90 votes

John Stossel - Political Deception

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

You have to have courage and clear, strong, moral beliefs

to speak from the gut. That's why it's rare: Ross Perot, Ron Paul.

Frankly, Newt can do it too, albeit he replaces morality with narcissism.

Frank Luntz . . .

. . . basically just explained to the majority of brain-dead viewers that RP stands for freedom . . . "Oh wait, so that's what he's been talking about this whole time . . . freedom?"

"How is that kooky?!"

If politics is a rodeo......

Luntz is the rodeo clown for sure...distracting the American TV viewer....

I would LOVE to trace the money trail from Luntz....through the network cronies...all the way to the special interests that love to have guys like Luntz twist reality with his "focus groups" (which are hand picked and staged in order to get the results the network is being payed to flash on our TV screens...) This guy DISGUSTS me....


he is getting sorta honest here....I wonder what's up....maybe he wants a job in the Revolution...because he knows we are WINNING!

I disagree with the "sentiment"

The sentiment in the above videos is "how 'we' are deceived by others"

In truth the 1st Order of Deception is Self Originated
---We tell ourselves (or our parents train us to think) that one man rules the country or that one man can save it.

If you are hoodwinked by the first order of deception then you believe that voting and lobbying are pathways toward a freer society.

If you are NOT hoodwinked then you know that voting and lobbying mean abdication and bribery (respectively) and that 307M consumers run the country not one man or 535 men or 3,000,000 men (the upper 1%) nor 24,000,000 men (the upper 8%).

I have ZERO sympathy for any order of deception that comes aftre that (empathy yes, but not sympathy).

Frank Luntz knows his craft very well...

...and like him or hate him, what he's saying is basically true in this instance and we should take heed. Luntz is right...liberals generally use the word "liberty", conservatives use the word "freedom". This is very important. It's true that the words mean approximately the same thing in the public mind (J.S. Mill basically says that "freedom" is the absence of restriction and that "liberty" is the absence of coercion...e.g. absence of negative freedom), but the words themselves draw up certain connotations in the electorate...like it or not, that's how it is.

"Civil liberties" is a term that was frequently used (and abused) in the Democrat's propaganda machine that eventually brought about Dodd-Frank and Obamacare...and the term scares the heck out of conservatives. When libertarians use the same phrase, it makes them "sound" like Democrats in the ears of Republicans even if the ideas being discussed are actually quite conservative. When Ron uses the term "civil liberties" in debates, I generally cringe for that very reason. Instead, why not use the phrase "domestic freedoms," "economic freedoms," or "personal freedoms" in its place to avoid this wrongful association in the minds of conservatives?

How information is presented and delivered, especially when trying to persuade someone, is extremely important. For example, if I served up a great-tasting hamburger on top of a dirty trashcan lid then nobody would eat it; but if I put the hamburger on a clean plate in a cozy restaurant then I have a chance at establishing a growing and thriving business. The same is true with ideas...delivery and presentation count.

Just some thoughts...

Cuimhnigh orm, a Dhia, le haghaidh maith.

I agreed with you . . .

. . . until you used Mill as a reference. Everything post that statement sounded like soulless utilitarianism to me.

Six foot deep in the irony?

The art of mass persuasion (propaganda) is very soulless...

...utilitarianism indeed. Trying to influence mass opinion is very different than influencing individuals. As such, you're conflating these two things.

Here, it would seem that your individual revulsion to Mill would only be relevant if the majority of DPers also take a position similar to yours. Mill is very popular amongst libertarians because of his early pro-liberty writings (in his later life he backslid into utilitarianism). Now imagine if I had used Bentham's definition for freedom or someone else libertarians as a group abhor, then and only then would your point be valid because it would turn away the majority of the group.

Cuimhnigh orm, a Dhia, le haghaidh maith.

great new RP article

Luntz is the clown that does those focus groups...

...which are then used by him to do exactly what he is speaking out against here...
...lie and mislead people.

Duplicitous tool

RON2012PAUL...The r3VOLution continues...
"I always win"
+GOLD and SILVER are money+

Most important comment from this video

At 4:18 Stossel mentions Ron Paul and Liberty. Luntz points out that average Americans want to hear about freedom. I am not a fan, but Luntz is 100% correct.

πολλα γαρ πταιομεν απαντες ει τις εν λογω ου πταιει ουτος τελειος ανηρ δυνατος χαλιναγωγησαι και ολον το σωμα

I agree. Liberty sounds too

I agree. Liberty sounds too revolutionary for most non-libertarians.

Great way to increase your donation...

See my post about a great way to increase your donation. If you like the idea please bump.




LL on Twitter: http://twitter.com/LibertyPoet
sometimes LL can suck & sometimes LL rocks!
Love won! Deliverance from Tyranny is on the way! Col. 2:13-15

How long before...

...that network fires Stossel for not being a manipulative bastard like the rest of them? If they canned the Judge, they probably have their sights on Stossel too.

Stossel is one of the last honest men in the MSM. I wish they would put him on the air at a time when people would see him.

He covered his bases later in

He covered his bases later in the show reassuring viewers that we still have a free press, though biased as it is... but then went on to say we should question all of our news sources, himself included.

Where did the coffers go?

Once the majority discover they can vote themselves the moneys from the coffers they will do so until the coffers are empty. This is the inherent problem of a democracy and a democracy always fails around a loose fiscal policy.

I am just mad that I have to trade my goods and services for money while some in our society can just print more when they need it. Damned two-faced crooks.

How come Stossel never has anyone from the Mises Institute?

Always Cato...

reedr3v's picture

Cato is more mainstream, definitely

more Fox.

I was actually able to stomach Frank Luntz in this

Thanks for posting this. Another good wake-up video for my arsenal.

Frank Luntz even had a good perspective on the difference between "Freedom" and "Liberty" in the minds of voters.

Frank Luntz is the guy to talk to about political deception

It's his expertise. Fortunately, he's not very good at it.

Yep. It was very useful


"It does not take a majority to prevail but rather an irate, tireless minority keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men."

--Samuel Adams