Okay, CTers, here's the best offer you're ever going to get.

TruthSeeker1234 said:
Logical fallacy, Arkan. Assuming the conclusion. You're assuming the legitimacy of government, the very question at issue. I will continue living right where I do.
Click to expand...

Um, no. You are the one assuming the gov't is corrupt, and therefore taking action within the system will fail because of the corruption. That is circular reasoning.

I am simply stating that if you think the gov't is corrupt, and that the system can not be used to uncover the corruption that you should bail while you have the chance; or are you proposing attempting to change uncover the corruption through methods outside the system?
 
TruthSeeker1234 said:
The point is, presenting evidence to the government in a case where the suspect is the government is obvious folly. The government will decide in its own favor, as it always does.
Click to expand...

My lord in heaven, what a stupid post. The United States government is anything but monolithic. It consists of multiple overlapping jurisdictions - federal, state, county, town, village, school district, sewer district, joint ventures, etc. Each of these again divides the responsibilities for decision-making into branches of government - administrative, legislative and judicial.

The judiciary itself is important in that it does not answer to either branch. It interprets the laws and holds everyone accountable to them. It prevents political forces from overwhelming public policy.

There are endless examples of this. The district attorney may introduce himself as "the people of the State of New York," but the judge represents the people, too. Every time the prosecutor loses a case, the "government" has acted against the interests of "the government." Boston's schools were famously run by a federal judge for decades in another case where the "government" overruled the "government." Richard Nixon was forced to surrender his audio tapes in a 9-0 decision where the "government" again disagreed with the "government" and the dispute was resolved by the "government."

It may be oddly comforting for you to believe that you are a failure and a loser because of a vast, insurmountable conspiracy of the "government." Sadly, TS1234, that paranoid worldview is not borne out by reality. You are a failure and a loser because of your own shortcomings and nothing else.
 
Loss Leader said:
It may be oddly comforting for you to believe that you are a failure and a loser because of a vast, insurmountable conspiracy of the "government." Sadly, TS1234, that paranoid worldview is not borne out by reality. You are a failure and a loser because of your own shortcomings and nothing else.
Click to expand...
Damn that was well put and deserves a bump.

Russell, since you hold the same view, this would apply to you as well.
 
TruthSeeker1234 said:
The point is, presenting evidence to the government in a case where the suspect is the government is obvious folly. The government will decide in its own favor, as it always does.
Click to expand...

If Richard Nixon were still alive I'm sure he would disagree.
 
TruthSeeker1234 said:
Hans Hoppe begins almost every lecture by saying: "Let us begin with the definition of government. A government is a territorial monopolist of jurisdiction and taxation. This means that if you have a dispute with anyone, you must go to this one agency, 'the government', to resolve it. This includes disputes involving the government itself. It is not hard to see that government would tend to find in its own favor."

He goes on.

The point is, presenting evidence to the government in a case where the suspect is the government is obvious folly. The government will decide in its own favor, as it always does. I'm quite sure that any D.A. that made any noise at all about looking into 9/11 would be quickly and effectively shut down.
Click to expand...
Wow. So wrong for so long.
 
[slight derail yet again]

chipmunk stew said:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OAgSiFE05wg

Click to expand...

sad indeed. Being involved with music and bands directly and heavily for the past 15 years (and sick of it hahaha) I can relate to this. The amount of bands that exist in heavy rock that think if you pick up a guitar or drum sticks your a guitarist or a drummer. Hey we all like to think we know what 'real' music is, but people like the ones shown are just embarressing. They are doing it entirely for fame and fortune, not for music. Perhaps they should have studied even basic music at school to understand timing. I just shake my head and reach for 'wish you were here' and yes, wish good bands and singers were here! The overuse of notes, the idea that wailing is considered signing, no idea about momentum or when to deliver the knockout blow. Its friggin l a m e. And their faces when told they suck are suprised. I cant sing, I even joke around with an opera voice and try and hit high notes and my GF laughs. Id still do better then these fools. Why is it so hard to be real for some people.

3 quick recomendations come to mind!

Primal Fear : classic metal, not overly original but the singer carves - most important member in these types of bands and he delivers strong and assertive.

Roger Waters : Ex pink floyd, knows how to write a song that carries through to the final note. Lyrically brilliant. Musically amazing.

Most things by Al Di Meola!

[/slight derail yet again]
 
Last edited:
hellaeon said:
tsk tsk! Google is owned by the CIA....its disinformation, whatever you have.
Click to expand...

Roxdog will join the thread and present his evidence.
Watch out - he has some serious proofs for his theory... ;)
 
Oliver said:
Roxdog will join the thread and present his evidence.
Watch out - he has some serious proofs for his theory... ;)
Click to expand...

[roxdog]
THE [rule8] WTC WAS [rule8] BLOWN TO [rule8] PIECES, YOU [rule8] [rule8]!!! [rule8] YOU, WITH YOUR [rule8] [rule8] UP BUSH'S [rule8] [rule8]. HAVE SOME [rule8] RESPECT FOR THE [rule8] VICTIMS, [rule8]!!!
[/roxdog]

Neh, don't think it will hold up in court.
 
Bell said:
[roxdog]
THE [rule8] WTC WAS [rule8] BLOWN TO [rule8] PIECES, YOU [rule8] [rule8]!!! [rule8] YOU, WITH YOUR [rule8] [rule8] UP BUSH'S [rule8] [rule8]. HAVE SOME [rule8] RESPECT FOR THE [rule8] VICTIMS, [rule8]!!!
[/roxdog]

Neh, don't think it will hold up in court.
Click to expand...

LMAO
 
While I admire the thought behind this thread, we all know none of the "truthers" will take this up and run with it. They all know as long as this stays an "internet" based thing, within the safety of blogs, and forums, then they do not have to accept the responsibility that goes along with their accusations, speculation, and heresay. That would all change if they went to a D.A.

Even the more serious CTers, what few there are, who have actually done real research, and have come out in public against the USG, know that the case against the USG re:9/11 is infact so circumstantial and weak, that no DA would consider it, beyond submission for the "joke of the day" case in some throw away law journal.

TAM
 
Loss Leader said:
Seriously, which municipalities do you believe have jurisdiction? I honestly want to know.
Click to expand...

LossLeader, I suspect that jurisdiction could arguably be claimed by various jurisdictions for purposes of trying a criminal case of this nature, depending on the evidence that Russell's alleged numerous witnesses provide. I haven't researched the jurisdictional issues in any depth yet because it will be somewhat dependent upon the alleged perpetrators that are identified via Russell's alleged witnesses, and the correlation between those alleged witnesses, the alleged perpetrators, the victims, and the facts.

But once the essential details are obtained from Russell's alleged witnesses, the jurisdictional issues can be easily addressed and determined. I suspect that there are multiple municipalities (and multiple states) that could legitimately claim jurisdiction over the matter, at least initially, but until we know what the evidence of these alleged witnesses actually is, we won't know which jurisdictions are potentially the best candidates.
 
Last edited:
Loss Leader said:
My lord in heaven, what a stupid post. The United States government is anything but monolithic. It consists of multiple overlapping jurisdictions - federal, state, county, town, village, school district, sewer district, joint ventures, etc. Each of these again divides the responsibilities for decision-making into branches of government - administrative, legislative and judicial.

The judiciary itself is important in that it does not answer to either branch. It interprets the laws and holds everyone accountable to them. It prevents political forces from overwhelming public policy.

There are endless examples of this. The district attorney may introduce himself as "the people of the State of New York," but the judge represents the people, too. Every time the prosecutor loses a case, the "government" has acted against the interests of "the government." Boston's schools were famously run by a federal judge for decades in another case where the "government" overruled the "government." Richard Nixon was forced to surrender his audio tapes in a 9-0 decision where the "government" again disagreed with the "government" and the dispute was resolved by the "government."

It may be oddly comforting for you to believe that you are a failure and a loser because of a vast, insurmountable conspiracy of the "government." Sadly, TS1234, that paranoid worldview is not borne out by reality. You are a failure and a loser because of your own shortcomings and nothing else.
Click to expand...

I and my family enjoy a very comfortable lifestyle and own a very nice house in a nice part of L.A., and I've accomplished this entirely through creating little works of art. You could call me many things, but failure and/or loser are not among them.

As for government policing itself, you have got to be kidding. They pass laws against theft, then exempt themselves and call that "taxation". They pass laws against counterfeiting, exempt themselves and call that "monetary policy". They pass laws against mass-murder, exempt themselves and call that "foreign policy".

Even if you accept the legitimacy of the U.S. Constitution, what part of it is still in order? Where is it authorized that government can monopolize money? How can successive presidents get away with initiating war without Congress? What about the takeover of the educational system, where is that authorized? How about Social Security? i could go on and on.

The answer is that none of this is authorized by the Constitution, but Supreme Courts have legitimized all of it, i.e., in disputes involving itself, government found in its own favor. Over and over again.
 
Last edited:
Arkan_Wolfshade said:
Um, no. You are the one assuming the gov't is corrupt, and therefore taking action within the system will fail because of the corruption. That is circular reasoning.

I am simply stating that if you think the gov't is corrupt, and that the system can not be used to uncover the corruption that you should bail while you have the chance; or are you proposing attempting to change uncover the corruption through methods outside the system?
Click to expand...

My views on government are aligned with Mises/Rothbard/Hoppe. Austro-libertarian. Anarcho-capitialist.

Yes, government is corrupt, by definition. Monopolies are inherently corrupt. Economic science figured out centuries ago that, from the standpoint of the consumer, competition is good and monopolies are bad.
 
Alt+F4 said:
If Richard Nixon were still alive I'm sure he would disagree.
Click to expand...

How did the Nixon case diminish the power of government? It didn't, it increased it.

Furthermore, look at what they got Nixon for. Was it the fact that he destroyed the last tiny vestiage of the gold standard? No. Was it the bombing of civiliians in Southeast Asia? No. Was it deploying communist style price controls on the whole economy, casuing the "energy crisis"? No. Was it printing and spending so much paper money that the U.S. had the first case of "stag-flation"? No. All of those are crimes, and Nixon got away with all of them, as have all the rest.

No, they "got" him for covering up info about a burglary where his spooks were trying to bug his political opponents. Did he go to jail? No. Even if he had, it doesn't matter. Nixon was not "the government".

They pushed Nixon out, precisely because government would be more powerful without him.

Perhaps someone can give me an example where a central government actually reliquished some of its power, or actually began spending less than it had before.
 
TruthSeeker1234 said:
My views on government are aligned with Mises/Rothbard/Hoppe. Austro-libertarian. Anarcho-capitialist.
Click to expand...
Yes, you clearly have the sensibilities necessary to be a successful anarcho-capitalist. Permit me to refer you to the politics subforum. I will solicit recommendations in the Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology subforum on what to do with your tattered remains.
 
Gravy said:
Yes, you clearly have the sensibilities necessary to be a successful anarcho-capitalist. Permit me to refer you to the politics subforum. I will solicit recommendations in the Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology subforum on what to do with your tattered remains.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't wish the politics subform on anybody, much less a 'successful anarcho-capitalist'.

You fiend!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom