America: Freedom to Fascism

[tsiguy96]

has anyone watched this? im going to watch it tomorrow, but im almost scared to see the points it brings up. you know all those scifi books where they contemplate the future of the govt and how it is controlling its citizens? it looks to be upon us right now.

http://www.freedomtofascism.com/

[cutthemdown]

Russo ran out and made this film when he was ordered to pay 2 million in back taxes. He's a libertarian who says a lot of the same things Ron Paul says.

I see his point on some things and he is quite funny.

[W*GS]

Leonard Peikoff said the same things in "The Ominous Parallels" back in 1983.

[cutthemdown]

I'd have to agree with W*gs that Russo doesn't really break any new ground with this film. Like I said he was mad about losing a judgement to the IRS so this was his way of dealing with the anger.

[tsiguy96]

that doesnt change the truth of any of it, simply a basis for his reasoning to make it.

[Smiling Assassin27]

rhetoric and slogans make for good movies but are really just excuses for not making sound arguments. may as well be a bumper sticker.

[tsiguy96]

rhetoric and slogans make for good movies but are really just excuses for not making sound arguments. may as well be a bumper sticker.

you mean to tell me with a straight face that the govt is NOT intruding on the lives of its citizens more and more each day? are you kidding?

[baja]

If you really want to shiit your pants check out this,

http://www.greatdreams.com/consp.htm

It will take days and days though.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

that doesnt change the truth of any of it, simply a basis for his reasoning to make it.

Yep.

Cutthemdown is just poisoning the well, as usual.

Anyway, I watched the whole thing, and it's pretty sobering.

Particularly noteworthy was the part where Russo relates how Rockefeller confided to him (a year before 9/11) that there was going to be an "event" that would "allow us to go into Afghanistan and Iraq..."

[W*GS]

Russo also said (according to <a href="http://www.jonesreport.com/articles/281006_rockefeller_911.html">Alex Jones</a>):

Russo also sounded off on 9/11, openly airing his view for the first time that it was a complete inside job.

"People know that 9/11 was an inside job," said Russo, "look what they did here in America, look at 9/11, look what they did - they killed thousands of Americans - people jumping out of windows from a hundred floors up - they don't care," said the director.

"There's no way that Building 7 came down without a controlled demolition, it takes weeks to do the controlled demolition, they couldn't have done it in a few hours like Larry Silverstein said - it blows the whole game - concrete doesn't turn to powder unless its exploded."

"We all know that 9/11 was a fraud - an inside job," concluded Russo.

This oughta make LABF cream his panties...

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

I wonder if W*GS has any idea how many of his fellow Americans don't buy the official BushCo account of 9/11?

LMAO @ the cognitive dissonance W*GS has to maintain in order to write that many people off as "conspiracy nuts." :laugh:

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Americans Question Bush on 9/11 Intelligence

Abstract: - Many adults in the United States believe the current federal government has not been completely forthcoming on the issue of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, according to a poll by the New York Times and CBS News. 53 per cent of respondents think the Bush administration is hiding something, and 28 per cent believe it is lying.

- Many adults in the United States believe the current federal government has not been completely forthcoming on the issue of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, according to a poll by the New York Times and CBS News. 53 per cent of respondents think the Bush administration is hiding something, and 28 per cent believe it is lying.

Only 16 per cent of respondents say the government headed by U.S. president George W. Bush is telling the truth on what it knew prior to the terrorist attacks, down five points since May 2002.

http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/view/13469

http://www.angus-reid.com/uppdf/NYT_October2k6.pdf

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

"Do you think members of the Bush Administration are telling the truth, are mostly telling the truth but hiding something, or are they mostly lying?

Telling the truth 16%

Hiding something 53%

Mostly lying 28%

Not sure 3%"

The 84% figure mirrors other recent polls on the same issue. A Canadian Poll put the figure at 85%. A CNN poll had the figure at 89%. Over 80% supported the stance of Charlie Sheen when he went public with his opinions on 9/11 as an inside job.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/november2004/111104cnnpoll.htm

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/September2006/120906_b_Poll.htm

A recent CNN poll found that the percentage of Americans who blame the Bush administration for the September 11, 2001, attacks on New York and Washington rose from almost a third to almost half over the past four years. This latest poll shows that that figure has again risen exponentially and now stands at well over three quarters of the population.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/September2006/110906_b_Bush.htm

In 2004 a Zogby Poll showed that just over half of New Yorkers believed there was a cover up.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/august2004/310804zogbypoll.htm

In May of this year another Zogby poll indicated that around half of ALL Americans did not buy the official story.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/may2006/230506Zogby.htm

The latest poll also shows a massive awakening has occurred recently given that previous estimates indicated that around 34% still believed the official story and around 30% were oblivious altogether.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/October2006/141006poll.htm

[W*GS]

I wonder if W*GS has any idea how many of his fellow Americans don't buy the official BushCo account of 9/11?

The truth isn't up to a popular vote. Those of us who have investigated the troofer claims realize that they're full of ****.

I suspect many of these same people believe in astrology, numerology, creationism, Sasquatch, and the gambler's fallacy.

[W*GS]

What was it LABF was saying a while back about bandwagon appeals?

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

I just wanted to get W*GS on record dismissing ~84% of his fellow Americans as tin foil hat types.

:laugh:

Bandwagon appeal? You mean the type of appeal W*GS uses when he says things like "look, LABF - even your fellow liberals don't agree with your 9/11 takes?"

[W*GS]

There's a vast gulf between 84% of Americans and you, LABF.

[baja]

I don't know almost everyone I talk with about this administration feels to some degree they have been lied to or worse.

[baja]

As a matter of fact I can't think on one poster here that is in total support of Bush, hell very few will even admit to voting for him the second time.

[Bronco Bob]

Don't blame me. I voted for Gore and then Kerry.

[W*GS]

Oh, and LABF - you're not a liberal. You're a socialist.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

As always, the facts never stand in the way of W*GS' perceptions and claims.

Odds are W*GS couldn't explain the difference between liberalism and socialism if his life depended on it.

[W*GS]

As always, the facts never stand in the way of W*GS' perceptions and claims.

No matter how you try to spin it, your -8.62 score on the economic scale puts you way to the left.

Odds are W*GS couldn't explain the difference between liberalism and socialism if his life depended on it.

One thing you aren't is a liberal. I'm a liberal, as all libertarians are. You're a socialist.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Ha ha ha! :laugh:

I'll take that as a "no, I can't explain the difference."

[W*GS]

No matter how you try to evade the truth, LABF, your score and your rhetoric belies you as a socialist.

Calling yourself a "liberal" is pure spin, nothing more.

[tsiguy96]

No matter how you try to evade the truth, LABF, your score and your rhetoric belies you as a socialist.

Calling yourself a "liberal" is pure spin, nothing more.

you call yourself a libertarian, then label the current govt trend of no personal freedoms or privacy as nothing but "rhetoric"

wow, you are confused

[cutthemdown]

[QUOTE=L.A. BRONCOS FAN;1831378]Yep.

Cutthemdown is just poisoning the well, as usual.

Anyway, I watched the whole thing, and it's pretty sobering.

Particularly noteworthy was the part where Russo relates how Rockefeller confided to him (a year before 9/11) that there was going to be an "event" that would "allow us to go into Afghanistan and Iraq..."[/QUOTE

nothing I said wasn't true though. How can it be poisoning the well if its a fact. Russo hated the govt because they made him pay 2 million in fines and back taxes. You don't think that is an issue that could explain his disdain for govt a bit?

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

nothing I said wasn't true though. How can it be poisoning the well if its a fact. Russo hated the govt because they made him pay 2 million in fines and back taxes. You don't think that is an issue that could explain his disdain for govt a bit?

But none of this has any bearing on whether his claims are true or not.

That's what makes your post an example of poisoning the well.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

you call yourself a libertarian, then label the current govt trend of no personal freedoms or privacy as nothing but "rhetoric"

wow, you are confused

W*GS has defended almost every move the Bush administration has made, yet he calls himself a "libertarian."

I guess he's a libertarian in the mold of Ayn Rand and Alan Greenspan. ;)

[cutthemdown]

But none of this has any bearing on whether his claims are true or not.

That's what makes your post an example of poisoning the well.

following the money has always been a great way to get at the truth of someones motivations. I thought people should be aware it so they can have all the information to make a sound decision on this guys comments.

I do feel the govt is becoming a little too intrusive into our lives, but I don't see it as a huge infringement on our civil liberties.

[cutthemdown]

But none of this has any bearing on whether his claims are true or not.

That's what makes your post an example of poisoning the well.

Besides you poison the well all the time. Are you saying you don't? Anytime you say I wouldn't listen to so and so, he's the one that said blah blah blah and was wrong about that. It's like you took a class on debating and just throw out things like straw man, poison the well and other logical fallacy's because you figure most of the people on this board don't know what the hell it means and will assume you know what you are talking about.

Anytime you use a persons position on an issue, to discredit them on another issue, that's poisoning the well as far as the rules of debating go. Are you saying that isn't a common practice on this board from you and pretty much everyone on here?

It's because you use the same tactics that in others you claim to be fallacy's that make you a total joke.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

It's because you use the same tactics that in others you claim to be fallacy's(sic) that make you a total joke.

Give me an example.

In the meantime, it's just this sort of "I am rubber - you are glue" defense that makes you a laughing stock here.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

following the money has always been a great way to get at the truth of someones motivations.

But we're talking about the truth of his claims - not his motivations for making them.

Are you too far gone on the neocon Kool-Aid to see the difference?

[cutthemdown]

Give me an example.

In the meantime, it's just this sort of "I am rubber - you are glue" defense that makes you a laughing stock here.

sticks and stones straw man!!!!!

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

I do feel the govt is becoming a little too intrusive into our lives, but I don't see it as a huge infringement on our civil liberties.

Ha ha ha! :laugh:

You call RFD tracking devices in ID cards a "little" intrusive?

(Oh, that's right - the story can't be true because Russo is "mad at the government.") ;)

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

BTW, still waiting for W*GS to expalin two things:

1) The difference between liberalism and socialism.

2) How this *unassailable* test of his makes such distinctions.

[baja]

Ha ha ha! :laugh:

You call RFD tracking devices in ID cards a "little" intrusive?

(Oh, that's right - the story can't be true because Russo is "mad at the government.") ;)

And than there is this;

http://www.apfn.org/apfn/camps.htm

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

sticks and stones straw man!!!!!

I see you've learned a new phrase ('straw man') and you're trying to use it in a sentence (with limited results.)

:D

[cutthemdown]

For the record I am agianst a national ID card.

[cutthemdown]

For the record I will never let the govt put a chip in my body to monitor me.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

For the record I am agianst a national ID card.

So next year when you are required to carry such a card on your person (with the embedded RFD chip) will you still shrug it off as a minor inconvenience?

[baja]

I see you've learned a new phrase ('straw man') and you're trying to use it in a sentence (with limited results.)

:D

I'd give you long odds this kid is not a day over 16 and he reads his daddy's mail.

[W*GS]

W*GS has defended almost every move the Bush administration has made, yet he calls himself a "libertarian."

Ahhh yes, the ol' Faux News tactic of repeating a lie until it's perceived as the truth.

You've written the above (and equivalents) many times, and I've asked for proof almost as many times, and you've always failed to follow through.

In short, you're a liar. But you're a far-left-winger, and they can't help but lie.

[W*GS]

you call yourself a libertarian, then label the current govt trend of no personal freedoms or privacy as nothing but "rhetoric"

wow, you are confused

Speaking of confused... You are, newbie.

[Spider]

For the record I am agianst a national ID card.

I have one , had it since 1992 , I had a class A since 84 , but my licenses got suspended ( unpaid ticket I forgot about ) and lost my grandfather clause ,so I got a CDL .........

[W*GS]

1) The difference between liberalism and socialism.

"Liberalism" is the word left-wingers have hijacked to obfuscate their dogma. It's genuine meaning is a belief in maximal practical freedom in all manner of action, from personal civil liberties to economic activity and more. Americans who are genuine liberals are called "libertarians", to distinguish their beliefs from the most illiberal beliefs of the aforementioned left-wingers.

"Socialism" is a system in which private ownership and private economic transactions are highly regulated and controlled by the State. There is no intrinsic connection between socialism and personal political freedom; socialists can be somewhat libertarian (necessarily limited because of the aforementioned restrictions and regulations on economic activity) or quite authoritarian; see Stalin for a totalitarian socialist.

These are good definitions; what LABF will proffer in response will be utter ****.

2) How this *unassailable* test of his makes such distinctions.

The "unassailable" is a strawman and a red herring; of all the 30+ OMers who have gone through the survey (not a "test", dope), you're the only one who's whining about his scores and placement. You've been found out (not that most of us didn't already know), objectively, and now you can no longer deny, spin, and obfuscate your far-left beliefs. We know where you stand, and no amount of smears, slurs, and lies hides that fact, LABF.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

W*GS gets another 'F' on his report card.

First off, W*GS claims that "left-wingers" have "hijacked" the word "liberalism" to "obfuscate their dogma" - but he offers absolutely nothing to explain what he means by this. What is this "dogma," W*GS? Please explain.

As expected, his definition of liberalism (which actually comes closer to the Randian model of libertarianism he embraces) suggests the analogy of a football game with no rules and no refs. In reality, liberalism is a philosophy that advocates private ownership of the means of production and free market capitalism - with government oversight and regulation to protect society against the Enrons of the world.

The following explanation should clear up W*GS' muddled thinking:

Myth: Liberalism is socialism, and socialism is big government.

Fact: Liberals believe in private ownership of the means of production; socialists, public.

Modern American liberals are democratic capitalists. That is, they believe that private capitalist individuals should own and control the means of production, as long as they operate within the democratic law. By contrast, socialists believe that everyone should own and control the means of production. Socialism has been proposed in many forms. Perhaps the most popular form is social democracy, in which workers vote for their supervisors, company policy, and industry representatives to regional or national congresses. Another form of socialism is anarcho-socialism, in which employee-owned firms would compete or cooperate on the free market, absent any centralized government at all. As you can see, a central planning committee is not a necessary feature of socialism; only worker ownership of production is. Dictatorships can never be socialist, because workers do not own or control anything when a ruling elite is telling them what to do. For this reason, socialists reject the claim (made by the Soviet Union itself) that the Soviet Union was a socialist country. It was instead a brutal dictatorship over workers.

- Steve Kangas

[W*GS]

W*GS gets another 'F' on his report card.

You're in no position to be handing out grades.

First off, W*GS claims that "left-wingers" have "hijacked" the word "liberalism" to "obfuscate their dogma" - but he offers absolutely nothing to explain what he means by this. What is this "dogma," W*GS? Please explain.

Your dogma is the standard tenets of your left-wing ideology. Kanga's "Liberal FAQ" includes the popular ones. Check it out.

As expected, his definition of liberalism (which actually comes closer to the Randian model of libertarianism he embraces) suggests the analogy of a football game with no rules and no refs.

Libertarianism isn't anarchism. No points for your answer.

In reality, liberalism is a philosophy that advocates private ownership of the means of production and free market capitalism - with government oversight and regulation to protect society against the Enrons of the world.

Nope. Your score of -8.62 on the left/right scale doesn't put you solidly in the realm of the (imaginary) "liberal" beliefs above; the closest ideology to your own is socialism. You can sugarcoat it by saying "government oversight and regulation", but what you really want is governmental control and, truth be told, nationalization of huge chunks of the economy. Education, energy production and distribution, health care, and so on.

The following explanation should clear up W*GS' muddled thinking:

Of course someone like Kangas is going to put the most positive spin on "liberalism", because if he is honest, he'll change every use of the word "liberal" to "left-wing".

Here's an explanation that will clear up (yeah, right...) your confusion:

In simplest terms the primary difference between libertarianism and other political philosophies involves beliefs about the amount of authority government should have over peoples' personal and business matters.

Liberals want government to focus on doing what is "good," including providing what is often referred to as "social justice." To do that, among other policies, liberals expect government to: a) tax corporations and "wealthy" and "high income" citizens heavily to pay for the social justice programs and b) regulate business and personal behavior to the extent necessary for social justice.

Conservatives want government to control "bad," offensive, and immoral behavior, even if that behavior brings no harm or danger to non-participants. Most often bad is defined based on the prevailing interpretation of Judeo-Christian rules. And, though conservatives tend to express a belief in small government, they usually cannot resist government programs that serve their agenda such as "family values."

Liberals and conservatives both believe that government's mission is some combination of: a) making the world better, b) providing moral leadership, and c) protecting people from themselves. Of course conservatives and liberals tend to disagree about what is good and what is moral. And whether or not you agree with those objectives, you are forced to pay for them with your money and/or your liberty. Ironically you pay for liberal and conservative programs, rules, and regulations -- with your money and your liberty.

Libertarians believe that goodness is voluntary, morality is personal, human nature cannot be legislated away, and only harm to others should be illegal.

And, though libertarians believe in limited government, as described in the U.S. Constitution, they do not want anarchy. Libertarians recognize that government has a clear and critical mission: preserving and enhancing liberty. To achieve that goal government must: a) protect citizens from foreign enemies, b) arrest, try, and punish people that harm or endanger others, and c) make judgment calls when peoples' liberties conflict.

See

http://jimeyer.org/libertarian/libertarian.php

[W*GS]

Also look at

http://catb.org/~esr/faqs/libertarianism.html

[Taco John]

Here's another one worth watching... This one is about "The Liberal Media."

http://video.google.com/googleplayer.swf?docId=6632255652046262625&hl=en

[Taco John]

you call yourself a libertarian, then label the current govt trend of no personal freedoms or privacy as nothing but "rhetoric"

wow, you are confused




I have to say that I agree. As a libertarian myself, I've never seen anything that would suggest to me that W*gs understands libertarianism. I doubt he's even heard of Rothbard, let alone read A New Liberty.

[W*GS]

I have to say that I agree. As a libertarian myself, I've never seen anything that would suggest to me that W*gs understands libertarianism. I doubt he's even heard of Rothbard, let alone read A New Liberty.

Snort.

I worked on Ron Paul's 1988 campaign (talked with Andre Marrou quite a bit) and have read Rothbard, von Mises, Hayek, Friedman, Sowell, Peikoff, Heinlein, Rand and much more besides. I was proselytizing libertarianism long before most of you had even heard of it.

[Taco John]

Fine. I'll turst that you're being honest.

I just have read a lot of what you say around here and as I sift through it, I hardly see anything that I can recognize as libertarian. You seem hell bent on defending the state -- an odd thing for a libertarian to do. I personally recognize George Bush as one of the worst things to happen to libertarianism in the last 50 years (save, of course, for the boomerang effect that seems to be taking place right now). But reading your posts, you seem to spend a lot of time defending Bush. Again, a very odd thing for a libertarian to do.

I'm not sure what to think of a libertarian who spends his time defending the state, and defending Bush. My knee jerk reaction is to scoff at the idea that the person is a libertarian. Past that, the only thing I can do is scratch my head.

[W*GS]

Fine. I'll turst that you're being honest.

I always am.

I just have read a lot of what you say around here and as I sift through it, I hardly see anything that I can recognize as libertarian. You seem hell bent on defending the state -- an odd thing for a libertarian to do.

Such as?

I personally recognize George Bush as one of the worst things to happen to libertarianism in the last 50 years (save, of course, for the boomerang effect that seems to be taking place right now). But reading your posts, you seem to spend a lot of time defending Bush. Again, a very odd thing for a libertarian to do.

Examples? Genuine libertarians don't single out Bush as being particularly reprehensible - far more so than any of a number of past Presidents. Sure, he's been hell on our rights, but what President hasn't? The libertarians who believe Bush has been da woist aren't too up on their history. Bush sucks ****, to be sure - but so did most of his predecessors.

I'm not sure what to think of a libertarian who spends his time defending the state, and defending Bush. My knee jerk reaction is to scoff at the idea that the person is a libertarian. Past that, the only thing I can do is scratch my head.

For every scummy thing Bush has done, I can name a previous President who's done the same or worse - either by omission or commission.

Oh, and Paul doesn't stand a chance of getting the GOP nomination, much less being President. Yeah, he's created a bit of a stir with his fundraising and his Internet-based devotees. Most past LP candidates have done something similar - lots of 'Net excitement, but the 'Net ain't the real world.

[Bronco Bob]

Oh, and Paul doesn't stand a chance of getting the GOP nomination, much less being President. Yeah, he's created a bit of a stir with his fundraising and his Internet-based devotees. Most past LP candidates have done something similar - lots of 'Net excitement, but the 'Net ain't the real world.

Yep. How well is president Howard Dean doing these days?

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

I'm not sure what to think of a libertarian who spends his time defending the state, and defending Bush. My knee jerk reaction is to scoff at the idea that the person is a libertarian.

Bingo.

I can only wonder how many people on this board will have to point this out to W*GS before he realizes he isn't fooling anyone.

[W*GS]

Hey LABF!

http://www.orangemane.com/BB/showpost.php?p=1832434&postcount=54

[W*GS]

BTW, TJ, go to politicalcompass.org, take the survey, and report your scores.

[cutthemdown]

So next year when you are required to carry such a card on your person (with the embedded RFD chip) will you still shrug it off as a minor inconvenience?

It's not so much the high tech ID I'm against as the fact I don't want to have to have 2 IDS, one state and one federal. It's a hassle. If it happens it happens I won't be starting a revolution over it. I just don't think it makes us safer and therefore is a waste of money.

Also if the chip contains any information about my movements I would just not carry it, that would be creepy.

I have to admit I haven't read the real id act or whatever its called.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

I have to admit I haven't read the real id act or whatever its called.

How ironic is that? ;)

The vote mostly fell along party lines. About 95 percent of the House Republicans voted for the bill, which had been prepared by the judiciary committee chairman, F. James Sensenbrenner, a Wisconsin Republican. More than three-fourths of the House Democrats opposed it.

They snuck it by the American people by attaching it to the "Emergency Supplemental Appropriation for Defense, the Global War on Terror, and Tsunami Relief, 2005" (H.R. 1268, P.L. 109-13.)

Resident Chucklenuts signed it into law in '05.