-
Be sure to read this post! Beware of scammers. https://www.indianagunowners.com/threads/classifieds-new-online-payment-guidelines-rules-paypal-venmo-zelle-etc.511734/
The Economics of the Police State
- Thread starter Henry
- Start date
The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana
Member Benefits:
Fewer Ads! Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership Discuss anti-gun legislation Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses Discover free outdoor shooting areas View up to date on firearm-related events Share photos & video with other members ...and so much more!
Member Benefits:
That would assume there's any left to be damaged.
Like the way you answered right up when I asked how the kidnapping of Justina Pelletier was justified knowing the initial court hearing suppressed evidence that directly contradicted the state's claim?
To Vitamink,
I appreciate your answer and understand your view. My only concern is that this man is being crucified over a quote that apparently many think is factual.
I have to say that from my memory I have never seen him before. I don't know him from Adam. I may(?) have seen a presentation of his that I cannot now recall, but for me I have no dog in this race.
My issue is that he is being crucified by Kirk for nothing more than apparently buying into a false urban legend that is a not uncommon misunderstanding. I would be willing to wager that there are members of these very boards (I was one myself until a few years ago) that honestly thought Admiral Yamamoto said, "We cannot invade America. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass." I now know that this was never said by him. Yet, I am left wondering, if someone on these boards makes the error of believing that and makes an argument against gun control will you and/or Kirk automatically dismiss him and his entire argument for making this mistake?
You say he has a "comedy of errors" and yet you don't point them out or cite information criticizing the rest of his argument. Let us pick one (1) specific point I recall him making. He made the claim that law enforcement will let drugs go into a city, not grab them, and wait for the cash to come out, and GRAB that. IF this is untrue I haven't seen a single LEO post here arguing against it. I haven't seen anyone else cite proof contradicting this. If he is correct it is an abhorrent policy! If he is incorrect I want to learn this as well. I want to LEARN, be better informed, and improve myself by learning from others. Yet in this particular presentation I see his presentation - ok, fine. Then I see what appears to be an Ad hominem attack on him. I haven't seen a single other piece of information he put out that has been disproved. I would like to if it exists! Again, learning for me.
By the way, I did find this link to a New York Times Story crediting Pres Nixon with the very thing he said Pres Nixon exaggerated about: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/24/health/policy/24cancer.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
Could the NYT have gotten it wrong? Of course they could have. But IF there is information floating around out there coming from a reasonably credible source I can understand people getting it wrong. That doesn't make them fools or idiots.
I don't think its fair to call someone to demean someone for making an easy mistake. I will try to never attack someone for wrongly attributing a quote to Admiral Yamamoto. That does not mean I won't gently correct them.
Regards,
Doug
Kirk Freeman
Grandmaster
Man, I left a mark! As Peter Griffin said, I left a Dr. J sized palm print!
I hit them so hard their heads are still spinning.
I don't know which is more fun, knocking DCS around or INGOtarians. Hmmm, I'll flip a coin.
Last edited:
Kirk Freeman
Grandmaster
Correct.
All day long, INGO mocks Republicans. INGO mocks Democrats. Oh, this person or politician is soooo stupid that they don't even know . . . .
When I point out that Libertarians get bunches of stuff wrong, the Libertarians hike up their skirts and run around the kitchen shrieking.
Good to know that Libertarians are a protected class.
I'll try to break it down as best as I can. I know I won't be able to watch the whole thing. The reason i didn't argue his points as there were too many for me to argue. You asked if it is true that police allow drugs into a city and only stop the person with the money for asset forfeiture. I don't have where he got that statistic from to argue it directly but hopefully if he gets drugs legalized he'll hook me up with his dealer because that's some serious stuff he's smoking. I'm assuming he's going off the basis that the police allow drug deals to go down to lock up the drug dealer. That is called probable cause. This all starts with a complaint from the neighborhood because of high traffic, larcenies, shootings etc. The police then sit off of the house and watch vehicles come and go. They then stop the vehicles and find crack, pills whatever and develop CIs. They make several buys from the house then they hit it. Police want the dealer not the user. If the dealer leaves, users leave, burglaries/rape/vehicle thefts/arson/etc etc leave with them. Police could give a **** about asset forfeiture. Asset forfeiture does not benefit an individual officer so you won't see them out forfeiting stuff left and right, or the department as a whole, so you won't see supervisors ordering their officers to forfeit stuff. I will say this, there was a police agency that had forfeiture law that said if an officer stopped your car and you had drugs, your car now belonged to that individual officer which was absolute horse ****. Obviously that didn't' hold up in court. In Indianapolis any money or property seized goes to the cities general fund and not to the police. So in a sense he is correct in saying that police wait for the drugs to be sold, but his conclusions as to why are way off. In order to prove dealing you have to have a deal. In his scenario police don't stop the cars bringing the drugs, they stop the cars leaving with money. How exactly does that work?
On to the video! And bear with me as i can't post photos for some reason.
He states that the war on drugs as well as the post 9-11 hysteria were the basis for the militarization of the police. The militarization of the police started well before 9-11, the war on drugs, the first swat team, or even before vehicles were invented. I can speak solely to the Indianapolis police but the current uniform worn by IMPD is considered by some to be “militaristic” based on the fact that it doesn’t have shiny buttons and a few extra pockets. It’s still blue, it still says police, it still has patches. The difference is cargo pockets and nothing shiney. The original IPD uniform was the 100% the EXACT same as a union soldiers uniform with the addition of a tin star. Most police departments were the same but I don’t know their history as well so I can’t speak to them. Militarization implies that you start with 0 militariness and then crescendo towards full fledged military. So original uniform was 100% military in every way, and now it is not. Sounds like de-militarization to me. Maybe he means weapons and tactics? Stay tuned!
He says the police weren’t paramilitary but now, suddenly, they are… They’ve been paramilitary since day one. As stated before, they wore the exact same uniform as the military. They also followed the same rank structure as the military. Grab a dictionary and look up Paramilitary
He asks, "how many police should there be? You can’t quantify it as its based on a radom government decision and not what the people want." In Indianapolis and I assume everywhere else, necessary police is based on the number of 911 calls divided by the length of time it takes to take those calls. If he wants less police there are a few things that need to happen to make that happen… and they're simple
“The stuff you want police to do, they do a terrible job of”. Much like how I want him to tell the truth and yet here we are.
“If you were to find out the % of burglars and murders who were found guilty (and he corrects to) legitimately found guilty (as in - not only do they not do the job right or are lazy…they often arrest the wrong person) you’d be shocked.” It must be so shocking he forgot that oh-so-shocking number. “they ‘re terrible at that, you get the sense that they’re not even trying” I know in Indianapolis the IPD homicide clearance rate is higher than most if not all other cities so I’m not sure what he’s talking about. I find it odd that he’s talking about how the police aren’t locking people up one hand then in his other articles talks about how there are too many people in prison.
The majority of people in jail are there for a nonviolent drug offense. Again, not the case in Indianapolis. The problem with drugs and their dealers is what they bring with them. If a drug dealer sets up shop in your neighborhood, you will notice an increase in traffic, thefts, assaults, murder, etc etc. Almost every murder in Indy (and anywhere else) is drug related. Almost every home break in is drug related. Even if those laws disappear and dope heads can get their crack at CVS, drugs will still be catalyst for every theft, assault etc etc. Even if drug dealing as a source of revenue is obsolete, drug dealers will just move on to the next illegal thing…that they will shoot each other over. Legalizing drugs will only change what people kill each other for.
“They won’t protect you from threats, but they will make sure that peaceful people are thrown in cages to be raped.” Cops wont’ investigate your house burglary because they are too interested in asset forfeiture. I’ve never heard anything so ****ing stupid but given that he doesn’t know what he’s been talking about so far I’m not shocked.
“Many police, including beat cops (*gasp) routinely carry assault rifles, body armor and look like combat troops serving in afghanisitan”
Yes, just like many criminals have body armor, carry Aks and look like people that the US is at war with, or how many civilians, myself included, have multiple long guns, hand guns, night vision, a military vehicle, AP ammo even though my likely hood as a civilian to get shot at is next to nothing. I don’t care though and I’ll continue to militarize my futon. Radley balko had a shocking expose where he shows a bunch of guys in uniform doing stuff and has asks “military or police”? It should be "Military, Police, or INGO open carry event?"
“TODAY Police are equipped with black hawk helicopters, machine guns, grenade launchers, body armor, explosives, night vision and armored vehicles.”
During Vietnam (prior to the lol “militarization”) police were equipped with: helicopters, machine guns, grenade launchers, body armor explosives and armored vehicles…but not night vision as it was worthless in the 60s.
“what began with the militarization of the police in the 1980s with the war on drugs has snowballed into full fledged integration of military weaponry technology and tactics into police protocol.”
Lets go back 40 more years years before the war on drugs and the full fledged integration of military weaponry… what were SWAT warrants served with? BARs, Thompson Machine guns, 1911’s…hmmmmm what guns were carried by the military during WW2? But wait...SWAT didn’t exist…and yet doors got kicked and rooms were searched by multiple officers of the same agency dressed in the same clothes that trained together to do that function.
“they are getting assault rifles, many tanks, grenade launchers, and my personal favorite, remote control robots” The police got a tank? Where?
Definition of “tank”
Noun 1. tank - an enclosed armored military vehicle; has a cannon and moves on caterpillar tread.
There are no “amphibious tanks” given to the police. There are no tanks at all given to the police let alone “many”. Anyone heard of a police lobbing 203 HE grenades at folks? Kinda misleading. I don’t know why the robots are his personal favorite but yeah they do have those…I’m sure he doesn’t get why but again he’s just basing his opinions on conjecture, not experience.
“now we’ve hear a lot about the ‘bearcat’ some of you may follow the ‘free state project’ in new Hampshire These are the people who believe in the non aggression principle: don’t initiate physical force against anyone else, but apparently believing in not initiating physical force is the most dangerous threats new Hampshire has ever faced.”
…Because people of the free state project have NEVER threatened the police
The last serial cop killers were heralded by those at the free state project. Most notably chris cantwell who advocates shooting cops when you see them so that A. there will be less cops, and B. people will be less inclined to take the job if the likelihood of people killing you is high. Chris Cantwell is no longer on the free state project as they removed him as he was not PC enough for their media agenda, not because they didn’t like him.
Cantwell:
The good news is, two cops are dead. The bad news is, the two shooters, and what appears to be an innocent bystander are dead too. Officer Alyn Beck, 42, and Officer Igor Soldo, 32, of the Las Vegas Metro Police were gunned down inside Cici’s Pizza while eating lunch. The shooters, one male, one female, whose names have not to my knowledge been released – reportedly shouted “This is the start of a revolution” before opening fire.
My sympathies go out to the owners, employees, and innocent patrons of the Cici’s Pizza, and the innocent bystander who was shot. That’s about where my sympathies for this particular incident end.
People say the officers were “simply eating lunch” and so this was a clear cut case of murder. I could not disagree more. Those officers were merely taking a short break from the aggressions all police commit day in, and day out. Immediately after they got done with their break, they would inevitably have returned to their regular duties of harassing and extorting motorists, kidnapping people for possessing plants. They paid for their food, with money that was taken from people under the threats of violence that are taxation, and fines. While it’s a lot easier to draw the connection in something like the Justin Bourque incident, the fact remains that all police are aggressors. There is no such thing as a good cop.
George Donnelly's views are apparently FSP fine though. He can make comments such as,
“When do we launch the armed resistance? That is the question bouncing around the libertarian/anarchist social media scene and blogosphere over the last few days. At what point do we stop risking arrest, stop pamphleting, stop speaking out, blogging, YouTubing and all that other stuff in favor of picking up arms and dropping cops and IRS agents by the dozens?”
I’m sure NH police have nothing to worry about though. FS project sounds completely peaceful to me. Memebers of the FS project also started “cop block” the most peace and cop loving group ever.
At this point I can no longer listen to this uniformed moron to speak and I’m less than halfway through it. seriously i've had issue with almost every sentence. I’ll gladly argue what I’ve listened to and replied to so far, but to give this jackass any more airplay would cause me to lose more sanity. I will leave you with this from the first time I watched it. Regarding his credibility he admits himself that he is nothing more than a boring guy who gets all his info from other people and their studys. Studies from the completely non biased institutes such as mises and cato. I put no faith in his conclusions as they're outright lies.
I’m currently building a house. I would rather hire an electrician with 20 years of experience in the field than a guy whos entire experience is based on “electricial work for dummys” book and conjecture. Again I don’t blame him for what he’s doing, if I thought I could make a 6-7 figure salary by merely showing up and saying “XXX sucks” (ala al Sharpton) I’d be all over it.
On to the video! And bear with me as i can't post photos for some reason.
He states that the war on drugs as well as the post 9-11 hysteria were the basis for the militarization of the police. The militarization of the police started well before 9-11, the war on drugs, the first swat team, or even before vehicles were invented. I can speak solely to the Indianapolis police but the current uniform worn by IMPD is considered by some to be “militaristic” based on the fact that it doesn’t have shiny buttons and a few extra pockets. It’s still blue, it still says police, it still has patches. The difference is cargo pockets and nothing shiney. The original IPD uniform was the 100% the EXACT same as a union soldiers uniform with the addition of a tin star. Most police departments were the same but I don’t know their history as well so I can’t speak to them. Militarization implies that you start with 0 militariness and then crescendo towards full fledged military. So original uniform was 100% military in every way, and now it is not. Sounds like de-militarization to me. Maybe he means weapons and tactics? Stay tuned!
He says the police weren’t paramilitary but now, suddenly, they are… They’ve been paramilitary since day one. As stated before, they wore the exact same uniform as the military. They also followed the same rank structure as the military. Grab a dictionary and look up Paramilitary
He asks, "how many police should there be? You can’t quantify it as its based on a radom government decision and not what the people want." In Indianapolis and I assume everywhere else, necessary police is based on the number of 911 calls divided by the length of time it takes to take those calls. If he wants less police there are a few things that need to happen to make that happen… and they're simple
“The stuff you want police to do, they do a terrible job of”. Much like how I want him to tell the truth and yet here we are.
“If you were to find out the % of burglars and murders who were found guilty (and he corrects to) legitimately found guilty (as in - not only do they not do the job right or are lazy…they often arrest the wrong person) you’d be shocked.” It must be so shocking he forgot that oh-so-shocking number. “they ‘re terrible at that, you get the sense that they’re not even trying” I know in Indianapolis the IPD homicide clearance rate is higher than most if not all other cities so I’m not sure what he’s talking about. I find it odd that he’s talking about how the police aren’t locking people up one hand then in his other articles talks about how there are too many people in prison.
The majority of people in jail are there for a nonviolent drug offense. Again, not the case in Indianapolis. The problem with drugs and their dealers is what they bring with them. If a drug dealer sets up shop in your neighborhood, you will notice an increase in traffic, thefts, assaults, murder, etc etc. Almost every murder in Indy (and anywhere else) is drug related. Almost every home break in is drug related. Even if those laws disappear and dope heads can get their crack at CVS, drugs will still be catalyst for every theft, assault etc etc. Even if drug dealing as a source of revenue is obsolete, drug dealers will just move on to the next illegal thing…that they will shoot each other over. Legalizing drugs will only change what people kill each other for.
“They won’t protect you from threats, but they will make sure that peaceful people are thrown in cages to be raped.” Cops wont’ investigate your house burglary because they are too interested in asset forfeiture. I’ve never heard anything so ****ing stupid but given that he doesn’t know what he’s been talking about so far I’m not shocked.
“Many police, including beat cops (*gasp) routinely carry assault rifles, body armor and look like combat troops serving in afghanisitan”
Yes, just like many criminals have body armor, carry Aks and look like people that the US is at war with, or how many civilians, myself included, have multiple long guns, hand guns, night vision, a military vehicle, AP ammo even though my likely hood as a civilian to get shot at is next to nothing. I don’t care though and I’ll continue to militarize my futon. Radley balko had a shocking expose where he shows a bunch of guys in uniform doing stuff and has asks “military or police”? It should be "Military, Police, or INGO open carry event?"
“TODAY Police are equipped with black hawk helicopters, machine guns, grenade launchers, body armor, explosives, night vision and armored vehicles.”
During Vietnam (prior to the lol “militarization”) police were equipped with: helicopters, machine guns, grenade launchers, body armor explosives and armored vehicles…but not night vision as it was worthless in the 60s.
“what began with the militarization of the police in the 1980s with the war on drugs has snowballed into full fledged integration of military weaponry technology and tactics into police protocol.”
Lets go back 40 more years years before the war on drugs and the full fledged integration of military weaponry… what were SWAT warrants served with? BARs, Thompson Machine guns, 1911’s…hmmmmm what guns were carried by the military during WW2? But wait...SWAT didn’t exist…and yet doors got kicked and rooms were searched by multiple officers of the same agency dressed in the same clothes that trained together to do that function.
“they are getting assault rifles, many tanks, grenade launchers, and my personal favorite, remote control robots” The police got a tank? Where?
Definition of “tank”
Noun 1. tank - an enclosed armored military vehicle; has a cannon and moves on caterpillar tread.
There are no “amphibious tanks” given to the police. There are no tanks at all given to the police let alone “many”. Anyone heard of a police lobbing 203 HE grenades at folks? Kinda misleading. I don’t know why the robots are his personal favorite but yeah they do have those…I’m sure he doesn’t get why but again he’s just basing his opinions on conjecture, not experience.
“now we’ve hear a lot about the ‘bearcat’ some of you may follow the ‘free state project’ in new Hampshire These are the people who believe in the non aggression principle: don’t initiate physical force against anyone else, but apparently believing in not initiating physical force is the most dangerous threats new Hampshire has ever faced.”
…Because people of the free state project have NEVER threatened the police
The last serial cop killers were heralded by those at the free state project. Most notably chris cantwell who advocates shooting cops when you see them so that A. there will be less cops, and B. people will be less inclined to take the job if the likelihood of people killing you is high. Chris Cantwell is no longer on the free state project as they removed him as he was not PC enough for their media agenda, not because they didn’t like him.
Cantwell:
The good news is, two cops are dead. The bad news is, the two shooters, and what appears to be an innocent bystander are dead too. Officer Alyn Beck, 42, and Officer Igor Soldo, 32, of the Las Vegas Metro Police were gunned down inside Cici’s Pizza while eating lunch. The shooters, one male, one female, whose names have not to my knowledge been released – reportedly shouted “This is the start of a revolution” before opening fire.
My sympathies go out to the owners, employees, and innocent patrons of the Cici’s Pizza, and the innocent bystander who was shot. That’s about where my sympathies for this particular incident end.
People say the officers were “simply eating lunch” and so this was a clear cut case of murder. I could not disagree more. Those officers were merely taking a short break from the aggressions all police commit day in, and day out. Immediately after they got done with their break, they would inevitably have returned to their regular duties of harassing and extorting motorists, kidnapping people for possessing plants. They paid for their food, with money that was taken from people under the threats of violence that are taxation, and fines. While it’s a lot easier to draw the connection in something like the Justin Bourque incident, the fact remains that all police are aggressors. There is no such thing as a good cop.
George Donnelly's views are apparently FSP fine though. He can make comments such as,
“When do we launch the armed resistance? That is the question bouncing around the libertarian/anarchist social media scene and blogosphere over the last few days. At what point do we stop risking arrest, stop pamphleting, stop speaking out, blogging, YouTubing and all that other stuff in favor of picking up arms and dropping cops and IRS agents by the dozens?”
I’m sure NH police have nothing to worry about though. FS project sounds completely peaceful to me. Memebers of the FS project also started “cop block” the most peace and cop loving group ever.
At this point I can no longer listen to this uniformed moron to speak and I’m less than halfway through it. seriously i've had issue with almost every sentence. I’ll gladly argue what I’ve listened to and replied to so far, but to give this jackass any more airplay would cause me to lose more sanity. I will leave you with this from the first time I watched it. Regarding his credibility he admits himself that he is nothing more than a boring guy who gets all his info from other people and their studys. Studies from the completely non biased institutes such as mises and cato. I put no faith in his conclusions as they're outright lies.
I’m currently building a house. I would rather hire an electrician with 20 years of experience in the field than a guy whos entire experience is based on “electricial work for dummys” book and conjecture. Again I don’t blame him for what he’s doing, if I thought I could make a 6-7 figure salary by merely showing up and saying “XXX sucks” (ala al Sharpton) I’d be all over it.
Last edited:
To Vitamink,
Very good points ^^^ and repped Sir!
Thank you for going into some good details beyond Pres Nixon!
I won't go over everything you posted but must say that this is a FAR better critique than had been done.
I will mention a couple of points, not to argue mind you, only for discussion purposes.
I have heard elsewhere (I do NOT remember where and cannot source it
... bad memory) that at least in some cities there was more of a tendency to watch the side of the road leaving the city than coming in. Again, I cannot back this up but have heard similar before. That made it resonated with me a bit more than perhaps it should have. Maybe I was hearing something I wanted to...?
I did do a quick search on crime statistics and he IS off on the "crimes solved" rate for property crimes, but the numbers do seem pretty low even with his exaggeration. I found one (1) article on property crimes solved in Austin, Texas ( In Austin, Less Than 10 Percent of Property Crimes Get Solved | KUT ) It would appear that the national average from what I found is around 16%, again for property crimes which is pretty pathetic, but it is 50% over his alleged numbers.
Violent crime seems to be better focused on with around 50% (rounding) being solved. Rape at 40% (rounding) and murder at almost 2/3's with a 65% clearance rate. Source, 2011 FBI UCR Report Table 25: FBI ? Table 25
I have heard we could have a very long, in depth debate on the validity of those numbers due to how things are counted, classified etc. Nonetheless, his argument about single digits might only be good for property crimes in a few cities.
I do think there IS a point to be made that we have the largest prison population in the world! Not statistically or by numbers per 100,000 - but more incarcerated than China! We shouldn't have more than anything over China except income per capita, yet we do have more prisoners. Source: Highest to Lowest - Prison Population Total | International Centre for Prison Studies
Now, that may be a topic for discussion but we cannot blame the police for that. That is, while I disagree with some of the laws they enforce, their job to do so (within the confines of Constitutional limits). That is where lobbying needs to be done by us on the ground.
I don't want to drag this out but you have brought up some significant and specific points of criticism of his presentation, and that was all I needed to see. Thank you sir.
Regards,
Doug
Very good points ^^^ and repped Sir!
Thank you for going into some good details beyond Pres Nixon!
I won't go over everything you posted but must say that this is a FAR better critique than had been done.
I will mention a couple of points, not to argue mind you, only for discussion purposes.
I have heard elsewhere (I do NOT remember where and cannot source it
... bad memory) that at least in some cities there was more of a tendency to watch the side of the road leaving the city than coming in. Again, I cannot back this up but have heard similar before. That made it resonated with me a bit more than perhaps it should have. Maybe I was hearing something I wanted to...?I did do a quick search on crime statistics and he IS off on the "crimes solved" rate for property crimes, but the numbers do seem pretty low even with his exaggeration. I found one (1) article on property crimes solved in Austin, Texas ( In Austin, Less Than 10 Percent of Property Crimes Get Solved | KUT ) It would appear that the national average from what I found is around 16%, again for property crimes which is pretty pathetic, but it is 50% over his alleged numbers.
Violent crime seems to be better focused on with around 50% (rounding) being solved. Rape at 40% (rounding) and murder at almost 2/3's with a 65% clearance rate. Source, 2011 FBI UCR Report Table 25: FBI ? Table 25
I have heard we could have a very long, in depth debate on the validity of those numbers due to how things are counted, classified etc. Nonetheless, his argument about single digits might only be good for property crimes in a few cities.
I do think there IS a point to be made that we have the largest prison population in the world! Not statistically or by numbers per 100,000 - but more incarcerated than China! We shouldn't have more than anything over China except income per capita, yet we do have more prisoners. Source: Highest to Lowest - Prison Population Total | International Centre for Prison Studies
Now, that may be a topic for discussion but we cannot blame the police for that. That is, while I disagree with some of the laws they enforce, their job to do so (within the confines of Constitutional limits). That is where lobbying needs to be done by us on the ground.
I don't want to drag this out but you have brought up some significant and specific points of criticism of his presentation, and that was all I needed to see. Thank you sir.
Regards,
Doug
Last edited:
HeadlessRoland
Shooter
Milestone (1971): President Nixon declares war on cancer
One of the directly stated goals of the National Cancer Act of 1971 was to eradicate cancer by this nation's bicentennial on July 4th, 1976, a goal which was not and has not yet been met. Nixon signed the act into law, while making no verbal mention of the date, which was in fact enshrined into the law itself.
"I will also ask for an appropriation of an extra $100 million to launch an intensive campaign to find a cure for cancer, and I will ask later for whatever additional funds can effectively be used. The time has come in America when the same kind of concentrated effort that split the atom and took man to the moon should be turned toward conquering this dread disease. Let us make a total national commitment to achieve this goal." - Richard M. 'Tricky Dick' Nixon
Good to know that you know you're grasping at straws to make your point. Just realize it doesn't make your comments come off as rational, and everyone sees that.
And a "bunch" of stuff wrong? All you've pointed out is one erroneous statement, which if removed from a 40 minute speech, would have no effect on the position and arguments of the speaker.
And a "bunch" of stuff wrong? All you've pointed out is one erroneous statement, which if removed from a 40 minute speech, would have no effect on the position and arguments of the speaker.
hornadylnl
Shooter
- Nov 19, 2008
- 21,505
- 63
I can't wait til 2016 to read all these tough wuestions being asked of McChristney.
Kirk Freeman
Grandmaster
You can deny that the truth is important. Others disagree.
I think the truth to be quite rational. You are free to disagree.
Yes. Libertarian thinkers and especially politicians are human and get a bunch of stuff wrong. This is why it is important to point out their errors and ask questions--they want power over us.
Remember, this was me finding something wrong in a Libertarian presentation 1 minute into it.
DurangoUSMC
Plinker
Well said vitamink!
I came to the same conclusions. Id add a reputation point but I dont think Ive been here long enough to do so.
I came to the same conclusions. Id add a reputation point but I dont think Ive been here long enough to do so.
In 2012, Tom Woods campaigned for a Republican in the presidential primary. He then declined to make an endorsement in the general election.
So he's either a Republican or non-partisan. But don't let "the truth" get in the way of your witch hunt.
Kirk Freeman
Grandmaster
Oh, dear God, it is as if the Purity Police are on a schedule.
So now the INGOtarians are claiming that the Mises Institute is NOT libertarian? This is too rich.
Next they will be claiming that they do not write their own newsletters.
Oh, dear God, it is as if the Purity Police are on a schedule.
So now the INGOtarians are claiming that the Mises Institute is NOT libertarian? This is too rich.
Next they will be claiming that they do not write their own newsletters.
Tom Woods is not Republican enough for you? Is the Big Tent not big enough to fit one more? Apparently the GOP Purity Council has spoken.
I only seek the truth!!!!!!!!1!!
Site Supporter
Staff online
-
KellyinAvonBlue-ID Mafia Consigliere
Members online
- KJQ6945
- KellyinAvon
- Eagle21
- den57
- snorko
- Chalky
- BeDome
- cmamath13
- BROBERTS
- hoosierdaddy1976
- silentredelvis
- dieselrealtor
- CB1911
- DRAIN SURGEON
- gpasp101
- WebSnyper
- rabbit hunter mab
- 42253
- Nevernoluck2
- TempusFugit
- Leadeye
- BAgun
- Mikey1911
- jcj54
- mospeada
- mhs
- Jndturner317
- Lilboog82
- agreen0170
- deo62
- llh1956
- 2500ekW
- Bluehazemay
- swamptick
- Lucar186
- jreer25
- PowderApe
- squidvt
- Jowl1
- rmw250
- Luke.Schlatter
- Lost Californian
- Life Member
- Smith& W
- loudgroove
- jbm1521
- Goodcat
- tjh88
- RobC1981
- Old Dog
