Elegant, charming, well polished, melodious, and a bit of an antique. I enjoy him very much, but I wouldn't consider him an ally. Listen to his words, learn from them, just don't set your watch by them.
πολλα γαρ πταιομεν απαντες ει τις εν λογω ου πταιει ουτος τελειος ανηρ δυνατος χαλιναγωγησαι και ολον το σωμα
what. . . (your answer goes here).
The enemy of my enemy is "still my enemy" :/
It is easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. – Mark Twain
which is why I have no friends
In a free society, we can be Christian, Muslim, atheist.......whatever. So what that Farrakhan is Muslim. He supported Dr. Ron Paul because Paul was speaking truth. If you are a God-loving and fearing individual, you should understand that God wouldn't want us to kill, kill, kill....just to do it. Putting all Muslims in a pile to persecute them is not right...it's been a long time since the Crusades. The reasons we occupy the Middle East is not about their religion nor 9/11. Money and greed are very powerful. Even though Quadaffi was a dictator and probably not the best individual in the world, I do understand something now; he wasn't playing ball with the West. He was attempting to have a Libyan currency backed by gold if I am not mistaken. I believe Muslims do not believe in debt and inflating a currency but someone would have to enlighten me on that. I honestly believe now that if we walked away from the Middle East and their resources, we'd collapse immediately (but it would be a good thing for the people in the long run). There is much more going on under the surface. Don't let propaganda influence your thinking when it comes to these things. Do your own research before you allow others to control your thoughts about a situation.
sorry I don't buy it. I think some of you are being deceived. Yes what is saying sounds good but the guys track record says otherwise. It's just like Dr. Carson. the guy says some things that seem to support the freedom movement then when questioned more closely, we find out he is soft on the second amendment.
What is his track record that you have an issue with?
I always hear people who say this type of stuff, but 100% of the people I have encountered are basing it on ERRONEOUS information propagated by the media the same way they have distorted what Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has said. They want a boogeyman and they usually use soundbites taken out of context or completely distorted.
If you disagree with me on anything you are not a real libertarian...
And? Should we disregard him because he doesn't agree with us on all issues? We might as well admit we are no better than republicans by claiming to be a "big tent" yet shunning those with differing opinions.
He is on our side when it comes to foreign policy, foreign aid, and unnecessary wars. When it comes to these issues, Farrakhan is our ally. What a horrible strategy we would have if we didn't accept, or bother to work alongside with, those who can help us achieve certain goals. Seriously, we might as well throw in the towel now and welcome authoritarianism with open arms.
Take a cue from Ron Paul, he's done this countless times in congress. He allies himself with politicians he may not necessarily agree with on all issues, to fight for issues they do agree with.
What's that saying that comes to mind? Don't throw out the baby with the bathwater.
...who are hissing for a 'joining', and that 'joining' itself, are the issues at hand.
Paths can cross with most anyone on certain issues and limited interests can be recognized and subsequently used...yet I consistently see the call for a 'joining' and an 'inclusion' into the 'movement' for some who have a clear record and consistent advocacy opposed to certain fundamental liberties.
That is not a 'movement' that I belong to.
To a truly principled man of liberty-ethic, there is no 'joining under a banner', or 'alliance', or an 'inclusion' with Liberty for those who do not hold to and champion core fundamental freedoms and natural rights. To do so is to gut Liberty itself and to cheapen and severely damage and mask the very foundation of what is 'purported' to be the desired achievement.
The old tired 'big tent' mantra is naught but a knowing and deliberate watering down of critical and utterly necessary bedrock principles and the end result is an gross-abortion of the goal of a free-society, limited government and of individual liberty itself.
Look around this cluster-fuck of a 'movement' and you will see gun-controllers, collectivists, watered down lefty-marxist/socialists, do-gooder collectivists, quasi-neocons and a plethora of other non-principled gerbils, who are factually gnawing away at the very foundations of 'Liberty'.
A bit of blunt truth and calling things as they are, seem badly needed around here.
Nothing wrong with having a few common objectives, but that does not make one a 'liberty-advocate' or make one of the ethical and philosophical make-up that is required to achieve liberty, constitutional adherence and limited government.
It really is that simple.
Then by your very own criterion even Ron Paul is not a "truly principled man of liberty-ethic", since he's formed many alliances with politicians who grossly oppose certain fundamental freedoms.
Your over analytical gold standard of inclusion does more harm than good. You're trying to win a chess game with only your pawns. You're advocating we disregard the movers and shakers who can strategically help us advance certain issues to our benefit.
Obviously, we won't back Farrakhan in a gun control debate. But when it comes to foreign policy we should be pushing his message to the forefront. We're not after Farrakhan, we're after his huge following. We're not supporting Farrakhan, we're supporting his stance on foreign wars.
You're so bogged down in idealism that you are missing the forest for the trees.
...cease to amaze me.
When all else fails, you dredge up Ron Paul and throw him and what he has done or what he 'would do' up as some sort of unassailable shield or fundamental truth that shuts down opposition or other assessments.
This is one of the 'cultish' behaviors and tactics that I frequently see here.
Get this straight....I don't care what Ron Paul does, did, will do, or 'would do'. He is merely a man who seems to hold to and advocate a liberty message as he sees it and as he believes and chooses.
He is not 'my leader'. He is not my exemplar. He is not 'the movement'. He is not liberty-incarnate. He did not invent what he advocates. He is not God. He is not the holy font of liberty.
The fight for Liberty was going on long before he was born and will continue long after his passing.
What utter blasphemy, eh?
Anytime he "formed many alliances with politicians who grossly oppose certain fundamental freedoms", then as I see it, he was wrong.
What did doing so get him, you, me, or liberty?
Are we a free-nation because of it? Is he POTUS or in a position to implement his ideas on a broad scale? Did he drive back the globalist-collectivist cabal that has the Republic all but dead and its people verging on living under totalitarianism? Did he make any substantive inroads into the establishment-lock?
Well, did he?
That aside, if you had read what I actually wrote, rather than what you think that I wrote, or what you want people to believe that I wrote, I clearly addressed the usefulness of such divergent people crossing paths on certain issues and the usefulness of that to be used to advantage.
What I addressed, primarily, was the calls for a 'joining' or a melding or the adopting such people as spokesmen for 'liberty'.
You know, the whole overused 'big tent' dogma.....
Your mileage obviously varies from mine, so you had your say just as I had mine.
As to my 'gold standard' of inclusion, it is not overly analytical at all, despite your framing it as such. It is quite simple, as previously laid out, your lack of agreement notwithstanding.
I merely view things at their most fundamental, boiling away all the psychobabble, 'feelings', peacenik & lovenik crapola and the cacophony of calls for 'inclusiveness and acceptance'.
All one need do is look around to see the long-term results of those old tactics....dilution, co-option and failure.
Look, rest easy, you have reason to rejoice, because you and your ideas reign supreme.
You have a whole 'movement' of non/weak-principled, a-little-bit-of-this/a-little-bit-of-that, 'pick and choose', purported liberty dudes and dudettes, to do things your way.
I will just keep doing what it is that I do and keep on using you guys as a chalkboard to illustrate some much needed compare & contrast of ethic, principle and approach, against your 'commonly accepted', 'conventional wisdom'.
When all is said and done, we will all see how it works out.
My principled path is never adopted or traveled by any significant numbers, whilst your ethic, philosophy and 'principle', along with its continuously advocated methods, are well used.
We live the results.
despite all of it's self proclaimed agnosticism/atheism certainly has it's fair share of "sacred cows". Nice rant, probably too much truth for traction, but a fun read.
"My principled path is never adopted or traveled by any significant numbers, whilst your ethic, philosophy and 'principle', along with its continuously advocated methods, are well used." Brilliant.
To be honest I sped read most of your blabbering, and I almost didn't respond for fear that you would write another book report but I'll leave you with three points:
1) That's great about Ron Paul, but I could care less. I was just using him as an example since, well, on the list of liberty-minded public figures he's probably at the very top. Point being, if he doesn't satisfy your gold standard, nobody ever will.
2) If we limited the movement to your awe inspiring principled path, then we would be left with only a handful of people. Which is great for a poker game but not so much getting anything effective done.
3) Once again since you missed it the first time, I'm not advocating making Farrakhan a spokesmen for "liberty". But maybe a spokesmen for ending these reckless and unnecessary foreign wars? Yes, we can use all the help we can get.
I'd like to know exactly who are the misinformed miscreants upvoting these Farrakhan threads.
Jon, maybe it's time for full disclosure here on the DP....All up or down votes on threads should reveal the identity of the 'voter'. Whaddya think?
for reasons which you would likely never understand. And down voted your ridiculous comment merely out of habit. There you go good buddy, full disclosure.
what Dr. Paul called "blowback". I cannot find fault with any these thread being posted on DP. But, then again, I became a member of DP to engage in discussion, not to find out exactly who the people are who might disagree with my point of view. I don't care WHO disagrees with me, as much as I care WHY someone disagrees with me. I learn by getting all kinds of feedback from other members, which helps me to better understand issues being discussed, so that I may form my own opinion and not have to rely on what someone tells me to believe.
Seems to me that you're the one out of line here, Velveeta Underground, in suggesting an involuntary full disclosure. That's what I think.
“It is the food which you furnish to your mind that determines the whole character of your life.”
It wouldn't be an involuntary disclosure if the terms of service for the site is updated. Everyone who posts here accepts the site rules whether they bother to read and understand them or not.
i am spartacus!
Could I just use 'miscreant'?
I have room on my hat for that.
This misinformed miscreant upvoted as well
I up-voted this thread. What's your issue with it?
...talking about UFO's
Louie on the Mothership and 1500 UFO bomber-planes to rain down upon us.
What a fine liberty-advocate he makes with his anti-Amendment II/gun-control in one hand and the 'mothership (the wheel) and its planes' in the other.
He has much more of the same in his liberty bag o' tricks.
I am having a hard time figuring out which one is the biggest shill.
paying attention to what's going on - quite articulate.
He and Dr. Carson probably have Obama wishing he could
just be dealing with black "leaders" like Jesse Jackson Jr...
Thanks for posting, Apple.
articulated that white people introduced birth control to black women because they don't want black babies.
A woman's place is in the home?
I think Granger is right about Farrakhan: He should be welcomed into the Ron Paul / Libertarian / Anti-NWO liberty movement. It's a big tent. David Duke and Farrakhan in the same movement. Only Ron Paul could have made that happen.
Alex Jones should interview Farrakhan and David Duke the same day.
...is exactly why there will likely never BE Liberty.
When the very people who lay claim to the mantle of 'liberty advocate' are openly advocating a clear anti-constitutionalist, an anti-Amendment II gun-controller and a racial-collectivist as part of some purported movement to restore Liberty, well, it is destined to fail for what should be obvious reasons.
As an aside, this forum's/group's precious 'The Granger' is a gun-controller also, one who has clearly stated she is for 'background checks, registration, licensing, competency testing and other government controls on a fundamental liberty.
Uh....yeah, that is 'Liberty' and anyone who so advocates is the sick crumbly schite which that 'version' of Liberty will be built upon.
It is just....that....simple....
i see many people with different and conflicting viewpoints still behind Dr. Ron Pauls's message, and more and more awareness of the banking system and ending the Fed.
i'm not advocating you subscribe to farrakhan and david duke's viewpoints, wholesale. i am saying it's a sign that there is vitality and a vibrant movement crystallizing behind Ron Paul's message, if these individuals from the spectrum are coming together. Just like Michael Savage. i wouldn't have thought in a million years that Michael Savage would speak to Alex Jones. And Howard Stern, even, he is willing to have a long conversation with Alex Jones.
Individually, in a normal society it wouldn't matter what these people said, we could just live our lives to our faith and knowledge.
But because of the illuminati and new world order, there is a quickening, and everyone is choosing sides. Farrakhan is choosing his side with Alex Jones. Even David Duke is choosing his sides with Ron Paul. I do not know what will happen to the soul of David Duke after he passes away. But i see Michael Savage choosing sides as well. Even Howard Stern is open to have Alex Jones on.
it's the quickening.
...who speaks to whom, or who appears on who's 'show'?
As one of the much reviled 'principled purists', it seems to me that if one does not represent and advocate for basic fundamental liberty and conversely, one displays a collectivist-ethic and actually advocates directly against certain fundamental liberties, well, ol' El-Tee simply isn't hitching his horse to a faux wagon...this one, Farrakhan's or any other.
That doesn't mean that specific interests do not periodically cross paths on certain issues, but that doesn't make a marriage or a philosophical or ethical match or some melding/joining.
One would think this should be obvious, but clearly it is not.
I will simply stand alone if necessary and call things as I see them, regardless of how wildly unpopular that often seems to be to many 'staunch' liberty advocates around here.
Want DP delivered to your inbox daily? Subscribe here: