Comment: Careful Thought

(See in situ)

In post: Deleted

Careful Thought

Nystrom writes:
"Yes, I called you a shill. Do I think you are one? No. But I want to you think about how it feels to be called one.

Because you basically called EVERYONE who disagrees with some of what Rand Paul says or does "a neocon shill" in your title. And unlike me, most people don't read the whole post. They just read headlines. Hell, I don't blame them. People are busy. They only have time to scan headlines."

Are you seriously trying to say a title alone conveys the context and the majority on the DP don't know titles are not the context? Where in the title does it say everyone who doesn't agree with some of what Rand Paul says or does is a shill? It seems to me it hit a nerve with you to assume the title would give the context. Are you seriously saying most of the DP is not adult enough to realize the Title is just that and not the whole of the meaning of the OP?

If people are just reading the title and not the OP and assuming that it means they are a shill if they do not agree with some of what Rand says or does that is quite a stretch of the imagination. If they know they are not neocon shills it should not bother them at all. And if it draws them in as it should the OP then goes on to elaborate and give the context as an article should. Unless they are of course blinded by their knee jerk reaction from taking the title out of context of the OP and imagining some false construct in their minds that is just not there.

And so you want me to host that headline of the front of the DP? Nope. Sorry.

You can change the title,if you want, but as it stands, the post itself is fairly infantile as well.

Come on Micheal are you telling me you thought the David Duke anti-Jew BS post was ok and this was infantile? Look it's your board and you are entitled to do what you want but this seems more like an knee jerk reaction to the title then anything else.

One of my good friends on this board and off line fishyculture doesn't agree with me on this point and she simply explained her reasoning as to why and was not all butt hurt thinking I was calling her a shill or anything like it.And I a pretty much agree with all her concerns too. I went out of my way to explain I have my concerns with Rand and do not agree with him on everything either am I calling myself a shill then? Come on...

Quoting me Michael writes:
"They are scared of us coalescing into a united front with the conservatives and kicking their asses sweeping away the old guard."

This is an assertion. Where is the argument to back it up? Do you know the difference between an assertion and an argument?

Its an opinion not an assertion. Jeeze do I have to put a disclaimer on every line just because people are so overly emotional about something?

"For now, let's just take your unfounded assertion as fact. What should we do about those people who are trying to divide the movement? Should we banish them from the DP? Ban them?

Be careful what you wish for, and be careful of the assertions that you lob in the midst of revolution, because they can come back to haunt you."

Nowhere have I even hinted anyone should be banished. I am not wishing for anything. Why have I hit such a nerve with you on this? What is it you think will come back to haunt me? I am 54 years old Micheal I have been in this fight for liberty for 30 years. Long before the DP and long before many here and even the advent of the internet when there were very few in it and the derision and ridicule were hundreds of times what you see now. I have seen most everything not much surprises me anymore. However now you seem to be making an unfounded assertion that my statement will comeback to haunt me I'd like to know what you think it is that could come back to haunt me?

For example:
Quoting me:
"Now I know not everyone dissing Rand is a shill but there are definitely agitators here trying to stir the pot and keep us divided."

I formally accuse you of being one of the "agitators...trying to stir the pot and keep us divided." Your title is CLEAR evidence of that.

Really So I point out some of the over top agitators for their shilling and suddenly I am doing the same... Ok.. Sigh. My title was a title and my OP clarified my intentions as articles are supposed to. How does taking things out of context (the title without the op) become clear evidence? Especially the quote of me clarifying that not everyone dissing Rand is a shill. It makes no sense.

What should I do with shills such as you?

Prove I am one by fleshing me out with questioning like I am doing.

Do you think this is a game? We're talking about Revolution here. Study them - revolutions. This is not a game.

So identifying the agitators and fleshing them outis not what you think we should be doing in a revolution? What is it we should be doing then Micheal? Sitting back and let them continue to agitate the divide or call them out and let them hang themselves with their increasingly absurd accusations? What is it you think you know about revolutions that I don't? Like I said I have been in this fight a long time I'll compare my record to anyone's.

Sometimes it is the accusers who are the ones that are haunted, and hunted because of their words. They can come back to bite. A simple example is above.

Be careful with your words. 
Quoting me agian:
"I have my concerns about him but we have nothing to lose that we haven't already and lots to gain."

Nothing to lose? Really? What happens if you get duped and played for a useful idiot? You lose nothing? Really?

I disagree. But if again, if we take your assertion at face value, this is my response: Is that the best argument you have? "What the heck, we've got nothing to lose, and no one better so let's roll the dice." Really? Roll the funcking dice? That is your best argument?
Sorry, but that is the lamest argument I have ever heard.

OK Micheal so whats your plan then? Tell me if we roll the dice and Rand turns out to be a shill how does that change anything from what we have now? It just means we rolled the dice that he was a liberty candidate and he turned out not to be one hence nothing changed from where we are at now with the current communists in office.

So lets take the lamest argument you claim to have ever heard and compare it to oh lets say; do nothing since we have no one else in that arena that might possibly be a liberty candidate. So what is the difference? NOTHING!

I am all ears if you have a better plan that will move us even one step closer to liberty?

- - - -
Again, I don't think you're a shill. But I don't think you've thought out your position very well. And I resent ignorant people carelessly handling flamethrowers. Especially on my dime.

Glad to hear. However I don't think you thought your position through either you made a lot of accusations and complaints called me ignorant etc. but have not offered a single alternative as a solution. I think I have dispelled your ignorant remark and proven I have thought it through more then most.

Please, read it over:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Useful_idiot
Don't become one. And please - don't use the DP to recruit others.
And after you've read it, please change your title.

So if Rand gets in there and screws us how does that change anything from what we already have since we are already screwed? Seriously your acting like I don't know what I am doing and you know something I don't so lets hear it if you think that is the case?

Nothing ventured nothing gained. Better to try and funck up then to do nothing. At least that way we can learn from our mistake and correct course. Sitting on ones hands afraid to act for fear we are not making the right choice is the surest way to accomplish nothing and is the true anti-liberty hell IMO. I'd rather act and make a mistake and learn from it then do nothing!

Again lets hear your brilliant plan that makes one more then a useful idiot?

-----
End The Fat
70 pounds lost and counting! Get in shape for the revolution!

Get Prepared!