Kentucky Republican Sen. Rand Paul took what very well could be considered his most pro-Israel stance yet, saying in an interview that an attack on Israel should be treated as an attack on the United States.
Asked whether the United States would stand with Israel and provide it foreign aid if the Jewish state were attacked by its enemies, Paul went a step further.
“Well absolutely we stand with Israel,” he said in an interview with Breitbart News, “but what I think we should do is announce to the world – and I think it is pretty well known — that any attack on Israel will be treated as an attack on the United States.”
http://www.dailypaul.com/271937/rand-paul-an-attack-on-israel-is-an-attack-on-the-united-states
Yeah, my early thesis of Rand Paul's actions is bearing out to be true. This is exciting!
I knew when he wedged into the NATO/Georgia vs. Russia issue that he was putting his foot in the door (with McCain, Rubio, Lieberman, Graham, etc.) and asking to be in on the GOP establishment. His hindering their plan was merely a way of demonstrating that he can be a nuisance if not accepted. And it worked!
My thoughts on Israel are contained: Here
My various Rand Paul expose's are around the forum.
It pains me to say it (and it happened last May), but the movement is dead. We should be in "clandestine infiltration" mode at this point. Don't tell anyone you are a libertarian just play ball until you get into power then play dumb and block, conflate, obfuscate, and otherwise hinder anything that comes your way. Support nothing or everything, lie to all fellow politicians and bureaucrats as well as the media, and only tell the truth to a few people on the outside who are trusted disseminators of the truth.
Aristophanes: Support nothing, lie to all fellow politicians and bureaucrats as well as the media, and only tell the truth to a few people on the outside who are trusted disseminators of the truth.
Support nothing, lie to all fellow politicians and bureaucrats as well as the media, and only tell the truth to a few people on the outside who are trusted disseminators of the truth.
So who is determined and by whom to be trusted disseminators of the truth? If we all follow your advice, then none of us are.
The Anarch is to the Anarchist what the Monarch is to the Monarchist. -Ernst Jünger
Think how Seneca described the world in his letters. 'You do not trust people, but it is possible to trust a person.' (and since I assume you are skeptical of that Rousseauean double speak, just don't tell the truth to anyone. People who know what is up will get it.) Everyone trusts different sources; know who is getting what statements and plan from there.
I notice that you didn't disagree with the rest of that rant. I think people getting elected and then playing the part of the clumsy idiot is a good way to muck up the process. "Losing" important papers can go a long way (even the CIA told the Nicaraguan rebels to do this from the inside among other things).
Like LRC said, the apple does fall far from the tree.
I don't talk to anyone about my politics anymore really. In the Ron Paul hype days I would try sometimes, but now it's just complaining to close friends. So I may have already been following your advice if that's what you mean. I didn't do that out of any virtuous commitment to political strategy but in the selfishness of retaining my image as a 'normal' person. But is that good for our cause? If, on the other hand, you mean that Libertarian publications and public stages won't be effective anymore now that Rand is now Z-money and Ron is gone, I disagree. I think there's a sizeable group of the American right who, despite the constant reminders and education of mainstream press, ask themselves "Why are we fighting for these assholes at the expense of our own security?" This is something that they can't be 'tought', because it is such a fundamentally retarded idea that it just goes against the instincts of anyone who respects themself.
I didn't pronounce my disagreement with your points that Rand is useless or worse. In order to speak on the rest I have to understand it; are you prioritizing the roles of libertarian public figures / politicians as sugar in the State gas-tank as higher than their roles as representatives of libertarian ideology?
but now it's just complaining to close friends.
Yup.
If, on the other hand, you mean that Libertarian publications and public stages won't be effective anymore now that Rand is now Z-money and Ron is gone, I disagree. I think there's a sizeable group of the American right who, despite the constant reminders and education of mainstream press, ask themselves "Why are we fighting for these assholes at the expense of our own security?" This is something that they can't be 'tought', because it is such a fundamentally retarded idea that it just goes against the instincts of anyone who respects themself.
It is not that I don't think it will be effective, but the counter-"attacks" from the State and its benefactors has already been entrenched. They have the academic world well assimilated to the defense (not intellectually, but socially), they have the propaganda machine (particularly effective imo), and these things combined will shutout the influence of the "good guys" everywhere where it matters. Rand, himself, is an example of the political level of this manipulation. This is not to mention the political bureaucracy which, from my estimations, has the most barriers for foreign influence in the agenda setting (think tanks would be more forgiving).
Rand comes from his fathers coattails and instead of pursuing the central bank (the epitome of power) he waters down the movement with raw milk and lightbulbs. And what is worse is that the Establishment has used his watered down message as the points to polarize. Good luck getting to the level of central banking/military indusrtial discussion with the intellectual climate at that level.
are you prioritizing the roles of libertarian public figures / politicians as sugar in the State gas-tank as higher than their roles as representatives of libertarian ideology?
Tacitum sed intelligitur.
Can they not be one in the same? Why can't we have our own Platonic "Magnificent Myth / Noble Lie"? Why can't we behave like Machiavellian politicos? Everyone else does. This totally unrealistic idealism that has been built on the movement is insufficient for modern politics. Plain and simple.
The IR academic world is hell bent on justifying the Kantian concept of cosmopolitan universal history for a federation of nations constituting a world state. If you think you are going to fight back at the "grass roots" level from this sort of intellectual glacier, then you are mistaken, I'm afraid. The IR and Finance world are the market planners because they deal in how states interact. They are attempting to distinguish the "anarchy" that defines the world system of international relations. They are not going to allow the dialogue to "regress" (in their eyes) to the days of Hobbes (who is referenced in virtually all realist interntational theories).
The best bet is for there to form a pseudo-organization, like they did over and over and over again, and to then transcend the physical plane into sugar once it is nice and cozy in the gas tank.
Interesting. But, the only type of organization which could muster that kind of balls, secrecy, ideological fervor, and simultaneously charisma in the public sphere would have to be on a plane no different than that of the Club of Rome or the Trilateralists.
Where are you going to get people who will live a lie all their lives, who you actually like.
no different than that of the Club of Rome or the Trilateralists.
Or the Masons or the original Sicilian Mafia. The Masons "aren't a secret society." They are a "society with secrets." Who knows what levels of corruption is gotten away with in their halls (well, we know in Italy in the 1960s and we know in France in the 1790s). We don't have to partake in corruption, however; this is a plus. We have to act like Adam Sandler in positions of power.
Hamilton and Jefferson didn't get along, but they still managed to play their parts in the revolution. You just have to worry about the Burr or Stalin types in the crowd (Lenin hated Stalin).
Did not Hamilton and Jefferson openly present their agendas?
I don't think Jefferson ever did. And Hamilton promoted his agenda through psedonyms; Pacificus & Publius (they changed depending on their subject). They trusted each other because they were both ... barons... and knew that they had common interest in deposing the throne.
Even the neocons published their true intentions, but the media never focuses on the source material for them. The media is more than willing to publish as "news" PR statements from the Pentagon (for God's sake) and cite "sources" for pressing international issues. You never get the agenda. [Which is to illustrate the propaganda machine not the dissemination of ideas per se]
All this talk of "rights" and "liberty' are antiquated. New words or phrases should be thought up to represent those concepts or concepts related to them. We need to develop a libertarian tradecraft.
But Americans had already gained their independence by the time Hamilton started pushing hard for a bank and Jefferson pushed back.
I agree that 'rights' are antiquated and 'liberty' sounds like an Americanism.
EDIT:
Topher:
What do you think of the likes of Chuck Baldwin and Virgil Goode and their influence on the disenfranchised right.
I'm not talking about the bank. I'm talking about ratification (Publius) and the first executive foreign policy decision (which Hamilton was right about (Pacificus).
In his series of letters under the pseudonym Pacificus Hamilton debated Madison on whether or not the Executive branch could not act when congress wanted to in terms of war. The French regime prior to the French revolution had signed a war pact treaty with the new U.S. government and during Washington and Adam's administrations the Congress wanted to declare war on England when France declared war on England (holding up our end of the bargain). Hamilton said that we signed the treaty with the pre-revolutionary government and therefore weren't tied to this new French regime's declaration of war. In te mean time, Hamilton riducled Jefferson for being "more Frenchman than American" because Jefferson hated England and loved France and Hamilton looked up to the English. But Jefferson agreed with Hamilton in that we cannot go to war with England, so later after Hamilton is buried (we cannot forget that Hamilton was 'the decider' in putting the last few delegates on the side of Jefferson over Burr in the 1803 election) Jefferson bought LA and funded the French for $15 million (a direct contribution to the French war effort and the English knew it) and imposed a trade embargo for all of Europe to make US policy more "neutral" and to prevent the legislature from doing anything stupid (make what you will with the freedom of trade hinderance). Hamilton was right as fucking rain because when the Congress did finally declare war on England (1812), the English stomped over here and burned our capital down. Thus Madison emerges as the least competent and probably the most embarrassing of the actual power brokers from the US revolution. Jefferson caused much ire in England during his terms (possibly sealing the fate of Madison's administration) and the Federalists were right on this issue the whole time.
haha. Liberty...what does that combination of phonetic timbres mean?
My theory of democratic mercantilism specifically defines democratic state powers as including "positive rights drawn through legislature." So, natural rights, negative rights are what are antiquiated. just name what you want and start lobbying!
Admirable (except Goode's view on nationalism, immigration, and drug policy). They are fighting, however, for a cause that simply cannot ever come back. As I've stated before, the world system is moving towards integration. The way of the nation state itself is in decline. This century will be that of the emergence of a unified transnational-multilateral(cooperative)-corporate-regulatory system that spans the globe. Democratic politics will find their apex before this because when this new order becomes "operational" (like the Death Star) it will disintegrate democratic politics as we know it and nation states as we know them. Nation states will become administrative units for the transnational regulatory formers. This can be found in the bureaucratic manueavers in our own system today.
Our legislature makes laws and agencies. The agencies interpret the laws and form regulations based on their interpretations. These interpretations are administered by states, counties, cities, municipalities, and everyone in the private market. This is how the UN code ends up in county policy.
The point of pushing for "democracy" at every turn is to try to homogenize the circumstances of "legitimacy" of existence for all of the nation states in the world. Once this is accomplished then it becomes a matter of homogenizing policies which will be done through the transnational regulatories (WTO, WHO, WB, IMF, BIS, etc.) all of which are voluntary associative institutions (even though once you volunteer you are at the "general will's whim of who runs these organizations which is anyone's guess). I feel like I'm rambling, but this is concise stuff.
Fighting for the Constitution is like fighting for a reexamination of Newton's great work. It is great and for its time veryone is willing to admit that, but no one is willing to test "progress" for "another attempt."
__________________________________________
People, what do you think of this:
I thought when he did this that it was a Godsend, but it turns out to not be the case... (the Georgia/NATO plan Paul blocked): http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/foreign-policy/item/1485-rand-paul-blocks-efforts-to-grant-georgia-nato-membership You must understand Obama has had a "RESTART" policy with Russia since 2009 (the withdraw of missle defense in Turkey is telltale of this) and there has been for twenty years a tacit agreement between the US and Russia to not allow NATO to surround Russia. Georgia is the only non-NATO country on the western Russian front and the Senate about voted them into NATO which would have amounted to the Senate stabbing Obama in the back and destroying this strategic dialogue between the US and Russia (it would have seriously damaged Obama's foregin policy reputation in 2011). Rand Paul stopped that in a 99-1 vote - helping Obama saving Obama's RESTART policy (single handedly!). Pretty incredible if you ask me. This is a HUGE deal and the media paid little to no attention (it happened in Dec. 2011 i think).
That is my assessment of Rand Paul's power politics. He used that wedge to gain admittance into the upper echelon as a Jr. Senator.
The movement is not dead - the idea of peace and prosperity through liberty continues to spread. And what you are advocating the movement do - the adoption of war means (political means) - would be the death of the movement. Not that that is surprising coming from a traitor or infiltrator such as yourself who is always filled with this kind of self-defeating "advice" to the liberty movement.
The means of peace begin with self-reformation - change your own attitudes and ideas about yourself, about society, abut humanity in general, about how to live rightly (yourself), and share your experience with anyone who will listen. This is the path to building and expanding healthy communities from the ground up, communities that are impervious to the ubiquitous divide-and-rule strategy employed by the imperialists, also-known-as those who employ war means.
Clayton -
Typical Claytonesque idealism
The movement is not dead - the idea of peace and prosperity through liberty continues to spread.
I don't see that. And if it is true that doesn't mean idealism needs to be structured on it. The GOP strategically relocated the rabblerousing teaparty congressmen. That went no where and was marginalized by its own party (it didn't even get to compete with the liberal propaganda machine). Ya catch my drift?
And what you are advocating the movement do - the adoption of war means (political means) - would be the death of the movement.
It shouldn't be limited to political means (legally obstructing the establishment what a bad idea...). Private market actors can do these sorts of things to; cooperative gentlemen's agreements.
Not that that is surprising coming from a traitor or infiltrator such as yourself who is always filled with this kind of self-defeating "advice" to the liberty movement.
You calling me a "traitor" lets me know that I am on the right path. And "infilitrator" ... I'm a college student not a spook, you paranoid little man.
self-defeating
How is it "self defeating" to see the reality of political and geo poltical and economic trends and work into that framework. How is it "self-defeating" to point out that there are Lenin and Burr types out there and to be wary of them (Rand Paul, ahem; maybe not quite to the degree of Stalin...YET ;).
The means of peace begin with self-reformation - change your own attitudes and ideas about yourself, about society, abut humanity in general, about how to live rightly (yourself), and share your experience with anyone who will listen.
I'll pull a cite for that advice....here...I'm sure it's in there.
This is the path to building and expanding healthy communities from the ground up, communities that are impervious to the ubiquitous divide-and-rule strategy employed by the imperialists, also-known-as those who employ war means.
Hey, divide and conquer works...there is evidence of its success. Why sit back and be the political pacifists when there is such an obvious channel for success right in front of you. Black and gray propaganda are always more successful than white propaganda in the realm of politics.
"Rand comes from his fathers coattails and instead of pursuing the central bank (the epitome of power) he waters down the movement with raw milk and lightbulbs."
Look, you rebel by not taking any action, and going to college. Other people actually do things. We all have our ways.
What a weak and assumptive worldview, Habba.
World view? Well, I spoke about you personally, so not that part. You mean when I said people actually doing things? People really don't take action? Jesus, you're more defeatist than I thought.
What is defeatist about my comments? Clayton says I am defeatist because I don't see 'the moral angle' as being powerful enough to be effective in the modern democratic circumstance; the high horse and soap box only go so far. That is all I am saying. And that libertarians should take a lesson from the GOP... 1) fool people to get into office, 2) play partisan, 3) ???, 4) Profit.
If you were planning on, in seven months, going to graduate school on a thesis concerning "The Use of a National Currency as a Subversive Foreign Policy Tool" would you think of yourself as "doing nothing?" What did Rothbard do his thesis on...hmm...I bet he thought he was doing nothing as well. Nothing at all (x3).
Jesus, you're more defeatist than I thought.
This however, taken out of context, is a true statement. Jesus was rather defeatist wasn't he? For him, you don't create the world you want, you inherit it when the clever and ambitious people are done...like I said, idealists.
the high horse and soap box only go so far. That is all I am saying. And that libertarians should take a lesson from the GOP... 1) fool people to get into office, 2) play partisan, 3) ???, 4) Profit.
Emphasis added.
You can't have it both ways... you're "only saying" the high-horse and soapbox only go so far... who here has said that all that is needed is self-righteous lecturing?? I'm all for working with the political system but we need to do so in a way that addresses rather than avoids the root issues. In particular, we need to work from the bottom up. The entire national political scene is hopelessly corrupt - it is frankly Machiavellian and nothing more than a thinly-veiled mafioso mentality applied to every apsect of life. It is true that there comes a point where social measures need teeth to back them up.
And no, this doesn't mean the haphazard notion of a "people's militia". Real, organized resistance can only occur above-ground in broad daylight. But the correct answer here is, again, to start locally and work our way up, not try to "fool people" into electing libertarians to national offices... complete waste of time... it has never worked, Ron Paul being the sole exception that only goes to prove the rule.
You really think you're in a spot to compare yourself to Rothbard?
First you say going after minor issues like raw milk and toilets or whatever is a watering down, then you say do more than talk... By writing a college thesis like 9 people will ever even glance at. Whatever, Neo, take down the source all by yourself by clearing your mind of these distracting, minor issues like the things that affect the daily lives of every single person.
it is frankly Machiavellian and nothing more than a thinly-veiled mafioso mentality applied to every apsect of life.
Exactly, fight fire with fire. It has a proven track record.
But the correct answer here is, again, to start locally and work our way up, not try to "fool people" into electing libertarians to national offices... complete waste of time... it has never worked, Ron Paul being the sole exception that only goes to prove the rule.
Yeah low level stuff always helps. Why not "fool people" into electing libertarians? The parties do it and uhhh they get elected. Rand Paul did it. He fooled people to get elected. Ron Paul isn't a suitable counterexample as he wasn't trying to "fool people" into electing him. He was straight forward and honest and that is why he was marginalized and taken advantage of.
Read his essay "The Meaning of Revolutions." It takes all kinds. His writing, as well as anyone else who adds the dialouge into the academic world or the commercial world, are placing influence in the "source material" for academia. The way that it influences the public is different than white which is but standing on the street with signs. But, hey that's doing something, right? I always reconsider my life values when I pass a few protestors in front of the local courthouse...
When did I ever say "do more than talk"? I don't think I've made that claim. My comment about the soap box was more of a literary device than a direct indictment of what LvMI does, for instance. In fact I think I said that propaganda plays a very heavy role in the psyche of the voting public. Propaganda takes many forms much of which is based on rhetoric which is useful in...speaking and writing. I do, however, remember saying that the 'higher morality' argument (high horse) is not strong enough to gain support given the contemporary political and intellectual climate which I will stick by.
Apparently it doesn't take all kinds, at least not the kind to speak out against the raw mil prohibition or light bulb embargo.
So we shouldn't do any more than talk...? I can't keep it straight! It's like every new statement is an excuse to sit around writing essays, with the sole purpose of inspiring other people to write more essays!
That's the renaissance, alrighty. Just tell people how things are bad. Eventually, sorcery, then, change! Don't water it down with nullifying bad policy through disobedience. 2 words: Federal Reserve. Chant it before bed time.
And all this talk of dishonesty... You haven't ever bothered to earn anybody's respect, have you? You don't just write some crap, and magically you turn into a celebrity. You need to engage your rivals, and pretty much everyone you can, all the time. Deception will only get your ass kicked. Rightly so.
First, Habba, you have no idea who you are talking to, so a lot of those criticisms are a) invalid and b), I suspect, projections. What did I start off saying in this thread? Write essays? Or get elected at all costs to jam up the machine? I think you are the one who is purposely distorting words.
The right-wingers already have that covered (boehner and the other big name...Ryan use those issues as "freedom talking points"). Rand is just a sissy compared to his dad. Ron Paul was willing to rhetorically stand up to them and that is why they would have nothing to do with him in public. They aren't scared of Rand in that way because he plays ball with them. -- Water Doooowowwwwnnnn.
You haven't ever bothered to earn anybody's respect, have you?
Sure I have. I am going to graduate school...I'd imagine it is tough to get in without the recommendation of the professors and the approval of the admissions board that reviews your writings. Does their respect count? Or do you just need respect from strangers on the internet?
Like I said...projections.
You don't just write some crap, and magically you turn into a celebrity.
Tell that to that woman that wrote Harry Potter. Ironically, she was writing about magic! Whod've thunk?
Fun fact: Both Schopenhauer and Hume wished for literary fame early in their careers, Hume got his earlier, but by the time Schopenhauer was like 70 or something people knew who he was. He later inspired Wagner and Nietzsche. Imagine if he would have just engaged people in a positive attitude and dropped the pessimism what he would have accomplished!!
=P
You need to engage your rivals, and pretty much everyone you can, all the time.
That is totally not what I am doing here, Captain Observant!
Deception will only get your ass kicked.
Says the average end user. The deceptive are in power. For instance, look at Clayton's paranoia level. He basically accused me of being a spook or some kind of political operative. Seriously, you are scared of the deceptive. Stop being scared of it and try and see the world as "they" do. "They" have political success. What is the difference between "them" and Ron Paul?
WTF are you talking about? I don't want you to earn my respect. You don't get it by being a lying coward government stooge. I promise. No, she promoted her book, talked with publishers, etc, etc, earned their respect and confidence by proving she knew how to sell books.
OK so on one end, don't earn the respect of internet people... But then this counts as engaging people? Dude, stop. Go back to Pokemon and Farmville.
And power at the cost of decency and... You know, you'll never get it. You need to have a talk with your parents, or find an wiser fellow to teach you how to be a man.
How much respect does Ron Paul have compared to .. 'them'? Nobody remembers 99% of politicians, but Ron Paull will be remembered, not for lying and playing the game, not sitting on the computer waiting for people to read his spiel. 18 hour days, 30 some odd years, tireless effort.
You don't get it by being a lying coward government stooge.
You are very confused as to my point of view. I'm not advocating people to get power and to exercise it in any way they want. I am saying get in power to disturb the power structure. Screw up the State through what looks like incompetence, but is in reality malice aforethought. It is far from being a power hungry stooge. Are you aware of what reading comprehension is? Also, how old are you? Are you in high school?
Telling people what you are going to do is what Ron Paul did. Everyone in the Establishment knew what he meant by "liquidate debt," but very few average voters that I met that liked Ron Paul understood the implications of that (utter destruction of world finance markets). Everyone else in the GOP...lied...and they won (at least until they went head to head with the liberal-side of the Establishment).
OK so on one end, don't earn the respect of internet people...
We both have anonymous handles. Who ARE YOU!?!? WHO AM I!?!? It doesn't matter we cannot earn respect for anything but your avatar...funny you should mention farmville and pokemon as you seem to be more of that mindset since you take your LvMI handle so seriously (I presume? so as to earn respect for ... you? it? I'm unclear...)
You need to have a talk with your parents, or find an wiser fellow to teach you how to be a man.
I love shit like this. You questioning a stranger's manhood. Do you remember what I said about...projection?
Do you see the irony? How else can you explain it?!
OK, go right now. Ask your grandpa if lying to gain power is respectable or decent, becoming of a man. I'm going by what you say. So far I've gathered from you, arguing on the internet is engaging people, writing theses is action, lying is necessary to advance 'the movement', stupid little pictures prove points, and you have never been laid.
And what makes you even think this deception strategy is valid? You can't just say you want to be in the mafia club, you have to play the part. Hookers, blow, kickbacks. Naive. This is why I say go, act, engage people because it's so f***ing clueless. Even your local cop has to play the game or he gets booted. This hare brained BS is literally selling out to get a little piece of the cake.
lying is necessary to advance 'the movement'
This is what seems to hang you up the most. Have you heard of Plato?
stupid little pictures prove points, and you have never been laid.
Again, I'm thinking that you are projecting. Every time you take a personal (particularly sexual) stab at someone it is likely a projection. Especially in an anonymous format, when your teenage hormones are raging, and when you have very little counter argument for what has upset you. haha
OK I'm projecting. But aren't you as well everytime you bring it up, like 90 times now? By constantly telling me I'm prjecting, maybe that's what you're doing. Talk to gramps yet?
OK I'm projecting. But aren't you as well everytime you bring it up, like 90 times now? By constantly telling me I'm prjecting, maybe that's what you're doing.
Ah so you admit it. What am I projecting? The ad hominems you were claiming? No. I am in a pretty good mood and you seem frustrated. My guess is that your back is against the wall (you don't even get my argument) and need something to attempt to emasculate your opponent so your mind goes to the most emasculating things (things that YOU recognize as emasculating immedately - the things closest to your own worldview). Geez, haven't you ever read Freud's lettters!!
You're talking shit because we aren't face to face, this isn't a formal debate, you have no argument, etc.
Talk to gramps yet?
Yeah, I do not live with my grandparents.
This hare brained BS is literally selling out to get a little piece of the cake.
You are still not getting it, kid. You are too emotional to recognize that I am supporting people to get elected in order to muck up the State procedures. That is not asking for the cake. It is trying to gain acces to the cake room so you can "accidentally" tip over the cart.
And what makes you even think this deception strategy is valid?
Read about propaganda. <--- Go to page 6 and look at the flow chart. Take it in. Understand it. Understand where you are in it. Understand the implications for all of it.
Not only is it valid it is emplyed 24/7.
Use the phone.
Then name one honest person in power.
Egh, you should respond to my last post more thoroughly.
I'm sorry is this helping your argument or mine? ;)
So you admit, it is dishonest, your strategy?
Now, did grandpa tell you, lying is bad policy? If holding power requires a sacrifice of honesty, and in all likelihood, other principles, would you still want it?
Indeed, it does. 6,000 years of documented oppressiong, statism, war, genocide, famine, and atrocities of biblical scale. Proven track record.
Duuh, yeah.. I referenced Plato's 'Noble lie' in like post #2. I also mentioned Machiavelli...power + prudence = virtue. You aren't versed enough in philosophy or political theory to even keep yourself afloat to make points against this. Rousseau supported lying to people to instill virtue. Even one Murray Rothbard believed that there are ethical lines that can certainly be crossed as long as it isn't violence.
But, on the other hand, there are some people who respect Malcom X, the IRA; Thoreau endorsed violence if it was in the name of good (antislavery-antiwar) in his Plea for Captain John Brown. I think even the founders employed spies and deceit. The Trojan Horse, the honeypot, the false signal; it's all good. Sun Tzu boils down the Art of War to "that of deception."
Honestly? My grandpa had an illegal satellite card when I was a kid (he no longer does). He has not purchased a gun since the law has required that they be registered; he did buy some steel bullets when they announced that they were going to be made illegal. He retired when he was in his early 40s because he refused to join a union and they gave him an early retirement package to get him out...I think he'd be okay with what I am saying here. He even calls himself an "anarchist."
HOwever, my other grandpa would definitely tell me that lying was wrong and that I shouldn't do it, but then he listens to Glenn Back and I figure...he's a liar!?
Lying...egh (at least in poltical context, not in personal relationships) *shrugs shoulders.* (I was going to type an acronym, then I looked at it and just couldn't so) You only live once, right?
Well, fire is the dawning of technology. It can be good and it could be bad. People need to figure it out. Send everyone copies of The Secret, Clayton.
I see. To advance liberty, we need to not only seek power over others, but sacrifice principles to achieve this power. Did I mention naivete?
Yeah, it is a means to and end thing...and if you don't even acknowledge the end you won't be able to wrap your mind around it. But, I can see from the length of your posts that you're are conceding finally. They've really been crushing you under several layers of arguments and you seem to recede a little more after each one like a turtle back into his shell. Do you get that....turtle?
Respond to the last few posts as well.
No. After non-responding to my very first couple of arguments, I knew this wouldn't get anywhere. "Entertainment purpses only". I'm not an end justifies the means kind of guy. I let 'the republicans' handle that, as well as other statists. I initially called you on slightly less important issues than the federal reserve and you took a huge cop out, and almost putting your essay writing above the real activism and pressure against these things, while touting republicans as the answer to them...
Turtle, like your dick around a pretty girl? Yeah, I get it.
I just meant a turtle that is receding back into its shell. haha. Literally a turtle the ... idk, animal. =D Dumbass. Now we know that you are insecure.
I initially called you on slightly less important issues than the federal reserve and you took a huge cop out
Like what? What about that issue would you think I am scared to address? That Ron Paul stood up to the banking and militaryindustrial complex and Rand pushes the same issues as Paul Ryan and Marco Rubio? I thought that you said that I was on the side of the Republicans (because you cannot understand the intention of my jesting infiltration method), but it looks like you are on the side of Rand and Rand is on the side of the Republicans.... =/
Can you see where you've gone in a circle. And all that claiming I was...? tsk tsk.
while touting republicans as the answer to them...
You should reread my posts. Maybe go to your dyslexia therapy. I know! I know! There are ...uncomfortable moments for you the L train. Just ignore the window and stare at the floor until you get there and make sure you tip whoever walks across the street this time! Don't try to give them a hug they will not think properly about you...
And I guess the entire LRC staff is with Rubio as well... We're all statists now! But we're losers because we won't lie cheat and steal our way to a position we don't want, that won't accomplish anything.
Adding issues to a platform increase it's scope. That's a whole lot of minus.