Well that didn't take long.  They banned me. 

I feel for you.  I was killed for have a pleasent conversation wit Art in the "general Welfare clause"   Thom Hartmann's minions seem to want to drive the forum in to the wall with thier foot on the Pedal.    As an extention, this makes Thom Hartmann himself out as an intellectual coward,  the forum version of the Call Dump button.    His posting are moronic and if you respond to them in a challenge...   your as good as dead.  They are trying to get the membership down to 12 logged in and making sure they are all cheerleaders to the cause. 

"Are you Peter.G?  I was following that conversation."

Yes for the moment,  I'm sure he'll die just for posting that.  

"they" have a Thomhartmann support Group http  ://joedanmediaforum.joedanmedia.com/user/discussions.aspx?id=200298

That is looking for a new place to hang their hats, Since Thom's is going into the shitter. 

Your Spam software here is bruttal

I registered over there.  I am stevo_dubc.  I see lots of old familiar names.  It's like Thomland Valhalla!

Yes, Alot of old familar names.  Hated, Scrorned, Feared at Thoms.    

I'll keep an eye out for you.  I'm going to try and get Kerry to come over there So I can kick his worthless, moronic ass. 

You guys have a lot stronger stomach than I.  As I posted before, I have given up on regressives (they call themselves progressives).  I hate to generalize, but almost to a man, the people at the Thom Hartmann forum are unwilling to answer a question directly.  Thom Hartmann himself, is an intellectually dishonest debater.  While I don't care for FTL's Ian, Hartmann sandbagged him during an interview.  He also tried to do the same to Napolitano.  The only problem for Hartmann was that the breadth of Napolitano knowledge was so great that it didn't work.

 Howdy,  Lysander

Certainly can't disagree with your assessment.  They are a unique and interesting bunch.  I only subject myself to their abuse for one real reason and it's not because I'm a sadomasochist.   I enjoy testing my thoughts, my opinions and convictions against those who would see me burn for them, a mental modern day gladiator match.    Thom's use to be much better place before the rampant commercialism.  The ideal discussion between a liberal and conservative should most generally end in a stalemate.  I believe there are two ways to skin a cat just like there are two ways to feed the poor.    The problem at Thom's in the recent years is that the Liberals there no longer have the intellectual capacity to argue and justify their conviction.  It's easier to call people names and attack their position than to justify their own.   But doesn't stop me trying to find that one topic in which my knowledge and opinions prove out wrong.    It's bound to happen someday. 

The second reason it that it's just too freaking funny watching Thom's delve further into authoritarianism as a blatant hypocrisy to the words they use.   Whether or not they embrace the change or just they don't realize it.  Still really funny. 

As I have already noted, I was banned from Thomland, still with no communication from the moderators as to why. Rbs (and rbs2, rbs3, and rbs4) have all been banned, and I now seem to have been IP blocked, which makes it a hassle but not impossible to load the site. I just state this here, because I see that LeMoyne just posted in Thomland asking where I've been and if I've been blocked, and if so why. Hopefully he'll see this and see what's going on, since he will not get any information from Thom or his minions.

In case he pops back over here to take a look, I just wanted to point out that I have also had my posts summarily removed or secretly altered. My last attempt to communicate was via rbs4 (who is now banned) wherein I wrote:

"I'm sorry Kerry, but for some reason, my account continues be be disabled every time I create a new one. I am now up to rbs4, and I'm sure that this account will be disabled next time I try to log in. This pretty much precludes my ability to continue this conversation. Apparently the most effective way to defend one's position is with the ban button. I can only conclude that differences in opinion are not tolerated on this board. Have fun talking to each other."

You can go look at this comment (http://www.thomhartmann.com/forum/2010/08/do-i-have-right-rule-others?pa...) now and you will see:

"Have fun talking to each other."

Of course, rbs4 is now blocked, leaving me no way to edit my entry back to its original state.

This is why I say that if you scratch a progressive you will reveal an authoritarian. Since their ideas are indefensible, they use their power to supress vocal opposition.

For the life of me, I just can't think of a reason for all thier Jackboot Tactics.  

In case you can't see it Lemoyne responded to you:

-----------------------------

rbs shadow thread is enlightening as to motives and actions - and raises the question was rbs banned? and if so, what for?  his personal attacks over there?  --   http://libertyconspiracy.com/forum/do_i_have_right_rule_others

There are a few points of argument that have been missed.  In the scenario posed by rbs it is rbs himself who wants to get Joe's nutritional content labelled our of concern 'for the health of his customers'.  

1) Inferring from many postings here and there that rbs doesn't believe that coercion is appropriate in any circumstance then the scenario is a total no-go - there is no possible path to or justification of coercion from an ideal libertarian rbs.  Any argument trying to convince rbs that he should take action against the hamburger stand is a total non-starter.

2)  The usual methods of violent coercion across a fast food counter (after or during the shouting phase) are these: a) the threat of or actual summoning of police by the owner to arrest the intruder and/or b) the ax handle or baseball bat coming out from behind the counter .  I submit to you rbs that the corporations who run fast food and other public establishments will resort to violent or forceful coercion faster than the  individual on the other side of the counter.  And the business will resort to coercion by state power faster and more surely than you, the individual.

In another corollary argument say rbs worked at the joint and suggested the labeling and was refused and insisted - again the coercion would kick in with 'shut up and get to work'.  I know that the money power, whether a mega corporation or the owner of a single hamburger stand, expects the right of free speech to be checked at the door.  I have actually had corporate trainers announce with no provocation "You have no right of free speech here."

The right of property (NOT in constitution) clearly trumps the right of free speech in the US today.  In their daily work and travel people are far more afraid of corporate power than any terrorist.  I have heard that the PATRIOT act actually defines interfering with commerce as terrorism.  So, rbs, as an individual you have no right to nutritional information from the hamburger stand: any such demand could even be construed as interference with commerce and therefore terrorism.  The fear of being labelled terrorist is a very effective means of social control protecting the money power that treats our government like a sock puppet.

Thanks, Fuzzy Bunny.  Yes, I have to use my friend's computer, which is a hassle, but I am able to see what's going on.  As soon as I create a new user, they ban me.  Sometimes before I even get a chance to post anything.

The funny thing is their silence as to why.  I still have gotten no explanation.

2)  The usual methods of violent coercion across a fast food counter (after or during the shouting phase) are these: a) the threat of or actual summoning of police by the owner to arrest the intruder and/or b) the ax handle or baseball bat coming out from behind the counter .  I submit to you rbs that the corporations who run fast food and other public establishments will resort to violent or forceful coercion faster than the  individual on the other side of the counter.  And the business will resort to coercion by state power faster and more surely than you, the individual.

The funny aspect of this statement is that when I look at it, on general individuals are much more violent on business interests than the other way around. Businesses have no need or desire to deal in violent acts. Who would want your business labeled as such. For some examples of violence on business interests the Seattle riots, Discovery Channel, and being a manager of retail outlets in LA, I knew violence by individuals close up and personal.

Steve,

I went over to ThomHartmann.com to check things out.  I've kept my pledge to never post there again.  I looked at your posts.  As usual, no one will answer the question asked.  They always answer a different question or inject a second or third issue into the mix.  They have no moral, economic or Constitution response to libertarian arguments.  Name calling, evasion and dishonestly are par for the course. 

Incidentally, have you read any of Austro-libertarian's posts?  The guy is great.  He eviscerates the arguments of people like polycarp.  They, of course, don't provide any substantive replies.  While I haven't given up on all Regressives, this lot is beyond help.  I used to think, as a former semi-progressive, that I would be able to reach these people.  Now, I am starting to think that the thinking parts of the Right-Wing and honest apolitical types might be more fertile territory.

Yes, I haven't seen you back since you left.

Yeah, A-L is great.  There's a thread over there called Letter To A Conservative where A-L just crushed Kerry.  I was in that thread too, and Kerry started calling him my (rbs's) smarter friend.  What a hoot.  That guy definitely is smarter than me, I'm happy to say that.

There's another decent poster over there called Monsieur B.  He's pretty good at crushing regressives as well.  Keep you eye out for any thread he's on.

Well, I probably won't be back over there much anymore.  It's such a pain to work around the IP block - it's really not worth it.

You all have really gotten me interested in challenging this Hartman cat to a debate. But regardless, Isn't it sad when people aren't open to the free exchange of ideas? We're not on this planet long, why waste time trying to keep shutting people up and trying to not learn? Those folks strike me as sad and angering. Of course, as long as they have the biggest gang, they can take away our liberty through that lovely thing the praise so much, eh?

State action is the ultimate in anti-intellectualism.

Gard, You definitely should see if you can get a debate on with Hartmann.  His big issue is corporations - he can't stand them.  His fundamental argument is that if you are for a small government, you must be for big corporations.  This quip probably shuts up lots of conservatives, since in their case he may actually be right.  I'm not sure if he would know how to respond to a true free market advocate. 

Hartmann and his fellow travelers are either unwilling or unable to distinguish between a corporation that gets big due to its relationship with the government and a corporation that gets big due to satisfying its customers.  His big issues is corporate personhood which came about from the misuse of a heading from a Supreme Court decision of the 19th Century.  There is debate amongst libertarians as to whether corporations. really the owners, would have limited liability (for torts, not crimes).  I don't think I would be contradicted if I said that in a purely free market, people would get together and form organizations called corporations.  They, of course, would be subject to the law like anyone other person or business.

Use luton airport meet and greet parking service to have a good experience.

Yes, but please explain all the instructions before. meet and greet parking Heathrow

All the terms and condition should be explained clearly.
meet and greet parking luton

What independent from anyone else do produce positively in bearing of reject the at first give all alone buy cotrary to every individual one specitic. Distinguish out the least difficult supply every last is sharp in course of supply yourself just before oneself marker upon the dabbed line.

doorstep loans uk