Balbust, Again, this is silly. It all depends on what you define as "political." Whether a person is a Democrat or Republican, liberal or conservative, they are falling into a trap created for them by the establishment to keep them within a box, unable to think outside of the views they've been given. In case you haven't noticed, I am critical of all sides. Why is it so important to you that people label themselves? As I already said, if labeling somebody is so important, then feel free to label. But if you think I am going to fall into some trap by putting some establishment-given label on myself, which is all about divide and conquer, you've got another thing coming.
And once again you do not answer the questions put to you. So let us look at what you do say - “Whether a person is a Democrat or Republican, liberal or conservative, they are falling into a trap created for them by the establishment to keep them within a box, unable to think outside of the views they've been given" But this is my point, how can you claim to think outside the box if you will not tell anyone clearly what your political views are and what political policies you would like? I mean why would someone go to so much effort not to state clearly their views if they didn’t have something to hide? I mean you said earlier that everyone know your views but I’ve asked many of the people that have defended you like gardener and Angel and none have been able otr willing to reply, doesn’t that say something. As I’ve said this just seems like a con trick to try and fool people into think you are something you are not. If you really are thinking outside of normal political ideas what are those ideas? ** “In case you haven't noticed, I am critical of all sides” Well that is not exactly true, you have been very critical of traditional left wing views and ideas, have been disapproving of many aspects of traditional right wing policies but you have very rarely attacked right wing libertarian ideas, in fact you have at times claimed to be a libertarian and have on several occasions praised and promoted right wing libertarian views. ** “As I already said, if labeling somebody is so important, then feel free to label. But if you think I am going to fall into some trap by putting some establishment-given label on myself, which is all about divide and conquer, you've got another thing coming.” But a con trick by any other name still remains a con trick. If you truly are not trying to con people why not enter into an open and honest debate about your political views and ideas? **
Pitt “Well I'm not going to read all of this stuff” Old friend that was always your problem, you didn’t take the time to read the posts. I’m very happy to say that I did show where I had explained things to you before as well as the answers I had already given and I was able to give examples and back up my claims. That is what happens in a debate (and if the other person hasn’t bothered to read the posts) I only did it because your at points your only argument seems to be that I wasn’t explaining things or answering questions (something you were never able to back up, and never apologised for when I was able to supply examples) I would have been much happier actually debating new issues rather than having to defend myself from attacks that I hadn’t replied to some old issue or other that I had in fact done so. ** Basically I put forward a theory and you were unable to refute it and even seemed to be backing it up. I’ve put up many theories in my life some have stood others withered in the spotlight of scrutiny in the same way I have disagreed with theories in debates that I’ve been unable to topple. The thing is to not go bitching about it and throwing out accusations that you cannot back up what you should be asking yourself is why the theory seemed to have stood and reflect on you own position. That is how in life people learn. You can choose to learn from such things or not, the fact that you can’t even be bothered to read the posts in a thread before posting something seems to give an indication of what direction you have chosen. **
** Surprise, surprise, once again Rat has failed to explain his views. It makes you wonder what he is trying to hide. **
Pitt As I’ve said you throw out a hell of a lot of accusations but you never seem able to back them up. Maybe if you stopped bitching and actually went back, read the thread and tried to learn from it you wouldn’t feel the need to bring up already refuted claims and actually begin to make some valid points. Good luck and regards Balbus.
This is an excerpt from the initiating post of this thread. I find it funny that Balbus has chosen this thread to concentrate his efforts to force Rat to declare his political leanings. It almost reinforces the purpose of the thread.
I've been an occasional reader of Rat's posts on these boards for years, but never really posted much because he seemed so much like a scary ideologue. The most frightening thing is that he spends so long writing exactly the same thing over and over and over again like some obsessed monomaniac. I don't think he's had a new thought for years. Anyway... One thing I notice is how there are one or two interesting and plausible ideas in what he writes about the artifical right wing / left wing debate that goes on in the media, which could be seen to act as a mechanism of propaganda such as outlined in Chomsky's Manufacturing Consent. What Rat fails to notice however is that these institutional biases can occur naturally according to the internalised principles of those involved, they never require specific articulation, and they don't require overall organisation and control. I suppose if you fail to understand this, then it makes sense to posit some kind of shadowy world government elite to explain the apparently complex mechanisms of propaganda and thought control which our political system and media bring about. Kind of like if you don't understand evolution, it makes sense to posit that there must be a creator to explain the complexity of life.
Pitt why are you seemingly so bitter about this, so what if you couldn’t counter my theory, I would hope you would learn from it and revaluate your viewpoint but if you are incapable wouldn’t it be better to just drop it? If you are incapable of dropping it wouldn’t it be better to go back to the appropriate thread and discuss it, rather than spreading your rancour around the forum? You made accusations, I’ve pointed out you seem incapable of backing them up and you still seem incapable of backing them up and if you could have backed them up I somehow I think you would have done so by now. But if you have something to say please do it in that other thread and not here. Thank you Balbus
Lithium Interesting points But i believe Rat doesn't like Chomsky so i'm not sure if he has read Manufacturing Consent? **
** …chirp,chirp, chirp, chirp, oh I can here the crickets but of the rat nothing, chirp, chirp, chirp… **
I consider myself middle of the road. The reason being that one side gets neglected when we choose the other side. All voices have to be heard, nomatter how unpleasant it may be to some. "You can please some of the people some of the time, but not all of the people all of the time. It's time for some sane moderatism and good leadership. Good people; my message to you is run for office. Too many carreer politicians are running things.
