that’s too bad for you…
that’s even worse…
[:)] [:D][:P] [;)][:S] [cough, chortle, splutter, etc.] Keep it up! Bravo! more! more!, please MORE!
Oh, please.. spare me your irrelevant judgement.
The government is more biased toward crimes commited against the state.
Libertarians are more biased towards crimes against liberty.
I see crimes in equal light. I don’t bitch about Schiff violating the NAP more than I bitch about some stick up guy violating the NAP. But in Schiff’s case, it just so happens that his violation is going to help spread the word of austrian economics to thousands of currently uninterested people.
Sorry I’m not the paragon of Rothbardian morality you’d always dreamt I’d be.
I will. When you spare me your irrelevant nonsense.
Well, mine was just a general post, while yours was directed at me specifically. I think you bear a larger burden of irrelevance than I do.
That doesn’t even makes sense, I know. I’m just really sleep deprived, I swear I’m not a troll, good night fellas.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,137095,00.html
Bin laden didn’t “confess” to it until YEARS later, conveniently around the time the Iraq war was becoming very unpopular as the insurgency truly began to grow and everyone figured out that “Mission accomplished” was nonsense. The Government’s agenda is to lie at all times- thats why they have such a huge propaganda machine. With them- the proper starting point is that they are lying- then see if theres some truth in there somewhere. Why not believe all the stories of the Soviet Union that their economy was going a-ok?
Really all I wanna know is WHY do you think the gov’t explanation is the soundest other than the fact that you like it?. Why do you think it was the right decision to invade and kill a whole bunch of people in Afghanistan just because the tyrant government ruling over them was harboring someone we don’t like? Are you defending the current occupation of Afghanistan? Do you believe that its some type of battle of civilizations going on where the taliban are trying to take over the world with sharia law? Because thats really f****** crazy man. (maybe that’s not what you think, but you haven’t been telling me much regarding your opinion so I’ve been lumping you together with other defenders of the afghan invasion)
So, the U.S. government did not provide any evidence because the Afghan government said they would only extradite bin Laden to a country where he could be tried under Sharia law? Is anyone else confused? What does where the Afghan government would extradite bin Laden have to do with whether or not the U.S. government should provide evidence?
I’m not trolling here… but we found out that Rand Paul was a neocon earlier back. We know his foreign policy positions and while his economic positions put him against the establishment his foreign policy positions overshadow them. Peter Schiff too, it turns out is a neocon. He has no problem with the idea of us going in to bomb Iran. He also doesn’t mind the conflict in Iraq. I know some of you may not like the source (it’s from Alex Jones website) but this is a pretty good analysis on his views on foreign policy: http://www.infowars.com/peter-schiff-advocates-neocon-foreign-policy/.
If we’re going to support a libertarian politician they have to support the foreign policy views as well otherwise it doesn’t matter. The whole point of the libertarian ideology is that we’re against force and government coercion. If you’re for aggressive wars… like with wars against Iran where there is no evidence that they’re building a nuclear weapon… you’re just using the state’s compulsion and coercion apparatus against some other nation. We shouldn’t vote for sell outs who have no problem with the Republican foreign policy. That’s what makes the libertarian ideals so much different from Republican conservatism. It’s consistent… unlike Republican conservatism.
A neoconservative is someone who believes in a welfare-warfare state. Rand Paul and Peter Schiff certainly don’t believe in a welfare state. Moreover, both disagree with nation-building. They don’t sound very neocon to me.
“Why would you believe that they are lying? Believing that they are telling the truth is the logical starting ground. Furthermore, all the pieces fit if one believes that they are telling the truth”
Now that I have somewhat recovered from my initial mirth/incredulity, let me put it another way.
[1] You appear to see nothing amazingly coincidental about the “conclusive results” of a so-called " deductive reasoning process" that at the outset, assumes that the truth is being told by the government , and then [miraculously!] concludes that the truth was “actually” told.
[2] You even see nothing methodologically wrong with applying such a wonderfully “logical”," deductive reasoning process", whenever attempting to establish the actual truth or falsity of any statement a government, government official, or governmental and/or government funded department/organization might make .
In other words, the assumption of innocence for the government is handily ensured in your convenient little half-assed, meaningless review of the governments “case” of all things 911.
Sir, you are either [1] dangerously naive, or [2] a paid or unpaid government shill
Giving you the benefit of the doubt for the moment, I’ll assume the former[[1]] to be true - in which case, some free advice: you are delusional- GET OFF THESE BOARDS AND GET HELP BEFORE IT’S TOO LATE ! And the sooner the better.[:)]
On the other hand.. from what I can tell, witting and unwitting government shills [regarding the supposed “facts” about 911] comprise 99.99% of the libertarian movement, 99.99% of the so-called anarchist “movement”, 99.99% of “Austrians” , and 99.99% of posters here, so I’m sure you feel completely safe here and fully justified in your dangerous assumptions and delusions.
Pitiful. “Libertarians”, “anarcho- capitalists”, “Austrians” etc. . What a joke.
Did we have to create another thread on this?
Both of your neocon characteristic assertions could be applied to George W. Bush running for President.
not only that, but the u.s. has nuclear weapons but it’s ok. it’s the double standard hyprocrisy. it’s the assumptions people have about who’s bad, who’s good. it’s the call to war before reasoning through any facts. it’s the lack of patience in general.
You mean GWB in 2000, when he seemed like a peace candidate? True, but I believe Schiff and Paul are more trustworthy. GWB was a politician already at the time of the 2000 elections, Schiff and Paul aren’t. They also have to keep their main support base if they want to succeed, which means that they can’t deviate from their platforms too much.
I tried to merge this thread with the other one before I posted, but it wouldn’t allow me for some reason. Maybe some other mods could merge the two together.
one thing, amongst others that I might inquire, is Rand advocates the UN as a good thing. i watched him give a lecture on this in Kentucky. he didn’t go into detail on it, but simply said, 'What’s wrong with people getting together to talk? I know there’s a bunch of criminals there but dialogue is good."
The UN doesn’t only dialogue. They set policy too. Rand would need to definitely expand on what he meant. I know this is one issue that he disagrees with his father about. Rand is his own person - so - i think the “Paul” part might dilute people’s mind before they actually find out who he is.
(not really intended for you kaju, simply clicked on this post to post this)
wow, another politician who already believes that he is the state. I find this amazing.
This is where you loose touch of all reality, and proceed to force all of reality to fit according to this ideological tunnel vision. Like it or not, the government is inhabited largely by individuals with benevolent motives who also happen to be telling the truth the vast majority of the time. Just because there are examples of when the government has covered up details (i.e. the contra affair) does not make it an axiom that the government always lies. Truly, the fact that there are such terrible reactions in the media when things like contra and the Abu Ghraib affair are uncovered gives reasons to be optimistic for the people whose job it is to check the facts (say whatever you want about their interpretation of the facts) feel betrayed whenever the government participates in such activities gives corroborates the statement that the government’s agents, despite how misguided you may believe they are, mostly tell the truth.
Furthermore, the entire assertion that the government’s agenda is to lie all the time is not only simple-minded, but it is usually worded in such a fashion that it is unfalsifiable, and hence metaphysical babble. To such advocates, not only does the government always lie, but the media always lies along with the government hence there is no possible method of proving the statement wrong. If one brings up the fact that great government scandals have been brought to light because of the media checking the facts, and holding government accountable to the truth (despite the fact advocates of this doctrine usually use these very same examples) it does not matter for it has been predetermined a priori that the government is metaphysically incapable of telling the truth, and the media incapable of holding the government accountable. Overall, it is circular reasoning that has the desired effects of nicely packaging reality according to a set of judgments.
For you, its actually believe that they lie no matter what. Even when what their story, and reality fall congruently into place, they are obviously still lying.
Because the government always needs to be held accountable to the facts. When the government’s story is not in accord with the facts then it should be called. However, this example does not imply that governments always lie, and it is absurdly attempts to equivocate the American government with the Soviet government.
Because it, and reality fall into place. I’m sorry I don’t care enough about conspiracy theorists to give a thesis on American foreign policy from the end of the Cold War to the present day. Furthermore, you have not given a single reason to believe otherwise other than the assertion that the government has lied before.
Do you think that it is just to let bin Laden walk free after his acts of terrorism. If you don’t, the consequences are either to invade Afghanistan to arrest him, or try another strategy to apprehend him. I have not commented upon whether the invasion was the right move, but I have stated that it was morally permissible in light of the situation.
And how does that even apply to the points that I have made. Really, by now you’re just grasping for whatever ad hominem you can throw at me.
This is just absurd.
No, the really absurd thing is your post here.
Whoever said “there’s a sucker born every minute” or similar, certainly got that right.
that’s an excellent way to put this. very thoughtful.