Cassis plays 'truther' card in new ad attacking Bentivolio

misean said:
Except you can logically argue for drug legalization, anarcho-capitalism, raw milk and believing in a higher power. All are very consistent with being a libertararian. People who argue for conspiracies are typically not very intelligent. They don't want to understand that keeping a secret between 2 people is tough and keeping a secret between thousands is impossible in the real world.
Click to expand...

Maybe you should learn how to spell the word 'libertarian' before you chastise people as being unintelligent.

Of course not. But Matt's reaction wasn't to offer any advice (since he's a political genius, in case you haven't heard). He jumped in and blamed the truthers for something that Nancy's campaign did.

He's a horrible little man.
Click to expand...

Exactly. The forces within this movement that are working to purge out some of the most loyal, devoted supporters in a pathetic and vain attempt to become the establishment must be resisted at all costs. Lackeys like Matt Collins will be among the first to sabotage the movement in order to further his own aims, and many others will be quick to join him. Sadly, many see 'liberty' as just a means to their end of achieving power.

The idea that blood-thirsty Muslim hating bigots are going to jump ship over to nonaggression because conspiracy theories are disavowed is a load of stupid bullshit. If the mainstream whores are successful in their purge, watch them throw away nonaggression next.
 
Last edited:
sgt150 said:
Lackeys like Matt Collins will be among the first to sabotage the movement in order to further his own aims, and many others will be quick to join him. Sadly, many see 'liberty' as just a means to their end of achieving power.
Click to expand...
LOLWUT ha ha ha ....

I am in no way trying to kick anyone out of the movement. I am however trying to encourage liberty activists to act like adults and professionals and discouraging them from acting like ineffective amateurs.

That being said, the liberty movement as a whole must seek to acquire power so that it can be diffused. Power exists whether we want it to or not, so it's better for us to have it than the people who currently have it. The idea is to get it and then spread it around because it's too concentrated now.
 
Matt Collins said:
LOLWUT ha ha ha ....

I am in no way trying to kick anyone out of the movement. I am however trying to encourage liberty activists to act like adults and professionals and discouraging them from acting like ineffective amateurs.

That being said, the liberty movement as a whole must seek to acquire power so that it can be diffused. Power exists whether we want it to or not, so it's better for us to have it than the people who currently have it. The idea is to get it and then spread it around because it's too concentrated now.
Click to expand...

LOL. Matt, I must give you credit where credit is due. LibertyEagle and I have clashed in the past mainly over the roll of truthers in this movement. And you've brought us together on that! That's something even Ron Paul couldn't do! Seriously, you need to go back and re-read and re-think your initial post in this thread. Nobody you are arguing against disagrees with the need of liberty activists to act "adult". Many disagree with your assertion to "shed the conspiracy element of the movement". That was simply a piss poor choice of words on your part. If that's not what you really meant to say then fine. Move on.
 
jmdrake said:
LOL. Matt, I must give you credit where credit is due. LibertyEagle and I have clashed in the past mainly over the roll of truthers in this movement. And you've brought us together on that! That's something even Ron Paul couldn't do! Seriously, you need to go back and re-read and re-think your initial post in this thread. Nobody you are arguing against disagrees with the need of liberty activists to act "adult". Many disagree with your assertion to "shed the conspiracy element of the movement". That was simply a piss poor choice of words on your part. If that's not what you really meant to say then fine. Move on.
Click to expand...
;)


Yes, as I have explained, the use of the word "element" does not mean "individuals" in my earlier posting within this thread.
 
Matt Collins said:
;)


Yes, as I have explained, the use of the word "element" does not mean "individuals" in my earlier posting within this thread.
Click to expand...

Still a piss poor use of words. Imagine someone saying "We need to get rid of the neo-confederate element?" Or how about "We need to get rid of the gay element?" I can easily point out how either of those elements hurt the movement with various potential voters. And? I'm smart enough to know cat herding gets everybody nowhere fast and I believe you are too. If your goal is to run in a typical republican primary, you're probably better off not being openly gay. But if you are gay there's no reason not to be open about it just because you might want to run for public office. As I said before, I wouldn't advise someone to start in a "truther movie" or be in a metal band or refuse to shake the hand of a prominent GOP candidate if he planned to run for public office. But in the end everybody has to make his own choice. I don't think the movement gained anything by you not shaking Wamp's hand. Wamp would have lost the governor's race anyway, and Haslam's clearly just as bad. But you think you moved the ball forward somehow and so for you that's all that matters. Those who bullhorned the Bilderberg group feel they've moved the ball forward and that's all that matters. I don't see the Rand Paul's of the world bullhorning Bilderberg or refusing to shake the hands of the Zack Wamps of the world. Once people start realizing they have to think for themselves and no one else, this movement can grow. Until that happens infighting will lead to stagnation.
 
jmdrake said:
Still a piss poor use of words.
Click to expand...
Perhaps you're right on that.


jmdrake said:
Imagine someone saying "We need to get rid of the neo-confederate element?" Or how about "We need to get rid of the gay element?"
Click to expand...
And I would not disagree. That image, like conspiracy theories, are too easily painted against us.



jmdrake said:
or refuse to shake the hand of a prominent GOP candidate if he planned to run for public office.
Click to expand...
Don't worry, I have no plans to run for public office :cool:
 
It's your choice of the word, element, Matt. It was not a good one to describe your intent.
 
KingNothing said:
Spot on, Matt. This is hard enough without having to defend the views of delusional lunatics
Click to expand...

You certainly have to know by now that the word is used to discredit politicians. The establishment calls Ron Paul a truther, even though he has clearly stated that he does not believe the government intentionally and/or knowingly slaughtered the people in the Twin Towers on 9/11.
 
I think we need to shed the Collins element of this movement... Oh, don't misunderstand me, I don't mean Collins the individual, just the bizarre things he does that are an embarrassment to the movement.

It would have been much better what LE said, that we need to continue to stay on message (and that isn't just the "truthers, it's the anarchists, the pro-pot lobbists, conservatives, etc., anyone with pet-issues that need to take a back-seat if you're going to be a part of these liberty campaigns), but it's flat-out sickening the way that's been used as hate-speech in this thread to single out one group that didn't provoke you, and for the most part in this campaign have stayed on message and shown up as presentable delegates just as much as the other subsects.

Really I agree 80-90% with every subsect here, so how about you kiss my ass if you don't like what I believe. We all believe in liberty here, even if that means different things to different people, so please stop being divisive.
 
KingNothing said:
Spot on, Matt. This is hard enough without having to defend the views of delusional lunatics
Click to expand...

Agreed.

Goldwater and Russell Kirk, that Ron Paul often references, did the same to the John Birch Society leadership in the 60s.

No political movement can achieve any sort of meaningful influence while carrying along loonies.

Ron Paul unwillingness to disassociate himself from certain people and groups (a consequence of the strategy him, Rockwell and Rothbard outlined and pursued in the 80s/90s) has always limited his electoral potential.

Fortunately Rand Paul seems more serious about actually implementing his policies and being more than the leader of a protest movement. I expect a strong Sister Souljha moment from him once he decides to run for national office.
 
sgt150 said:
Nope, Bill Buckley did and it ruined the 'conservative' movement for decades. You suggesting that path of action again makes you a tremendously lousy promoter of freedom.
Click to expand...


Buckley, Goldwater and Kirk. It was a concerted strategy from the 3. Why are you pretending Kirk and Goldwater weren't part of it? Kirk also wrote Chirping Sectaries, a violent repudiation of Rothbard - or was it Buckley too?

And I have no idea why would promoters of freedom be willing to be associated with the idea that President Eisenhower was a KGB agent, that water fluoridation was a communist plot with the goal of making Americans docile to their communist overlords or that Alaska was being turned into a concentration camp to intern those opposed to annexation by the Soviet Union. Even if you think these ideas are immaterial to the defense of freedom, they constitute a drag in the electoral realm. Politicians who promote freedom and want to compete electorally need to disassociate themselves from people who publicly associate with them and espouse this type of ideas.
 
DeMintConservative said:
Buckley, Goldwater and Kirk. It was a concerted strategy from the 3. Why are you pretending Kirk and Goldwater weren't part of it? Kirk also wrote Chirping Sectaries, a violent repudiation of Rothbard - or was it Buckley too?
Click to expand...

From my understanding, Goldwater stayed out of it. The reprehensible self-proclaimed totalitarian CIA warmonger William Buckley led the charge. And as you said, Kirk was an enemy of libertarians. These aren't the guys whose methods you want to be triumphing if you want to promote freedom and liberty

And I have no idea why would promoters of freedom be willing to be associated with the idea that President Eisenhower was a KGB agent, that water fluoridation was a communist plot with the goal of making Americans docile to their communist overlords or that Alaska was being turned into a concentration camp to intern those opposed to annexation by the Soviet Union. Even if you think these ideas are immaterial to the defense of freedom, they constitute a drag in the electoral realm. Politicians who promote freedom and want to compete electorally need to disassociate themselves from people who publicly associate with them and espouse this type of ideas.
Click to expand...

Ron Paul goes around the country espousing John Birch Society style ideas. That's what he does. Non-intervention, gold standard, end the Fed, down with globalism. That's JBS and that's Ron Paul. Birchers also have a tremendous amount of credibility considering all of their predictions have come true. Watch for yourself:



Throwing credible defenders of freedom under the bus in some vain attempt at electoral success will only lead the freedom movement to become a watered-down version of the establishment and as ineffectual as the modern Republican Party has been at establishing freedom in America.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top