Would 'Trolls' Derail Open Government? - Craig Newmark

[fenriz218]

Craig, hey Craig ... how's your momma? She still working in that $5 house?

[iZvmmk]

gay

[FLIP36D]

OBAMA IS A TROLL

[AresXIVX]

how to deal with trolls? IGNORE them simple you don't need special equipment or government regulated internet teams to go and seek the trolls at thier homes.

quit wasting your time faggs

[TheUndertakerSaysRIP]

Trolls = dumb lazy white faggots!

[PBfreak808]

so... that comment doesnt count as trolling?

[MusicLover98765]

Hiter should've finished his job.

[KrunchyGoodness]

@MusicLover98765 so should have Hitler

[MusicLover98765]

im trollin dont expect perfect grammer :P

[Delroxorz]

Dissent all you want, females just don't have a place in government.

[brianismynamo55]

Faggots aren't people.

[4130films]

Steve Jobs owns a PC.

[wompasdub]

@4130films I honestly wouldn't be surprised if that were true. I'm sure he owns AT LEAST one.

[DiaJackal]

All jew should have died in the holocaust.

Nuff said

[i3ak3ri301]

Everybody knows that the holocaust didn't happen.

[4130films]

lol

[DiaJackal]

You better not be trolling

[mw116140]

all you gotta do is answer his three questions and they let you pass,whats the big d?

[tHecOmMeNtErSrEtUrN]

Lets just say the trolls are not internet exclusive.

[wompasdub]

@tHecOmMeNtErSrEtUrN exactly, I often take my trolling to real life scenarios that call for it.

[EllieLight1]

Why does Craig have a Hitler Mustache? Is he trying to tell us something about his Net Neutrality? Perhaps it is a Freudian slip.

[EllieLight1]

Congress should adopt a strong principle that ensures that the Internet is

open to all lawful uses and should establish strong penalties to enforce this

principle. Of highest priority is enforcement of a "Hate Speech" code, banning anti-government, anti-progressive abuses. Given time, we can and will control the content on the internet so that we can once and for all time, establish equality for all peoples.

[tHecOmMeNtErSrEtUrN]

Whats anti-progressive, that is the issue people are deciding this.

[mw116140]

@EllieLight1

Yeah, what we need is a law banning "anti-gov't" abuses....if you are looking for a new country to live in, may i suggest Russia or China?

[Poonard]

@EllieLight1 banning anti-government, anti-progressive abuse.....banning NEVER, i repeat, NEVER establishes anything close to equality.

[philsnk]

That's how a community is founded. Net neutrality is actually defined as a community of tubes that only connect with other like minded tubes. But at that level people may change on a whim and reconnect with other "tubes" or "windows". So then they become engaged in another communities event. Much like walking about in the Rennaisance if you were Michael J. Fox in back to the Future/Hood Rennaisance.

[vonstreckerz]

For my part I think that its easy to see trolls in the distance and just ignore them. That's the cure.

[joely1987c]

your just saying that because you are a troll

[CirtLok]

What you need to realise is, that by ignoring a troll, you just make the problem worse! What you need to do, is just admit you are wrong, and agree with everything they say, because you are infact wrong, so be wrong in your wrongness you maggot faggot licker!

[vonstreckerz]

I'm wrong, I agree whit you.

[CirtLok]

Now admit your a faggot!

[vonstreckerz]

Go fcuk yourself motherfcuker.

[AdamSmith1759]

My response to Craig why would anyone want to engage with a government sponsored web forum? (a) It would be boring and (b) the government officials would elide past the questions (indeed, this is exactly what Obama did with regard to the marijuana legalization question that he so snidely dismissed).

[krrrruptidsoless]

Go back to your communist regime. This is free speech. Your kind only wants to have a positive perfect little world for YOURSELVES where there is no one disagreeing with your kind. They ought to lock you up for terrorism. Another one of those kind of people unhappy that not everyone agrees with them. Waa haa were special. I'm right about everything and by taking a long time to solve anything it looks like I do more work. Waa haa we are working on all the problems on the planet. Not!!!

[92451721921892113]

@krrrruptidsoless  but if we limit free speech we wont have trolls.

[brianwurst1234]

Fu biotch you mum suked hitlers penis. tis meens war

[dangermous1968]

oh please ... there are youtubers and even bloggers who post things to get people to argue among each other , it is well known that controversial topics are like snowball fights ..everyone going by notices and wants to throw a few. some videos you have the poster troll his own vid using different account just to keep people arguing therefore get more views or comments.if no one responds to trolls , what will they do? nothing.. go to another vid

[mynce666]

fake and gay!

[tallyhero]

Successful Troll is still Successful!!!!

[Schmooblywoo]

Trolling > Life.

Everything > This guy.

[RAMSTERLORD]

@Schmooblywoo not his size...

[reachforthelasers]

They'll never stop me from trolling.

[FattKidd]

trolls can be ignored. why are we afraid of the public airing of extreme, radical, even offensive views? we should not be afraid to hear any & all viewpoints on any given subject. those that are not worthy of further discussion will be ignored or discounted in public, for all to see. perhaps once certain offensive views are aired & then systematically taken apart, they will discarded from the public discourse.

[THINKfutureShow]

Agreed. I think that only ones who are afraid of dissent are the ones currently in power, no matter who they are. Why are they so interested in silencing dissenting voices?

[FattKidd]

because they are most interested in maintaining power & control, not helping the people, especially here in the US. we have a two party dictatorship & the central bankers & international corporations have control of both parties. they control the debate, the entire debate, & ANY viewpoints that do not fit into their narratives are discounted, ignored or worse. take the US presidential primaries for example. perfect example of censorship of opposing or different viewpoints.

[THINKfutureShow]

You got it. I don't even differentiate between the Democrats and the Republicans. As far as I'm concerned, they are both The Party, in the old Soviet Russia sense. Its The Party, the elite who takes from the rest of us, and parties on at our expense.

[WhoRonPaul]

every meglomaniac wants to control the world around them. who cares if people makes stupid comments just read past them.

[FRTothus]

Characterizing citizens as a government's "customers" is an elite, corporate view, and part of the problem with elite rule. What this guy is talking about already has a name: "agent provocateurs", who have long been a tool of fascists and corporations and their government lackeys to deter democracy and democratic dissent. Their purpose, same as ever, is to marginalize progressive forces through planted false propaganda and to encourage infighting, to divide and conquer.

[zippyjuice]

Yeah. Either that or he is just telling us his opinion. But you're probably right.... It's all a HUGE conspiracy. Don't you just hate the free exchange of ideas?

[freaks182]

we are not customers of hte government, that makes it seem like even if the people really want something, if it goes against hte governments interests they'll do it anyways. this is one nation OF the people BY the people.

[soccom8341576]

If I am a troll, then people who seek to be famous and appear on MSM, like Craig here must be one big fat troll.

If there are people you find annoying, you have the choice of ignoring them, whether at your gain or loss. No one is forcing you to look at them. You are making decisions here.

Tell them to post somewhere else relevant.

People today really don't believe in any values. That's why tyrannical government is going to happen. To take responsibility of your ass.

[soccom8341576]

All this crap about trolls is nonsense. People can choose what they want to see and what they don't want to see simply by not reading on. If you aren't capable of that, then you're as dumb as this guy is showing himself here

The whole point of the internet is for people to connect to other people. If you call that trolling and you kill that, then Internet concept will be dead.

And that's what they want to kill. They want people to be passive, like staring at TV screens and being brainwashed.

[Krumbz2003]

LMFAO @ you!

You've got two brain cells left and even they are fighting each other for room.

Man up french fry.

[quicksite]

Well done, Craig. Thanks for pushing out the term "trolls" to mainstream, and for just starting to explain the problem of PAID TROLLS, when you mentioned "billable hours".

You got cut off, inadvertently there (or not), so moderator could make a joke, which took you off-subject... But the concept of PAID TROLLS is widely discussed as in use right now as Israeli Govt seeks to do damage control all over the web, in forum after forum, to offset the outrage over their govt's actions. Astroturfing

[Krumbz2003]

Great vid! Between Fora and TED... both are EXCELLENT insightful channels.

Completely recommend TED for more Modern Science and Innovation discussions.

Keep it up Fora!

[ForaTv]

Thanks for the compliment, Krumbz2003.

[lelyn1234]

A public/private partnership? In other words a private organization censors political debate to support the public governance that hires said private organization.

Not to troll or anything, but I%2Proxy-Connection: keep-alive

Cache-Control: max-age=0

on't like where this is heading.

[anyusmoon1]

By what means and/or what panel of deciders chooses or defines what/who is a troll and what/who isn't.

If I don't like OweBama and talk about the Constitutional Republic rather than kowtow to usurpers spewing out socialism will I be called a TROLL?

This is very dangerous ground. Let the system work on an individual by individual basis. If enough people block a certain individual they will naturally go away.

[Krumbz2003]

"OweBama" - I see what you did there.

You must think that that is very clever.

How's that working out for ya?

[anyusmoon1]

Ready to dismiss me as a troll?

[Krumbz2003]

No I was simply pointing out how clever you were by changing Obama to "Owebama". Boy that was slick!

I'll bet a lot of people didn't get the supreme wittiness of your statement.

It was so obscure... and still a true testament to your amazing intelligence!

So how's that working out for ya? Ya know... the supreme wit that you have? I'm just in awe over here.

[anyusmoon1]

Glad to know the point is being well made here, thanks to you picking up the Krumbz...

case in point, who's to decide who is the troll and who is not? Is it you, the Owebama troll? Or me, the Constitutional troll?

Such bickering is totally unnecessary but alas it certainly made my point.

[Chrisnoscrub047]

LoL. That IS clever. I think I'm going to start using it.

[zippyjuice]

Isn't it clever when pseudo-intellectuals us their tiny wit to such great effect? If only Shakespeare had such a way with words.

And look! He can do it with your name too!! Me next! Please, show us more of your crayon drawings, anyusmoon1!!

[Hooya2]

"If I don't like OweBama and talk about the Constitutional Republic rather than kowtow to usurpers spewing out socialism will I be called a TROLL?"

Um, the Constitutional Republic is not necessarily in conflict with socialism so long as the general population want the rich to provide social support to the middle and lower classes.

Most trolls are pretty obvious; they're rude, stupid, and typically repetitive. They don't answer serious objections, but focus on ridicule.

[anyusmoon1]

Where in the Constitution is socialism, or the rich providing support to the middle and lower classes?

And lastly, am I to understand that my original comment would be sufficient cause to block or censor me?

[Hooya2]

"Where in the Constitution is socialism, or the rich providing support to the middle and lower classes?"

The 16th Amendment allows for the possibility, but nothing in the Constitution specifically either requires or denies it.

"And lastly, am I to understand that my original comment would be sufficient cause to block or censor me?"

Well, your comment was mildly rude, but it wasn't stupid or repetitive, so it doesn't really count as trolling.

[anyusmoon1]

The 16th conveyed no new powers of taxation.

Next, the act of collecting tax does not give cart blanche for disbursement thereof. Finally, you've conveniently ignored questions and merely rely an invective toward me, so have you now become the approved sort of troll? And I magically remain the bad sort?

You cannot legislate morality and you cannot inhibit free speech. There is no growth in either.

Regardless how tiresome sophomores may be... eventually they graduate- even u hooya.

[Hooya2]

"The 16th conveyed no new powers of taxation."

It allows for a personal income tax.

"Next, the act of collecting tax does not give cart blanche for disbursement thereof."

Yes, but again there is no Constitutional clause that limits that power.

"Finally, you've conveniently ignored questions..."

What question of yours have I ignored? I've tried to answer every relevant one.

"...and merely rely an invective toward me..."

No I haven't.

[anyusmoon1]

There were no taxes imposed on the income of Americans living & working in US before The 16th & therefor none imposed after. 'it conveyed no new powers of taxation', this according 2 SCOTUS.

The Cnstn enumerates Fed powers, all others r reserved 2 the States and/or the People. YOu tell me where the constitution promotes socialism?

You have failed to answer if my comment(s) would give rise to censorship and who/what is the judge of such.

Apologies, you retracted inference that I was stupid.

[Hooya2]

"There were no taxes imposed on the income of Americans living & working in US before The 16th & therefor none imposed after..."

Are you saying that income tax doesn't exist?

"...this according 2 SCOTUS."

What ruling?

"The Cnstn enumerates Fed powers, all others r reserved 2 the States and/or the People."

Yes, and this is enumerated in Article 1 Section 8; "The Congress shall have power...to pay the debts and provide for the...general welfare of the United States".

[anyusmoon1]

The matter pertaining to the 'income tax' was decided by the SCOTUS in their determination that no new powers of taxation resulted from the 16th amendment. There was no income tax on the natural born or naturalized, (except Federal office holders or employees), prior to the 16th.

[Hooya2]

"The matter pertaining to the 'income tax' was decided by the SCOTUS in their determination that no new powers of taxation resulted from the 16th amendment."

In what ruling? Name the case.

"See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them, and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong."

OK, so the government taking taxes and giving them to construction workers to build roads is morally repugnant then?

[anyusmoon1]

Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co

lol @ you for suggesting to build the road the construction worker is the recipient of plunder. No, the worker is giving his labor, ostensibly under the general contractor who is also supplying a service which is contracted through the Fed. Entirely opposite of welfare and entirely within the scope of Feds if a fed hwy.

[Hooya2]

"No, the [construction] worker is giving his labor..."

So is the doctor who's providing healthcare to the public.

"...the 16th Amendment conferred no new power of taxation, but...prohibited the previous complete and plenary power of income taxation possessed by Congress from the beginning from being taken out of the category of indirect taxation...and being placed...in the category of direct taxation subject to apportionment..."

(cont.)

[Hooya2]

(cont.)

What this ruling is saying is that Congress possesses complete indirect taxation power, previous scholars had argued that income tax was direct and thus must be subject to apportionment, and the Sixteenth Amendment clarified this argument.

"...health care and food which are utterly out of the jurisdiction of the fed..."

Where does the Constitution say the government can't provide food or healthcare to the public?

[anyusmoon1]

It's the recipient of the services ignorant one. The road is for EVERYONES use. The abortion a girl gets benefits no one (just a random example).

[Hooya2]

"It's the recipient of the services ignorant one. The road is for EVERYONES use."

Right now, the government provides lawyers to defendants who can't afford them. Should people who can afford their own lawyers not have to pay taxes that go to that? What about cops; should people who can hire private security not have to pay for them? Should people who don't use the postal service not have to pay taxes on it?

Government is nothing but redistribution of wealth.

[anyusmoon1]

Again, the constitution allows for roads, post offices, and other needful (federal) buildings etc. Your STATE provides for police not the fed. That same 'regular person' seldom comes in contact with federal jurisdiction but the indirect and apportion taxes collected CAN be avoided by anyone, anytime if they feel so inclined.

[anyusmoon1]

Our founding fathers intended to fed gov to be nothing more than a means to act on behalf of the States, in limited ways and means for limited duties:

1) Interact with foreign governments

2) Defense

3) Coin Money and establish the value thereof

4) Settle disputes between the States

etc.

Read the Constitution.

[thecatonice]

Shut up, you prick. Your idea is wrong.

[Hooya2]

"YOu tell me where the constitution promotes socialism?"

I'm tired of repeating this; the Constitution does not promote socialism, but it doesn't prohibit it either. My argument is merely that socialism is not in contradiction with the Constitution.

"You have failed to answer if my comment(s) would give rise to censorship..."

I already told you no, your comments aren't either rude or stupid enough to be considered trolling.

"...who/what is the judge of such."

Common consensus, perhaps?

[anyusmoon1]

The document itself states... unless the powers are enumerated the feds don't have it. Get it? If it's not expressly permitted to the Federal government to do a thing they have no right to do it.

And don't tell me general consensus makes it so, or right. If 51% want your house do they have a right to it? No. We do not have a democracy. We do have a Constitutional Republic.

Why have so many Americans died fighting communism/socialism? The existence of wrong doesn't make it right.

[Hooya2]

"The document itself states... unless the powers are enumerated the feds don't have it."

Yes, and the ability to provide for the general welfare by taxation is enumerated in Article 1 Section 8, and the ability to tax income in the 16th Amendment.

"If 51% want your house do they have a right to it? No."

Ah, the objective moralist; they're such incoherent creatures. Ultimately, saying they have no 'right' to it is a waste of time; if a majority wants something bad enough, they'll just take it.

[anyusmoon1]

Art 1 Sec 8 is to collect what is needed for the Federal and State interface, substructure- ie roads, buildings, post offices, bridges forts and magazines. It is not about wealth distribution from one individual to another and especially not from this country to another.

[Hooya2]

"Art 1 Sec 8 is to collect what is needed for the Federal and State interface, substructure- ie roads, buildings, post offices, bridges forts and magazines. It is not about wealth distribution..."

Um, apparently you don't understand socialism. The idea is that you tax people and use the money to provide services to the people. You know, like roads, bridges, and in extreme cases health care and food.

[anyusmoon1]

See above- for detail on roads, bridges vs. health care and food which are utterly out of the jurisdiction of the fed, except for employees of said entity and provided for by virtue of the employment contract.

[Hooya2]

"Why have so many Americans died fighting communism/socialism?"

That's what we were fighting? Here I was thinking it was the violent expansion of oppressive dictatorships we were fighting in the Cold War! My mistake lol.

"The existence of wrong doesn't make it right."

OK, what does make something right?

[anyusmoon1]

You and I fighting? lol You are ill equipped Hooya, evidenced by your resorting to sarcasm. My reference was of U.S. engagements against socialism fought abroad but since you brought it up...

You, if not embrace, accept socialism and Obama, apparently. I on the other hand loathe socialism and if the connection you draw is correct- then probably Owebama & his administration as well.

If the US fought wars over such matters don't expect any less discord to take place right here.

[anyusmoon1]

The existence of wrong doesn't make it right...

The perfect example has been made. Americans have died defending against Socialist and Communist dictators, yet it appears we have the climax of just such a regime building before our eyes in the executive and legislative branches- the judiciary is well positioned, but time will tell how much worse that gets.

[Hooya2]

"Americans have died defending against Socialist and Communist dictators..."

Americans have also died defending against capitalist dictatorships, and fascistic anti-communist dictatorships. Rational people realize that it's usually the human rights thing, more than the economic policy thing, that makes us fight against these people.

[anyusmoon1]

I realize it's convenient to include every motivation for war to muddy the clear point made that you cannot debate. The numerous examples of our (military) engagement against communism, socialism is and remains the subject.

You prove my point that, if it's a human rights issue for foreigners (under collectivist-regimes) it certainly is a human rights issue here. Plunder is theft, whether lawful (ie via gov) or not is wrong, immoral and repugnant to our society. Overturn every instance.

[Hooya2]

"...if it's a human rights issue for foreigners..."

Communism, in and of itself, is not a human rights issue; however, the USSR (which was our most major communist enemy) committed war crimes and intentionally murdered millions of its own citizens. Those were the kinds of 'human rights' issues we fought against them for, along with (again) their violent efforts at expansion.

[anyusmoon1]

Human rights involve PROPERTY RIGHTS and FREEDOM. See my other comment regarding the futility of having a discussion about morals, law and jurisdiction with an ignorant soul such as your self.

[Hooya2]

"Human rights involve PROPERTY RIGHTS and FREEDOM."

How often, when people talk about human rights violations, do you hear people mentioning high taxes? I realize that, strictly speaking, you're correct, but in common usage 'human rights violations' typically means torture, imprisonment without trial, genocide, and various other atrocities.

I'm sorry for my sloppy wording; I hope this clears it up.

[anyusmoon1]

No problem on wording, this isn't about spell check, but what is very important is that main stream media and the education system (as it is today and for the last 60 yrs- or more) do not redefine words, law or inherent principles-

Did you watch the 6-part interview of Norman Dodd?

[Hooya2]

"You, if not embrace, accept socialism and Obama..."

Of course not; extreme socialism has clearly failed as an economic policy. It just doesn't work. That doesn't make it morally wrong, or unconstitutional--just impractical.

"If the US fought wars over such matters..."

Once again, violent expansion of oppressive dictatorships.

[anyusmoon1]

It's not merely impractical it is immoral, it is unconstitutional.

[Hooya2]

"It's not merely impractical it is immoral..."

How so? You keep saying it's 'plunder' but you haven't elaborated how socialist taxation and redistribution is any different from general government taxation and redistribution. You keep saying the government building roads is somehow different from the government providing health care, but you haven't provided any clear distinction.

[anyusmoon1]

The fed jurisdiction does involve citizens nor paying for their health carer and in fact not even their education(s). If you do not see a distinction between building postal roads (to deliver mail), forts and magazines (for defense) and federal buildings (to conduct their business with the states) and health care you are hopelessly incapable of discussing legal matters, politics and perhaps moral values of any kind.

Enjoy the slavery which always accompanies ignorance. Very sad.

[Hooya2]

"If you do not see a distinction between building postal roads (to deliver mail), forts and magazines (for defense) and federal buildings (to conduct their business with the states) and health care you are hopelessly incapable of discussing legal matters..."

Providing a service, providing a service, providing a service, and providing a service.

Stop acting like the distinction is obvious and tell me what it is. Can you even name one?

[anyusmoon1]

The constitution calls out specifically and THAT is the difference. We live in a Constitutional Republic and our laws are written in black and white. The constitution limits the federal gov strictly to it's jurisdiction.

What we have now and the myriad of 'services' or products you cite is tyranny. Plain and simple. And just because it exists doesn't make it right.

[Wandervon]

Yep. Just because it exists doesn't make it right.

Like Christianity.

[anyusmoon1]

Sorry? What has that to do with the subject?

The constitution promotes and protects freedom, of faith, rights of contract, and all natural laws.

[RAMSTERLORD]

@anyusmoon1 thats the definition of trolling

[Soneclipseredvblue]

You have the rights to all of those, as long as it doesn't infringe on the rights of others.

[wompasdub]

@anyusmoon1 Are you calling the internet tyranny? really?

[anyusmoon1]

What? please reread the thread from the beginning and listen to the video. Tyranny is gov attempting to control the internet via invective, abuse of power, and riling up public support through their overreach at power and thus creating their own outcome without benefit of honest discourse.

[Sadiquit0]

TROLL

[anyusmoon1]

One day a lightbulb is going to go off in your head and you will realize the depth of deception going on in the education system.

I highly recommend you watch the interview of Norman Dodd conducted by G.Edward Griffin. There is a convenient playlist on my channel page but note the vids are not uploaded by me.

Next- Read 'The Law' by Frederic Bastiat.

[Hooya2]

"One day a lightbulb is going to go off in your head and you will realize the depth of deception going on in the education system."

Now that's just plain trolling. I realize that you and I disagree, but that doesn't mean that I'm ignorant and your some brilliant Constitutional scholar; there's no need to go off on all this 'you're ignorant and I'm not' stuff.

[anyusmoon1]

Disagree? No. You are plain wrong. There's a big difference. And ignorance is the reason, not stupidity, there's a big difference.

I wouldn't put you in charge of 'troll patrol' that's for sure.

[anyusmoon1]

'Ok, what does make something right? THis is the problem with insolent sophomores. Nothing in your upbringing nor education prepares you for seeing right and wrong.

Try this: See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them, and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime.

Legal plunder is morally repugnant. As are its cowardly supporters.

[anyusmoon1]

The Constitution does prohibit socialism. Socialism is utterly antithetical to our Constitutional Republic. Why would we have fought foreign wars if the concept was not objectionable to our laws and way of life?

Protectionism, socialism, and communism are basically the same plant in three different stages of its growth. Legal plunder may be more visible in communism because it is complete plunder; in protectionism because plunder is limited to specific groups and industries. 1 leads 2 the other

[Chrisnoscrub047]

We are not the government's customers.

WE ARE THE GOVERNMENT'S EMPLOYERS.

[CharBroiled04]

We are both.

[Chrisnoscrub047]

True, we are both. b/c in any exchange the buyer is the seller of something and the seller is the buyer of something. But to mention one without the other, especially if one mentions the one that makes it seems as though we the people are at the mercy of the government, it just shows the intellectual stand point of how one thinks of the government at just a glance.

[Slug99]

In a democracy, you are the government.

[anyusmoon1]

Our form of government is not a democracy, it is a Constitutional Republic. Crhisnoscrub is right, they (Government) are Our SERVANTS.

[IamtheVOICE123]

The only problem with that is that people don't view it as that. Therefore the government runs wild and does what they want. In the end, our government serves themselves by serving us; but at the same time keeping us quiet and docile with food, drugs, sales and whatnot. If the people of this country ever figure that out, a revolution will be on our hands, either that or a war with the free men against the rich tyrants.

[maskedphrogg]

You're very close.

Much like the Congress we have abdicated our responsibilities. We have not overseen our government. This has given the government the slack leash they need to begin the process of conning the Public into believing they are the masters and We the People the servant.

[anyusmoon1]

yes maskedphrogg- the education system (see Norman Dodd interview by G. Edward Griffin) and the historically bought and paid for media have succeeded in dumbing down the public to such a degree they no longer KNOW what facts are. We have to point out that our written law is written just for that reason- they only need read the Constitution to return to it.

[anyusmoon1]

so true lametheVOICE... the method to boil frogs has just about reached the optimum temp. We have to reverse the process. You are a hero in my eyes :-)

[IamtheVOICE123]

I wouldn't say that. I don't really side with anyone myself. I'm more of a neutral being. And besides in the end, it's best not to take anyone's side, only search for the truth on both ends and see where everything leads. That's a true path so you don't get sucked into any phony bs movement who is more interested in being the next big brother.

[anyusmoon1]

Well, truth tellers and careful observers are heroes to me. So I can say :-)

[eldoradoreefgold]

number one)no profanity!...number two)no profane governments!...number three)put everything to a vote on each discussion group!...number three)start very dangerous identification process which would negate all of our constitutional rights from the onset!! whaT IS THE SOLUTION :PHYSICAL MASS VOTING MEETINGS....VOTE BY VOICE AND HANDS NOT AN ABSOLUTE HEAD-BY-HEAD COUNT...WITH ACCOMPANYING "FREE CONCERTS!!

[schrankage]

i never thought about it this way, but rush limbaugh and sean hannity are expert trolls

[DagnirGlaurunga]

The best one is still Ann Coulter.

[anyusmoon1]

well, I'd call hannity and limbaugh PAID trolls, they certainly offer no serious expertise that I find useful. That is... Not to a Constitutional Republic.

:-)