problem with providing answers when there are only questions.

[No1butPaul]

That doesn't mean that they have any credibility.

Matt, I understand your feelings, but as the OP I didn't post anything factually inaccurate, it was a link to a great video and Infowars just happened to be the source for the link. I did include their blurb because it was clearly an opinion and not portending to be factual ... hence the word "appears."

Another poster mentioned Drudge often links to Infowars and I see it more and more, depending on the story. In fact, I'm not certain, but I believe I obtained the link to Infowars in a round-about way from another source.

I just want to add, Infowars coverage of the 2012 campaign was actually a lot more accurate than the MSM! So, it doesn't mean they have any credibility, but it doesn't mean they don't have any credibility ... story by story ... we as posters need to use discretion about what we post and I think pretty much everyone does that. Smart group of people here.

[NewRightLibertarian]

huh? wut? that doesn't even make any sense? What does that have to do with the subject at hand in the OP? The only political ambitions I have are to win back our liberties through non-violent systemic changes.

You're not fooling anyone. But unfortunately for you, Infowars is bigger than ever, shows no signs of slowing down and is closely associated with the liberty movement. If it embarrasses you at cocktail parties and other 'legitimate' political functions, that is just fantastic as far as I'm concerned.

[donnay]

That doesn't mean that they have any credibility.

And you have more?

[NewRightLibertarian]

And you have more?

He does amongst 'people who matter' ie. people who like to write big checks to conniving, politically-motivated scoundrels.

[Ender]

Where is any credible evidence that there was so much as even one Islamic fundamentalist was aboard any of the four alleged flights?

The only "credible evidence" we have is that the PA was already written and waiting in the wings. ;)

[Deborah K]

INFOWARS has broken many important stories and is regularly linked by Drudge and others so try again

Not to mention that Dr. Paul has interviewed with him numerous times. Here's a collection of interviews:

http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=ron+paul+alex+jones&qpvt=ron+paul+alex+jones&FORM=VDRE

[francisco]

Nothing to see here. It was edited to fit in the timeslot. Politics and spin would never, ever factor into how they edit.

Of course they did make it available online, so maybe this was a plot to drive traffic to their website?

Or, the paranoid cynic in me wonders if it's a way for TPTB to find out who is interested enough in the issue to seek out online the unaired part of the interview that explored the issues in more detail and that knock down the government's arguments that promote creating a security state.

[francisco]

Regardless of who provided the original link. the important thing is


it was a link to a great video


and anyone who hasn't watched it yet should drop everything and spend 3 minutes to do so. This is not fabricated or out of context, it is the actual words of Snowden with a mainstream media interviewer

Most importantly, I wish that this excerpt could be shown to Rand, because there are some excellent talking points there that are consistent with his views as he has previously expressed, in particular the "haystack" argument. The way Snowden explained that was VERY GOOD and Rand could use that as a model of how to explain to the voting public.

So, even though this segment of the Snowden interview was edited from the version broadcast on-air, Rand could get these points into the public's awareness, more effectively.

[Todd]

That doesn't mean that they have any credibility.

I once found a story about how the Iraq war was mostly about oil on the WSWS. http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2009/06/pers-j30.html
I am not a socialist and consider most of what they spout to be not credible. That didn't make the story less true.


I'm also not a big Alex Jones fan either, but I try to glean truth from the information.

[acptulsa]

What troll turned a thread about Snowden into a thread about infowars?

[samforpaul]

Not to mention that Dr. Paul has interviewed with him numerous times. Here's a collection of interviews:

http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=ron+paul+alex+jones&qpvt=ron+paul+alex+jones&FORM=VDRE



I assume the "Dr. Paul" you are referring to is Ron. However Rand has also been on with AJ on Infowars.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=35kXA2l9Iiw

[francisco]

What troll turned a thread about Snowden into a thread about infowars?

There might be some evidence to investigate at post #5

[Occam's Banana]

There might be some evidence to investigate at post #5

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com//blarg-yada-blah

[francisco]

What troll turned a thread about Snowden into a thread about infowars?


There might be some evidence to investigate at post #5


https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com//blarg-yada-blah

Perhaps I have age-activated AAD, or maybe I'm merely dense, but I'm not sure what what you're driving at with your link.



The Missing Fallacy
(that is, the page you're looking for appears to be missing)
Pure coincidence or a mysterious conspiracy? As these things go the address might have changed, though more likely it simply never was. You can click here to go to the home page or move on to one of the links below.

A question was asked, and I pointed at the direction of an answer :)

Returning to the focus that acptulsa redirected us to, why aren't we talking about the CONTENT of the video which is unquestionably genuine and a primary source (as opposed to whoever it was that provided the original link to video)??

[jjdoyle]

What troll turned a thread about Snowden into a thread about infowars?

Troll?

No, how about someone that just apparently finds truth degrading (not my words, the words of an admin/mod, after deleting a post that contained truth and an opinion, based on facts/history/actions of what was/is a dishonest campaign)?


Perhaps I have age-activated AAD, or maybe I'm merely dense, but I'm not sure what what you're driving at with your link.

Returning to the focus that acptulsa redirected us to, why aren't we talking about the CONTENT of the video which is unquestionably genuine and a primary source (as opposed to whoever it was that provided the original link to video)??

AND we aren't talking about what was said in the video, because someone wanted to talk about the source of the video, not the video itself. IN TYPICAL AD HOMINEM FASHION.
So, Matt doesn't actually address what Snowden said in the clip, and instead says the OP shouldn't post/link to Infowars?

Who does he want the OP to link to that has credibility? The news organizations that helped DERAIL Ron Paul 2012, because of incompetent staff? THOSE news organizations must be the ones he is talking about with credibility, right? Fox News. CNN. MSNBC. The ones that focused on an issue from 20 years ago to tank RP in Iowa. The same ones that ran news stories on what was apparently a FAKE YouTube video probably uploaded by Jon Huntsman's own campaign/daughters, to attack Ron Paul in New Hampshire?

Maybe Matt doesn't like InfoWars because Alex Jones went off after the campaign imploded, would probably be my guess. Can't have truth being spread around, by a site where the owner went off on an incompetent/corrupt/dishonest campaign? AND this is coming from somebody that doesn't even listen to Alex Jones, or visit his site on any regular basis (MAYBE if I see a random article like this one, or one on Drudge).

If anything, Matt should be taking quotes from this piece (as I did), and using them to spread around and try and wake some people up.

OH, and if I was Edward Snowden, the one thing I would mention is how 9/11 shows us the incompetency of government (maybe use those exact words), and the Boston bombing backs it up even more. They had all the information needed prior to 9/11, couldn't stop it due to incompetency (at best).
They had THE NAME of the Boston bomber, given to them by ANOTHER COUNTRY, saying he should be watched. Instead, they want EVERYBODY'S conversations to pull for certain words, while ignoring the fire in front of them?

BILLIONS/TRILLIONS wasted. For what?

[Occam's Banana]

Perhaps I have age-activated AAD, or maybe I'm merely dense, but I'm not sure what what you're driving at with your link.

It's sort of an "inside joke" around here. When Matt doesn't like or disagrees with something someone else says, one of his favorite "techniques" is to post a link to a fallacy at yourlogicalfallacyis.com (rather than actually provide any kind of substantive rebuttal). Some regard this as trollish, and one guy has even started neg-repping Matt when he catches Matt doing it.

So I was just having a little tongue-in-cheek fun by "rebutting" your suggestion - that Matt['s post] might be acptulsa's troll - with a link to the much-dreaded "blarg yada blah" fallacy ...


The Missing Fallacy
(that is, the page you're looking for appears to be missing)

But you see? No actual fallacies were harmed in the making of my post.

;)

[francisco]

But you see? No actual fallacies were harmed in the making of my post.

;)

OK, I get it it now, thanks! :)

and +rep to jj above for laying it all out very clearly

P.S. Matt should be ashamed. With techniques like the one he used here, he really discredits himself. Too bad, because I'd actually prefer that he would work for Liberty only in positive ways as I know he is capable of. Be a Uniter, not a Divider, you know. I see him doing that often, but then he blows it by promoting infighting through misdirection.

He could go a long way by issuing a Mea Culpa and then embarking on some substantive discussion about what Snowden actually said in the video.

P.P.S. I'm thinking I might want to pack a lunch while waiting to see the above happen.

[phill4paul]

P.S. Matt should be ashamed. With techniques like the one he used here, he really discredits himself. Too bad, because I'd actually prefer that he would work for Liberty only in positive ways as I know he is capable of. Be a Uniter, not a Divider, you know. I see him doing that often, but then he blows it by promoting infighting through misdirection.

He could go a long way by issuing a Mea Culpa and then embarking on some substantive discussion about what Snowden actually said in the video.

P.P.S. I'm thinking I might want to pack a lunch while waiting to see the above happen.

Lol. Matt's pretty much established himself as a laughing stock here on RPF's. He did it to himself.

P.S. I'm the neg repper of his https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com//blarg-yada-blah

[69360]

Can we please stop posting stuff from Infowars?

They are not a credible source, they are factually inaccurate a lot of the time, they post hyperbole and conjecture frequently, and associating with them makes this site, and thus our community, look bad.

Eh, sometimes Alex Jones is right and sometimes he's batshit crazy. You have to take the bad with the good. Most people who have found their way here are intelligent enough to filter out the BS.

[NewRightLibertarian]

Lol. Matt's pretty much established himself as a laughing stock here on RPF's. He did it to himself.


He seems to be a glutton for punishment. No matter how many times he is disgraced, he keeps showing up for more. Probably doesn't get much attention in Mississippi or wherever the fuck he's from.

[Matt Collins]

Eh, sometimes Alex Jones is right and sometimes he's batshit crazy. You have to take the bad with the good. Most people who have found their way here are intelligent enough to filter out the BS.Some people haven't (such as the chemtrail crowd and those who find a conspiracy under every rock).

But the important thing is that that sort of conspiracy talk scares people off.


You're not fooling anyone. But unfortunately for you, Infowars is bigger than ever, shows no signs of slowing down and is closely associated with the liberty movement. This is unfortunate because it makes us look crazy to people we are trying to win over. Associating with AJ and IW/PP is unwise and is damaging to the movement.



story by story ... we as posters need to use discretion about what we post and I think pretty much everyone does that. Smart group of people here.Except that associating with them opens us up to attack and guilt by association. Why hand ammo to the opposition to help them turn people away from us? :confused:

[francisco]

Dear Matt,

If the issue over the reliability of Alex Jones' reliability or the effect on the Liberty movement of using him as a source is important to you, it would be my suggestion that you start a separate thread on that topic, instead of hijacking this one. This thread started at least discussing the SUBSTANCE of what Snowden said, in a MSM interview.

Why are you not interested in the CONTENT of the video???

Unlike some here I respect the work you did in the past for Ron and Rand Paul. But you are rapidly losing that respect. Although, I suspect that you view yourself as being part of some elite and me as some kind of Mundane, and therefore don't give a shit about that.

[NewRightLibertarian]

This is unfortunate because it makes us look crazy to people we are trying to win over. Associating with AJ and IW/PP is unwise and is damaging to the movement.


Let me explain it to you again: Your political career and the liberty movement are not one in the same. What damages the liberty movement is helping Mitch McConnell destroy the tea party. That is a disgrace to the movement, not someone who has sent out a reliably pro-liberty message for decades.

[Matt Collins]

Let me explain it to you again: Your political career and the liberty movement are not one in the same. I don't have a "political career"... if I did I'd be doing some lame job in DC trying to climb the ladder :rolleyes:

[Matt Collins]

Why are you not interested in the CONTENT of the video???
I am interested in the content of the video, but I am also interested in self-policing the liberty movement so that we become more likely to turn people on to us and not scare them away. Linking to places like IW turns people off and discredits us by association.

[francisco]

I am interested in the content of the video...

Let me take you at your word, and redirect you away from hijacking this thread and toward discussing the content of the video.

Open-ended question: What are your thoughts about what Snowden said?

What's weak? What's strong? Anything that he says that advances or retards the cause of liberty? What do you think about the questions that Williams asked, the way he asked them. Do you think it would have been better or worse for the cause of Liberty and/or America's general self-interest, if this part of the video interview hadn't been edited out of the piece that was broadcasted on the air? Why do you think it was edited out?

A specific set of questions: in reference to my earlier post copied below, what do you think of Snowden's Haystack analogy, and my suggestion that it would be good for Rand to listen closely and incorporate that analogy into his own commentary on the pervasive surveillance the government is undertaking? Any way you know that someone could effectively make that suggestion to Rand? Could you help?



Regardless of who provided the original link. the important thing is

…Most importantly, I wish that this excerpt could be shown to Rand, because there are some excellent talking points there that are consistent with his views as he has previously expressed, in particular the "haystack" argument. The way Snowden explained that was VERY GOOD and Rand could use that as a model of how to explain to the voting public...

[No1butPaul]

Some people haven't (such as the chemtrail crowd and those who find a conspiracy under every rock).

I have been wondering about those chemtrails, was it ever determined why they are spraying the skies the way they are? Some days I look up and there's actual grid patterns in the sky. I thought maybe it was cloud seeding like they do in China, but if that's the case, why don't they just say? I have no idea what it's about, but when there's no information it leaves the void for everyone to speculate. I'm not going to speculate, but I sure am curious and would like an answer if you got it! What does Infowars say it is? Is it wrong to be curious about chemtrails?

Oh - I did determine it's probably not cloud seeding because I saw those same lines in Seattle and they don't need rain up there.

Not trying to be an enabler here, but I just really would like this chemtrail issue addressed since it was brought up.

[jkr]

i iz confused
can iz go back to watching L00ny tunes?

[jjdoyle]

I am interested in the content of the video, but I am also interested in self-policing the liberty movement so that we become more likely to turn people on to us and not scare them away. Linking to places like IW turns people off and discredits us by association.

The left hates Fox News, better not link anything to there, as it turns them off.
The right hates CNN/MSNBC, better not link anything there, as it turns them off.
Ad hominem. Ad hominem.

Never take any NUGGET of truth from a source you hate, and THIS NUGGET FROM A GUY THAT GAVE UP HIS COMFY GUBBERMENT JOB to wake people up? You should be talking about what was said, not where it came from. Do you agree that NBC should have aired the clip on TV, instead of burying it from their general TV viewing audience online? And if not that, just watching the clip and addressing what was said in it (as I skipped over the link, and I DIDN'T READ THE ARTICLE, JUST WATCHED THE CLIP, IMAGINE THAT).

This level of ad hominem stupidity from your small tent, small movement, idea is worse than the progressive left almost. Bury/delete/attack anything/anybody you can't address, or simply don't like. Don't address actual points (your history here), post YouTube video links that explain nothing on actual points and simply waste people's time. Yup, you were definitely associated with Ron Paul 2012.

[IPSecure]

They are not a credible source, they are factually inaccurate a lot of the time, they post hyperbole and conjecture frequently, and associating with them makes this site, and thus our community, look bad.

As if the bought and paid for propaganda spewing MSM is credible?

Do not forget the courts have ruled that "Falsifying News, is not actually against the law."
Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=axU9ngbTxKw

[No1butPaul]

My apologies to Fransisco for further taking this thread off point. Those were great questions and worthy of thought and response.


Open-ended question: What are your thoughts about what Snowden said??

I would just like to make this point. The mention of 9/11 is still just too taboo and part of the reason folks like Matt are afraid of Infowars being associated with this movement (it's not about chemtrails). I felt Ed Snowden's comment about the 9/11 commission was done in a very appropriate and compelling manner and a great argument against mass data collection; in fact, it was done in such a way that the MSM couldn't smear him for it so they had no need to air it. It is really going to have to take getting past the 9/11 taboo to see any real advances back toward liberty as that was the basis for destroying it. I find it deeply admirable that Snowden took the first step in that direction. No one else has had the courage to do so. (Oops, except maybe Infowars)

[Matt Collins]

I have been wondering about those chemtrails, was it ever determined why they are spraying the skies the way they are? Some days I look up and there's actual grid patterns in the sky. I thought maybe it was cloud seeding like they do in China, but if that's the case, why don't they just say? I have no idea what it's about, but when there's no information it leaves the void for everyone to speculate. I'm not going to speculate, but I sure am curious and would like an answer if you got it! What does Infowars say it is? Is it wrong to be curious about chemtrails?

Oh - I did determine it's probably not cloud seeding because I saw those same lines in Seattle and they don't need rain up there.

Not trying to be an enabler here, but I just really would like this chemtrail issue addressed since it was brought up.
This is a joke, right? :rolleyes:

Governments and scientists spray specific area of the skies on occasion for testing, rain seeding, etc. But it is not normal or routine across the entire country/globe all day every day. Most of what one sees in the air are called "con trails"

[Matt Collins]

Let me take you at your word, and redirect you away from hijacking this thread and toward discussing the content of the video.

Open-ended question: What are your thoughts about what Snowden said?

What's weak? What's strong? Anything that he says that advances or retards the cause of liberty? What do you think about the questions that Williams asked, the way he asked them. Do you think it would have been better or worse for the cause of Liberty and/or America's general self-interest, if this part of the video interview hadn't been edited out of the piece that was broadcasted on the air? Why do you think it was edited out?

A specific set of questions: in reference to my earlier post copied below, what do you think of Snowden's Haystack analogy, and my suggestion that it would be good for Rand to listen closely and incorporate that analogy into his own commentary on the pervasive surveillance the government is undertaking? Any way you know that someone could effectively make that suggestion to Rand? Could you help?
I am not commenting on Rand and what he should / shouldn't do.

But I think Snowden was coached VERY well on PR by a professional. He's obviously a smart guy, but he made himself come off as a very sympathetic character, instead of an angry punk. At a gun meeting yesterday, I even overheard neocons talking about how he did a good thing. I think this interview by him absolutely helped him and helped push public opinion in his favor.

[amy31416]

I am interested in the content of the video, but I am also interested in self-policing the liberty movement so that we become more likely to turn people on to us and not scare them away. Linking to places like IW turns people off and discredits us by association.

What would it take to scare you off? Tall women? People who won't donate to your stupid chip-ins?

Hell, I'd consider becoming a truther if it'd chase you off, because I think you're more toxic to the movement than any of them.

[francisco]

I am not commenting on Rand and what he should / shouldn't do.

But I think Snowden was coached VERY well on PR by a professional. He's obviously a smart guy, but he made himself come off as a very sympathetic character, instead of an angry punk. At a gun meeting yesterday, I even overheard neocons talking about how he did a good thing. I think this interview by him absolutely helped him and helped push public opinion in his favor.

Thank you for answering, although you had to be dragged kicking and screaming to do so.

Maybe as some Christians say, redemption is available to even the worst sinners.

[No1butPaul]

I am not commenting on Rand and what he should / shouldn't do.

But I think Snowden was coached VERY well on PR by a professional. He's obviously a smart guy, but he made himself come off as a very sympathetic character, instead of an angry punk. At a gun meeting yesterday, I even overheard neocons talking about how he did a good thing. I think this interview by him absolutely helped him and helped push public opinion in his favor.

When you say neocons were talking about how he did, were they speaking in context of the NBC broadcast only, or did they see the Infowars clip? I imagine not the latter because you didn't mention their heads exploding.

[Vanguard101]

I personally dislike Alex Jones due to the stupidity of the Piers Morgan situation but a lot of what he reports is accurate. From a conspiratorial standpoint that is.


Also, we shouldn't really talk about Alex Jones much. It discredits the movement. You never know which one of us might run for office.

[specsaregood]

Do not forget the courts have ruled that "Falsifying News, is not actually against the law."
Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=axU9ngbTxKw
Are you of the opinion that it should be against the law?

[Danke]

What would it take to scare you off? Tall women? People who won't donate to your stupid chip-ins?

Hell, I'd consider becoming a truther if it'd chase you off, because I think you're more toxic to the movement than any of them.

http://www.motifake.com/image/demotivational-poster/small/1007/midget-tossing-midget-dwarf-tossing-bowling-midgets-demotivational-poster-1279886223.jpg

[twomp]

Some people haven't (such as the chemtrail crowd and those who find a conspiracy under every rock).

But the important thing is that that sort of conspiracy talk scares people off.

This is unfortunate because it makes us look crazy to people we are trying to win over. Associating with AJ and IW/PP is unwise and is damaging to the movement.


Except that associating with them opens us up to attack and guilt by association. Why hand ammo to the opposition to help them turn people away from us? :confused:

Have you shared this wisdom with Ron Paul? Help him grow this movement with your expertise. Maybe slap his hands every time he shows up on AJ's show?

[liberty2897]

I am interested in the content of the video, but I am also interested in self-policing the liberty movement so that we become more likely to turn people on to us and not scare them away. Linking to places like IW turns people off and discredits us by association.
Mr Collins,

I can appreciate what you are saying if I try *really* hard too see things from *your* perspective. I have somewhat of a gift that way as I'm sure many of us here do. First of all, one thing I have observed in my few short years of visiting these forums: People here are not the types that you can herd or corral as *you* might wish you could do for a particular political party or campaign or whatever. It is unfortunate in some ways for change in a political sense, but would you really want it any other way? The people here are obviously, for the most part, way above the average in the intelligence and debate categories. Your vision of making the INTJ/ENTJ and the other types of personalities that dominate here conform to something that is more palatable to the GOP or whatever party is in bad taste. If I may make a somewhat "collective" statement, I believe the RPF types are the ones who can foresee the train wreck that is coming and the ultimate damage that will result. You called people "paranoid" when they warned about the NSA. Snowden proved you wrong. Infowars may be over-the-top for some, but AJ has done a *lot* of good things for our cause in my estimation. I consider that a +one in my book. At this point, I'm betting more "conspiracy theories" will soon become conspiracy fact.

I've had one too many tonight I think.

Please carry on.

[osan]

The only political ambitions I have are to win back our liberties through non-violent systemic changes.

Sorry, but I am thinking that ship has sailed. Keep working at it, of course, but holding expectations that this route will have efficacy seems to my eyes as well off reasonable at this stage. Consider but a tiny subset of what ought to be some rather attention-getting realities:




Through the relatively illegitimate use of an already illegitimate instrument (executive order), Obama has essentially granted himself nearly unlimited power. Why would someone do such a thing if they had no intention of using it? If they intend on using it, why is Joe Meaner not filling his pants in apprehension?
Theye are arming virtually every agency of government, even the FDA. Food and Drug Administration? Now TSA is making its move, expecting to have armed personnel, as well.
The courts are now making rulings in wild defiance of anything that even the most hopelessly stupid progressive could find acceptable.
Theye have purchased billions of rounds of ammunition... for "practice"... yeah, and we may end up being the fodder.
Police departments in even podunks have been militarized to the extent that NOBODY is safe from these steroid-poisoned lunatics.
To the previous point, why I ask does any police department in any city in the nation require an armored vehicle?


This is not even scratching the surface of a long litany of warning signs. The ultimate intentions are being broadcast to everyone and most are still at the mall.

Go ahead and keep at it and I hope you and your kind succeed. I do not, however, give you much more than a snowball's chance in hell of success. That opportunity is nearly impossible to reclaim because nowhere nearly enough of us gave enough of a shit about our rights to so much as keep a watchful eye on what Theye were up to all these years. Ho ho ho... nothing to see here... it's way too much fun at the mall... Ho ho ho... The attitude is well summarized in this little gem of 80s culture:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PyeWRd7ZEBs

I doubt any of us are going to come out of this with much more than our skins, particularly without a very serious fight. Consider the simple fact that if we have a general insurrection or even civil war, in the unlikely event we prevail, the ENTIRE fedgov will have to be replaced. Who has planned for this? What's that I hear... crickets? You and people like you need to sit awhile and give a little think time to that simple question. Have you ANY idea what it would mean to do so even in a homogeneous and intelligent popular environment, much much less in ours where the average man is literally a raving idiot and the common points of view on how to live life are in such violent opposition?

Nosir... after we would war with Themme and assuming we just wiped them from the face of the earth, we would shortly thereafter find ourselves at war with each other, or do you think that progressives and neocons would simply sit back and let YOU decide the fate of the nation? No no no, you and those of your ilk really do need to sit your asses into a comfy chair and fire up the imagination and start envisioning the REALITY of our situation. We are screwed to the wall because fundamental change in the ways in which we live in terms of governance is almost impossible at this stage of the game without very serious violence for no more complicated a reason than the fact that large sub-populations demand vastly different visions of life. How many of them thar welfare recipients do you think are going to cheerfully sally out into the world and get themselves jobs or, barring that, lay down and merrily starve?

America is an overloaded, 200-car freight train with bad brakes on a steep downward grade, the end of the line no longer very far off and the rails terminating at the face of a great mountain. As we speak, unless something FUNDAMENTAL alters, the choice before us is clear and inexorable: fight or be consumed by the machinery. If you think there is some middle ground to which you will be able to escape, well... good luck with that.

[osan]

That doesn't mean that they have any credibility.

Never confuse the credibility of a source with that of its story.

[Matt Collins]

Never confuse the credibility of a source with that of its story.I agree, except that it is impossible to separate the hyperbole and conjecture from the straight reporting of facts with AJ/IW/PP. You never know what they have just made up vs what really happened.

[Matt Collins]

When you say neocons were talking about how he did, were they speaking in context of the NBC broadcast only, or did they see the Infowars clip? I imagine not the latter because you didn't mention their heads exploding.The NBC broadcast.

[Deborah K]

Mr Collins,

I can appreciate what you are saying if I try *really* hard too see things from *your* perspective. I have somewhat of a gift that way as I'm sure many of us here do. First of all, one thing I have observed in my few short years of visiting these forums: People here are not the types that you can herd or corral as *you* might wish you could do for a particular political party or campaign or whatever. It is unfortunate in some ways for change in a political sense, but would you really want it any other way? The people here are obviously, for the most part, way above the average in the intelligence and debate categories. Your vision of making the INTJ/ENTJ and the other types of personalities that dominate here conform to something that is more palatable to the GOP or whatever party is in bad taste. If I may make a somewhat "collective" statement, I believe the RPF types are the ones who can foresee the train wreck that is coming and the ultimate damage that will result. You called people "paranoid" when they warned about the NSA. Snowden proved you wrong. Infowars may be over-the-top for some, but AJ has done a *lot* of good things for our cause in my estimation. I consider that a +one in my book. At this point, I'm betting more "conspiracy theories" will soon become conspiracy fact.

I've had one too many tonight I think.

Please carry on.

Matt needs to seriously think about starting his own forums. That way he'll have total control of the message. Think about it, Matt.

[Matt Collins]

The people here are obviously, for the most part, way above the average in the intelligence and debate categories.I would agree, except that they are still subject to the same fallacies and emotional manipulation that everyone else is. At the end of the day humans are humans regardless of their personality type (unfortunately).


Your vision of making the INTJ/ENTJ and the other types of personalities that dominate here conform to something that is more palatable to the GOP or whatever party is in bad taste.No, not at all. But if we are to win, we have to be able to appeal to people that are not I/ENTJs (which only encompass like 1% of the population by the way). That means speaking in a way that is palatable to them, and not doing things to repel them away from our ideas.



You called people "paranoid" when they warned about the NSA. Snowden proved you wrong. I don't believe I did actually.


I've had one too many tonight I think. Naw, you did fine

[Matt Collins]

Through the relatively illegitimate use of an already illegitimate instrument (executive order), Obama has essentially granted himself nearly unlimited power. Why would someone do such a thing if they had no intention of using it? If they intend on using it, why is Joe Meaner not filling his pants in apprehension?
Government's inherent direction is to grow, it's the nature of the beast. It doesn't mean everyone there is evil, or has ill intentions (although a lot of them do).

But you have to remember, that it has to be pretty extreme circumstances for the government to step that far out of bounds and not get meaningful pushback. If Obama were to start instituting martial law right now for no reason, you would see him be taken out of office. If there were "extenuating circumstances" that rallied the public behind him, then it might get away with it.



Police departments in even podunks have been militarized to the extent that NOBODY is safe from these steroid-poisoned lunatics.

To the previous point, why I ask does any police department in any city in the nation require an armored vehicle?I understand it to be excess surplus from the government's draw down out of Iraq/Afghanistan.





Go ahead and keep at it and I hope you and your kind succeed. I do not, however, give you much more than a snowball's chance in hell of success. That's because you have never actually been involved in a successful political fight. I have singlehandidly stopped police-state bills from coming into law with no money or resources; all I had was an e-mail list. In most state legislatures, it does not take many resources to kill a bill. But you have to be involved, show up, build lists, and mobilize people at the right time.

If we do that, then we can start stopping some of this crap at the state level. If we get good at it, then we can start to get the state governments to reject the federal government's nonsense. But it is a multi-year, maybe even a multi-decade process.






That opportunity is nearly impossible to reclaim because nowhere nearly enough of us gave enough of a shit about our rights to so much as keep a watchful eye on what Theye were up to all these years. We don't need a majority, we just need a few people who do care and are willing to get organized, put out some effort, and mobilize a few others when the time is right.

Did you know in most state legislatures that just a few well placed phone calls can convince a legislator to vote against a bill?

[osan]

I agree, except that it is impossible to separate the hyperbole and conjecture from the straight reporting of facts with AJ/IW/PP. You never know what they have just made up vs what really happened.

Shame. But I guess that is what individual research is about. Much as I find Glenn Beck vanishingly trustworthy, his research seems to be very good insofar as vetting facts are concerned. I have yet to hear of anyone catching him in a lie or major screwup. OTOH, I don't really listen to him unless he happens to be on when I am driving, so I know little about what he does these days.

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

Alex Jones? Eh, He's no more or less melodramatic than these clowns on radio or cable TV. I would actually be more embarrassed to associate with a movement getting news from short-skirted TV bimbos.

Raw and primary sources are, of course, the best sources of information. It still relies on good questions being asked by the interviewer. Editing is done for various reasons, but it is often political.

[amy31416]

Shame. But I guess that is what individual research is about. Much as I find Glenn Beck vanishingly trustworthy, his research seems to be very good insofar as vetting facts are concerned. I have yet to hear of anyone catching him in a lie or major screwup. OTOH, I don't really listen to him unless he happens to be on when I am driving, so I know little about what he does these days.

Matt expects other people to do the research for him.

[Danke]

I have singlehandidly stopped police-state bills from coming into law with no money or resources;


This why Amy gets all starry-eyed when you post.

[osan]

Government's inherent direction is to grow, it's the nature of the beast. It doesn't mean everyone there is evil, or has ill intentions (although a lot of them do).

Firstly, and this may seem a semantic nit, but I assure you it is not: "government" doesn't do anything because it has no material reality. People tend to work toward acquiring and cultivating the power of the group with which they identify, which by extension increases theirs. Individual human beings are the culprits here, not the imaginary "state".


But you have to remember, that it has to be pretty extreme circumstances for the government to step that far out of bounds and not get meaningful pushback.

Depends on the population. Today's meaner is a blundering fool whose head is so inundated with nonsense that I am a little surprised most of them can find their ways to work every morning. This does not make them bad people, but it makes them dangerously inert with respect to the relationships they hold with those who ostensibly "serve" them. Serve them on a platter is closer to the truth. Their attitudes, knowledge, and points of view are frighteningly and utterly inadequate for free living. They are like children in adult bodies - in need of being guided through nearly every aspect of their lives as if they had no brains of which to speak. Practically speaking, they haven't as the one-two punch of the "education" system and the gifts of mass media have rendered the meaner precisely the mindless automaton the authors of The Protocols described. We're not heading to that state, we are there right now. Such people may mean well, but they are so off the mark with common sense that their opinions and actions constitute direct and immediate physical threats to every man who desires his full and unabridged freedom.

Answer me this: how much "push back" has Obama gotten? I don't really know because if it is a lot, the MSM is not airing it and if it little, then you have a snapshot of how far out of bounds the meaner thinks this Klown is acting. Either way, we have a serious problem.


If Obama were to start instituting martial law right now for no reason, you would see him be taken out of office.

First of all, I do not believe Obama so much as goes to the toilet without permission from his handlers and those people are not likely the ne'er-do-wells that is the very definition of Obama. Therefore, and since Theye are likely neither fools, a pretext will be given and I believe that the vast and overwhelming majority of Americans will meekly comply. if there is a "terror" event, those very people will become strident Obama allies and if called upon will shoot the life out of people such as yourself on command. We are living in a mental environment that, as far as I can see, is very different from anything men have known in the past 2000 years, just to pick a number.

The general attitude of the average man today is such that the tyrant is more at his leisure than ever before, which is ironic given the long history available to us from which to learn but which we nonetheless reject in favor of the whipmaster's fiat. There truly is a pall over the human race and I see no signs of the meaner showing a tendency to change this, save to go further down the road to serfdom and eventual outright and abject slavery, perhaps with some form of candy coating.

Compounding my doubt is the fact that technology has physically empowered the tyrants in ways and degrees that would bring a tear to Mao's eye. This brings into very strong question the notion of the "3%". I strongly suspect that a truly dedicated 3% resistance would be wiped from the roles of the living in very short order today. I am further suspicious that nothing short of between 15 and 25 percent of the population will have to be strongly on board to overcome Themme in a fist fight because Theye have trillions of dollars worth of very secret weapons research in their hands and we do not. Granted that warfare is inherently nonlinear, but the odds are so stacker in Theire favor in so many ways that triumph for us seems a rather remote possibility at this time.


If there were "extenuating circumstances" that rallied the public behind him, then it might get away with it.


I would be willing to bet money I do not have that if he declared martial law tomorrow morning with but the thinnest of pretexts, Americans would mostly lie down. OTOH, the small minority who would fight would then have served upon their plates a cause for immediate and direct action that anyone who was truly serious about reining-in "government" could not ignore or pass off until "next time".


I understand it to be excess surplus from the government's draw down out of Iraq/Afghanistan.

We had the same after WW II and most of the ordnance was sold off to the public including aircraft, tanks, jeeps, and various other materiel. No such thing is now happening. The vehicles are going to government agencies only and are NOT being demilitarized AFAIK.



That's because you have never actually been involved in a successful political fight. I have singlehandidly stopped police-state bills from coming into law with no money or resources; all I had was an e-mail list. In most state legislatures, it does not take many resources to kill a bill. But you have to be involved, show up, build lists, and mobilize people at the right time.

Two problems with that. Firstly, the victories still result in net losses of freedom and net increases in "state" power and tyranny.

Secondly, it is not likely possible to keep up that level of involvement generation after generation, and why should we have to? The solution is not to fight them within the so-called "system" where the plundering tyrants have the clear and overwhelming advantage. It is to physically kill as many as needed, imprison the rest for life, publicly executing the worst offenders, and dismantling the system that allows such people to do the things to which we are now daily treated in acts of violation renewed and redoubled.

[quote]If we do that, then we can start stopping some of this crap at the state level. If we get good at it, then we can start to get the state governments to reject the federal government's nonsense. But it is a multi-year, maybe even a multi-decade process.

Thirty years ago we might have pulled this off, but I do not see it now. Theye have so much power over the imbecility-trained meaner that I see but a vanishingly small chance that your approach would succeed. I hope it does because a civil war is nothing to which I look forward. But I'd rather that than slowly burning to the waterline as we are currently doing.

[Matt Collins]

Two problems with that. Firstly, the victories still result in net losses of freedom and net increases in "state" power and tyranny.Not at all. Manipulating a legislature to kill bills that are anti-freedom, or getting them to pass pro-freedom bills into law results in an increase in freedom.


Secondly, it is not likely possible to keep up that level of involvement generation after generation, and why should we have to? Of course it is. The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.



The solution is not to fight them within the so-called "system" where the plundering tyrants have the clear and overwhelming advantage. It is to physically kill as many as needed, imprison the rest for life, publicly executing the worst offenders, and dismantling the system that allows such people to do the things to which we are now daily treated in acts of violation renewed and redoubled.uhhh... I think that advocating violence is a violation of forum rules, and for good reason.


But violence is not necessary to accomplishing our goals. We can manipulate legislatures; I have done it.



Thirty years ago we might have pulled this off, but I do not see it now. Theye have so much power over the imbecility-trained meaner that I see but a vanishingly small chance that your approach would succeed. I hope it does because a civil war is nothing to which I look forward. But I'd rather that than slowly burning to the waterline as we are currently doing.That's because you have never have taken the time to learn how to do it, or put forth the effort to try.

When you're ready to start fighting and quit being a defeatist, then let me know and I'll be glad to help you win back your freedoms. Otherwise you are complacent in letting the government run over everyone, including yourself. Put another way, if you're not working to stop tyranny at your state legislative level, then you're part of the problem.

[Danke]

When you're ready to start fighting and quit being a defeatist, then let me know and I'll be glad to help you win back your freedoms.

Dude, you are a saint. I wish more people were like you.

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

uhhh... I think that advocating violence is a violation of forum rules, and for good reason.


But violence is not necessary to accomplishing our goals.


The rules of society have collapsed, but somehow a forum must maintain some type of ridiculous decorum? I understanding your approach, but sometimes you just have to take out the trash. Yeah, I'm throwing in a funny because I have to humor myself when zillions of defenseless dogs get shot. God forbid it should ever be mine.

Anyway, if you're taking what you call "violence" off the table at this point, then you might as well bend over, take it in the ass, and then be killed anyway.

[phill4paul]

Teh Collins faps to this scene, imagining himself in the role..........


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j1lDDy80pYA

[No1butPaul]

Oh no, Ben Swann links to infowars re: Edward Snowden's "censored segment."

He links in the body of the article:


In the allegedly censored clip, Snowden also reveals that the U.S. had all of the intelligence regarding the terrorist attacks on Sept. 11, 2001 but we unable to connect the dots.

http://benswann.com/edward-snowden-censored-segment-had-all-info-needed-to-detect-911-plot/

[osan]

Not at all. Manipulating a legislature to kill bills that are anti-freedom, or getting them to pass pro-freedom bills into law results in an increase in freedom.

We must be on different planets because here on Bizarro I am notably less free today than I was 15 years ago.


Of course it is. The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.

Don't be silly - I was speaking to degree and not of the requirement itself. Yes, eternal vigilance, but if you try living your life at red alert status you will cook in your own juices before very long. The quality of life goes all to hell.



uhhh... I think that advocating violence is a violation of forum rules, and for good reason.


But violence is not necessary to accomplishing our goals. We can manipulate legislatures; I have done it.


I have advocated nothing. I have stated what I see as a factual observation. The two are not the same.


That's because you have never have taken the time to learn how to do it, or put forth the effort to try.


That is a big presumption on your part. Regardless, I have been paying close attention to what has been going on these past 40+ years. If what you claim is the case, then why are we in deeper shit now than when I was, say, 16? If you have the answers, how about you write a book and teach the world? Why has that not happened? Why isn't the mass of freedom loving Americans, such as they may remain, not out defeating this lousy-rotten system?

Stopping a bill here and there will avail us nothing. This thing needs to be stopped without equivocation and I do not see how that is going to occur using the method you claim is so efficacious. I see no evidence of NET positive efficacy, but please do demonstrate my error. I will be most happy to know my vision is faulty.


When you're ready to start fighting and quit being a defeatist

I am by no means a defeatist. I am a realist. But again, demonstrate your success so I may know that you are right and I, mistaken.


then let me know and I'll be glad to help you win back your freedoms. Otherwise you are complacent in letting the government run over everyone, including yourself. Put another way, if you're not working to stop tyranny at your state legislative level, then you're part of the problem.

Complacent? And you know this how?

[amy31416]

This why Amy gets all starry-eyed when you post.

So right, Danke. **swoon**

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

One more thing. If you don't have the threat of arms, then you are just whizzing in the wind. There are countries on this planet where there situation is reversed: the government fears the people. A pig will try to shakedown a well-dressed citizen who does not cross at the crosswalk. You tell the pig to get lost. The police are afraid of rebels and criminals and basically just sit around all day telling jokes and eyeing girls. Some pipsqueak wants to put you in the local jail? No, how about you step into that cell. History and instability is why those at the very top of these countries implement strict gun control.

[Matt Collins]

We must be on different planets because here on Bizarro I am notably less free today than I was 15 years ago.That's because you and others haven't been fighting for change on a state level. What state do you live in BTW?




Don't be silly - I was speaking to degree and not of the requirement itself. Yes, eternal vigilance, but if you try living your life at red alert status you will cook in your own juices before very long. The quality of life goes all to hell.heh... there is some truth to that :o





If you have the answers, how about you write a book and teach the world? Why has that not happened?The Campaign for Liberty, Leadership Institute, FreedomWorks, and FACL all have classes to teach you how to change your legislature. Have you ever taken the time to attend one?


Why isn't the mass of freedom loving Americans, such as they may remain, not out defeating this lousy-rotten system?We don't need a majority, we only need a few people. Apparently in your area that means no one has stepped up to the plate, including yourself.




Stopping a bill here and there will avail us nothing. This thing needs to be stopped without equivocation and I do not see how that is going to occur using the method you claim is so efficacious. I see no evidence of NET positive efficacy, but please do demonstrate my error. I will be most happy to know my vision is faulty.Stopping a bill prevents bad ideas from becoming law. If you are able to stop enough bills, then you become very powerful and the legislators will do what you tell them to. The trick is to back it up with the ability to unelect one or more of them from office, or at least make their lives as miserable as possible if you cant get them unelected.

Read a book called "Confrontational Politics".

[amy31416]

That's because you and others haven't been fighting for change on a state level. What state do you live in BTW?



heh... there is some truth to that :o




The Campaign for Liberty, Leadership Institute, FreedomWorks, and FACL all have classes to teach you how to change your legislature. Have you ever taken the time to attend one?

We don't need a majority, we only need a few people. Apparently in your area that means no one has stepped up to the plate, including yourself.



Stopping a bill prevents bad ideas from becoming law. If you are able to stop enough bills, then you become very powerful and the legislators will do what you tell them to. The trick is to back it up with the ability to unelect one or more of them from office, or at least make their lives as miserable as possible if you cant get them unelected.

Read a book called "Confrontational Politics".

Why don't you start a chip-in for him for these books and classes? You be the first to donate.

[kcchiefs6465]

Why don't you start a chip-in for him for these books and classes? You be the first to donate.
Or MLM.

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

That's because you and others haven't been fighting for change on a state level. What state do you live in BTW?



I will agree that the more local one goes--the more one MIGHT have an influence. This national politics stuff on cable TV just seems largely entertainment to me.

I go back and forth on getting involved. I contacted every state legislator for a period when roadblock bills were proposed in about 8 states. I sent them the research I gather showing that roadblocks were an abysmal failure. I appealed to practicality for the legislators that no longer cared about the 4th amendment. I had some fairly good conversations regarding the research showing that roadblocks always fail. Even had some good casual conversations with some legislators.

I suppose things happen whether you are involved or not. My impetus for the roadblock activity was MADD, a group I absolutely loathe. I figured if they were going to get into a legislator's ear, then I better do the same. I don't know if I had an influence, but none of the roadblock bills passed. The one in Utah was a bill to eliminate roadblocks and the house actually passed it. Big deal though--because the senate did not even take it up. Maybe it's small steps. I don't know. Seems to me the action at the Bundy Ranch is A LOT more effective and gets someone's attention. I realize the value of both approaches, but firearms definitely speak louder.

I also think about how much worse it might be if one does nothing. I remember Terry Bressi telling me that pushing back must always be done. Maybe it saves a dog from being shot or something like that.

I am not doing much now, but that might change. We'll see.

[WillieKamm]

Sorry, but I am thinking that ship has sailed. Keep working at it, of course, but holding expectations that this route will have efficacy seems to my eyes as well off reasonable at this stage. Consider but a tiny subset of what ought to be some rather attention-getting realities:




Through the relatively illegitimate use of an already illegitimate instrument (executive order), Obama has essentially granted himself nearly unlimited power. Why would someone do such a thing if they had no intention of using it? If they intend on using it, why is Joe Meaner not filling his pants in apprehension?
Theye are arming virtually every agency of government, even the FDA. Food and Drug Administration? Now TSA is making its move, expecting to have armed personnel, as well.
The courts are now making rulings in wild defiance of anything that even the most hopelessly stupid progressive could find acceptable.
Theye have purchased billions of rounds of ammunition... for "practice"... yeah, and we may end up being the fodder.
Police departments in even podunks have been militarized to the extent that NOBODY is safe from these steroid-poisoned lunatics.
To the previous point, why I ask does any police department in any city in the nation require an armored vehicle?


This is not even scratching the surface of a long litany of warning signs. The ultimate intentions are being broadcast to everyone and most are still at the mall.

Go ahead and keep at it and I hope you and your kind succeed. I do not, however, give you much more than a snowball's chance in hell of success. That opportunity is nearly impossible to reclaim because nowhere nearly enough of us gave enough of a shit about our rights to so much as keep a watchful eye on what Theye were up to all these years. Ho ho ho... nothing to see here... it's way too much fun at the mall... Ho ho ho... The attitude is well summarized in this little gem of 80s culture:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PyeWRd7ZEBs

I doubt any of us are going to come out of this with much more than our skins, particularly without a very serious fight. Consider the simple fact that if we have a general insurrection or even civil war, in the unlikely event we prevail, the ENTIRE fedgov will have to be replaced. Who has planned for this? What's that I hear... crickets? You and people like you need to sit awhile and give a little think time to that simple question. Have you ANY idea what it would mean to do so even in a homogeneous and intelligent popular environment, much much less in ours where the average man is literally a raving idiot and the common points of view on how to live life are in such violent opposition?

Nosir... after we would war with Themme and assuming we just wiped them from the face of the earth, we would shortly thereafter find ourselves at war with each other, or do you think that progressives and neocons would simply sit back and let YOU decide the fate of the nation? No no no, you and those of your ilk really do need to sit your asses into a comfy chair and fire up the imagination and start envisioning the REALITY of our situation. We are screwed to the wall because fundamental change in the ways in which we live in terms of governance is almost impossible at this stage of the game without very serious violence for no more complicated a reason than the fact that large sub-populations demand vastly different visions of life. How many of them thar welfare recipients do you think are going to cheerfully sally out into the world and get themselves jobs or, barring that, lay down and merrily starve?

America is an overloaded, 200-car freight train with bad brakes on a steep downward grade, the end of the line no longer very far off and the rails terminating at the face of a great mountain. As we speak, unless something FUNDAMENTAL alters, the choice before us is clear and inexorable: fight or be consumed by the machinery. If you think there is some middle ground to which you will be able to escape, well... good luck with that. Man that was powerful. When TSHTF I hope and pray that I am shoulder to shoulder with men and women of your caliber.

[osan]

That's because you and others haven't been fighting for change on a state level. What state do you live in BTW?

What does this have to do with efficacy and net gains? There are countless thousands of people working at the state level and all others as well... we're getting clobbered by this Congress and that frothing-at-the-mouth lunatic in the Oval Office. Executive order this... executive order that... Were we defeating them in any meaningful ways, would we not be hearing about it? Don't misunderstand, small victories are all fine and well, but if the net effect is but to slow the march into Hell, absent a very real, complete, correct, and concrete plan for longer term action that is going to put these usurpers and tyrants to ends, we are wasting our time. I cannot speak for anyone else, but I am not looking to prolong the death of my liberty for as long as possible.

I am in WV.


Stopping a bill prevents bad ideas from becoming law

Or just postpones it, and that is the crux of the problem: these vermin in human skin can sit and wait for very long periods, sometimes decades, waiting for the next opportunity. How many times have bills been struck down only to reappear in different forms? Remember PATRIOT II? That was shitcanned forthwith and yet many of the most egregious elements resurfaced and passed the following year... don't recall whether it was a budget bill or NDAA or something else. This goes on all the time and as yet we have been unsuccessful bringing it to an end precisely because this system ensures the possibility of it and the incentives ensure motivation to act.


If you are able to stop enough bills, then you become very powerful and the legislators will do what you tell them to.

For a more specific definition of "enough". And I disagree with your assertion that they will listen. Some will, but thus far it has not been enough - at least not on the monumental issues. Congressman X on average could give a damn what you think because he is in the pocket of someone who is covertly greasing his palms most generously. Look at the hanky panky that goes on... official leaves office and suddenly finds himself with a $500K salary working for the people who successfully lobbied him for this or that. How can anyone with an IQ in the positive integers believe that this could ever be on the up and up? And the scandals mean nothing anymore because nearly nobody goes to prison... hell, they are barely ever even charged.

Rome is burning, Nero is fiddling wildly, and I have yet to see how peeing on the flames is helpful. Not saying it isn't, just that I do not see it.

I do believe we are well past the point where fine adjustments bring the system back into proper tune. This bitch needs a sledge hammer .


The trick is to back it up with the ability to unelect one or more of them from office,

The tacit presupposition here is that these candidates care, which I think they ultimately do not. Besides, when you look at the centuries-long careers of the Schumers, Reids, Pelosis, and Grahams, given their endless perfidies, it comes home with some clarity that the sufficient mass of voting Americans are stupid beyond man's ability to measure.


or at least make their lives as miserable as possible if you cant get them unelected.

I do see some virtue in that suggestion, but I still suspect that the payoffs awaiting many of them upon their exits from public life leave them smiling and eminently unworried.


Read a book called "Confrontational Politics".

If I can find time... in the middle of about 20 major projects at the moment, but I will keep this in mind.

[Matt Collins]

I contacted every state legislator for a period when roadblock bills were proposed in about 8 states. I sent them the research I gather showing that roadblocks were an abysmal failure. I appealed to practicality for the legislators that no longer cared about the 4th amendment. I had some fairly good conversations regarding the research showing that roadblocks always fail. Even had some good casual conversations with some legislators.You have to strong arm them into submission. You can't have nice conversations with them and expect them to vote based on reason, or logic, or rationale. They vote based on politics, and politics is an extension of war by other means.

In other words, if you are not feared you are not respected.

You must be able to either threaten their re-election ability, or be able to make their lives miserable. That means having big lists. Once you do that, they will be scared to cross you.






I am not doing much now, but that might change. We'll see.I hope so!

[Matt Collins]

What does this have to do with efficacy and net gains? There are countless thousands of people working at the state level and all others as well... we're getting clobbered by this Congress and that frothing-at-the-mouth lunatic in the Oval Office. Executive order this... executive order that... Were we defeating them in any meaningful ways, would we not be hearing about it? Don't misunderstand, small victories are all fine and well, but if the net effect is but to slow the march into Hell, absent a very real, complete, correct, and concrete plan for longer term action that is going to put these usurpers and tyrants to ends, we are wasting our time. I cannot speak for anyone else, but I am not looking to prolong the death of my liberty for as long as possible. You have a defeatist attitude which is a cancer to the cause of liberty.



Or just postpones it, and that is the crux of the problem: these vermin in human skin can sit and wait for very long periods, sometimes decades, waiting for the next opportunity. How many times have bills been struck down only to reappear in different forms? Remember PATRIOT II? That was shitcanned forthwith and yet many of the most egregious elements resurfaced and passed the following year... don't recall whether it was a budget bill or NDAA or something else. This goes on all the time and as yet we have been unsuccessful bringing it to an end precisely because this system ensures the possibility of it and the incentives ensure motivation to act.As I have already stated, the price of freedom is eternal vigilance.




For a more specific definition of "enough". And I disagree with your assertion that they will listen. Some will, but thus far it has not been enough - at least not on the monumental issues. Congressman X on average could give a damn what you think because he is in the pocket of someone who is covertly greasing his palms most generously. Look at the hanky panky that goes on... official leaves office and suddenly finds himself with a $500K salary working for the people who successfully lobbied him for this or that. How can anyone with an IQ in the positive integers believe that this could ever be on the up and up? And the scandals mean nothing anymore because nearly nobody goes to prison... hell, they are barely ever even charged.If you threaten their ability to get re-elected, then you can control them. But forget Congress, the real fight is on the state level.




The tacit presupposition here is that these candidates care, At the end of the day, every politician cares only about one thing: re-election. If you jeopardize that, they will do whatever it takes to keep their seat. This means you can control their behavior.

It is a very mechanical Maslov/Pavlov type of situation.

[amy31416]

You have a defeatist attitude which is a cancer to the cause of liberty.


As I have already stated, the price of freedom is eternal vigilance.


Shutup Matt.

[Matt Collins]

Shutup Matt.
That is an intelligent and thought-provoking response :rolleyes:

[amy31416]

That is an intelligent and thought-provoking response :rolleyes:

Can't be too complicated when dealing with someone who regurgitates bullshit.

But you still didn't seem to understand, so, STFU Matt. Get it now?

[mczerone]

Can we please stop posting stuff from Infowars?

They are not a credible source, they are factually inaccurate a lot of the time, they post hyperbole and conjecture frequently, and associating with them makes this site, and thus our community, look bad.

I'm a little late to this game, and I'm not a huge fan of Infowars, but do have any data comparing them to, say Rueters or ABC News or local TV affiliates?

factually inaccurate? check. hyperbole? check. conjecture? check.

The only difference between Infowars and the MSM is that one is accepted by the establishment and one is not. There are TONS of factual, relevant, accurate stories coming out of Infowars, some authors being more trustworthy than others. And there are tons of crap articles coming out of the NY Times.

So what does your advice boil down to? Play the establishment game. Be presentable to this small, slim portion of bullies and liars. Don't ever show that our movement is any different than any other political faction. Assimilate to be just like the very people that have enslaved us.

Great advice, Collins. :rolleyes:

[jllundqu]

Just watched it.

Bump.

Ed, you sir are a badass.