‘The conspiracy’ what’s the point?

According to Balbus, anyone who is spiritual is religious. This includes his new-age hippy brethren, apparently.

It would appear that Balbus dislikes anyone who believes in a higher power, even if, like myself, they don't subscribe to organized religion.

What a hoot!

Balbus is intent on repeating the same mantra over and over again, and it's clear this is because he doesn't have the facts to debate.

For instance:

"It also seems strange that he seems to have right wing and nationalistic libertarian views that would only seem to give the already wealthy and influential far more money and power."

I have already explained this numerous times, yet Balbus conveniently ignores whatever I say. It's much easier for him to label me a "fanatic," "libertarian" or "conservative" and move on without ever using facts. With most bleeding heart liberals like Balbus, it's all about image and nothing else. Never facts. Balbus is a lot like the Americans he hates, who are reactionary thinkers like him. Actually, they are just reactionary. They don't think, they simply react.

So, why would I want to waste time arguing with such a closed-minded person who doesn't have any facts outside of the talking points instilled by his political party controllers?

Is it really worth the time and effort?

 

I saw this thread as a personal attack and as a way to entice you Pressed_Rat, and that's why I stayed away from it until now.

But I'm new, so I wasn't sure exactly.

 

Of course it's a personal attack to entice me. That's Balbus' modus operandi.

 

I think Balbus has genuine reason to be doing this. Pressed Rat is full of hot air and contradictions, and he more or less goes into all the political forums attacking everyone else (not personally).

But its starting to get creepy now. There are better things to do.

 

How am I full of hot air and contradiction, anymore than a reactionary like Balbus. I have never read anything of substance coming from Balbus. He doesn't utilize facts, and when you refuse to answer questions you've thoroughly explained, he accuses you of not debating him.

Balbus calls me a religious fanatic when I'm not. I don't subscribe to any organized religion because they're all frauds. I have explained this numerous times, yet...

Balbus accuses me of being a libertarian, when I have said that I'm not (though some of my ideologies can be classified as "libertarian"). I have explained this numerous times, yet...

Balbus labels me as a right-wing extremist when I am not. I have refuted this accusation numerous times, yet...

Why does Balbus keep saying these lines over and over again? What is his agenda? What is he trying to implant in people's heads, and why?

It's easy to play cheap when you cannot debate because you have no facts. All you can do is accuse the other person of refusing to debate and being a religious, fanatical extremist.

 

.....

 

I don't think you should care, really.

 

You are right, I shouldn't care. Really, I don't. But this petty shit gets aggravating after a while. I guess the best thing to do is ignore people like Balbus and Pointbreak.

 

Thanks cooloner. You are a see'er of truths

And i like your new sub-title - 'Good at drugs'

 

No, its really good, but not brilliant, i'm just a nice guy.

 

Wow, you're one of a kind.

 

since when has making sense ever been a prerequisite of the short sighted and greedy?

a lot of things don't make sense. putting austentation and excitement ahead of survival and gratification don't make sense either. but how many people ever actualy think about that? over even consider the question.

what does anyone ever get out of messing over anyone else?
only being able to pretend that they are somehow bettery then those they've messed over because they are now worse off then themselves.

never mind that they haven't made anything better for anyone. even themselves.
the conquest mentality never sees this because it never looks.

greatness is another thing that doesn't make sense. what is so great about greatness that it is worth trading happiness for.

vengence is an emotion that doesn't make sense. neither honor nor justice are ever served by it.

yet all these things that make no sense, these too, in the infinite open endedness of diversity and its being the nature of reality, also exist

i'll tell you what makes sense though, www.wakeuplaughing.com makes sense. better sense then i ever can.

=^^=
.../\...

 

“i think it just drives intelligent people nuts to witness people who are so obviously wrong but truly believe themselves to be right...

“Thanks cooloner. You are a see'er of truths”

**

Thank you, cooloner and Lying in a field

You are right I do find such irrational and idiotic ideas maddening

But it is not just that

It is the apathy that people like Rat seem to want to spread and their seeming wish to destroy any sensible and rational debate.

More often as not a contribution to a thread is a means of turning the debate toward ‘the conspiracy’ and why, well their seems to be no why, it’s an intellectual dead end.

Honest people form the left and right argue that their ideas can bring about a better world but people like Rat tell people that nothing can be done (not in any rational way).

Rat seem to say that nothing in normal politics is true that it is all rubbish because ‘the conspiracy’ is in control and it is too powerful to be messed with, so best to do nothing.

But is Rat honest? I have my doubts.

He attack liberal ideas, he attacks left wing ideas and he attacks the right, but he seems to actually hint at a preference for right wing ideas. It must be remembered that he has attacked the Republicans as been too left wing and seems to admits he likes right wing nationalistic libertarian ideas. But in all the time he’s been here and although I’ve tried many times he still refuses to talk openly about his political and economic views.

So why is Rat on a liberalish, even leftie website trying to convince people not to vote while seemingly trying to hid the facts his views are right wing?

 

Who is the one that never has any facts? Me or you? Every so-called debate of yours turns away from the topic at hand, into who I am, what my motives are, and what I believe. It's always a diversion of some kind. It is YOU, my friend, who wants to destroy any "sensible and rational debate." You don't have any facts, therefore debate is a virtual impossibility for you.

No, the intellectual dead end comes when I am attacked for my views by you and your cohorts.

I am trying to get people to see beyond the false Left/Right paradigm, which all centers around mundane and unimportant talking points pushed by the corporate media. I am not here to tell people what to do or how to think. I am simply providing alternative information.

But I am not here to tell people what to do. It's up for people to do what the feel is right based on what they know. Not everybody needs to be told what to do. Not everybody needs a leader or somebody to guide them. What people need is information, which they're not getting.

But the question is, in a debate, where are YOUR facts? When I debate, I bring information to the table. Granted, it might not be information that you agree with, but it is information nonetheless. All you ever do is attack me for my views, never defending or supporting your own.

There you go again, telling people who I am and what I believe. I am perfectly capable of speaking for myself. I know you are not, but that's OK. But, please.... I am perfectly capable of speaking for myself. Just as most people are perfectly capable of drawing their own conclusions without you telling them what to think.

I am trying to get people to reject the Left/Right paradigm and see the truth. I don't pay much attention as to if it is more Right or Left, I simply go based on the facts and form an opinion that way. Politcal labels are just that: labels.

 

No mate, you're right, far right.

 

alright. Now, make up and give each other a hug.

 

You are a true, Seer, my friend!!!!!

 

god themax you have me drooling!! do you have anything published?

 

Rats last post is just another example of the problem I have with Rat’s honesty

He claims he is not here to tell people what to do or how to think, yet he is telling people all the time.

He tells people that it isn’t worth voting

He tells people that it really isn’t worth organising politically

He tells people that nationalism is good and internationalists are only dupes of ‘the conspiracy’

He tells people that communism and socialism are inventions of ‘the conspiracy’, and that to have such ideas is only to work for ‘the conspiracy’.

I could go on and on about the thinks Rat tells people,

He isn’t ordering people to think the way he does but just by saying these things he is trying to influence peoples thinking and if anyone beings to question his ideas he calls them morons or idiots or claims they are too blinded by the conspiracy to see the ‘truth’.

Basically he is telling them that if they don’t think the way he thinks, then they are just dupes of ‘the conspiracy’.

For such a person to then claim he is not trying to tell people what to do or how to think is being dishonest.

**

I’ve been trying to find out about Rat’s political views for some time, I mean this is a politics forum.

At first he was evasive but eventually he claimed that he was a libertarian

I’d had may suspicions up to then from comments he had made, such as thinking the Republicans were often too left wing and that for him the US was too socialist.

But the problem was that this pro wealth right wing viewpoint seemed to make a mockery of his claims to oppose the wealthy elite (which he claims head ‘the conspiracy’). Of all the political philosophies, libertarianism seems the most likely to give vast increases in wealth and power to the already wealthy and powerful.

I tried to discuss this with Rat but he only got abuse and became more evasive, and then he suddenly began to claim that he wasn’t a libertarian at all and began to call himself an ‘independent’.

Why did he do this?

Well the only reason I can think of and which fits the evidence is that this was another means of evading the libertinism discussion and the contradiction it highlighted with his supposedly anti-elite stance.

From what I could tell his views remained libertarian but any time this was pointed out to him he would shout about his ‘independence’ and ‘political labelling’ and that he is neither of the right or left. But the right wing nationalistic and libertarian views remained and he continues to evade debate on them by this trick.

He recently claimed he is both a libertarian and not a libertarian by saying that he prefers the libertarian political and economic system to any other political or economic system, but that he isn’t a libertarian.

So he seems to be claiming he is opposed to the wealthy elite while the system he would most like to have in place is one that hands increased influence to the same wealthy elite.

To me this seems dishonest.

**

As to ‘the facts’ that Rat says he brings to the table on the many occasions that people have looked into them they often have turn out to be nothing more that supposition, innuendo and opinion that he just claims to be fact. The problem is, once again, Rat’s reluctance to debate such things in a sensible way. Instead he just flies into evasion mode claiming the doubters are too stupid to see what is obvious to him, that they are blinded by ‘the conspiracy’, that the truth as he sees it is too difficult for them to take.

But in all the rubbish Rat pumps out real problems and actual facts are hidden behind a blizzard of supposition innuendo and opinion, he doesn’t enlighten he actually buries the truth beneath a large helping of the ridiculous.

The view he pushes seems to claim that political problems have nothing to do with us normal beings and so cannot he dealt with by us normal human beings. That everything is the fault of a giant conspiracy of the super powerful and wealthy, that no one can have any hope of defeating.

**

Aristartle suggests that we hug and make up but can I really make up with someone I think is so dishonest? I’m not going to be dishonest myself and say at this time that I trust Rat.

It takes a lot to stand up and be counted it takes even more to state your view honestly and then discuss them and defend them with passion. I have the greatest respect and admiration for the vast majority of people on the political forums, even the ones I disagree with and have argued with, because they do just that.

Rat does neither, he doesn’t seem to be honest and he definitely prefers evasion to discussion.

**

Rat highlights a number of the problems I see in US politics –

An ethier/or attitude that sees everything as a battle between good and evil.

A preference to a belief in myths rather than facing up to reality.

A belief that right wing politics is in some way the only ‘natural’ political system.

An unwillingness to debate their views.

 

But...

You're the one that can't put together two sentences about your acclaimed followings of communism.