I’m just going to disregard the rest of your nonsensical post and ask you again, what is my opinion?
I explain that all in my “nonsensical post”, so I suggest you stop being lazy and read it with comprehension, it is a small paragraph. Also, I said I respected your opinion to try to be nice since we were arguing on a forum where I, and everyone else, is trying to learn and do it in a non hostile enviroment. All your comments and critques of mine come from you, and if I do not agree they are fact, they are your opinion. Everything you have been saying has been your opinion pretty much, including that my last post was “nonsensical”. It made much sense and answers the questions you have been asking me. If you want to be arrogant and do not even want me to answer or respond to you, then claim it next time, but then it is pretty unfair that you can conitnue to do so. But like I said, I respectfully disagree with what you are saying and I am trying to explain myself, but if you want to be hostile, I am going to stop this conversation all together. I just want to be friendly and learn on here “Josh”. Can’t you do the same?
Still waiting for you to tell me what my opinion is.
10th grade? Damn. You’re smarter than most adults! Good job.
So calling people neocons and claiming they parrot Glenn Beck just because they ask you about your definition of a terrorist or disagree with you that al qaeda is hardly a terrorist organization is being nice?
Haha Thanks! I would not say I am that smart though, I am just lucky enough to have learned about Mises. Most people still are informed and brainwashed by the media, but hopefully Austrian Economics will become large enough to show the masses how dumb Keynsian and statist views are. We are getting there, with the help of Ron Paul and more!
Josh,
“I’m just going to disregard the rest of your nonsensical post and ask you again, what is my opinion?”
How was it nonsensical?
I found his comment to be immensely logical with its premises and conclusions able to be back by substantial evidence and deductive reasoning.
Once again, I’ll state: quit arguing and go read a book by Mises, Rothbard, Woods, Soto, etc., because you really need to.
It is pathetic how you failed to interpret his original comment clearly and in context; then, argue based on your errors and assumptions. What’s worse is that even after he and I both explained to you what his comment meant, you still argue in light of your misinterpretation.
Please note: It is just fine to make an error and misinterpret someone’s comment. However, to make assumptions and continue to argue on your errors, even after your erroneous statements were yielded useless, is absurd.
“Your logic = “Al Qaeda isn’t terrorist even though they fall into the category of terrorists based on my definition, therefore I win and you lose and you can’t follow my logic (followed by some disguised ad hominem)””
Once again, he NEVER, once, at all, said Al Qaeda WEREN’T “terrorists”
Man, you really lack reading comprehension skills. May I suggest you go work on them before you talk out your ass in forums?
Should I go line by line?
Speaking of Al Qaeda: “they do some terrorist acts but they have motives, if they over react or not, they did not instegate it. Considering they do some terrorists acts but based on motives of larger and more threatening ones intruding, I would say they were hardly terrorists.”
When his definition is a group that “radically attempts to gain power over people and do harm on them.”
Now al qaeda does radically attempt to gain power over people and do harm to them, which using his definition makes them terrorists and not simply “hardly a terrorist organization.”
On age: “my 3 year old brother can understand partial truths and different extents, and if you could not, you must no be old enough.” Now, he should know that understanding doesn’t necessarily come from age because he is obviously ahead of most adults in economic matters, so would it make sense for him to call into question someones age?
Back to Al Qaeda: “Al Qaeda was prevoked by a larger terrorist organization going into their country killing many and trying to enforce their beliefs and trying to make them gauk at their power. The acted radically back, but it was instegated by our government.”
Now this doesn’t take into account any other terrorist attacks that Al Qaeda has been apart of. The have had bombings and killings in Jakarta, Indonesia, Jordan, Algeria, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, among others. Were these attacks brought on by a larger terrorist organization? C seems to think the only acts of terrorism committed by Al Qaeda have been against the U.S. government, which isn’t true.
On 9/11: “9/11 was most likely an inside job anyway to promote wellfare/warfare state in our country, and distract the public.”
Now he is getting into the NWO territory which Ron Paul even calls nonsensical.
On my views: “You were challenging my opposing view that you and the mainstream seem to share on Al Qaeda, and based on that, and your strong defense of it, I infered logically your view.”
Now, this post is barely coherent but what I believe he is trying to say is that my view is mainstream, which is a hell of an assumption considering I am in line with Ron Paul’s belief that we caused this through years of intervention and that the proper solution is to leave them alone. Not exactly mainstream, and probably the same view as his.
On his reasoning for me supporting mainstream views: “If I came on here trashing Universal Healthcare, and you defended it and countered my arguments and explained how it would work ( even though it would not), I could probably infer you supported it.”
Considering I never defended the U.S. government this analogy is non-sequitur.
On his intentions: “I am not trying to be mean or start fights on here, I am just defending my view”
After he threw out some insults and told me my views were neocon and mainstream (Which is a pretty low insult lol).
Now do you understand why his post was nonsensical? Maybe you should also stop calling into question people’s reading comprehension and stop assuming they haven’t read Mises, Rothbard, de Soto, and Woods? I mean I’m 17 and pretty new to Austrian Economics but I’ve read TRtS, The Case Against the Fed, For a New Liberty, and some other books by Rothbard, Bastiat, Hazlitt, etc. and I’ve also read some essays from Mises, Rothbard, and Hayek. So in the future, try not to make assumptions that aren’t fact based.
Not bad of a defense and argument at all, Josh.
And in regards to me telling you that you should go educate with so-and-so:
That was uncalled for. I did not have enough information to make that conclusion logically. It was a mere blind assumption, with no strong grounds at all, in which you have proved me wrong in your last post and in some former posts as well.
I really had no business budding into this argument.
"Back to Al Qaeda: “Al Qaeda was prevoked by a larger terrorist organization going into their country killing many and trying to enforce their beliefs and trying to make them gauk at their power. The acted radically back, but it was instegated by our government.”
Now this doesn’t take into account any other terrorist attacks that Al Qaeda has been apart of. The have had bombings and killings in Jakarta, Indonesia, Jordan, Algeria, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, among others. Were these attacks brought on by a larger terrorist organization? C seems to think the only acts of terrorism committed by Al Qaeda have been against the U.S. government, which isn’t true. "
The subject here is solely on the relationship between Al Qaeda and the US. Therefore, C Le Master was only referring to the revenge in the United States.
“On 9/11: “9/11 was most likely an inside job anyway to promote wellfare/warfare state in our country, and distract the public.””
“Now he is getting into the NWO territory which Ron Paul even calls nonsensical.”
I don’t agree with Ron Paul on numerous issues, especially this one. I don’t read writings by Ron Paul; there are way too many other, more important works that I would like to read and educate with instead.
Only 17 huh? That is great to see younger people educating with Austrian economics and libertarianism. I hope to that you keep reading and learning; and “don’t let schooling interfere with your education”.
have a great night
best,
M.
No hard feelings man.