Debating debates on the Internet

Discussion in 'General Global Topics' started by Flanders, Apr 29, 2012.

  1. Flanders


    Sep 23, 2010
    Thanks Received:
    Trophy Points:
    Al DiGuido over at Human Events has a nice column about the GOP’s failure to grasp the importance of the Internet in favor of:

    I do not think DiGuido is talking about message boards because each board’s readership is invisible compared to this:

    GOP needs to wake up and develop an effective social media strategy
    by Al DiGuido
    Posted 04/29/2012 ET

    GOP needs to wake up and develop an effective social media strategy - HUMAN EVENTS

    Big numbers on Facebook and Twitter notwithstanding, there are hundreds of political message boards, while no one has figured out how to organize and use all of that raw power against liberalism.

    NOTE: Message boards are usually dominated by liberals; i.e., they have the numbers but not the issues. The best they can do is attack conservatives personally. Whenever they do attempt to defend a liberal policy, or liberal ideology, they are so inept they inevitably highlight their vacuity.

    Liberals usually try to silence conservatives, while conservatives encourage liberals to post messages —— the more liberals say in writing the more they cannot spin it away as leading Democrats do with the spoken word. No one seems to notice that a message board is the only place that provides the free speech liberals fear more than they fear anything else.


    Over the years, I’ve noticed that liberals seldom defend the United Nations, nor do they post original messages praising the United Nations. I’ve attacked the UN in hundreds and hundreds of messages, yet only two or three liberals ever disputed what I said. Hell, they never attacked me personally in defence of the UN which is rare for liberals. That should tell conservative Republicans something about where to hit the Democrats on the Internet.

    Incidentally, I’ve never seen a message board with an uncensored UN forum. In fact, I’ve never seen a message board with a UN forum listed.

    The United Nations is the one topic that binds Democrats to treason for all time. They simply cannot run away from their betrayals irrespective of the help they get from the media.

    Up to now, globalists have gotten away with broad foreign policy statements that sound so good I almost fall for them. Human Rights tops the list of their rhetoric with nary a nod given to limited representative government in a world of sovereign nation-states. Globalists, in their search for unattainable perfection justify abolishing the absolute sovereignty of nation-states for a host of reasons; sacrificing the individual liberties of the many is never mentioned. They are outright prevaricators because they know that perfection is a utopian fantasy.

    My point is that there should be a debate about the mechanics of submission to the UNIC (United Nations/International Community). The Internet is the only place that debate might take place. Television will never host such a debate. Let the leading Democrats openly defend the UN in a debate with leading conservatives who oppose the United Nations —— then watch average Americans run with it. The first question should be: Will the UN work for or against Americans?

    As things now stand, Democrats make remarks pumping up the UN and no one tells them “Never mind harping on how America lost the International community’s respect in recent years. Give us some precise facts proving why the United Nations is good for Americans —— touchy-feely philosophical crapola not accepted.”

    Ugly Americans

    Socialists began defining Americans as ugly not long after the UN succeeded the League of Nations. The latest thing in Leftism’s claptrap is that “unilateral” defines the new ugly American.


    The American flag was being burned in mud hut countries fifty years ago; decades before American Communists took to flag-burning here at home. Darn few in Washington in those years spoke out against multilateral policies designed to appease the America-haters. Those few who did speak were crucified.

    More recently, then-Senator Biden flooded the talk shows telling everyone his sacred International community had only just turned against Americans over Iraq. He was so vocal in defense of America’s enemies I used to call him Joe “International Community” Biden in my messages. Little did I know that a UN-loving, America-hating, senator would become vice president.

    As far as the International community’s respect goes, the United States will never be respected by the UNIC until Americans do as they’re told by a bunch of Third World ventriloquist dummies being manipulated by European Communists. Nothing will satisfy those people until they are on top, just as there is never enough taxation to satisfy the welfare state’s demands.

    On the day American quislings capitulate for everyone the International community will openly snicker at American toadies. A toady is a step below their present-day opinion; Americans are unsophisticated, spoiled, children in need of the Third World’s moral guidance. Then, when there’s no more America to give away, I’d like to know what the UNIC will demand from Americans to feed its own destructive envy?

    It’s only in the last decade or so on the Internet that some meaningful opposition to the UN began to reach the public at large. I call Beltway quislings traitors because before the Internet they decided that a one government world administered by the United Nations was best for themselves at the expense of America’s independence.

    Americans who were unaware of the things that were being sneaked past them since 1945 may very well say “UN government is what we want” after a real debate on the nuts and bolts of a global government takes place. In that case there is no more to be said, but let’s first have an honest, no holds barred, debate. Let’s find out what the cost is going to be in every sense before Americans are tricked into buying a pig in a poke?

    Let’s be clear about who does the debating? It should be confined to Americans only. If non-Americans living in the US want to debate, let them go back to their own countries and debate their own country’s sovereignty instead of adding their weight to the quisling position which is what they always seem to do. I know I’m correct in this assessment because I’ve heard hundreds of pro-UN foreigners speak highly of the International community on network TV over the years, while I’m still waiting to see or hear one foreign-born opponent of the UN voice their objections to the UN on the talkies. For that matter, most Americans on TV offer bland objections to the UN’s inefficiency —— which is a surreptitious way of calling for a stronger United Nations.

    Using the UN to purify envy under the pretense of making a better world is so patently obvious UN advocates in any debate will have no choice but to assume the role of saviors hoping no one will challenge their avaricious motives. Detractors can easily be labeled as uncaring.

    Finally, throughout the Cold War the Democrats and the Soviet Union were best friends. Everybody with an ounce of brains knew Democrats were betraying the country to communism. They got away with it because they were selling out to an ideology knowing full-well that Americans would unite against an invading army. The sickest thing Hussein & Company get away with is selling the idea that Democrats are now big on defending America and short on proving it. They repeatedly vote to cut defense spending, while they always vote to increase OUR funding for UN operations.

    Note that the media is hailing Hussein’s foreign policies disasters as successes. I’d be happy if someone could tell me how killing Osama bin Laden makes the New START Treaty a success. Ditto the Arab Spring along with all of the rest of Hussein’s bonehead decisions.
  2. Truthmatters

    Truthmatters BANNED

    May 10, 2007
    Thanks Received:
    Trophy Points:
    their average voter age is too old

Share This Page