Truther in the sense of “The state lied/covered up what really happened and had some degree of indirect responsibility for 9/11” or truther in the sense of “ZOMG!!! The CIA planted explosives in the Twin Towers so that the Jews can take over!!!”?
[:P]
That’s a bunch of crap. Tiny mercenary groups in the blood diamond wars were responsible for pushing back against a tyannical genocidal paramilitary thugs meanwhile thousand of hapless UN peacekeepers couldn’t even defend themsleves and the people they were responsible for defending.
Given the performance of UN peacekeepers, I doubt the US military, with their hi-tech doodas, will be able to do such a competent job of beating the craps out of military-graded trained gangsters. Beside the US is in part responsible for creating this mess of bloody drug trade where extortion and death is the norm.
Because they recieve thousands of dollars in welfare. And they are all social democrats or Marxists who will vote for more handouts from the state. And they are all gang members who can’t wait to go on a rampage of theft and murder through quiet Anglo-Saxon suburbs. And they practice icky alternative lifestyles. And they stink.
/sarcasm
Truther in the sense of “If you believe what the state tells you as the truth, about an incident that allowed them to spend, murder and destroy liberty with impunity, then you’re the nut”.
Sans sarcasm, I think you nailed it. Not saying I agree, but then what you wrote wasn’t totally unreal either.
Maybe instead of talking about immigration we should really be talking about American imperialism. They are building up a pretext to invade Mexico already. Not that they will do it tommorow. But they build a casus belli and store it for when the need arises. And such a brazen pretext as this one is useful even in itself without being used because it beams out the fact they can attack anyone whenever they want it for basicaly whatever reason they choose. Too much goverment, too little governement, too much freedom, too little freedom, you name it. If there is a regime they can invade to destroy the regime and if there is no regime they can invade to create one. There is only one constant. USA reserves for itself the right to stick her nose in everything. And from whichever perspective it pleases.
Why would the American military be invading some no-name country given that our political credibility basically get shot by Iraq.
I would think that the US will sent special forces to help hunt down cartel members(which doesn’t really solve anything) but a full-scale military invasion? That is quite unprecendented.
Or does he repeat himself…
I’ve found I can’t have a civil discussion about race with anyone except biologists. No one else seems to understand that any genetic differences that exist are a function of allele frequency within a populace. In other words race is about statistics. I have enever discriminated against individuals. But I don’t turn a blind eye to trends just because they may have high correlations with race. This is what the education system has done with intelligence (IQ tests are illegal in many circumstances) and what our justice system has done with crime statistics.
In both cases the metric used is “unfairly targetting certain groups”. Now we can have a discussion about what percentage of the differences are caused by environemntal factors. But if you’re going to take the neurological uniformity of all humans as an a priori fact…well that’s faith, not science.
Also the latter group are usually agent provacateurs. Given that the US government lied about entry into WWI, WWII, Vietnam and Iraq (I and II) it’s not much a of a stretch to question if the US government organized/funded/planned/participated in/allowed the event.
Most truthers just want proper investigations and full disclosure.
True. It just happens that the crazies tend to overshadow the people who honestly just want to know what really happened.
Didn’t the US government basically created AI Queda or at least fund them? It seem that we unintentionally generate new threat all the time. It is not much of a leap to think that there is a real conspricy behind it.
Never mind the fact that the terrorist organizations are ineffective terrorists for they have not achevied anything stated in their goals. Attacking civilians is no way to win minds but they make convenient excuses for government to curtails liberty.
Because that is what they do.
The report say that if the Mexican state crumbles into dust, then the USA will have no option but to invade. I can not see how that is not true. If there is a USA to invade then in those circumstances it will invade. We don`t even need a goverment report to tell us that, becuase it rings so true. USA can barely keep from invading Somalia for loosing a state, you think they would pass on a giant country next door?
And it is not even unprecedented. USA did interveene the last time there in essence was no state due to the civil war. Next time the intervention can only be bigger.
The only thing which is silly about this report is this whole buisiness of Mexico descending into chaos. I dont see how Mexico has any biger chances of descending into chaos than America has, but then that are imperialists for you. Always seeing everyone but themselves as unwashed savages two steps away from barbarism. But then again, as said before, this text isnt so much about making predictions as it is a message to convey the stance that USA has the right to invade in such and such condition.
Then there’s the fact that open borders are a creation of the state and that open borders violates property rights. Of course, including that one wouldn’t make the people you’re parodying so silly, so I can understand why you didn’t include that one.
Actually you will find that the borders are a creation of the state. You know “state borders”?
Whether left-libertarians choose to ignore it or not open borders is a double edged sword, even if is closer to libertarian than closed borders. Not that I agree with 100% of what wombatron said either, though.
I guess this whole private property thing is a creation of the state too then?
How are open borders a double-edged sword?
No, that is the state recognizing something. Without the state, private property would still exist, but state borders would not.
What “private property thing”?
In any case maybe it is time for you to revisit your roads/traffic code talk. It seems to me you`re trying to have your cake and eat it too.