PEACE, RPF, PEACE PLEASE

[Bryan]

You can "belittle" those people w/o name-calling and neg repping. Real discussions showing truth can do more to advance the cause than screaming and shouting insults.

JMHPOV

Exactly. We should not become who we oppose.... but maybe [MENTION=3403]erowe1[/MENTION] can explain what he means by belittling

 

[Ronin Truth]

Ah... he was a good friend of mine. Never understood a single word he said, though.

But he really had some mighty good wine.

Bullfrog, right?

 

[thoughtomator]

Exactly. We should not become who we oppose.... but maybe [MENTION=3403]erowe1[/MENTION] can explain what he means by belittling

He means continuing his now-years-long-campaign against the idea of national sovereignty (and thus against the Constitution itself).

 

[SpiritOf1776_J4]

To be fair, no party has functioned in this country right for a long time, so the Libertarian Party is in good company.

Because of the way this race has gone and how people around me have reacted, I've been following politics less than I have in a long time and instead have been reading. Just read through a big chunk of Lysander Spooner's No Treason again and I'm picking up Swords Into Plowshares by Ron Paul. So I haven't had time to vet these third party guys, McAfee included. Maybe I should take a look so I can, as you say, use him or another person as an educational vehicle, but we'll see. My heart has to be there. My brain has never been strong enough for this.

Lysander Spooner has definitely been me. Been thinking of books like his and some similar bible quotes at the same time. fighting about who controls the state never cuts into the root of the problem *the state*. think i'll pick him up and read instead.

also up for a read:
https://mises.org/library/our-enemy-state-0

 

[erowe1]

That is one approach. I could also choose to belittle Christians, but I choose to be respectful of them even though I don't share their religion.

What you're talking about would violate the site's guidelines and mission.

 

[erowe1]

You can "belittle" those people w/o name-calling and neg repping. Real discussions showing truth can do more to advance the cause than screaming and shouting insults.

JMHPOV

The whole point of having neg-rep is to use it on posts like those that support tyranny.

 

[erowe1]

Exactly. We should not become who we oppose.... but maybe [MENTION=3403]erowe1[/MENTION] can explain what he means by belittling

I mean that whatever we've done so far has apparently not been effective in making the pro-tyranny crowd understand that they are not friends, but enemies, of this site, and Ron Paul and those who are his allies. So we apparently need to turn up the heat some more to get that point across.

 

[Smitty]

Trump is a big national current events situation.
Do you really believe that all mention of him should be blacked out of the forum?

 

[MelissaWV]

But he really had some mighty good wine.

Bullfrog, right?

Oh shi---! You know him, too?

 

[thoughtomator]

Trump is a big national current events situation.
Do you really believe that all mention of him should be blacked out of the forum?

 

[erowe1]

Trump is a big national current events situation.
Do you really believe that all mention of him should be blacked out of the forum?

No. It's just that our coverage of him needs to be consistently anti-Trump. He should get the same treatment John McCain or Barack Obama get.

 

[erowe1]

He means continuing his now-years-long-campaign against the idea of national sovereignty (and thus against the Constitution itself).

I see nothing wrong with being against the Constitution. But even supposing the Constitution were an altogether good thing, where in the Constitution does it mention national sovereignty?

 

[erowe1]

Also, let's be accurate about the neg-rep aspect of this.

I've never gotten so many neg reps on this site as I have gotten in recent months from pro-Trump people who neg-rep me for my pro-Ron and Rand Paul and pro-freedom posts. RonPaulGeorgeAndRingo alone must have given me at least 20.

But shouldn't the rep system reflect positively on those who advance the cause of the website and negatively on those who oppose it, rather than the other way around?

 

[Smitty]

No. It's just that our coverage of him needs to be consistently anti-Trump.

Some of us are pro Trump. Why should we speak negatively about him?

 

[thoughtomator]

Some of us are pro Trump. Why should we speak negatively about him?

I've already spoken plenty negatively of Trump but I got no credit for it, so you can be confident any demand that you do is being made in bad faith.

 

[openfire]

Also, let's be accurate about the neg-rep aspect of this.

I've never gotten so many neg reps on this site as I have gotten in recent months from pro-Trump people who neg-rep me for my pro-Ron and Rand Paul and pro-freedom posts. RonPaulGeorgeAndRingo alone must have given me at least 20.

But shouldn't the rep system reflect positively on those who advance the cause of the website and negatively on those who oppose it, rather than the other way around?

The last I checked, bringing an end to the insane neocon foreign policy that has been foisted upon us by the "establishment", IS a basic tenet of Ron's philosophy. Furthermore, Ron himself said that imploding the system is a GOOD thing, because it gives US a chance to put it back together again.

If Rand or any other liberty candidate were in the race, this would be a moot point.

 

[tod evans]

When peaceful change is made impossible, violent revolution is inevitable.

I realize youre calling for less name slinging and online hurting, but the root of the angst that exists on both sides will very soon spill over into the really real world, and the blood of many people will be spilled. We are failing to address the source of the anger, and that is, as a country, we have been shit on and dragged through the coals by our manipulative sociopathic warmongering representatives, who only really represent a continuation of the worst possible outcome. We have had it with people behind the scenes pulling strings. We are neck deep in corporations being given ever increasingly special treatment while human people are denied any path to a positive existence. We have empty pockets and see those who have something have achieved what they have by theft and coercion. We are held back by the laws that restrict us and enable them to behave the way they do.

Youre not going to simply "get rid of it". Its not just about Trump. It is about a buildup of "more of the same" from governments in general. That anger has been stoked and fed well before Trump, and will burn in the hearts and minds of the people long after Trump as long as the status quo maintains their stranglehold on the lifeblood of society. If you want to cast forth a meaningful change, then take this collective anger and redirect it to good use.

One group calling for free government shit and another group calling for government to police the first group......

I wonder what could go wrong...

Whadda ya' want to bet neither group turns on its Lord and master?

 

[Cleaner44]

What you're talking about would violate the site's guidelines and mission.

Does one need website guidelines in order to stop themselves from being an asshole?

 

[Rad]

This is nothing... you should've seen the reaction (Sola-Fide wanted me dead. Whatever happened to him?) when I was arguing for Lincoln Chafee

If only that horse didn't throw that shoe which hit his head

Its hard to say what Trump is going to do at this point besides inflict pain on the Republican Party and if we are lucky destroy it. I do like the fact that he talks about how we are being fleeced by the military industrial complex and our allies. I like that he will break NAFTA. The xenophobia is problematic and I don't think he is going to round up the hispanics and march them over the border like the paleo's hope he will do. If we get rid of the trade deals then people will have less reason to come here. Who knows what the man will do since he seems to make it up on the fly at this point.

 

[CPUd]

The last I checked, bringing an end to the insane neocon foreign policy that has been foisted upon us by the "establishment", IS a basic tenet of Ron's philosophy. Furthermore, Ron himself said that imploding the system is a GOOD thing, because it gives US a chance to put it back together again.

If Rand or any other liberty candidate were in the race, this would be a moot point.

Bullshit. There is no compelling evidence to suggest that FP will be dramatically changed or the system will implode if any of the major party candidates remaining are elected. Many of the Trumpanzees on this site were never Rand supporters while he was in he race.