Freedomain Radio Amazon Affiliate Links: United States - Canada - United Kingdom

Sign up for the Freedomain Mailing List: fdrurl.com/newsletter

Welcome to Freedomain Radio Message Board

If you're interested in joining the philosophical discussion, click "sign in" or "create account" on the right of the page. If you're creating a new account, please be sure to include an explanation as to why you're interested in joining the message board community. This verification requirement is included to cut down on possible spam accounts.

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

MartV

The degradation of Stefan Molyneux

Again, another conspiracy bites the dust.

 

Just as the IRS targeting conservatives "scandal" was totally debunked and Benghazi and pretty much every conspiracy Stefan ever made a video about, including the unbelievable statements he often makes about the climate change.

 

How much more credibility can Stefan lose before he becomes irrelevant?

 

That would be a real shame since his message about child raising, circumcision and education is really important but he's really starting to lose it.

I'm beginning to think that he is intentionally doing this(telling lies) to cozy up to the far right because he sees them as the only rallying force or audience for his donation model.

-12

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No thank you FDR board, I don't think I want to.  :woot:

This is your answer to frequent debunking of conspiracy theories he makes videos about?

-2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Marv how is posting here a good use of your time? why don't you set up a channel to perpetuate the truth amongst those who have not been tainted by the FDR doctrine

 

you can also spread information about peaceful parenting, etc. to a completely different audience from us

5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cenk Uygur is a radical socialist and he worships the State far more than any religious fanatics worship their God.

 

"this is OUR land"...

 

"we're not supposed to solve this with violence or threats of violence"...

 

Rolls eyes.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm waiting for Stefan to make a new video acknowledging these facts presented to him.

It's all about reason and evidence, right?

-3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cenk Uygur is a radical socialist and he worships the State far more than any religious fanatics worship their God. "this is OUR land"... "we're not supposed to solve this with violence or threats of violence"... Rolls eyes.

I am now far far dumber for having watched that video...
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am now far far dumber for having watched that video...

Oh no! We can't be having the brains of the operation getting dumber!

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Harry Reid has been a "public servant" for his entire career (including working as a security guard for a couple of years while in law school).  He has never had a private sector job.  He grew up poor and inherited nothing.  Yet his net worth is in the tens of millions of dollars. 

 

Like Hillary Clinton's cattle futures "investment" miracle, this is how politicians are bribed.  They are not typically bribed with large stacks of unmarked bills.  They typically use their extended network of family and cronies as proxies, who participate in various corrupt transactions (often real estate) that superficially look like investments, but are really just payola in a thin disguise  (e.g., buying assets at extreme discounts, and selling them at extreme markups, or getting awarded fat government contracts). 

 

Tom Daschle's wife, I recall, was a particularly egregious offender.  She was a lobbyist, and if you wanted the Democrat Senate to take any action in your favor, you had to hire her, which (by the way) was very expensive. 

 

The "conspiracy" is not that the particular Chinese solar energy company that is represented by Reid's son is buying the particular parcel that Bundy grazes his cattle on (a deal to be authorized by the former Reid staffer who runs the BLM). Getting Bundy's cattle off of this land will pave the way for some company to buy it (or lease it), even if it's not the one Reid's son represents. The feds will use their control to make more sweetheart, corrupt deals, for the benefit of the ruling caste, even if it's not this particular company buying that particular parcel.

 

So, the purpose of the State's effort against Bundy is not to get his $1 million in unpaid grazing fees.  The BLM and court system will have spent that much over course of the 2 decades of this dispute just litigating and paying cops to enforce the rules.  They'll spend that much on government media consultants to manage the PR fallout from this episode.  The point of coming down hard on Bundy is not the grazing money.  The point is to establish control. 

 

Cenk Uygur, being an authoritarian Statist, sees no problem with federal assertion of control.  He never considers the question of the federal government's authority, or the basis for the various federal court decisions (which were decided in favor of federal authority, not surprisingly).  Despite his protestations of openness, he never addresses these issues.  He emotionally recoils at the mere whiff of an idea of there being any dispute over federal authority, and the idea of local or private guns being deployed against federal guns.  He wants federal guns to be aimed with impunity, I guess, and expects them to meet no resistance.  Challenges to authority offend Uygur's sensibilities, and so his sympathy evaporates.  These are not arguments.  They are emotions. 

 

What strikes me, however, is why you, MartV, would come to an anarchist message board touting a video that is based on the unquestioned legitimacy of federal government authority. 

 

I then wonder why you would then argue that such a video, in which the speaker blithely assumes the existence of an authority that does not exist, has "debunked" something.  Uygur hasn't debunked anarchism.  He merely disregards it.  That's not an argument, much less a correct one.

 

I am also struck by your decision to spend the time to compile your post claiming to have "debunked" Stefan, only to then declare that he's "irrelevant."  Irrelevant people are ignored, not challenged.  Clearly you have some other motivation, which you are not revealing. 

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Congratulations for breaking the -100 barrier! Does this "accomplishment" represent an elevation or a degradation of your character?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Marv how is posting here a good use of your time? why don't you set up a channel to perpetuate the truth amongst those who have not been tainted by the FDR doctrine

 

you can also spread information about peaceful parenting, etc. to a completely different audience from us

Brilliant.  :)

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Something about the way you use these terms suggests you don't understand them.

 

Then please illuminate us, oh Lord of Linguistics and Master of the Universal Dictionary.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Something about the way you use these terms suggests you don't understand them.

I just looked up "Radical Socialist" in the dictionary and the definition read: Cenk Uygur.All jokes asside, I would define radical socialist as "A socialist who holds views not often found among other socialists, which some socialists might consider extreeme. Cenk Uygur thinks Barak Obama is too conservative, sooo....
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Then please illuminate us, oh Lord of Linguistics and Master of the Universal Dictionary.

 

 

I just looked up "Radical Socialist" in the dictionary and the definition read: Cenk Uygur.All jokes asside, I would define radical socialist as "A socialist who holds views not often found among other socialists, which some socialists might consider extreeme. Cenk Uygur thinks Barak Obama is too conservative, sooo....

He's probably more socialist than either of you, but less socialist - much less so - than those who self-identify as 'socialist'. This to me suggests he's not actually a radical socialist. I mean, obviously he isn't. Yeah, sure, he's a statist 'progressive', slightly left of centre, but 'radical socialist'? Get a grip!

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites