Peter Schiff is a neo-con?

[Marko]

He is not lying/playing a game. He doesnt know what he is talking about. As things stand I wish he doesnt get elected. For his sake. He may end up voting for something stupid and it will make him a killer.

[liberty_student]

@Caley McKibbin

Every action is an answer. A war on all fronts.

Great American demagogue impersonation. You should run for President.

@Caley McKibbin

Regarding things he says now, you can’t take at face value anything that anyone says the midst of an election campaign. See FDR

Which again was my point. If Schiff is going to lie to get power, how is he different than any other politician?

What does “our” platform mean, if we are willing to abandon it in order to implement it?

I’m not in this to “win”. I’m interested in honesty. In that regard, all politicians fail regardless of how libertarian they may claim to be.

[Caley_McKibbin]

The only thing wrong that I see with bombing strategic points in Iran is being funded by taxes. If the fuel automatically jumped into the engines and the bombers flew themselves, who could object?

[liberty_student]

@Marko

He is not lying/playing a game. He doesn`t know what he is talking about.

Ah yes, the “he isn’t evil, he’s just stupid.” argument.

@Marko

As things stand I wish he doesn`t get elected. For his sake. He may end up voting for something stupid and it will make him a killer.

I’d be more concerned with the lives of the victims than the soul of the killer.

[Tzadik]

This internet banter is simply entertaining versus compared to someone who is willing to filibuster every single new piece of legislation in the Senate…this is nothing short of being as anti-state as we’re going to get right now. I think it will open minds to have someone on CSPAN slamming every government regulation on a regular basis. His behavior will be contagious and push people towards the free market more so than today. Maybe even Woods, Murphy, or Block can get involved as an advisor to a future free market candidate. Schiff is a start to eventually have an Anarco-Cap Rothbardrian vs. Minarchist Randian debate be mainstream enough to replace the current two parties.

[liberty_student]

@Caley McKibbin

The only thing wrong that I see with bombing strategic points in Iran is being funded by taxes. If the fuel automatically jumped into the engines and the bombers flew themselves, who could object?

Anyone with libertarian ethics could object over aggression.

[liberty_student]

@Tzadik

this is nothing short of being as anti-state as we’re going to get right now.

You’re claiming it is a second best.

@Tzadik

I think it will open minds to have someone on CSPAN slamming every government regulation on a regular basis.

I think anyone intelligent will point out that Schiff was elected, and thus government is something he supports. From there, we’re back on the slippery slope.

The only way to shrink government is to abolish it. You can’t abolish it, by using the political means.

[Caley_McKibbin]

@liberty student

@Caley McKibbin

Every action is an answer. A war on all fronts.

Great American demagogue impersonation. You should run for President.

@Caley McKibbin

Regarding things he says now, you can’t take at face value anything that anyone says the midst of an election campaign. See FDR

Which again was my point. If Schiff is going to lie to get power, how is he different than any other politician?

What does “our” platform mean, if we are willing to abandon it in order to implement it?

I’m not in this to “win”. I’m interested in honesty. In that regard, all politicians fail regardless of how libertarian they may claim to be.

This is so knee-jerk reactionary.

1. Canada doesn’t have a President. I already have run for MP.

2. You can lie as much that you will do bad things as the reverse.

[Caley_McKibbin]

@liberty student

@Caley McKibbin

The only thing wrong that I see with bombing strategic points in Iran is being funded by taxes. If the fuel automatically jumped into the engines and the bombers flew themselves, who could object?

Anyone with libertarian ethics could object over aggression.

That is crap. A state with weapons that it intends to use is fair game any day. The people who work in the weapons plants should have thought about that before they decided to cooperate with a menace. Same thing I said in the Samuelson thread.

[Marko]

@liberty student

@Marko

He is not lying/playing a game. He doesn`t know what he is talking about.

Ah yes, the “he isn’t evil, he’s just stupid.” argument.

@Marko

As things stand I wish he doesn`t get elected. For his sake. He may end up voting for something stupid and it will make him a killer.

I’d be more concerned with the lives of the victims than the soul of the killer.

You are not seriously trying to out-peacenik me??

[liberty_student]

@Caley McKibbin

This is so knee-jerk reactionary.

How so?

@Caley McKibbin

1. Canada doesn’t have a President. I already have run for MP.

Just what the great white north needs. Someone who can force us to pay him to free us.

Where did I mention President?

@Caley McKibbin

2. You can lie as much that you will do bad things as the reverse.

In English please?

[krazy_kaju]

@Spideynw

Really? So you don’t think evidence needs to be collected and provided first?

There was plenty of evidence implicating Al Qaeda and Bin Laden in the 9/11 attacks.

@DD5

That is not what he implied. Watch the video again. He did not imply imminent threat.

A country armed with nuclear weaponry, whose leadership calls the United States the “Great Satan” and vows to destroy a neighboring country (where many US citizens reside) is not an imminent threat?

@Marko

You`re too young to remember this, but a war was not the only shot at getting Osama. At the time the Taleban regime had made an offer to apprehend and extradite Osama bin Laden for a trial in a Moslem country. Bush could have had Osama on trial in Saudi Arabia, UAE or Pakistan (the three countries which had diplomatic links with the Taleban rather than with the Northern Alliance, and also all pliant countries under the thumb of the US) or he could have had him shipped there and then leaned on them to pass him up to the US. Instead Bush turned them down so he could blow up things.

Thanks for this interesting information. My question is: could we have actually relied on the Taleban?

[Spideynw]

@krazy kaju

@Spideynw

Really? So you don’t think evidence needs to be collected and provided first?

There was plenty of evidence implicating Al Qaeda and Bin Laden in the 9/11 attacks.

Well, the Afghan government asked the U.S. government for it, and the U.S. government refused to let them review it.

And maybe you have not reviewed the “evidence”, but it is pretty shaky as it stands.

[Spideynw]

@liberty student

The only way to shrink government is to abolish it. You can’t abolish it, by using the political means.

I agree. However, I did donate to his campaign in the hopes of spreading Austrian economics and getting more people to this site.

[DD5]

@krazy kaju

A country armed with nuclear weaponry, whose leadership calls the United States the “Great Satan” and vows to destroy a neighboring country (where many US citizens reside) is not an imminent threat?

All government institutions are imminent threats. Besides, if you take such Iranian rhetoric seriously, then you must also take seriously, that they “Love Americans, but hate their government”.

So, if they want to kill our government, then maybe we can strike a deal with them.

[laminustacitus]

@krazy kaju

@Spideynw

Really? So you don’t think evidence needs to be collected and provided first?

There was plenty of evidence implicating Al Qaeda and Bin Laden in the 9/11 attacks.

Anyone denying this fact an an ideological demagogue with an agenda. It was beyond question that Al Qaeda, and Bin Laden were responsible for the 9/11 attacks when the United States military invaded Afghanistan.

@krazy kaju

@DD5

That is not what he implied. Watch the video again. He did not imply imminent threat.

A country armed with nuclear weaponry, whose leadership calls the United States the “Great Satan” and vows to destroy a neighboring country (where many US citizens reside) is not an imminent threat?

That is not enough evidence for classifying someone as an “imminent threat”; however, the rhetoric of Ahmadinejad is troubling, to say the least.

@krazy kaju

@Marko

You`re too young to remember this, but a war was not the only shot at getting Osama. At the time the Taleban regime had made an offer to apprehend and extradite Osama bin Laden for a trial in a Moslem country. Bush could have had Osama on trial in Saudi Arabia, UAE or Pakistan (the three countries which had diplomatic links with the Taleban rather than with the Northern Alliance, and also all pliant countries under the thumb of the US) or he could have had him shipped there and then leaned on them to pass him up to the US. Instead Bush turned them down so he could blow up things.

Thanks for this interesting information. My question is: could we have actually relied on the Taleban?

Furthermore, does not the victim have the right to bring the plainly guilty accused to their court rather having to rely on another party’s?

[Marko]

@krazy kaju

Thanks for this interesting information. My question is: could we have actually relied on the Taleban?

The Taleban were a creature of Pakistan. Pakistan held huge sway over them and Pakistan could be relied on.

@krazy kaju

[A country armed with nuclear weaponry, whose leadership calls the United States the “Great Satan” and vows to destroy a neighboring country (where many US citizens reside) is not an imminent threat?

Jeez, not again.

The US is the Great Satan. Get out of your cocoon. The whole world hates the US. They don`t hate Iran. Ever seen a video of an Iranian-flag burning?

[laminustacitus]

@Marko

@krazy kaju

Thanks for this interesting information. My question is: could we have actually relied on the Taleban?

The Taleban were a creature of Pakistan. Pakistan held huge sway over them and Pakistan could be relied on.

This a very naive, and simplistic view of both parties. In absolutely no way was the Taliban ever a creature of Pakistan while Pakistan had given it support without which it might not have survived, it was very much an Afghani movement that was never friendly towards the pro-Western policies that had been popular after Musharraf’s 1999 coup d’etat. Furthermore, the Taliban had protected bin Laden against extradition after his attack on the USS Cole, and when the Taliban had offered to extradite bin Laden after the 9/11 attacks, they would only do it if he were to be prosecuted under Sharia law. Source.

[Marko]

@laminustacitus

This a very naive, and simplistic view of both parties. In absolutely no way was the Taliban ever a creature of Pakistan while Pakistan had given it support without which it might not have survived, it was very much an Afghani movement that was never friendly towards the pro-Western policies that had been popular after Musharraf’s 1999 coup d’etat. Furthermore, the Taliban had protected bin Laden against extradition after his attack on the USS Cole, and when the Taliban had offered to extradite bin Laden after the 9/11 attacks, they would only do it if he were to be prosecuted under Sharia law. Source.

[8-)]

I need neither your lecturing, nor for you to put words into my mouth, buddy. What I said stands perfectly fine in the context I said it. I am not even going to elaborate.

[Spideynw]

@laminustacitus

Anyone denying this fact an an ideological demagogue with an agenda. It was beyond question that Al Qaeda, and Bin Laden were responsible for the 9/11 attacks when the United States military invaded Afghanistan.

Well then, why didn’t the U.S. government hand over its evidence to the Afghan government to review it first, before invading?