MASSIVE POSSIBLE DIS-INFO blurring the lines between Liberal, and LiberTARIAN.

www.abovetopsecret.com...


this may or may not be intentional, but it looks creepy, because of the implications that this may be a victim of the disinformation, and not the source itself.

this, if anything, may be second hand, or even 100th hand dis-info that spreads itself like a virus.

wake up people Liberals are NOT the same thing as LIBERTARIANS.

i needed to blow this whistle, because i felt that a massive amount of possible confusion was at risk of spreading.


BE AWARE. also, sorry to the guy, not trying to make him famous or anything. peace.

reply to post by SoymilkAlaska
I hear ya. As conservative as I am, I subscribe much to the likes of John Stossel and others.

Trust me, people know the difference.

reply to post by beezzer


dude i hope so, because they sound so much alike you know?

and that would make an easy target for confusion among the docile sheeple....


(no offence to the sheepies, not that you even know your actually that ignorant/fluffy)


hehe.



i do hope more people visit this thread so that in case that they didn't know the difference, or were unaware that possible dis-info may be spreading, that they could then be aware, and spread the anti-dis-info around.


btw, why is your bunny sad?

reply to post by SoymilkAlaska


I think it's funny you think your thread about that posters post might make him famous, so you're sorry

reply to post by SoymilkAlaska


On topic: Anyone with half a brain can tell the difference between the two. Libertarian (I once took a test, I'm borderline) is where we and the founding fathers wanted to be.

Off topic:


T'is the reason

Lol, it may be not the same in the United States but in the rest of the world, at least in most of the other countries a liberal means libertarian, you are the only people i know who calls leftish people liberals.

In my country i am part of a liberal party btw, and we are pretty clear that to us is the word have the same meaning as libertarian, Von Mises, Hayek, Rothbard, Menger, etc etc.

So i would say is not disinfo, well, i repeat, maybe is in your country but not in the rest of the world.

reply to post by MonteroReal


People need to stop calling them liberals, and yes Rush Limbaugh needs learn how to say "Progressive" since they call themselves that, and in truth liberal used to mean Libertarian a long time ago, and so to rebrand the word into something that represents "Progressive" politics seems to me a fraud of major order. They call themselves "progressive" so even with all the baggage that implies, they still call themselves that, stop calling them liberal, it seems to make little sense to me.

Originally posted by MonteroReal
Lol, it may be not the same in the United States but in the rest of the world, at least in most of the other countries a liberal means libertarian, you are the only people i know who calls leftish people liberals.

Agreed. Too many Americans dont really know anything about history, to be honest. If anything the 'disinfo' is calling far-right free market ideology 'libertarian'.

Colin Ward (2004), Anarchism: A Very Short Introduction, Oxford: Oxford University Press, p. 62. "For a century, anarchists have used the word 'libertarian' as a synonym for 'anarchist', both as a noun and an adjective. The celebrated anarchist journal Le Libertaire was founded in 1896. However, much more recently the word has been appropriated by various American free-market philosophers..."

books.google.ca...

reply to post by stanguilles7


Well, I would recommend you read the libertarian writings of Lysander Spooner, especially his ideas about postal service and his pamphlets with regard to the constitution of no authority, Libertarianism once held that even the constitution was of no consequence since none of us were alive to ever agree and sign off on the terms of the contract and thus it should have no bearing on us or future generations, though the same could be said for any law contracted prior to anyone's date of birth or age of adulthood, in other words most laws have been instituted and created by some people whom are no longer even living and yet they bind us like a ball and chain to the dictates of the past by a dictatorship from the grave. But even a document as simple as the constitution had many opposed to it, but today it seems far better than the monstrosity that has become law and politics in the US government and to many just going back to simple constitution would be anarchy in and of itself and a total catastrophe, hence the reason why progressives have infiltrated both major political parties and posed as conservative vs. liberal, when in fact they represent more and intrusive fascists, socialist and communists, they just bicker over whom can best run the scam. The real parties should be simplified a party for liberty, maybe the libertarian party and everything else being parties against freedoms for everyone but themselves. If you ever vote the only real choice or question to ask yourself maybe, whom professes to be for the most liberty and whom seems the most against liberty, it seems to me the only choice in any election, the rest of the issues tend to be issues of style over substance and in fact they get pushed often above the issues that really matter.

reply to post by bubbabuddha


Right. He was a 'libertarian' in the classical sense. Basically, an anarchist.