MartV Posted April 16, 2014 Share Posted April 16, 2014 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J-William Posted April 16, 2014 Share Posted April 16, 2014 -84 This post by MartV is below the user reputation threshold. View it anyway? No thank you FDR board, I don't think I want to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MartV Posted April 16, 2014 Author Share Posted April 16, 2014 No thank you FDR board, I don't think I want to. This is your answer to frequent debunking of conspiracy theories he makes videos about? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LovePrevails Posted April 16, 2014 Share Posted April 16, 2014 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
st434u Posted April 16, 2014 Share Posted April 16, 2014 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greekredemption Posted April 16, 2014 Share Posted April 16, 2014 Cenk Uygur is a radical socialist Something about the way you use these terms suggests you don't understand them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MartV Posted April 16, 2014 Author Share Posted April 16, 2014 I'm waiting for Stefan to make a new video acknowledging these facts presented to him. It's all about reason and evidence, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freedomain Posted April 16, 2014 Share Posted April 16, 2014 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... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wesley Posted April 16, 2014 Share Posted April 16, 2014 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! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magnus Posted April 16, 2014 Share Posted April 16, 2014 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lians Posted April 16, 2014 Share Posted April 16, 2014 Congratulations for breaking the -100 barrier! Does this "accomplishment" represent an elevation or a degradation of your character? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MMX2010 Posted April 16, 2014 Share Posted April 16, 2014 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
st434u Posted April 17, 2014 Share Posted April 17, 2014 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aeonicentity Posted April 19, 2014 Share Posted April 19, 2014 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.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greekredemption Posted April 22, 2014 Share Posted April 22, 2014 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! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts