I've been told ^that^ comment makes no sense. Let me try again.

By calling himself a libertarian or liberty activist, blankfist creates an irrational mental environment of infallibility. He doesn't see his ideology as subjective reasoning, but rather the embodiment of liberty itself. Argue with blankfist, and in his mind you are arguing with liberty.

It doesn't matter that his subjective concept of liberty is geared towards a very small amount of wealthy business owners at the expense of the working class. It doesn't matter that when put into practice, his ideology produces results that are violent, oppresive and corrupt. Like the Christian soldier who fights as an agent of God, blankfist is a free market soldier that fights as an agent of a higher power called liberty. Right and wrong no longer mean anything when you are fighting for the divine.

With this mindset, Milton Friedman's 'shock therapy' in Chile that replaced a socialist democracy with a capitalist dictatorship and left tens of thousands dead becomes an unfortunate but necessary sacrifice to the gods of liberty. Whenever a newly deregulated market spawns oppression and theft, (S&L's,Enron,Mortgage Fraud) there are always plenty of scapegoats to pawn responsibility off onto, because the true God of market liberty self-regulates. With this mindset, there is no need for introspection, because liberty is perfect. Liberty is Love. Remember Ron Paul's Love-olution billboards? You aren't voting for a man, you are voting for the physical embodiment of love! How could anyone be anti-love?

Same goes for 'objectivism', especially when the concept is tied to 'individualism'. Individuals are incapable of objectivity. Ayn Rand titling her movement 'objectivism' is evidence that she is in no way objective. A 'collective' of people, with different life experiences and areas of expertise would ironically be more much more objective than an 'Objectivist' individual. It's like rain on your wedding day, or titling your subjective ideology 'objectivism'. Sorry Alanis, that lyric doesn't rhyme and is going to need some work.

I believe we reinforce this divinity complex when we use words such as libertarian or objectivist. We should either call them what they are, anarcho-capitalists, or develop our own divine self-definition.

Truthitarianism? Correctist? IMASMARTYURADUMY.com?

Left-leaning twerps crank out nearly all of Hollywood's violent "entertainment". Most video games are extremely violent. I've enjoyed both.

A billboard with simulated bullet holes on it did not and does not cause anyone to shoot anyone else.

You're grasping at straws here.

I agree, people aren't motivated to kill by phrases like "don't retreat, reload" or state billboards with crosshairs, but by the exaggerated and false and highly incendiary rhetoric they voice about individual rights, morality and the economy.

If you truly believed that a vague and amorphous entity called 'the government' was going to devalue everyone's currency to nothing and was brainwashing its citizens, would you not be compelled to act drastically?>> ^blankfist:

Wow, what a nutbag. As an aside, I think people may be placing blame wrongfully on the Tea Party and Palin for this incident. This guy seems more like an Alex Jones conspiratorial nutbag than anything else. That's what he seems like to me. Someone who came to libertarianism but got very lost and very angry in the process.

@Myslig you are assuming the targeted audience is the religious. I think these billboards are for closet-atheists to let them know it's okay to question religion openly. Once a critical mass has been built we can get rid of the stigma of being an atheist and have more intelligent discussions about religious beliefs.

>> ^Mysling:

Even as an atheist, i actually have to agree with Bill here. Those billboards are very insulting.
Is it possible to ask Dave Silverman to adopt af different title? "Basher of Religious Befliefs"? If his goal really is to promote atheism, I really hope he would stop doing it by insulting people. That doesn't help anyone, it just digs the trench deeper.

"Promoting atheism" is the same as demolishing theism. I don't promote "non-delusions" either, I break delusions.

>> ^Mysling:

Even as an atheist, i actually have to agree with Bill here. Those billboards are very insulting.
Is it possible to ask Dave Silverman to adopt af different title? "Basher of Religious Befliefs"? If his goal really is to promote atheism, I really hope he would stop doing it by insulting people. That doesn't help anyone, it just digs the trench deeper.

I agree. All he's really doing is promoting a variation of the - Can't you feel god's presence in the trees and the Earth? - argument.>> ^Mysling:

Even as an atheist, i actually have to agree with Bill here. Those billboards are very insulting.
Is it possible to ask Dave Silverman to adopt af different title? "Basher of Religious Befliefs"? If his goal really is to promote atheism, I really hope he would stop doing it by insulting people. That doesn't help anyone, it just digs the trench deeper.

Even as an atheist, i actually have to agree with Bill here. Those billboards are very insulting.

Is it possible to ask Dave Silverman to adopt af different title? "Basher of Religious Befliefs"? If his goal really is to promote atheism, I really hope he would stop doing it by insulting people. That doesn't help anyone, it just digs the trench deeper.

>> ^bamdrew:

Yeah... pretty silly campaign.
Than again... maybe the sillier/more offensive the better...

Q:"Why do bad things happen to good people?"
A:"Because God hates fags"
-this billboard brought to you by some annoying atheist group-


this made me laugh, sorta like the joke:

What did the deaf, dumb, blind, mute boy get for Christmas?
Cancer

Yeah... pretty silly campaign.

Than again... maybe the sillier/more offensive the better...


Q:"Why do bad things happen to good people?"

A:"Because God hates fags"

-this billboard brought to you by some annoying atheist group-

The guest claimed that the billboards are just a statement of fact. He should have known by then that Fox finds facts to be insulting. Bill O' is on Fox, therefore Bill O' is insulted.

There is nothing religious about Christmas tress, well, rather, nothing Christian. If anything, the Christmas tree is about multiculturalism. I don't like Christmas tress personally. I don't like the Catholic guys attitude, he is being defensive and divisive. Even so, he is right, get over it. The key to being multiculturalism is to be exposed to stuff you don't believe in. I think it would be cool if I wish someone a merry Christmas, and then he wishes me a happy kwanzaa or Ramadan or something. That is what we are shooting for I think, not everyone having to leave their faith at home because of the atheist, that hardly seems fair to anyone. Trees and decorations and essentially passive, like any billboard or sign, it can be easily dismissed. The world both of these people want to build, though, frighten me. One wants to build a world of intolerance, and the other, a world of sterile, disingenuous devoid of any true personal expression. Both are a hell of sorts.

Loved the Santa punching jesus "billboard"

>> ^bareboards2:

I live in a small town in America and rarely get to the big city. Please tell me these monstrosities are just in Australia? Not in America yet?


Yea, see my previous comment. These are in America. Unfortunately, I've never seen small motorcycle billboards like the ones used here, I've only seen larger trucks like he uses, which is even more depressing...

Learning things is good, there are no good or bad seasons to learn. Great work by those involved with the billboards and TV adds etc

Telling someone that they are wrong isn't always mocking them. Sometimes it's simply an attempt to point out a fact, raise their awareness, or take away some ignorance. Yet this can still be embarrassing, and therefore can easily be seen as mocking. Everyone likes to be right, some are just more reasonable to accept the alternative based on proof and move on.

However, religions should be mocked as there is no scientific proof of a god's existence at this point in time, and nothing other than religious scriptures and scientific facts are needed to achieve this to a near perfect art.
Note: "doesn't need to be proven" is not a reasonable stance for any argument. Try it in any other subject and watch how fast it fails.

All statements need to be substantiated beyond reasonable doubt, else they should be discarded with any other unproven opinions.

Thomas Jefferson: "Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions"

PS: besides, the gods in the Abrahamic religions are a bunch of ass holes, why would anyone in their right mind want to appease any version of them?

These are the discussions that really need to be tackled in America

-election reform. Politicians seem to be in a perpetual cycle where instead of governing, they are campaigning for the next election. Elections should be publicly funded. In the internet age, why do we need commercials, lawn signs and billboards?? Give each candidate a website that they can put whatever info they want on it...DONE

-economics. Put it to bed that trickle down economics does not work, or at the very least is vastly inefficient.

-public vs private. This notion that gov't and/or taxes are evil. I don't give a shit about small government. Gov't will always be changing in size because the public demands it. It's a moot argument. I want efficient Gov't. Of course there is gov't waste and greed. But every organization, public and private has this problem and I don't care for the double standard. In either case, the waste and the greed usually starts at the top, not the bottom. Yet the bottom usually is told that they have to sacrifice the most when cuts are made.

-corporations are NOT people.