HEARTLESS wrote: I can't answer your question, why DID you do that?
Can't answer, or won't answer? Trying to deflect analysis away from what you're trying to say about the thug in the video won't make your assertion go away. Nor will it validate your assertion this is a guy even worth listening to.
Back to the same ole same ole, I'll type slow for the reading and comprehension impaired.
1. Why did you expand the definition of thug?
2. For someone that "watched and listened to the entire video" how could you miss the term useful idiot that applies to the tools on the Left?
HEARTLESS wrote: Back to the same ole same ole, I'll type slow for the reading and comprehension impaired.
1. Why did you expand the definition of thug?
2. For someone that "watched and listened to the entire video" how could you miss the term useful idiot that applies to the tools on the Left?
And you, apparently, are back to your same old same old. You condemn the alleged "thugs" who protested in Ferguson and New York City for their actions, and are now holding this guy out there as someone to be admired, to be listened to. I didn't miss the reference to useful idiots. What I'm saying is it goes both ways. You consider the Left to be useful idiots. I consider the Right to be the same, if not more so. Anyone who would drink the koolaid this guy is espousing, especially given his advocacy for violence, right alongside his being a "taker" while espousing that very same violence against the government that provides a means by which he is, in fact, a taker, really should be looking at the irony and the contradictions of their own stance in this regard.
I've listened to his speeches many times and have NEVER heard him advocate any sort of vandalism nor does he advocate violent resistance; in fact, quite the opposite. He does openly advocate flaunting the unenforceable and ridiculous standard capacity magazine ban. He does openly advocate armed self-defense when there is no alternative.
Not surprised that your "sources" vilify him. They're terrified of anyone who believes in the Constitutional Republic.
But that's all sideshow. The point is that inventing terms to control debate is a standard tactic. That's all.
HEARTLESS wrote: So if you broaden the definition of "thug" to include those advocating open vandalism, instead of the traditional "cruel or vicious ruffian, robber or murderer" then all most all of the protesters across the nation are now thugs. Okay.
Why would I do that? You're the one who's saying Vanderboegh is worth listening to. You even go so far as to say "Anyone that values the freedoms we have left should watch that video." The concept of who is, and who is not, a "thug" goes both ways. This guy just keeps his own hands clean while urging others to do his dirty work for him. In my mind, that's the worst kind of manipulator.
Z, you're the one that called the guy a thug in the first place, but then went on to say he's keeping his hands clean. A thug is generally the one with his hands dirty.
"Whatever you are, be a good one." ~ Abraham Lincoln
ZHawke wrote: Back to the same ole same ole, I'll type slow for the reading and comprehension impaired.
1. Why did you expand the definition of thug?
2. For someone that "watched and listened to the entire video" how could you miss the term useful idiot that applies to the tools on the Left?
And you, apparently, are back to your same old same old. You condemn the alleged "thugs" who protested in Ferguson and New York City for their actions, and are now holding this guy out there as someone to be admired, to be listened to. I didn't miss the reference to useful idiots. What I'm saying is it goes both ways. You consider the Left to be useful idiots. I consider the Right to be the same, if not more so. Anyone who would drink the koolaid this guy is espousing, especially given his advocacy for violence, right alongside his being a "taker" while espousing that very same violence against the government that provides a means by which he is, in fact, a taker, really should be looking at the irony and the contradictions of their own stance in this regard.
Are you now claiming to be clairvoyant as well? I said "Anyone that values the freedoms we have left should watch that video." Nothing else. All the accusatory remarks are yours alone. Watching a fool prove he is one is fun, but I've got things to do. Continue your quest for fools glory or shut up while someone still has any faith in you, I don't care.
cydl wrote: I've listened to his speeches many times and have NEVER heard him advocate any sort of vandalism nor does he advocate violent resistance; in fact, quite the opposite. He does openly advocate flaunting the unenforceable and ridiculous standard capacity magazine ban. He does openly advocate armed self-defense when there is no alternative.
Not surprised that your "sources" vilify him. They're terrified of anyone who believes in the Constitutional Republic.
But that's all sideshow. The point is that inventing terms to control debate is a standard tactic. That's all.
As I listened to him, one of the things that struck me was how virtually everything he said could also be applied to a capitalistic society, as well. None of the systems he talked about is perfect. Nor is capitalism. And that is the issue I have with people like him when talking about "systems", and choosing to focus his attention on those without including all of them - capitalism specifically.
Edited to add: as for the vandalism assertion, if you've visited his blog, you'll know what you've said in your post simply is not true. Violent resistance, according to him, is also permissible if someone else fires the first shot. One could also aver, given his "armed resistance" stance, that he is being very provocative in the hope gunfire does occur.
As for the "sources" I use to "vilify him" - a simple Google search of just his name brings up all kinds of stuff on his advocacy for violence. Granted, most of those are left leaning sites, but if he doesn't advocate violence, why are there so many that say he does and so few that say he does not?
Finally, I agree that inventing terms to control debate is a standard tactic. I just don't agree that tactic is exclusive to those on the Left. It's endemic to both Left and Right and in between.
HEARTLESS wrote: Are you now claiming to be clairvoyant as well? I said "Anyone that values the freedoms we have left should watch that video." Nothing else. All the accusatory remarks are yours alone. Watching a fool prove he is one is fun, but I've got things to do. Continue your quest for fools glory or shut up while someone still has any faith in you, I don't care.
Interesting. The only person I need to have any faith in me is me, myself, and I. And I'm good with that. They say it takes two to tango (fools, that is). Yes, you did say, "Anyone that values the freedoms we have left should watch that video." I did watch it because I do, in fact, value the freedoms we have left. I found the video wanting in many regards, and I shared those. You seem to have a LOT of trouble accepting anything from anyone having an opinion not in lock step with your own. First, you accuse me of tap dancing around issues. Then you accuse me of not answering questions when asked. Then you get upset with the answers I do provide and assert they aren't even answers. Talk about someone being all over the map - you certainly do fit that bill.
Nobody that matters wrote: Z, you're the one that called the guy a thug in the first place, but then went on to say he's keeping his hands clean. A thug is generally the one with his hands dirty.
That's pretty disingenuous when you come right down to it. The fact many on the Right aren't willing to apply this derogatory term to those, such as the guy in this video, whose hands are "clean" doesn't seem a bit ironic to you? For example, Richard Sherman of the Seattle Seahawks was kind of branded as a "thug" just for some of the remarks he made. His hands are clean, but it seems there's a double standard, of sorts, when it comes to a definitive definition of what the word actually means and to whom it actually applies. I applied the "thug" label to the guy in the video from a perspective not of keeping his hands clean, but rather, that he manipulates others to do his violent bidding while staying in the background not having to bear the consequences of his actions. Remember a guy named Hitler? Would he be branded as a "thug" even though it was his minions who carried out his orders?
Again, a simple Google search of "who are the real thugs" reveals some very interesting results.
HEARTLESS wrote: Back to the same ole same ole, I'll type slow for the reading and comprehension impaired.
1. Why did you expand the definition of thug?
2. For someone that "watched and listened to the entire video" how could you miss the term useful idiot that applies to the tools on the Left?
Answer to question #1: I didn't expand it. You tried to do so by bringing in your definition to include, and I quote:
HEARTLESS wrote: So if you broaden the definition of "thug" to include those advocating open vandalism, instead of the traditional "cruel or vicious ruffian, robber or murderer" then all most all of the protesters across the nation are now thugs. Okay.
You made a statement. You did not ask a question.
Answer to question #2: there's a whole lot more to the video than just one quote regarding useful idiots as applies to the tools on the Left. Again, that goes both ways in any scenario - both Left and Right. The guy in this video is hopeful that useful idiots on the Right will sit up, take notice, act upon his manipulations, and give him way more publicity and pseudo-credibility than he deserves.
Challenge, HEARTLESS: here's your chance to shine or go down in flames, so to speak. Do you support/believe in what Mike Vanderboegh advocates? If so, why? If not, why not? Specific questions. I hope you can find it within yourself to give some specific answers to those questions.
$12K A Day: How White Liberals Profit From Pushing ‘White Privilege’
White liberal academics can earn more in a day lecturing about their own “white privilege” than the median black household makes in three months, public records obtained by the Daily Caller News Foundation and U.S. Census data show.
Left-wing academic Robin DiAngelo is renowned in social justice circles for crafting the “white privilege checklist” and for coining the term “white fragility.” Listening to her speak comes at a steep price.
DiAngelo, who is white, charged the University of Kentucky $12,000, not counting travel expenses, housing accommodations and meals, for a two-hour “Racial Justice Keynote and breakout session” in March, according to a copy of the speaking contract obtained by the DCNF through public records requests.
“Dr. DiAngelo’s schedule cannot accommodate phone calls related to services,” the contract states, instructing that all communications be sent via email or through DiAngelo’s assistant. “If phone calls are deemed necessary, they will be charged at a rate of $320 per hour.”
DiAngelo’s fee for the event was more than a quarter of the annual median income for black families which is just over $40,000, according to U.S. Census data.
The description for the two-hour event said DiAngelo would be talking about her book, “White Fragility: Why is it so hard for white people to talk about racism?”
