BellGab.com Archive

Quote from: Sardondi on April 11, 2012, 09:01:46 AM
He's certainly no conservative. Politically he's far more populist, with a good bit of libertarian thrown in.

I'm sorry Sardondi; the above statement is absolutely 100% incorrect.

Just recently (within the last 4 weeks) he has stated that he prefers the republicans in power over democrats. That he and his family has voted Republican in the past and only recently (since his increase in popularity) has truly embraced the libertarian Ron Paul.

He is as populist as much as Snorry is a linguist or in as much as Bill Cooper lived his life in sobriety. You are giving him way too much credit.

If you have read the Rolling Stone article on him. It is a fair portrait of the man. He even linked the article from his website. He is an entertainer. Do you know who his father in law is? This is a family business.

I do give him kudos for that Grove video movie he made. Creepy stuff. In a New Jersey Devil movie sort of way. 

I stand by my statement that Jones is a populist cum libertarian with few if any conservative instincts. The fact Jones says he prefers Republicans and his family votes for them is no "admission" he's a conservative. Indeed, for at least the last two decades significant distinctions can be made between conservatives and Republicans. Besides, the vast majority of libertarians and populists can find no home at all in the solidly statist, authoritarian and crony-capitalist/phony-capitalist Democrat Party of the 21st century. If they wanted their vote to count for something they had no choice but to vote Republican. Which is exactly what conservatives feel as well about the GOP.

But more persuasive is the fact that Jones is an almost textbook populist, constantly playing the "average guy" against "the elltes". And where he may deviate, it's always in favor of the libertarian view, not conservative.

As for using a Rolling Stone article to bolster your claim that Jones is a conservative, that's an odd choice for an appeal-to-authority argument, inasmuch as it still claims to have anti-establishment bona fides. Besides, in the 40 years I've read RS the one consistent editorial position Jann Wenner's vanity mag has taken is its dedicated animus against conservatism. RS has demonstrated time and again its willingness to make any claim just so long as it might embarrass conservatives or conservatism, and, in keeping with leftist principles and practice, the truth or falsity of a claim is entirely irrelevant. Sorry, but Jones belongs to Bob LaFollette, George Wallace, Dennis Kucinich and Ross Perot; not Frederich Hayek, Russel Kirk and Ronald Reagan.

Quote from: Sardondi on April 11, 2012, 09:41:44 PM
I stand by my statement that Jones is a populist cum libertarian with few if any conservative instincts. The fact Jones says he prefers Republicans and his family votes for them is no "admission" he's a conservative. Indeed, for at least the last two decades significant distinctions can be made between conservatives and Republicans. Besides, the vast majority of libertarians and populists can find no home at all in the solidly statist, authoritarian and crony-capitalist/phony-capitalist Democrat Party of the 21st century. If they wanted their vote to count for something they had no choice but to vote Republican. Which is exactly what conservatives feel as well about the GOP.

But more persuasive is the fact that Jones is an almost textbook populist, constantly playing the "average guy" against "the elltes". And where he may deviate, it's always in favor of the libertarian view, not conservative.

As for using a Rolling Stone article to bolster your claim that Jones is a conservative, that's an odd choice for an appeal-to-authority argument, inasmuch as it still claims to have anti-establishment bona fides. Besides, in the 40 years I've read RS the one consistent editorial position Jann Wenner's vanity mag has taken is its dedicated animus against conservatism. RS has demonstrated time and again its willingness to make any claim just so long as it might embarrass conservatives or conservatism, and, in keeping with leftist principles and practice, the truth or falsity of a claim is entirely irrelevant. Sorry, but Jones belongs to Bob LaFollette, George Wallace, Dennis Kucinich and Ross Perot; not Frederich Hayek, Russel Kirk and Ronald Reagan.

A fair refutation.  I respectfully withdraw a large portion of my original comment. To my own detriment I often think of conservative, republican and libertarian as different shades of the same colour, thus blurring the context and meaning.

Although it is obvious you did not read the Rolling Stone article. It did not attempt to paint Alex with any colours. Therefore I could not possibly  refer to it to bolster any claim to his conservatism. If you are an Alex fan then I believe you would like the story. I like it. I thought it humanized him. It was nice to think of him in another light rather than the usual ranting idiot he often plays.

This brings me back to the part of my statement that I stand by. He is entertainment and there is nothing wrong with that.

As far as believing him; I've honestly tried. I guess I'm just too narrow minded. I just don't buy what he is selling. Ninety nine percent of the time his evangelist rants don't pass my smell test.

Thank you for your clear explanation. The thoughtful insight helped me to further understand your position.

As far as the threads subject matter, "Does C2C cater to the right-wing to stay alive?" Yes, I believe both C2CAM and Alex Jones remain guilty of catering.

Later 

Well done.

BS9 and Sardondi - my sincerest compliments to both of you for an intellectual discussion on this topic. I am quite impressed with both of you and one day, hopefully, I can express myself as well as either of you.

I understand that a libertarian basically believes in a small government (if any government at all) and what could be viewed as (almost) complete freedom.

However anarchistic (elimination of the state/government) and minarchistic (minimal government to prevent violence against one another, fraud, breech of contract). Why is it that libertarians seem to have a belief in common ownership over private ownership? This seems rather socialistic or even communistic - on the surface anyway.

For any type of libertarian society to actually function properly you would need for all the citizenry to be intelligent, educated and equally non-greedy. While time could improve the overall state of societal intelligence and knowledge to reduce/eliminate that basic human instinct of gathering and acquiring more to gain comfort and advantage would be virtually impossible to eradicate.

Sadondi, I totally agree that the conservatives (largely Tea Party) have to align themselves with the GOP overall as they need a home and a place to work from. Same with socialists and the ultra-left with the democrats. The left has been far more successful over the past decades gaining influence within their adopted party. The Tea Party/conservatives are learning how it is done and are making headway. This upsets not only the status quo GOP but the left as well as they will encounter a formidable opponent who is equally as diligent and capable.

Hopefully I haven't wasted either of your time. Anyway, your conversation is quite refreshing.

QuoteWhy is it that libertarians seem to have a belief in common ownership over private ownership?

Not sure what you mean by this. Can you offer an example ?

QuoteFor any type of libertarian society to actually function properly you would need for all the citizenry to be intelligent, educated and equally non-greedy. While time could improve the overall state of societal intelligence and knowledge to reduce/eliminate that basic human instinct of gathering and acquiring more to gain comfort and advantage would be virtually impossible to eradicate.

I'd disagree. A libertarian society doesn't have to be Utopian to work, any more than any other system does.

"Calling yourself a libertarian today is a lot like wearing a mullet back in the nineteen eighties. It sends a clear signal: business up front, party in the back."

source

Steve - Common Ownership where the assets of an enterprise are held collectively rather than in the names of the individual members or by a public institution such as a governmental body. Private Ownership basically supports private property rights in the ownership of unappropriated land and natural resources.

There are also Consequential Libertarians who argue that a free market and strong private property rights bring about beneficial consequences, such as wealth creation or efficiency, rather than subscribing to a theory of rights or justice. This seems far more like your basic entrepreneurial model of capitalism.

I'm certainly no authority on these political and social philosophies. I suggest doing a search and drilling down to gain details. Like most people, I am on a constant learning curve. Most of us are ignorant of virtually all things. We just think we know what we're talking about - and that certainly includes me ... he!he!

The title of this thread dealing alleging C2C is pandering to the "right wing" ... all of these folks they have on talking about bank and corporate takeovers ... are the guests suggesting these entities are "left wing". If so, then the "right wing" is legitimized by exposing and trying to counter these entities are they not?

Quote from: Zircon on August 14, 2012, 12:08:23 PM
The title of this thread dealing alleging C2C is pandering to the "right wing" ... all of these folks they have on talking about bank and corporate takeovers ... are the guests suggesting these entities are "left wing". If so, then the "right wing" is legitimized by exposing and trying to counter these entities are they not?

bulletproof reasoning.

Quote from: Zircon on August 14, 2012, 12:08:23 PM... all of these folks they have on talking about bank and corporate takeovers ...

who has what?

i just googled Coast to coast trashes bush. LOTS to choose from.  Get over it. funny how it was cute and true and LA LA LA... when it bush. But dont you DARE call MESSIAH   anything less then a  LIVING GOD. well sorry you  can keep DEAR LEADER.  go have a beer with him  talk about unemployment lines. Tell me one thing. Whats better. 4=5% or even if you wanna use those odd numbers 12%  or  8-10% or those odd numbers used for unemployment...  who's was better? he wasn't the greatest by a long shot.... but he sure as hell didn't deserve all the garbage he got from lefties... while Today lefties are silent. not a peep.  in fact id guessing you will make excuses and for  bad econ. or even go so far as to blame bush. KNOWING the demos took over congress in 2006 and refused to do crap. and even with a DEM congress and house and  white house. OBUMMER  still wont get a budget.... and now the lefts new lows... YOU HAVE CHAINS ON ?  KILLED A MANS WIFE ?  FELON ?  TAX CHEAT ?   sounds like Obummers white house. if you ask me. not Romney.