How do we fight illuminati like this?

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@Chronos

I think you are confusing Libertarian with Republican. I think most libertarians are in favor of gay marriage, pro-choice, would allow someone to get drugs from wherever they want, would get rid of the FCC (at least the censorship part), and would legalize all drugs.

Libertarians such as who? Remember, the Pauls are constantly praised as being libertarian politicians, probably the most significant libertarian politicians in the country… How much of that do they support?

I would presume that they would at the very least support legalized pot.

[emacknight]

@Damuri_Ajashi

@Oakminster

Soooo…the First Amendment is a bad idea?

If we do things your way, then I get to round up the usual suspects on this very board and ship them off to the gulag for hating conservatives. Hmmmm…maybe you’re on to something here…

Its not opinions we should try to control, it is the deliberate dissemination of lies.

Ah dear boy, truth is in the eye of the beholder, and reality is just a commodity. One man’s lie is another man’s means to advertising revenue.

[emacknight]

@Damuri_Ajashi

@Chronos

Libertarians such as who? Remember, the Pauls are constantly praised as being libertarian politicians, probably the most significant libertarian politicians in the country… How much of that do they support?

I would presume that they would at the very least support legalized pot.

Would it make them richer? No

Would it mean fewer poor people being disenfranchised from their vote [from being incarcerated]? Yes

Result: criminalize the hell out of it.

[Kimmy_Gibbler]

@IdahoMauleMan

Firstly, you should read something other than the New Yorker.

God, is this what it’s like to be a modern-day libertarian? You can’t read the New Yorker? What if I happen to like their movie reviews?

[emacknight]

@Kimmy_Gibbler

@IdahoMauleMan

Firstly, you should read something other than the New Yorker.

God, is this what it’s like to be a modern-day libertarian? You can’t read the New Yorker? What if I happen to like their movie reviews?

They’re all lies to encourage you to watch movies produced by Liberal Hollywood elitists, which I believe is still controlled by the Jews.

[furt]

@Damuri_Ajashi

@Fear_Itself

Not any more. Where have you been?

He probably reads the New Yorker, which is sooo yesterday.

With taht said, the quiet influence of the Koch’s (promounced like coke) is pretty common knowledge.

They are libertarians in the “I have mine, screw everyone else” sense of the word.

Bullshit. You got a cite for that, or are you making things up?

They are big supporters of the Libertarian Party, which is pro-legalization, pro-immigration, anti-corporate welfare, anti-war, etc.

[Claverhouse]

@elbows

Hate laws. If it’s pointedly untrue, and the people spreading it are aware, if it’s targeted at a specific demographic, it’s hate speech, and a crime. Even just identifying it as such, would go a long way. Put the focus on the 'hate’ful part of what they are doing. Would they continue to walk a fine line? Without a doubt, but much of what’s out there, (birthers, he’s a muslim crowd), would be silenced. And rightly so.

It’s what keeps Anne Coulter choosing her words more carefully, when she’s in Canada.

It should be illegal to spread hate, in my opinion.

I quite agree. However this only goes to the effects of the problem, and not the problem itself, which is bad-thinking. Forcibly stopping people from communicating their thoughts to the gullible and innocent — citizens easily led astray by racist or nazi or sexist or anti-modernist propaganda against their true better natures — still leaves this faction with bad thoughts which, even if they tell no-one, poisons and endangers the nature of society.

The only answers are Education, firm rigorous education in permitted thought from two years and up, and continuous re-education throughout life to prevent lapses; and the utmost vigilance in rooting out evidence of illiberal thinking. Citizens should be regularly interrogated to confess any doubts or disagreements they might have with state ideology, and punished if any thinking fails to conform. Children should be enrolled to watch their relatives and denounce any failings. Garbage must be rifled through. Watchful cameras installed in every room. Censors should have the power to visit any time of the day or night to force people to justify their thoughts.

These are strong measures, but only thus can we be free.

[JRDelirious]

@BrainGlutton

Wait, these billionaire brothers are RWs. Aren’t the Illuminati LWs fnord? The originals were (for their time).

We are not of the Left. We are not of the Right. We are in the Light of Above.

[Mosier]

Whoa, billionaires are spending a bunch of money promoting libertarian political ideology? How surprising!

[Nzinga_Seated]

I finally decided to look up the pronunciation of ‘tu quoque’. I never used it in my so-called ‘debates’ with friends or husband because I didn’t know how to say it. This thread got itchin’ to use it on their asses again and I decided to finally look it up. Too-quoh-quee. I would have never thought that was the way to say it.

But yeah. All my illuminati peeps, throw your rings up.

[GIGObuster]

@Bricker

So in debate terms, the onus now falls to the OP to draw a principled distinction between Soros and the Koches.

I’m not the OP but I first learned about Soros and his efforts to fund democratic movements inside the former Soviet world.

But looking at current differences, Soros is aware of the problems coming thanks to climate change and willing to use his money on the effort.

The Times & The Sunday Times

Stock Portfolio & Tracker - Yahoo Finance

The Koches have been in the radar of climate researchers and bloggers for being… well tools for their own well being, the well being of the world is not their worry.

http://climateprogress.org/2010/08/19/david-koch-proposition-23ab-32/

Much has been reported about how Texan oil companies Valero and Tesoro have been fighting to repeal the landmark clean energy climate change law, AB 32. The Wonk Room recently obtained a PowerPoint from Tesoro showing that the company made a pitch to oil companies, including BP, to join their effort known as Proposition 23.

But there is another powerful out-of-state fossil fuel interest trying to eviscerate California’s pioneering climate change law: Koch Industries. The Wonk Room has learned that Koch Industries is funding the lead “grassroots” group organizing support for Proposition 23, and is also funding the Pacific Research Institute, the main think-tank producing junk studies smearing AB 32.

As ThinkProgress and the Wonk Room have detailed, Koch Industries is the largest funder of climate change denying and anti-environmental regulation fronts worldwide and its Americans for Prosperity Foundation is responsible for helping to create the so-called Tea Party movement. While the Koch brothers at the helm of Koch Industries are committed right-wing ideologues, their financing of front groups helps boost the profits of their conglomerate. Koch Industries contributes heavily to carbon pollution through their asphalt, timber, and oil refinery subsidiaries, and the University of Massachusetts lists Koch as the the 10th worst air polluter in America.

In its corporate newsletter, Koch Industries explicitly states that the low carbon fuel standard California is set to adopt to comply with AB 32 carbon emissions regulations would harm its bottom line because Koch imports mostly high-carbon crude oil from Canada. Another Koch newsletter warns that its Pine Bend Refinery in Minnesota specializing in high-carbon Canadian crude would become much less profitable for Koch if low fuel standards mirroring AB 32 are adopted around the country.

In an attempt to kill AB 32 and squash the likelihood that similar laws spread nationwide, Americans for Prosperity California — a front group founded and funded by Koch Industries executive David Koch — has been organizing Tea Party rallies with Prop 23 proponent Assemblyman Dan Logue (R-Linda), bringing Tea Party support to AB 32 repeal hearings, and producing videos calling on Californians to pass Prop 23.

[The_Facts]

@Bricker

@elbows

Hate laws. If it’s pointedly untrue, and the people spreading it are aware, if it’s targeted at a specific demographic, it’s hate speech, and a crime. Even just identifying it as such, would go a long way. Put the focus on the 'hate’ful part of what they are doing. Would they continue to walk a fine line? Without a doubt, but much of what’s out there, (birthers, he’s a muslim crowd), would be silenced. And rightly so.

It’s what keeps Anne Coulter choosing her words more carefully, when she’s in Canada.

It should be illegal to spread hate, in my opinion.

Really?

It should be illegal for someone to say, “Barack Obama was born in Kenya, and he’s a Muslim?”

If they are on TV or other position of influence? Yes.

[gonzomax]

@Mosier

Whoa, billionaires are spending a bunch of money promoting libertarian political ideology? How surprising!

They are entitled to profess even as stupid an ideology as Libertarianism. But when they claim they are not Libertarians, it is different. They claim to be main line type businessmen. Only interested in the welfare of the country. It is BS. They use names for the funding organizations that sound so harmless. They should stand up and admit what they are ,instead of hiding under bland names for shadow Libertarian organizations.

[The_Facts]

@Bricker

So in debate terms, the onus now falls to the OP to draw a principled distinction between Soros and the Koches.

Ready? Go slow now …

Soros wants what’s good for America and is using his money to help people.
The Kochs don’t give a shit about America and hate people (or at least people unlike them.)

Simple enough for you? Good … evil. See the difference?

[GIGObuster]

@furt

@Damuri_Ajashi

He probably reads the New Yorker, which is sooo yesterday.

With taht said, the quiet influence of the Koch’s (promounced like coke) is pretty common knowledge.

They are libertarians in the “I have mine, screw everyone else” sense of the word.

Bullshit. You got a cite for that, or are you making things up?

They are big supporters of the Libertarian Party, which is pro-legalization, pro-immigration, anti-corporate welfare, anti-war, etc.

Must be lesser known Libertarians because guys like Rand Paul are not really following most of the items you mentioned.

I’m not sure what is the situation now that Rand won the Republican primary in Kentucky, Does the Libertarian party and Koch continue to avoid giving open support to Rand or do libertarians there are showing more support for him?

[IdahoMauleMan]

@Kimmy_Gibbler

@IdahoMauleMan

Firstly, you should read something other than the New Yorker.

God, is this what it’s like to be a modern-day libertarian? You can’t read the New Yorker? What if I happen to like their movie reviews?

I love the New Yorker. We’ll at least some parts of it.

The fiction is perfect airport reading, the cartoons and the cartoon contest at the end are without peer anywhere, and I like James Suriowecki’s (sp?) columns.

The movie reviews are also snappy and fun to read. I agree.

Hendrik Hertzberg’s columns make Paul Krugman look like a balanced moderate, however. And when they want to get on a political soapbox via a longer article (like the one being discussed in this thread) its a slam-dunk as to what part of the political spectrum it will eminate from.

And I just ended a sentence in a preposition. Which they would never do.

[Oakminster]

@The_Facts

@Bricker

Really?

It should be illegal for someone to say, “Barack Obama was born in Kenya, and he’s a Muslim?”

If they are on TV or other position of influence? Yes.

Please cite controlling legal authority in the United States for that position.

Hint: You can’t. It doesn’t exist, because it would be a blatant violation of the First Amendment.

[Kobal2]

@Oakminster

Please cite controlling legal authority in the United States for that position.

Hint: You can’t. It doesn’t exist, because it would be a blatant violation of the First Amendment.

Yet the FCC can silence or at least fine someone for saying “fuck” on air.

[Captain_Amazing]

@The_Facts

@Bricker

So in debate terms, the onus now falls to the OP to draw a principled distinction between Soros and the Koches.

Ready? Go slow now …

Soros wants what’s good for America and is using his money to help people.
The Kochs don’t give a shit about America and hate people (or at least people unlike them.)

Simple enough for you? Good … evil. See the difference?

Well, I’m sure the Kochs believe the policies they advocate would benefit America. And Soros’s enemies say that the groups and policies he funds are hurting the US. So I don’t see that there’s that much of a difference in what they’re doing.

[marshmallow]

@CurtC

I need to get a current program - I thought that the Illuminati were progressives.

I thought it was weird back in 2008 when Democratic party liberals started to call themselves progressives, a label not in common parlance AFAIK since the end of prohibition. What will they use when they’re inevitably shamed out of the progressive label by the mean old right? Maybe Whigs?