Comment: Now for the challenge: making

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: How cool! (see in situ)

Now for the challenge: making

Now for the challenge: making sure these frauds don't ruin the libertarian name!

Yep. That's something to act and react against. That's where citing sources such as books, articles, essays, speeches, interviews and so forth come in to play.

To be offensive and defensive/reactive on this issue regardless who the neocon is is to do what radio host Jack Hunter did to Glenn Beck on Beck's show recently when Beck in false astonishment (which bordered accusation) brought up libertarianism purity testing, a tactic to excuse himself from not only not defending liberty all his years in media but to excuse himself from advancing tyranny.

What did Hunter do? He replied stating the issue principles, the mental foundation that guides behavior, what Beck probably wants to avoid because principles don't imply, don't hint at, what someone did in relation to what he espouses, principles are what someone did in relation to what he espouses. And if Beck or anyone from his camp argues he didn't do anything, note the following: Beck's espousal of ideas in his years in media wasn't what could be described as mere talk, the talk you and I did and do because it's one to one or one to a small group; Beck's talking obliterated mere talking and solidifies significant influence because of this word which lead to his words reaching many people daily: exchange -- or, to be precise, payment. Beck's words were his doing, they were his work.

For the sake of wiping away any confusion, Beck's doing was for the commonality among all Americans, the something you and I, average Americans, work for so we can better our lives: the fruit of our labor in the form of our country's currency. For the currency you, I and Beck worked for in the years Beck was in the (mainstream) media, you and I worked for ourselves at no one's expense including that of Beck's -- while Beck worked for himself for nothing less than at the expense of you and me, his countrymen. That expense? That we be enslaved or dead.

Returning to Hunter-Beck: For some reason, no one else caught what Hunter did to Beck. Maybe Beck didn't, too. Hunter set Beck up to be exposed for what Beck is, a fraud, a dangerous one at that. Discussion about principles hereafter on Beck's show, if discussed about correctly, should make Beck uncomfortable. When I say discussed correctly, I mean Beck's guest(s) should say words that convey the past such as record, basis, foundation, history and, well, past. This kind of talk, principles discussion with those words, could cause Beck to ignore it, divert from it or play the I'm learning card, the degrees game, hence his "purity test" comment. The purity test comment distracts people from recalling his past, which is needed to show, or expose, him for what he is, an immense contradiction. So it's important the guest be aware of these tactics to return to making and concluding his point. It'll take time to expose Beck on his show, and it should take time because trying to do it soon and fast would backfire. So, be gradual and subtle.

That's how we should treat Ann and any other neocon. We should use Ann's work against her, just what Lysiandad did below. I understand the decision to choose between pitching 50 cents at a delicious butter coated banana nut muffin for a morning snack or onto the used book store counter for one of Ann's books, but the latter is an investment, one that'll keep Ann honest. If Ann isn't the neocon at the moment, then keep honest whoever is. Keep 'em honest and on point.

Discussing principles is the key that unlocks the door that exposes fraud.

Good observation, Redgyl.

School's fine. Just don't let it get in the way of thinking. -Me

Study nature, not books. -Walton Forest Dutton, MD, in his 1916 book whose subject is origin (therefore what all healing methods involve and count on), simple and powerful.