The #SCDebate in the #Twitterverse - a tutorial on #SocialMedia in politics and freedom on the #Internet

I have written previously about Twitter, and how powerful and important I consider it to be to the cause of individual freedom and positive self-ownership-friendly cultural change. It is my view that Twitter has the power to promote free speech and individual freedom via the open and unrestricted dissemination and sharing of information in cyberspace. In that context, Twitter has the important potential to function as a two-way emergency warning system, a sort of modern-day Committee of Correspondence to get the news out to the citizenry in real time as to what shennanigans "the king" (government1) is up to.

I once heard an intelligent man say on YouTube that he believed an interconnected online community of so-called "citizen journalists" — in other words bloggers just like you and me — is the solution to putting an end to government1 secrecy and start exposing government1 corruption, deception, and lack of transparency and accountability in effective ways. That is so, because we are the ones who have the cell phones with cameras and recorders who happen to be in the right place at the right time when something newsworthy is happening. With that in mind, I thought I'd take a shot at writing a story folks might find interesting, kind of a "behind the scenes" version of the GOP primary debate in South Carolina. To do that, I wanted to use "tweets" (140-character posts) on Twitter to illustrate my story.

One thing I love about both technology and Twitter is that they create a level playing field between society's "stars" and its "little people" (like you and me). If you click on the thumbnail photos, they will take you to that person's Twitter page. The pictures are called "avatars", and you can put virtually any avatar you choose on your Twitter page. Of course you need to learn a bit about digital photography, PhotoShop (or PhotoShop Elements), how to make pdf files, and how to manage and resize jpg files, but after that we're all equal on Twitter and the Internet. In fact, on your own website, you are more than equal to the "stars". (What is a "star" anyway, other than a person more people know about than they do you?)

A typical tweet looks like this:

If you put your cursor on Neal Boortz' (@Talkmaster) tweet, you will notice that the arrow turns into a hand. If you "click" on the tweet, it will take you to Neal's Twitter page. That's called "hyperlinking", one of the truly magical features of the Internet. Now look at the exact same image without the link:

Notice that if you place your cursor on the second image of the same tweet, nothing happens. That's because it's not linked to any destination, it's just displayed in this story.

On his radio show with his wussy little control-freak kill switch (which makes all the radio talk show guys look smarter than they really are), and on his own website, Neal is king. But on my own website I am king. And any cybersurfer can choose to go either to Neal's site, or to mine, or both, depending on which site they believe adds more value to their lives. It's a true intellectual free market of ideas. And if I should decide I don't like Neal, on my website where I am king, I can make my tweets huge, and his so small you can barely read them, like this:

Yup, on my website, where I am king, I don't have to tolerate pseudo-intellectual lawyer wusses like Neal Boortz — I always try to remember that his unwavering support for the Fair Tax forgives MANY sins — getting away with refusing to answer the hard questions about what to him are apparently "sensitive" subjects like abortion and the truth Ron Paul is telling about America's PROVABLY unconstitutional debt-as-money financial and tax systems.

I have deliberately chosen Ann Coulter and Michelle Malkin (sorry, ladies!) because I thought their tweets were among the most interesting and did the best job of illustrating my story about the South Carolina debate as "twittered" about on Twitter. I particularly liked Michelle Malkin, because of the human interest value in the simple fact she had to put her kids to bed in the middle of the debate. (Yes, real life does go on in spite of politics2!) The content of the tweets speaks for itself. The "RT" stands for "retweet", which means you get to display another person's tweet on your twitter page (unless they "block" you).

Here Michelle expressed her lack of enthusiasm for something Newt Gingrich said:

Thanks for your help, Michelle! Now let's move on to razor-wit Ann Coulter. She's an endless stream of entertaining tweets:

But if Ann really likes Ron Paul, why was she quoted on YouTube, at about the 1:49 mark — (as you can see in the still image below, just click on it to see the video) — as saying this:

Uh, which is it, Ann? Do you love Ron Paul, or do you consider him a "fanatic" and "slightly crazy"? Kinda got caught in a little inconsistency there, didn't ya, dahling?! Why is there a seemingly endless list of so-called "conservative" or "libertarian" talking heads and radio shouters — many of them lawyers who should know better, such as Ann Coulter, Neal Boortz, Mark Levin, David Limbaugh, ad infinitum — who absolutely refuse to talk about the PROVABLE FACT that America's monetary and tax structures are exactly what the Founders were trying to prevent, very cynically and manipulatively choosing instead to demonize Ron Paul merely for daring to speak openly about TRUTH they refuse to talk about? Actually, I consider that level of intellectual dishonesty and cynicism to be evil.

Most people are ignorant and gullible about the ways the politics2 of personal destruction are played. You should always be aware that your phone conversations might be being recorded. Don't have anything on your computer you wouldn't want government scum3 (or anybody else) to use against you. Always remember that what you put on your website or social media pages goes out to the whole wide world for anybody to use against you. For that reason, you may notice that some of the smartest political2 manipulators, say Slick Willy for example, "protect" their private information and require you to get their permission if you want to look at their pages. But that ploy is a double-edged sword. It simply indicates Bubba doesn't "get" Twitter. As of this writing, he follows only one person, and has only seven people following him. He obviously uses other means, including his wealth, fame, and acolytes to help broadcast his opinions and influence public opinion. Many other virtually unknown tweeps have many hundreds or thousands, and, in the case of a few Hollywood celebrities and Obama, millions of Twitter "followers" who can hear what they have to say.

Okay, let's get back to the South Carolina debate on Twitter.

Notice that in Ann Coulter's last three tweets, she was responding to a person/group (@aletheiatruth) who had tweeted "RT @aletheiatruth Watching Newt - why is there even a contest? What are you looking 4?" In the first tweet, Ann put the "@" and the "aletheiatruth" together, which probably meant she wanted "aletheiatruth" to see her reply because a tweep is notified when somebody has properly retweeted ("RTd") one of their tweets. Notice that the "@aletheiatruth" is highlighted in blue, which means its a live link. Then notice that in the next two tweets, Ann put a space between the "@" and the "aletheiatruth", which means Twitter did not notify "aletheiatruth" that "@AnnCoulter" had retweeted the message. The "@ aletheiatruth" is not highlighted in blue, which means it is not a live link, and that Ann probably wanted only her own followers to see the tweet, lest "aletheiatruth" think Ann was being too aggressive in her responses. Of course it is possible the space was merely a typo.

Now for some less famous Tweeps' view of the #SCDebate:

I linked the image of Frostily Bones' tweet to the YouTube video he had linked at the time I saw his tweet. Just click on the image to see the video he was referring to. If you want to see his Twitter page, just go to @FrostilyBones.

I could have added a quite literally never-ending list of #SCDebate tweets, but you get the general idea of how the loose-knit, anarchical Twitter "community" deals with a subject. Everybody's tweets look the same. Rich, poor, famous, unknown alike, we are all equal on Twitter. So the most rich and famous person in the world can tweet a lie, and a total nobody can respond and make him look like the fool he is. It should be pretty easy to see why Big Brother and his scumbag3 servants want to control the Internet and social media!

Under construction . . .


SHAMELESS SELF-PROMOTION: See John's Twitter for one of the web's most eclectic mashups of interesting real-time news articles. I surf the web for interesting real-time news stories and informative tidbits so you don't have to.

Listening to most politicians2 makes you sick, because they are addicted to power and lying. As soon as they start to talk, you can instantly recognize the pattern of well-rehearsed, strategically manipulative blather. It always amazes me when I hear wannbe-clever half-literate morons accuse Sarah Palin of being "stupid". Nothing could be farther from the truth. She is so intelligent that I don't know where she stands on the U.S. Constitution and Ron Paul's matrix issue, the honest money issue. There are three questions I'd love to have the opportunity to ask Sarah: 1) Do you believe the U.S. Constitution is a legally ("Supreme Law of the Land") binding specific-performance two-party contract which is not open to being unilaterally changed via strategic misinterpretation and manipulation by one (the government) party to the contract? Yes or no? 2) Do you believe that the U.S. Supreme Court's so-called Legal Tender Cases (Knox v. Lee, Parker v. Davis), 79 U.S. (12 Wallace) 457 (1870) and Juilliard v. Greenman, 110 U.S. 421 (1884) — contrast those two revisionist-history lies with the truth of Hepburn v. Griswold, 75 U.S. (8 Wallace) 603 (Feb 7, 1870) — are in direct conflict with the fact that, according to James Madison's notes of the Federal [Constitutional] Convention of 1787, the Founders voted 9-2 against giving the national government the power to print paper money? Yes or No? 3) If you agree that America's current steal-from-A-and-give-to-B, debt-as-money monetary and tax structures are in fact PROVABLY unconstitutional (and therefore both fraudulent and treasonous), how would you propose to remedy that situation and restore the U.S. Constitution to its rightful "Supreme Law of the Land" status? Any presidential candidate should be able to coherently and knowledgeably answer those questions, but the sad fact is that Ron Paul is the only candidate talking substantively about those issues.

Sarah Palin: If I had to vote in South Carolina, I would vote for Newt Gingrich - FoxNews video

Sarah Palin: "The GOP had better not marginalize Ron Paul and his supporters." - YouTube video

Live: Editors Discuss #CNNDebate - US Stream video

The NDAA: Just one more link in the chain of tyranny - YouTube video

CIA Officer Explains New World Order’s Demise - YouTube video

"Star Spangled Banner" By The Isaacs (Acapella) - YouTube video

Ted Nugent performs the Star Spangled Banner (US National Anthem) on Glenn Beck FOX News - YouTube video


1. In reality, there is no such real thing as "government". It is not a rock, a tree, a river, or even a cloud. It is mere behavior, an established social order, a dominance-based pecking order. With other animal species, it is often called "dominance hierarchy". In the case of humans, the term "social hierarchy" is more often used. As Frédéric Bastiat said, "Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else." As H.L. Mencken said, "Every election is a sort of advance auction sale of stolen goods." As General Smedley Butler has written, "War Is A Racket". In reality, "government" is merely the dominant individuals in the inherently evil and inevitably corrupting stupid-human pecking order struggle known as "politics"2. These disordered-by-definition dominant individuals merely call themselves "government" so the hoi polloi masses will view them as being intelligent enough and moral enough to follow and obey.

2. Always remember, "politics" = person or group A trying to persuade person or group B to obey the will of A, most frequently for the personal financial benefit of A and to the personal financial detriment (higher taxes) of B. That is why deception = the so-called "art" of politics. That is also why "politician" = professional deceiver, and why "political" = deception-based, or having to do with deception. Everybody is competing for political power to steal labor and money out of the "other guy's" pocket and put it in their own. Politicians get votes by promising to be all things to all people. Because that is a physical impossibility, most of their promises of necessity get broken. Because they know this in advance, they are ALL liars to one degree or another. The king is always the most corrupt person in the kingdom. (The first two kings of ancient Israel, Saul and David, were murderers.) In my opinion, any person who sincerely wants to be the king is criminally insane and an implacable deadly enemy to the inalienable Creator-endowed rights of individual freedom and self-ownership.

3. It bears constant repetition: explaining the words "scum" and "scumbag" as an epithet used in self-defensive demonization against select individuals and/or ideologies. I have given the matter considerable thought in an essay titled "To be civil, or not to be civil: that is the question" elsewhere on this website. Hey, what can I say? It is a long-proven statistical fact that negative political ads are in fact effective. And since the so-called "left" uses lies, half-truths, demonization and the politics of personal destruction as standard political strategies, failure to engage in a little "turn about is fair play" merely makes it easier for the various assortments of disordered illiterate fascist control freaks to destroy individual freedom. As I said on my blog homepage, "Some folks just think they're smarter than everybody else, a higher form of life than everybody else. So, instead of engaging in good faith discussions about specific ideas, they simply resort to deception, sophistry, unspecificity, undefined terms, manipulation, demonization and the politics of personal destruction AS A MATTER OF PREFERRED STRATEGY to get their little spoiled-brat control-freak way. Such behavior is anathema to intellectual honesty, an open mind, a kind heart, free inquiry, the freedoms of thought and speech, and the free flow of information. It MUST be eternally warred against if humankind is to entertain a realistic hope of ever reaching its full spiritual and intellectual potential." To avoid the violence which is directly related to repression of free speech and the crushing of polite and civil discourse, I believe it is essential to engage in strategic tit-for-tat with wannabe-clever manipulative demonizers by openly calling them what they are: the anti-freedom, anti-Golden-Rule scum of the earth (aka "scumbags"). Accordingly, it doesn't bother me in the least to do so. No less brilliant a person than Jesus of Nazareth himself referred to the scumbags of his day as "hypocrites", "blind guides", "vipers" and "whitewashed sepulchres". To paraphrase Ann Coulter, Jesus was not some moron driving around in a Volvo with a "be nice to people" bumper sticker on it. So, having read The Art of Political War and Other Radical Pursuits by David Horowitz, I don't have any problem with calling "scum" what it is. Surely a huge majority of people, especially black people, would agree that any person or group who sincerely believes in slavery or pedophilia, by way of example, qualify as "scum". Point made.