Trying to get through to a war-supporting neolib

[lilymc]

I'm having a discussion on another forum with someone who is fully on board with all the wars, the US foreign policy, and all the post- 9/11 changes.

I said that I believe the "war on terror" is being used as a pretext for their true agenda, and that too many people have forgotten the warnings of our founders, on giving up liberty for some temporary security.

So now he's asking what liberties have been lost and how is the government violating the rights of regular American citizens.

What can I point him to, that lists all of the unconstitutional legislation that has been passed since 9/11? And specific violations that should concern anyone?

Help, please?

PS - if this is posted in the wrong forum, please move it. I wasn't sure where to post it. Thanks!

[lilymc]

Better yet, if some people here could just sign up on that forum, that would be SO great.

The only problem is, I think they disabled new sign-ups, because they were getting a humongous onslaught of spammers and they couldn't keep up with that.

[satchelmcqueen]

tell him to go fly on a plane. see how that hits him. tell him to go do a simple thing and just open a new bank account. see how long it takes him before he looses his shit. ask him to go film in front of a police station, then when confronted, tell him to talk his way out of it.

[William Tell]

What kind of liberties does a "neolib" care about? Is that a pro war Democrat?

[lilymc]

tell him to go fly on a plane. see how that hits him. tell him to go do a simple thing and just open a new bank account. see how long it takes him before he looses his shit. ask him to go film in front of a police station, then when confronted, tell him to talk his way out of it.

Thanks! I'm pretty he mentioned on a thread that he's OK with the extra security measures at airports. I don't know about the other things, but his overall position seems to be "if it prevents us from another 9/11, I'm fine with it."

What I would like to find is a list of specific things that have changed since 9/11 that are unconstitutional or intrusive.

There are too many people like him, who willingly accept all that stuff because they believe everything they've been told (sold) by the government/media.

[lilymc]

What kind of liberties does a "neolib" care about? Is that a pro war Democrat?

Yeah, he's a Democrat but he supports all the wars and our foreign policy because he's very pro Israel. (I think his family is from there).

I don't think he cares about things like the 2nd amendment (like a lot of liberals) and like a lot of people, since he hasn't personally experienced violations of his rights, he is sort of blind to the bigger picture.

[thoughtomator]

I have found that pointing out all the new common ground they have with Dick Cheney is plenty enough to stop your average neolib in his tracks for a few minutes while he puts his cognitive dissonance back.

[lilymc]

I have found that pointing out all the new common ground they have with Dick Cheney is plenty enough to stop your average neolib in his tracks for a few minutes while he puts his cognitive dissonance back.

Haha... Yeah, I should point that out more often.



What kind of liberties does a "neolib" care about? Is that a pro war Democrat?

Sorry, I didn't even answer your question! I guess the same "liberties" that other liberals care about... abortion, same-sex marriage, etc. He's basically a liberal but with the same foreign policy as a neocon. :p

[William Tell]

Sorry, I didn't even answer your question! I guess the same "liberties" that other liberals care about... abortion, same-sex marriage, etc. He's basically a liberal but with the same foreign policy as a neocon. :p

Wow, so there's nothing good at all about his views? That makes it tough.

[lilymc]

Wow, so there's nothing good at all about his views? That makes it tough.

LOL! Yeah. Anyway, it's hard to know where to begin with people who simply don't see what has been going on in the last few decades. It's like there's a blindness there.

[William Tell]

LOL! Yeah. Anyway, it's hard to know where to begin with people who simply don't see what has been going on in the last few decades. It's like there's a blindness there.

Unless you can think of a part of the bill of rights he actually cares about, I don't know what to say.

[jmdrake]

I'm having a discussion on another forum with someone who is fully on board with all the wars, the US foreign policy, and all the post- 9/11 changes.

I said that I believe the "war on terror" is being used as a pretext for their true agenda, and that too many people have forgotten the warnings of our founders, on giving up liberty for some temporary security.

So now he's asking what liberties have been lost and how is the government violating the rights of regular American citizens.

What can I point him to, that lists all of the unconstitutional legislation that has been passed since 9/11? And specific violations that should concern anyone?

Help, please?

PS - if this is posted in the wrong forum, please move it. I wasn't sure where to post it. Thanks!

How about the fact that people in Chicago are being held without charge in secret government facilities?

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?469557-The-disappeared-Chicago-police-detain-Americans-at-abuse-laden-black-site&p=5793954#post5793954

If this person is okay with that he/she is a lost cause.

[lilymc]

Unless you can think of a part of the bill of rights he actually cares about, I don't know what to say.

The 4th amendment is probably the one he would care about the most, but since he hasn't been affected personally, he's sort of oblivious to the trampling of it.


How about the fact that people in Chicago are being held without charge in secret government facilities?

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?469557-The-disappeared-Chicago-police-detain-Americans-at-abuse-laden-black-site&p=5793954#post5793954

If this person is okay with that he/she is a lost cause.

I'll check that out. Thanks! And I agree, that would show who is a lost cause.

[Bastiat's The Law]

Pick your battles.

[satchelmcqueen]

Thanks! I'm pretty he mentioned on a thread that he's OK with the extra security measures at airports. I don't know about the other things, but his overall position seems to be "if it prevents us from another 9/11, I'm fine with it."

What I would like to find is a list of specific things that have changed since 9/11 that are unconstitutional or intrusive.

There are too many people like him, who willingly accept all that stuff because they believe everything they've been told (sold) by the government/media.
maybe have him read sections of the patriot act that explains what "the bill itself" says is a terrorist. ask him if he thinks he himself or his innocent friends or family can be considered one after reading the points.

[lilymc]

Pick your battles.

I know. I really shouldn't even be debating right now. I've got so many things I should be doing, and forums can be a distraction. But I'm sort of in the middle of a discussion, so...

Like I said, I wish there were more liberty-minded people there, but I don't want to pressure you guys to join the forum. So I'll stop doing that. ;)

[lilymc]

maybe have him read sections of the patriot act that explains what "the bill itself" says is a terrorist. ask him if he thinks he himself or his innocent friends or family can be considered one after reading the points.

Good idea. Thank you!

[William Tell]

Are those your kittens? I like the angle of the picture with the light. they are adorable by the way.

[lilymc]

Are those your kittens? I like the angle of the picture with the light. they are adorable by the way.

No... just a pic I found. I agree they're adorable. :) Here it is in a bigger size.

http://i57.tinypic.com/20tfew0.jpg

[Leaning Libertarian]

At least in 2013 Eric Holder claimed "Drone Strikes to kill American Citizens, On American Soil is hypotheically legal." This is to combat "Terrorists." The party currently in charge of the Executive Branch is the Democrats. They have frequently referred to other parties they politically disagree with, such as the Tea Party, as "terrorists."

This may seem fine to him, because he is not a member of the Tea Party. Neither am I for that matter. What if the people he politically disagrees with eventually comes to possess this power. Would he be comfortable under similar conditions? What if he were suddenly being referred to as a "terrorist" for his political stances. This is why "mob rule" just doesn't work. It may seem all fine and good when it doesn't effect "me," but at some point it ultimately will. There must be upmost care for individual liberties.

[lilymc]

At least in 2013 Eric Holder claimed "Drone Strikes to kill American Citizens, On American Soil is hypotheically legal." This is to combat "Terrorists." The party currently in charge of the Executive Branch is the Democrats. They have frequently referred to other parties they politically disagree with, such as the Tea Party, as "terrorists."

This may seem fine to him, because he is not a member of the Tea Party. Neither am I for that matter. What if the people he politically disagrees with eventually comes to possess this power. Would he be comfortable under similar conditions? What if he were suddenly being referred to as a "terrorist" for his political stances. This is why "mob rule" just doesn't work. It may seem all fine and good when it doesn't effect "me," but at some point it ultimately will. There must be upmost care for individual liberties.

Excellent, thank you! I'll post an article on that too.

And what you said in the 2nd paragraph is exactly what I was trying to get through to him. I would think anyone would be smart enough to figure out that if other groups can be wrongly labeled a terrorist, then all Americans should be concerned. But I brought that up, and apparently some people still seem totally apathetic.

It makes me wonder what it's going to take for some people to be bitchslapped into reality. :o

Thank you!

[DamianTV]

Make sure to lead by example and always take the higher road. If he sees your behavior as immoral, the way they think will trap him into thinking what they are doing is moral. Persuade them to follow your lead. Also bear in mind that some people can not be helped.

[lilymc]

Make sure to lead by example and always take the higher road. If he sees your behavior as immoral, the way they think will trap him into thinking what they are doing is moral. Persuade them to follow your lead. Also bear in mind that some people can not be helped.

Very true. That's one thing I always try to do. I've been on that forum since 2002 and I've only gotten one "point" (infraction) the entire time... and it was for something silly. But that place is like a warzone. A lot of the posters there are extremely rude and offensive to the opposing side, on a daily basis. So relatively speaking, I'm like the Mother Theresa there. :D ;)

Anyway, I replied to him and also posted that article that jmdrake mentioned, about the secret government facilities in Chicago. He hasn't replied yet. :)

Thanks!

[jmdrake]

I know. I really shouldn't even be debating right now. I've got so many things I should be doing, and forums can be a distraction. But I'm sort of in the middle of a discussion, so...

Like I said, I wish there were more liberty-minded people there, but I don't want to pressure you guys to join the forum. So I'll stop doing that. ;)

Sometimes battles are not for the person you are arguing with but for other people who might read it. That said, when it gets into a back and forth, at times other people tune out. I seem to recall you have a YouTube channel. The most productive activity would be to pull the best examples together and make a video out of it then post the video multiple places. In fact we as a movement need to start collaborating on activities like that. Some of us have skills on research. Some of us have skills on editing videos. Some have writing skills. Some have a good video voice. And yes some of us have all of that, but time gets in the way. With more collaboration more videos, blogs, podcasts could be made.

And then we need to find the most fertile places to post them. Here is the sad truth. Right now its easy to make the argument that we are losing our freedoms to right wing teocons. That's because Obama is predient and the teocons hate Obama. Note that currently more democrats than republicans support the idea of an AUMF against ISIS but that's only because Obama is president. If John McCain were president those numbers would be reversed. True story. I had a discussion once with my ex-mother-in-law (who I get along better than with my ex wife) about politics. She was talking about how much she hated Ted Cruz. Now I'm not a big Ted Cruz fan, but I wondered why she was so anti Ted Cruz. Basically she had no reason except "He opposes everything Obama wants." Well...he is in the opposing party. :rolleyes: Of course she was 100% in favor of Obamacare and didn't want to hear any criticism of it at all. So I tried to bring the conversation to something we could agree on and asked what she thought about the NSA and Edward Snowden. Her response? "I can't believe you republicans don't want America safe." It was like she believed the NSA had been created by Obama as well and she was 100% in favor of it because using the "I have nothing to hide" argument I used to hear from republicans. I had a similar conversation with a close friend.

So what do we do with the fact that republicans only want to hear criticism of democrats and democrats only want to hear criticism of republicans? We cast not our pearls before swine. Sure, engage the "enemy" on opposing forums in order to refine your talking points. Put those talking points into a blog or vlog. Then post them somewhere there are people who, while not in the "liberty" camp, are open to hearing that particular criticism. Find lead ins that will help get the point across. Sometimes you have a lead in that will let you appeal to both sides. For example, Ted Cruz said that we stayed in Iraq too long. That's great material for a vlog/blog that you can successful bait both democrats and republicans with. Democrats love to bash the Iraq war because a republican started it. And since republicans repeat the stupid mantra that Obama got us out of Iraq "too soon" (silly because Obama didn't get us out a day before Bush agreed with the Iraqi government to have us gone and no republican has an explanation of how long we should have stayed anyway), democrats would love your video as a weapon to rub in the face of republicans. On the other hand republicans would at least watch your video because many like Ted Cruz. And the video would help Rand because it would show a "hawk" rival of Rand taking a dovish position.

Another good bait video idea is Benghazi. You can only bait republicans on that because democrats are "stuck on stupid" in simply wanting to defend Obama and Hillary. But there's a good hook that can be set once the republicans are baited. That hook is the fact that there is more to Benghazi than the "Why didn't the ambassador get rescued" question. The bigger questions are 1) what was the ambassador still doing inside of an obviously failed state and 2) why was the state a failed state to begin with? Question 1 is a "conspiracy theory" that actually plays well with republicans. Glenn Beck interviewed Blackwater Eric Prince who said that the U.S. ambassador was trying to get weapons the Libyan Al Qaeda linked rebels were using and funnel them to the Syrian Al Qaeda linked rebels. That really was an act of treason by the Obama administration. (Giving aid and comfort to the enemy). Of course this is rumor, though it is well documented rumor. (Award winning journalist Seymour Hersh did an article about this). But since it's strictly against a democratic administration, republicans are willing to listen and not talk about "tin foil hats." (These are the same people that were asking to see Obama's birth certificate after all. People are generally only against conspiracy theories when the theory goes against their worldview. The liberty movement is unique in having people against conspiracy theories for the sake of being against conspiracy theories because of stupid fears of guilt by association.) Question 2 is not theory at all. Libya, at the time of our ill advised war of aggression against it, had made peace with the U.S. and had turned its back on terrorism. The rebels fighting Khadafi were openly linked with Al Qaeda. This is all documented and most republicans won't argue against you about this. But now you've got a way to get republicans to question the idea of "regime change" in general. After all, Khadafi was as bad of a despot as Saddam. And Iraq has become as much of a haven for terrorism as a result of idiotic regime change as has Libya.

So how to bait democrats with the same story? Start off attacking republicans. Bring up the fact that John McCain was leading the charge for intervention in Libya. Or talk about Syria and how Fox News commentator Charles Krauthammer openly said that we should partner with Al Qaeda against Assad in Syria like we partnered with Stalin against Hitler. Point out to democrats that this is treason by Fox News. After all Al Qaeda attacked us (go along with the MSM story here whether you believe it or not) and Assad hasn't. (Note, to Republicans you can point out that Assad helped America in the war on terror by torturing suspected terrorists on our behalf and that Obama lied when he claimed that Assad used chemical weapons against his own people as the U.N. places the blame for those attacks on the U.S. / ISIS linked Syrian rebels).

Really, everything I've described is a modification of the Bill Clinton "triangulation" strategy. (See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triangulation_%28politics%29) The basic idea is to find some common ground with your opponent, then argue above it, either to bring them along or to bring people who agree with them along.

http://i59.tinypic.com/2lij0ux.jpg

In this case, we aren't looking for the "middle ground." We aren't looking for "compromise." We are looking for the "liberty ground." Everybody supports liberty at least in theory. But partisans are only willing to defend liberty when it is under attack from the opposition party. So get people defending liberty by showing them how the opposing party is attacking liberty, then gently bring them to the point where they see their own party is doing the same thing. Our enemies control both parties. We have to expose that. If I had a name for this strategy I would call it the "bait and hook" strategy. You "bait" people with what you know they will agree with and then you "hook" them with what they would normally disagree with, but is so close to the "bait" that they don't pick on the attack until it's too late for them to go into defensive mode. So often we (and I am guilty of this) lead with the "hook." We want to convince democrats of why Obama is bad and republicans of why Bush was bad. We should do the reverse. Talk to democrats about how evil Bush was...and then set the hook with making the Obama comparison. Talk to republicans of how bad Obama is....then set the hook by making the Bush comparison.

What woke me up to liberty was the Alex Jones film "9/11 the Road to Tyranny." I was already headed there but that film brought me over the top. I was expecting a "bash Bush" film because, after all, 9/11 happened on Bush's watch. But "Road to Tyranny" also spent a lot of time exposing Bill Clinton. I would not have watched a film attacking Clinton if I had known that was what the film was about. That's the strategy we must use. Draw people in attacking people they don't support, then show them how the people they do support are exactly the same.

Along those lines, the recent revelations about powerful democrats linked to child prostitution is again fertile ground. Bait republicans by doing a video showing Bill Clinton has been alleged to have gone parties were child sex slaves were in attendance but then "hook" them with providing documentation of the Franklin cover up where under aged male prostitutes from "Boys Town" were being used to service powerful republicans. (That would be a good place to drop in a clip of Newt Gingrich saying "Boys Town is my favorite movie".)

Really, the possibilities for this are endless. Then the question becomes how to "market" this all. Everyone of us needs to be vlogging/blogging. We spend far to much time talking to and/or arguing with each other. But blogging can be a lonely thing. We need to do cross blogging. Take the conversation beyond the forums to each other's blogs. We should cross link stories and post each others blogs to other forums. That would increase visibility, Google rankings and ultimately traffic. Even those of us who aren't good writers can simply copy/paste (with attribution and back links) content from others. Then tweet/facebook/pin the material to our social networks. Here's where Google+ shines. It allows you to segment your social network. So some "bait" can be sent to republicans you know and other "bait" to democrats. That requires having some idea of the political affiliations of your social circles. But then you can seek to build "segmented" social circles by interacting with people in different forums. YouTube is great for that as it is linked to Google+. Add people you see bashing Obama/Hillary/Biden in video comments to your "republican bait" circles and people you see bashing Bush/McCain/Romney to your "democratic bait" circles. And, at some point, we have to go beyond the internet. Call into right wing talk shows with "republican bait" and mention your blog/YouTube channel on the air. NPR has left wing talk shows where you can call in with "democratic bait." And you can call into CSPAN and bait either side. Eventually we need to actually spend money on advertising. A 30 second radio spot that says "Do you want to know the truth about ISIS, how they started and how to really defeat them? Go to http://blahblahblah.com today to find out what you can do to help!" can play well on any radio station. This should only happen once we have a sufficient quality content.

Raising awareness about the truth of what's going on is the most important thing we can do in 2015. Nearly 80 of Americans have gone temporarily insane. In 2013 Obama tried to get support for arming the Syrian rebels against Assad. He failed to get that support but he armed them anyway. Those rebels turned out the be bloodthirsty terrorists and/or joined at the hip to bloodthirsty terrorists. Now most Americans support giving more weapons to those same rebels so that they can fight themselves. Remember that at one time 70% of Americans believed Saddam Hussein was involved somehow in 9/11. That false conspiracy theory persisted among republicans with Sarah Palin believing it as late as 2012. We've got to start turning the corner on this for Rand to have a fighting chance. We have to turn the corner for freedom to have a fighting chance.

[Weston White]

The term ‘terrorist’ is simply a revamping of the terms: ‘barbarian’, or ‘heretic’, or ‘Indian’, or ‘Jew’, or ‘pagan’, or ‘savage’, or ‘witch’; it serves to make those with opposing political ideologies easy and justified with decreeing their immediate termination all existence. No place within our Constitution does it state a citizen loses all, most, or even some of their immutable rights if the legislature or president ratifies an act or order making it so by petty name-calling.

How about the fact that the war on terror, inflicts national austerity at home, making it counterproductive to the core principle of liberalism.

Several of the 9/11 hijackers were trained within United States Air Force installations:

http://www.newsweek.com/alleged-hijackers-may-have-trained-us-bases-152495

Al Qaeda leader dinned at the Pentagon right after 9/11:

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/10/20/al-qaeda-terror-leader-dined-pentagon-months/

Not to mention all of the contractions with the drug running Mohamed Atta; that the damages from 9/11 is not consistent with jet aircrafts crashing into buildings; the Bin Laden videos were all fakes, he publicly denied any association to the events on 9/11, and the FBI never listed 9/11 as one of his charges even though he was on their Top Ten Most Wanted; or that U.S. solders are being used to guard an international drug trade, since resulting in a black tar heroin flooding the borders of the United States, effecting a $500-billions annually:

http://www.infowars.com/fox-news-makes-excuse-for-cias-afghan-opium-cultivation/

That the United States has been openly allied with Al Qaeda for several years now, and since that information came to light, Al Qaeda is now being rebranded as ISIS. Ergo, U.S. taxpayers are all guilty of funding international terrorism and should be prosecuted under the Patriot Act.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-us-al-qaeda-alliance-in-syria-and-the-fraud-of-the-war-on-terror/5348548
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article36295.htm
http://www.counterpunch.org/2014/09/19/how-the-us-helped-create-al-qaeda-and-isis/

That the few domestic terrorists captured within the United States since 9/11 are all linked back to FBI operations wherein they had created the terrorist from scratch effectively walking them though step-by-step through commission of the supposed act and the few others from the evidence presented appears to be more of a joint-military training exercise than an act of terror, e.g., the recent Boston Bombing.

That 17,000 federal employees were paid more than $200,000 last year; and that he should do a search on his local newspaper to see just the average his local law enforcement personnel are earning (including firefighters), e.g., likely more than $70,000 a year. And that is just the start of it, look into how many executives are employed at his cities City Hall and their amount of pay, e.g., here in Fresno the City Manager has about 4-assistant city managers all of them earning over $85,000, police chief makes around $240,000 and has between four to six deputy chiefs who make about $120,000 apiece, city council each have assistants and they all make over $60,000, school superintendent over $200,000 (with option for early retirement and full pension), city attorney’s office costs over $2-million and the police department over $85-million a year to operate. Hence, big government is running taxpaying citizens into the ground.

The war on terror has resulted in blowback here at home, police now view anybody that questions them or acts individualistic as somebody they need to bring charges on, police are no longer held accountable due to the government’s need to protect its own vested interests. Which is made evidence in the recent Patal case, there are now 5-25 such cases taking place all throughout the United States in one form or another every single day. Meanwhile, the courts are continuing to serve as police apologists, sanctioning their actions rather then demanding accountability.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/02/17/us/alabama-police-assault-case/

[jmdrake]

It's amazing that you brought this up because I was thinking about this the other day. I saw a documentary about how Julius Caeser turned Rome from a republic into a dictatorship. One of his key methods was to overblow the threat of German barbarians to get the Romans to give him more power. It was all "We've got to protect our allies" and "They will eventually sack Rome" propaganda. He also basically had his own ancient news service to send back his own idealized accounts of his battles. The militarization of the Roman empire directly led to the loss of liberty for Roman citizens. Now how do we get the average American to understand this?


The term ‘terrorist’ is simply a revamping of the terms: ‘barbarian’, ‘heretic’, or ‘Indian’, or ‘Jew’, ‘pagan’, or ‘savage’, or ‘witch’; it serves to make those with opposing political ideologies easy and justified with decreeing their immediate termination all existence. No place within our Constitution does it state a citizen loses all, most, or even some of their immutable rights if the legislature or president ratifies an act or order making it so by petty name-calling.

How about the fact that the war on terror, inflicts national austerity at home, making it counterproductive to the core principle of liberalism.

Several of the 9/11 hijackers were trained within United States Air Force installations:

http://www.newsweek.com/alleged-hijackers-may-have-trained-us-bases-152495

Al Qaeda leader dinned at the Pentagon right after 9/11:

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/10/20/al-qaeda-terror-leader-dined-pentagon-months/

Not to mention all of the contractions with the drug running Mohamed Atta; that the damages from 9/11 is not consistent with jet aircrafts crashing into buildings; the Bin Laden videos were all fakes, he publicly denied any association to the events on 9/11, and the FBI never listed 9/11 as one of his charges even though he was on their Top Ten Most Wanted; or that U.S. solders are being used to guard an international drug trade, since resulting in a black tar heroin flooding the borders of the United States, effecting a $500-billions annually:

http://www.infowars.com/fox-news-makes-excuse-for-cias-afghan-opium-cultivation/

That the United States has been openly allied with Al Qaeda for several years now, and since that information came to light, Al Qaeda is now being rebranded as ISIS. Ergo, U.S. taxpayers are all guilty of funding international terrorism and should be prosecuted under the Patriot Act.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-us-al-qaeda-alliance-in-syria-and-the-fraud-of-the-war-on-terror/5348548
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article36295.htm
http://www.counterpunch.org/2014/09/19/how-the-us-helped-create-al-qaeda-and-isis/

That the few domestic terrorists captured within the United States since 9/11 are all linked back to FBI operations wherein they had created the terrorist from scratch effectively walking them though step-by-step through commission of the supposed act and the few others from the evidence presented appears to be more of a joint-military training exercise than an act of terror, e.g., the recent Boston Bombing.

That 17,000 federal employees were paid more than $200,000 last year; and that he should do a search on his local newspaper to see just the average his local law enforcement personnel are earning (including firefighters), e.g., likely more than $70,000 a year. And that is just the start of it, look into how many executives are employed at his cities City Hall and their amount of pay, e.g., here in Fresno the City Manager has about 4-assistant city managers all of them earning over $85,000, police chief makes around $240,000, city council each have assistants and they all make over $60,000, school superintendent over $200,000 (with option for early retirement and full pension), city attorney’s office costs over $2-million and the police department over $85-million a year to operate. Hence, big government is running taxpaying citizens into the ground.

The war on terror has resulted in blowback here at home, police now view anybody that questions them or acts individualistic as somebody they need to bring charges on, police are no longer held accountable due to the government’s need to protect its own vested interests. Which is made evidence in the recent Patal case, there are now 5-25 such cases taking place all throughout the United States in one form or another every single day. Meanwhile, the courts are continuing to serve as police apologists, sanction their actions rather them demanding accountability.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/02/17/us/alabama-police-assault-case/

[Weston White]

A few ideas on that (including your bait and hook method):

Use bullet-point form with plain language, the message cannot exceed short-attention spans.

Include related images and video, which aids in memory retention or recollection, eases relatable associations, and reinforces non-direct emotional appeals.

Include a slice of humor whenever possible and appropriate.

Use flowing layouts and happy coordinated colors with readable fonts, as applicable.

Include a quotation or two from directly related politicians that provides hypocrisy within the instant issue.

Include historical timelines of all similarly related events and statistical data, as applicable.

Show the before and after effects of related legislative acts, including taxpayer costs versus the pros and cons.

[Todd]

You are never going to convince someone that Freedom is "self determination without intrusion", when they start with the premise that Freedom is "comfort"

Most often, when people say they don't see any of their freedoms being lost, what they are in essence saying is that they believe 4th of July Grilling hotdogs and burgers, having 400 channels of 24hr uninterupted TV and being able to buy Iphones and Ipads is FREEDOM.

[tod evans]

Put things in perspective;

http://hiqnews.megafoundation.org/image2SU.JPG

[jmdrake]

A few ideas on that (including your bait and hook method):

Use bullet-point form with plain language, the message cannot exceed short-attention spans.

Include related images and video, which aids in memory retention or recollection, eases relatable associations, and reinforces non-direct emotional appeals.

Include a slice of humor whenever possible and appropriate.

Use flowing layouts and happy coordinated colors with readable fonts, as applicable.

Include a quotation or two from directly related politicians that provides hypocrisy within the instant issue.

Include historical timelines of all similarly related events and statistical data, as applicable.

Show the before and after effects of related legislative acts, including taxpayer costs versus the pros and cons.

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Weston White again.

[mosquitobite]

I'm having a discussion on another forum with someone who is fully on board with all the wars, the US foreign policy, and all the post- 9/11 changes.

I said that I believe the "war on terror" is being used as a pretext for their true agenda, and that too many people have forgotten the warnings of our founders, on giving up liberty for some temporary security.

So now he's asking what liberties have been lost and how is the government violating the rights of regular American citizens.

What can I point him to, that lists all of the unconstitutional legislation that has been passed since 9/11? And specific violations that should concern anyone?

Help, please?

PS - if this is posted in the wrong forum, please move it. I wasn't sure where to post it. Thanks!

Share this with him and ask him if this is the America he loves: http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/feb/24/chicago-police-detain-americans-black-site

Oops! Should have read all the way through first! WTG jmdrake!

[William Tell]

I suppose there's always the chance something like this would wake someone up.
http://theantimedia.org/killed-by-drone/

[Ronin Truth]

"When the student is ready, the teacher will appear."

[lilymc]

Sometimes battles are not for the person you are arguing with but for other people who might read it. That said, when it gets into a back and forth, at times other people tune out. I seem to recall you have a YouTube channel. The most productive activity would be to pull the best examples together and make a video out of it then post the video multiple places. In fact we as a movement need to start collaborating on activities like that. Some of us have skills on research. Some of us have skills on editing videos. Some have writing skills. Some have a good video voice. And yes some of us have all of that, but time gets in the way. With more collaboration more videos, blogs, podcasts could be made.

And then we need to find the most fertile places to post them. Here is the sad truth. Right now its easy to make the argument that we are losing our freedoms to right wing teocons. That's because Obama is predient and the teocons hate Obama. Note that currently more democrats than republicans support the idea of an AUMF against ISIS but that's only because Obama is president. If John McCain were president those numbers would be reversed. True story. I had a discussion once with my ex-mother-in-law (who I get along better than with my ex wife) about politics. She was talking about how much she hated Ted Cruz. Now I'm not a big Ted Cruz fan, but I wondered why she was so anti Ted Cruz. Basically she had no reason except "He opposes everything Obama wants." Well...he is in the opposing party. :rolleyes: Of course she was 100% in favor of Obamacare and didn't want to hear any criticism of it at all. So I tried to bring the conversation to something we could agree on and asked what she thought about the NSA and Edward Snowden. Her response? "I can't believe you republicans don't want America safe." It was like she believed the NSA had been created by Obama as well and she was 100% in favor of it because using the "I have nothing to hide" argument I used to hear from republicans. I had a similar conversation with a close friend.

So what do we do with the fact that republicans only want to hear criticism of democrats and democrats only want to hear criticism of republicans? We cast not our pearls before swine. Sure, engage the "enemy" on opposing forums in order to refine your talking points. Put those talking points into a blog or vlog. Then post them somewhere there are people who, while not in the "liberty" camp, are open to hearing that particular criticism. Find lead ins that will help get the point across. Sometimes you have a lead in that will let you appeal to both sides. For example, Ted Cruz said that we stayed in Iraq too long. That's great material for a vlog/blog that you can successful bait both democrats and republicans with. Democrats love to bash the Iraq war because a republican started it. And since republicans repeat the stupid mantra that Obama got us out of Iraq "too soon" (silly because Obama didn't get us out a day before Bush agreed with the Iraqi government to have us gone and no republican has an explanation of how long we should have stayed anyway), democrats would love your video as a weapon to rub in the face of republicans. On the other hand republicans would at least watch your video because many like Ted Cruz. And the video would help Rand because it would show a "hawk" rival of Rand taking a dovish position.

Another good bait video idea is Benghazi. You can only bait republicans on that because democrats are "stuck on stupid" in simply wanting to defend Obama and Hillary. But there's a good hook that can be set once the republicans are baited. That hook is the fact that there is more to Benghazi than the "Why didn't the ambassador get rescued" question. The bigger questions are 1) what was the ambassador still doing inside of an obviously failed state and 2) why was the state a failed state to begin with? Question 1 is a "conspiracy theory" that actually plays well with republicans. Glenn Beck interviewed Blackwater Eric Prince who said that the U.S. ambassador was trying to get weapons the Libyan Al Qaeda linked rebels were using and funnel them to the Syrian Al Qaeda linked rebels. That really was an act of treason by the Obama administration. (Giving aid and comfort to the enemy). Of course this is rumor, though it is well documented rumor. (Award winning journalist Seymour Hersh did an article about this). But since it's strictly against a democratic administration, republicans are willing to listen and not talk about "tin foil hats." (These are the same people that were asking to see Obama's birth certificate after all. People are generally only against conspiracy theories when the theory goes against their worldview. The liberty movement is unique in having people against conspiracy theories for the sake of being against conspiracy theories because of stupid fears of guilt by association.) Question 2 is not theory at all. Libya, at the time of our ill advised war of aggression against it, had made peace with the U.S. and had turned its back on terrorism. The rebels fighting Khadafi were openly linked with Al Qaeda. This is all documented and most republicans won't argue against you about this. But now you've got a way to get republicans to question the idea of "regime change" in general. After all, Khadafi was as bad of a despot as Saddam. And Iraq has become as much of a haven for terrorism as a result of idiotic regime change as has Libya.

So how to bait democrats with the same story? Start off attacking republicans. Bring up the fact that John McCain was leading the charge for intervention in Libya. Or talk about Syria and how Fox News commentator Charles Krauthammer openly said that we should partner with Al Qaeda against Assad in Syria like we partnered with Stalin against Hitler. Point out to democrats that this is treason by Fox News. After all Al Qaeda attacked us (go along with the MSM story here whether you believe it or not) and Assad hasn't. (Note, to Republicans you can point out that Assad helped America in the war on terror by torturing suspected terrorists on our behalf and that Obama lied when he claimed that Assad used chemical weapons against his own people as the U.N. places the blame for those attacks on the U.S. / ISIS linked Syrian rebels).

Really, everything I've described is a modification of the Bill Clinton "triangulation" strategy. (See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triangulation_%28politics%29) The basic idea is to find some common ground with your opponent, then argue above it, either to bring them along or to bring people who agree with them along.

http://i59.tinypic.com/2lij0ux.jpg

In this case, we aren't looking for the "middle ground." We aren't looking for "compromise." We are looking for the "liberty ground." Everybody supports liberty at least in theory. But partisans are only willing to defend liberty when it is under attack from the opposition party. So get people defending liberty by showing them how the opposing party is attacking liberty, then gently bring them to the point where they see their own party is doing the same thing. Our enemies control both parties. We have to expose that. If I had a name for this strategy I would call it the "bait and hook" strategy. You "bait" people with what you know they will agree with and then you "hook" them with what they would normally disagree with, but is so close to the "bait" that they don't pick on the attack until it's too late for them to go into defensive mode. So often we (and I am guilty of this) lead with the "hook." We want to convince democrats of why Obama is bad and republicans of why Bush was bad. We should do the reverse. Talk to democrats about how evil Bush was...and then set the hook with making the Obama comparison. Talk to republicans of how bad Obama is....then set the hook by making the Bush comparison.

What woke me up to liberty was the Alex Jones film "9/11 the Road to Tyranny." I was already headed there but that film brought me over the top. I was expecting a "bash Bush" film because, after all, 9/11 happened on Bush's watch. But "Road to Tyranny" also spent a lot of time exposing Bill Clinton. I would not have watched a film attacking Clinton if I had known that was what the film was about. That's the strategy we must use. Draw people in attacking people they don't support, then show them how the people they do support are exactly the same.

Along those lines, the recent revelations about powerful democrats linked to child prostitution is again fertile ground. Bait republicans by doing a video showing Bill Clinton has been alleged to have gone parties were child sex slaves were in attendance but then "hook" them with providing documentation of the Franklin cover up where under aged male prostitutes from "Boys Town" were being used to service powerful republicans. (That would be a good place to drop in a clip of Newt Gingrich saying "Boys Town is my favorite movie".)

Really, the possibilities for this are endless. Then the question becomes how to "market" this all. Everyone of us needs to be vlogging/blogging. We spend far to much time talking to and/or arguing with each other. But blogging can be a lonely thing. We need to do cross blogging. Take the conversation beyond the forums to each other's blogs. We should cross link stories and post each others blogs to other forums. That would increase visibility, Google rankings and ultimately traffic. Even those of us who aren't good writers can simply copy/paste (with attribution and back links) content from others. Then tweet/facebook/pin the material to our social networks. Here's where Google+ shines. It allows you to segment your social network. So some "bait" can be sent to republicans you know and other "bait" to democrats. That requires having some idea of the political affiliations of your social circles. But then you can seek to build "segmented" social circles by interacting with people in different forums. YouTube is great for that as it is linked to Google+. Add people you see bashing Obama/Hillary/Biden in video comments to your "republican bait" circles and people you see bashing Bush/McCain/Romney to your "democratic bait" circles. And, at some point, we have to go beyond the internet. Call into right wing talk shows with "republican bait" and mention your blog/YouTube channel on the air. NPR has left wing talk shows where you can call in with "democratic bait." And you can call into CSPAN and bait either side. Eventually we need to actually spend money on advertising. A 30 second radio spot that says "Do you want to know the truth about ISIS, how they started and how to really defeat them? Go to http://blahblahblah.com today to find out what you can do to help!" can play well on any radio station. This should only happen once we have a sufficient quality content.

Raising awareness about the truth of what's going on is the most important thing we can do in 2015. Nearly 80 of Americans have gone temporarily insane. In 2013 Obama tried to get support for arming the Syrian rebels against Assad. He failed to get that support but he armed them anyway. Those rebels turned out the be bloodthirsty terrorists and/or joined at the hip to bloodthirsty terrorists. Now most Americans support giving more weapons to those same rebels so that they can fight themselves. Remember that at one time 70% of Americans believed Saddam Hussein was involved somehow in 9/11. That false conspiracy theory persisted among republicans with Sarah Palin believing it as late as 2012. We've got to start turning the corner on this for Rand to have a fighting chance. We have to turn the corner for freedom to have a fighting chance.


Excellent post. I completely agree with you. It is SO dang aggravating when either side supports something just because the politician who did it is supposedly on their side. I bet the PTSB (powers that shouldn't be) are laughing at all of us, at how easy it is to get away with anything, by playing on staunch partisanship.

I have been trying to do what you said - find a common ground and go from there. I like the way you explained it, that's a great strategy.

I do want to start making more political videos. The problem is time. Right now I'm juggling a few different projects, and I'm about to launch a new website. AND I have another new project that I'm planning... a regular TV show for Youtube. (on a new channel) And in addition to that, I still have my blog (http://www.ashestobeauty.net/). But my blog is mostly a Christian blog, so I rarely post about politics.

But you're inspiring me to set aside some time for putting together political videos. I totally agree that it's a better way to reach way more people. So I will be thinking/praying about that. Thank you JM! :)

[Todd]

Why..Ask and you shall receive

....here's a great answer on this subject.

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2015/02/lost-constitutional-rights.html

[lilymc]

Why..Ask and you shall receive

....here's a great answer on this subject.

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2015/02/lost-constitutional-rights.html

Ah, perfect!!! Just what I was looking for.

Thank you! :)

[otherone]

IMO, before you can communicate with your DEM friend, it's important to understand his/her perspective. There are very few "liberals" anymore, just as there are very few "conservatives". Democrats are by definition and practice Progressives, and their outlook is Communitarian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communitarianism). Communitarians believe that individual Rights are the byproduct of a community, and that if Rights threaten the integrity of the community they should be undermined. Five minutes listening to NPR demonstrates this. Cons are actually communitarians as well, and differ only in how the community is to be defined. Five minutes listening to Hannity will verify this. Before you can have a productive discussion about government, you should ask your friend what they believe is the purpose of government.
I ask you, Lily, the same question.

[paleocon1]

http://www.nyclu.org/pdfs/eroding_liberty.pdf

(http://www.nyclu.org/pdfs/eroding_liberty.pdf)http://www.opednews.com/articles/Liberties-Lost-Since-9-11-by-WILLIAM-FISHER-111106-299.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/07/us/sept-11-reckoning/civil.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

[Ronin Truth]

https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=war+is+a+racket+pdf&gbv=2&oq=War+is+a+&gs_l=heirloom-hp.1.1.0l10.3844.6437.0.17078.9.9.0.0.0.0.375.1749 .2-3j3.6.0.msedr...0...1ac.1.34.heirloom-hp..3.6.1749.XWgxof7kVjw

http://antiwar.com/

[lilymc]

http://www.nyclu.org/pdfs/eroding_liberty.pdf

(http://www.nyclu.org/pdfs/eroding_liberty.pdf)http://www.opednews.com/articles/Liberties-Lost-Since-9-11-by-WILLIAM-FISHER-111106-299.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/07/us/sept-11-reckoning/civil.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Excellent info, thank you!!!


https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=war+is+a+racket+pdf&gbv=2&oq=War+is+a+&gs_l=heirloom-hp.1.1.0l10.3844.6437.0.17078.9.9.0.0.0.0.375.1749 .2-3j3.6.0.msedr...0...1ac.1.34.heirloom-hp..3.6.1749.XWgxof7kVjw

http://antiwar.com/

Thanks RT!


Sorry that I haven't replied to all the posts. I'm trying to do a million things, and there's just not enough time in the day. I'm pretty much done with the discussion with that guy on the other forum... but for the next time the topic of what freedoms we've lost comes up (which it will) it's great to have all that info handy. Some people need to see irrefutable evidence, and even that is no guarantee they'll snap out of their apathy.