How About a REAL Liberty Perspective

[r3volution 3.0]

I didn't ask for anything.

You didn't ask for a law further restricting immigration?

I think we need an immigration moratorium to see what we have and move from there.

^^^Oh, look, you did.

 

[Ender]

I don't even necessarily think that is true. We've had quite a few white nationalist here who just wanted to be able to have a segregated community away from other races, etc. People can hate each other and still respect each other's rights.

eta: I guess you could say we need to love our neighbours rights as we love our own!

There ya go!

 

[Ender]

In another thread that is currently active, it's largely Trump supporters who are supporting free speech, while the anti-Trump supporters are not.. which is kinda funny cuz Trump has made some anti-free speech comments. You would think they would have brought that up in the thread, but instead they try and discredit the attack on free speech that is occurring, and I'm left dumbfounded.

Where's that thread?

 

[P3ter_Griffin]

There used to be, before this election season and the rise of Trump nationalism. Regardless, based on the site's name and stated goals, I think understanding and debating the liberty movement in the U.S. starts here:

https://www.amazon.com/Liberty-Defined-Essential-Issues-Freedom/dp/B00CNKPCNK

I agree it was all hands on deck during the 2012 campaign (wasn't here for '08 obv) but it sounds to me like it was a coalition behind a man, and not necessarily the principles he advocated even though the principles he advocated provide the freedoms desired by all the different groups that composed the coalition! haha. I'll sure as heck stop short of saying where someone should begin but I think Ron would agree the principles behind his philosophy is rooted in the Bible. That is the Works I'm currently working on ingesting. Most have probably done that already though.

 

[Jamesiv1]

What do you know poopy head?

them is fighting words

 

[Origanalist]

them is fighting words

I aint skeered of a statue with a smurf hat on it's head.

 

[dannno]

How so? Which thread?

Where's that thread?

The Milo / Alex Jones / Drudge thread.

 

[r3volution 3.0]

The Milo / Alex Jones / Drudge thread.

This one?

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?498331-Milo-Responds-To-Orwellian-Twitter-Ban

I don't see anyone endorsing the suppression of free speech.

I do see people, who don't like Milo, being indifferent to Twitter closing his account (which in no way violates the 1st amendment).

 

[dannno]

This one?

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?498331-Milo-Responds-To-Orwellian-Twitter-Ban

I don't see anyone endorsing the suppression of free speech.

I do see people, who don't like Milo, being indifferent to Twitter closing his account (which in no way violates the 1st amendment).

If you watched the video you would know the issue is a lot bigger than twitter, it is a leftist culture war of shutting down speech and twitter is just one arm of that. It wasn't that people were saying twitter should be allowed to ban whoever they want that is the problem, the problem is the overall complacency to the serious issues we are facing. Personally I think twitter should be able to ban whoever despite their guidelines, but I believe that legally they are obligated to follow their user guidelines because they are providing a product and that is the description of their product. So to provide something else could be considered fraud. There seems to be a problem about whether twitter is selectively enforcing their guidelines, they don't seem to ban leftists who engage in similar behavior or people who threaten Donald Trump or people on the right's lives. That is the claim that is being made.

 

[r3volution 3.0]

If you watched the video you would know the issue is a lot bigger than twitter, it is a leftist culture war of shutting down speech and twitter is just one arm of that. It wasn't that people were saying twitter should be allowed to ban whoever they want that is the problem, the problem is the overall complacency to the serious issues we are facing. Personally I think twitter should be able to ban whoever despite their guidelines, but I believe that legally they are obligated to follow their user guidelines because they are providing a product and that is the description of their product. So to provide something else could be considered fraud. There seems to be a problem about whether twitter is selectively enforcing their guidelines, they don't seem to ban leftists who engage in similar behavior or people who threaten Donald Trump or people on the right's lives. That is the claim that is being made.

No doubt Twitter is selectively enforcing their guidelines.

But this has nothing to do with free speech, which is the right to be free from state censorship.

I have no problem whatsoever with private enterprises discriminating (oh, the irony?) against people they don't like.

I also have zero sympathy for Milo personally; he's nothing but a rabble rouser for white identity politics.

Fugem

 

[enhanced_deficit]

You know, part of liberty is to allow people to vote how they wish- I am for that, even though I may think their choice is stupid/outrageous/insane etc.

What I am NOT for is the constant name-calling and degradation of those who do NOT support Trump. Every post that shows some negative aspect of Trump is countered by name-calling, personal insults, and innuendos by 99.9% of Trump supporters. Only a few actually talk about the subject itself, and show a real alternate POV.

Of course, when opposers finally have had enough of the insults and fire back, then the hue and cry is about the poor Trumpets and the abuse they suffer. Even worse is when people who just post news articles, and do not degrade ANYONE, (like @CPUd) are constantly called names and insulted beyond measure, usually WITHOUT little, or any, argument against the article itself. And, If there is an argument, it's always about the source, not the content.

You meant like this?

[h=3]Trump and the cult of stupid[/h] Started by CPUd, Today

 

[euphemia]

I'd vote for you over the current clowns we have running, seriously.

You are very kind. I am waiting for the candidate who says they will cut full departments and repeal legislation and regulations. At the moment, Darrell Castle is the only candidate saying he will close the Federal Reserve. That's about as big a liberty position as there is. Nobody else is even suggesting it.

The Constitution Party is in court in several states trying to get ballot access. If we could get true liberty thinkers to join forces with them, we would have a serious, principled liberty movement. Ron Paul likes them.

 

[CPUd]

You meant like this?

are U triggered mate?

 

[Ender]

This one?

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?498331-Milo-Responds-To-Orwellian-Twitter-Ban

I don't see anyone endorsing the suppression of free speech.

I do see people, who don't like Milo, being indifferent to Twitter closing his account (which in no way violates the 1st amendment).

I agree with this^^

That said, I have NO problem with Milo's hair and don't care if he's gay.

 

[The Rebel Poet]

One doesn't have to be a Trump supporter to grow weary of the constant stream of leftist crap that some people post on here.

Why do you Trump supporters always claim that anyone who doesn't suck Trumps dick is a leftist? We all know there isn't any such constant stream, but can you provide a link to even one post of leftist crap here aside from some old one off from a banned Bernie troll?

 

[silverhandorder]

Why do you Trump supporters always claim that anyone who doesn't suck Trumps dick is a leftist? We all know there isn't any such constant stream, but can you provide a link to even one post of leftist crap here aside from some old one off from a banned Bernie troll?

Sure every thread with Washington Post as the source after the leaks.

At least three people on this forum are hard leftists and libertarian purists fail to call them out on it.

 

[Natural Citizen]

At least three people on this forum are hard leftists and libertarian purists fail to call them out on it.

Hm. I didn't know we had any hard "leftists" among us these days. I haven't seen any that I can recall. I've seen a few "leftists" in my time here, though. But they were about as deep as a mud puddle so I can't really think of them as a "leftist", per se. More confused and underinformed than anything. They didn't really stay long, though. Seems like some friends tended to prefer to talk down on the ones who did end up here out of nothing more than interest instead of stimulating educational discussion with them. Which I suppose is likely why they never hung around. Makes sense, I suppose. Heck, some folks here used to call me a liberal and a leftists. I still chuckle once in a while about that. Mainly because it's technically a collectivist mindset to view someone as a member of some group and arbitrarily attach a label to them rather than see them as the Individual that they are. Heh. Hypocrites.

 

[Ender]

Hm. I didn't know we had any hard "leftists" among us these days. I haven't seen any that I can recall. I've seen a few "leftists" in my time here, though. But they were about as deep as a mud puddle so I can't really think of them as a "leftist", per se. More confused and underinformed than anything. They didn't really stay long, though. Seems like some friends tended to prefer to talk down on the ones who did end up here out of nothing more than interest instead of stimulating educational discussion with them. Which I suppose is likely why they never hung around. Makes sense, I suppose. Heck, some folks here used to call me a liberal and a leftists. I still chuckle once in a while about that. Mainly because it's technically a collectivist mindset to view someone as a member of some group and arbitrarily attach a label to them rather than see them as the Individual that they are. Heh. Hypocrites.

Yeah- I've been called a leftist SJW and -neg repped several times this past year. Just recently I was accused of being a Muslim.

My first reaction was WTH???!!! but now I see it as usually someone w/no comeback or argument that can only resort to name-calling.

I started this thread so we could stop the name-calling baloney and start thinking about having real conversations. I have had several with people I do not always agree with and think of them as Buds. In this whole campaign mess I find [MENTION=10908]dannno[/MENTION] and [MENTION=12847]openfire[/MENTION] to be quite civil and actually fun to talk to about the whole Trump issue, when treated like human beings. [MENTION=35824]Jamesiv1[/MENTION] is a crackup.

I used to wonder why [MENTION=17293]Zippyjuan[/MENTION] was treated so badly for simply posting a different POV. He's never rude or insulting and a contrasting perspective is actually necessary to make intelligent decisions.

So....... is a real conversation possible from someone who disagrees with you? I believe it is and I think, as far as the campaign goes, it is vital- the time is now.

 

[Natural Citizen]

Yeah- I've been called a leftist SJW and -neg repped several times this past year. Just recently I was accused of being a Muslim.

My first reaction was WTH???!!! but now I see it as usually someone w/no comeback or argument that can only resort to name-calling.

I started this thread so we could stop the name-calling baloney and start thinking about having real conversations. I have had several with people I do not always agree with and think of them as Buds. In this whole campaign mess I find @dannno and @openfire to be quite civil and actually fun to talk to about the whole Trump issue, when treated like human beings.

I used to wonder why @Zippyjuan was treated so badly for simply posting a different POV. He's never rude or insulting and a contrasting perspective is actually necessary to make intelligent decisions.

So....... is a real conversation possible from someone who disagrees with you? I believe it is and I think, as far as the campaign goes, it is vital- the time is now.

Mm. Agreed. We just have to be careful not to toss stones around in glass houses, though. Which simply means that we'd do well to check ourselves before accusing others. Zip's on my friends list. And he'll stay on it. I agree that he gets a bad rap. An unfair label. Something that is necessary here is an opposing statistic or source or view. Which simply means that wherever possible there must be independent confirmation of the facts. If there is a chain of argument every link in the chain must work. Check for confounding factors - separate the variables. Ask whether the hypothesis can, at least in principle, be falsified. Zip does a great job at manning the boloney detection kit.

I don't know openfire much but I agree with you about dannno, too. He's a very civil gentleman. I've been giving him a hard time lately, though. Which I'm going to stop doing per my decision about not being a dick anymore. http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...-around-here&p=6275066&viewfull=1#post6275066

 

[silverhandorder]

Echo chamber.