onebornfreedotblogspotdotcom:However, given those 3 [admittedly generalized] briefly outlined choices , you and others here like you consistently choose method [1] as your primary 911 review modus operandi, thereby ensuring that whenever you "review" any of the Baker/Wright videos you linked to, or when you "review" anything else contradicting the official version of the events of 911, that you will automatically and conveniently conclude that the side presenting the governments case has won the debate - at least in your mind.
You are totally delusional. Please stop with the strawman arguments. Any rational person can review the Baker/Wright videos and see with their own eyes why no-planners are deluded nutjobs who are not seeking the truth but seeking to perpetuate their delusion. Wright has nothing to do with the government but is applying a purely scientific analysis to the no-planners laughable claims. Don't be afraid rational people will watch the Baker/Wright videos and make up their own minds despite your fears.
All you keep repeating is everyone who believes that Islamic fundamentalist who flew planes into the world trade centers and brought them down must believe everything the government tells them. This sort of childish strawman bullshit must work with the people of low IQ you associate with. Now you are trying to intimidate people into believing that the NIST is also part of the government conspiracy so they should not even read their report. What a joke.
NIST Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster FAQs (National Institute of Standards and Technology)
"Anarchism misunderstands the real nature of man. It would be practicable only in a world of angels and saints" - Ludwig von Mises
Poptech: onebornfreedotblogspotdotcom:However, given those 3 [admittedly generalized] briefly outlined choices , you and others here like you consistently choose method [1] as your primary 911 review modus operandi, thereby ensuring that whenever you "review" any of the Baker/Wright videos you linked to, or when you "review" anything else contradicting the official version of the events of 911, that you will automatically and conveniently conclude that the side presenting the governments case has won the debate - at least in your mind. You are totally delusional. Please stop with the strawman arguments. Any rational person can review the Baker/Wright videos and see with their own eyes why no-planners are deluded nutjobs who are not seeking the truth but seeking to perpetuate their delusion. Wright has nothing to do with the government but is applying a purely scientific analysis to the no-planners laughable claims. Don't be afraid rational people will watch the Baker/Wright videos and make up their own minds despite your fears. All you keep repeating is everyone who believes that Islamic fundamentalist who flew planes into the world trade centers and brought them down must believe everything the government tells them. This sort of childish strawman bullshit must work with the people of low IQ you associate with. Now you are trying to intimidate people into believing that the NIST is also part of the government conspiracy so they should not even read their report. What a joke. NIST Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster FAQs (National Institute of Standards and Technology)
"You are totally delusional"
You are probably right.
"Viewing Lenses"
Von Mises taught us all a great lesson by showing how economic events needed to be viewed through a certain "lens", if you will, a lens called the theory of human action, based on what he believed are the realities of the way human beings act in the real world , all of which comes from the fundamental premise that every human is a totally unique individual with unique values, perceptions, tastes, experiences etc., and furthermore that all of these values, tastes etc. are subject to change at any time, subject to new information, conditions etc.
LVM's Lesson
It seems to me that the greatest gift/lesson of LVM is this "lens" he showed us . Furthermore, without that lens, the conclusions of austrian economics make no sense - we need that lens [the theory of human action] to view economic events and make some sort sense of them - for austrian economics, looking at events through that lens precedes any and all conclusions made about observed economic events, and even about unobservable, hypothetical events [ i.e.the inevitable, endless "what if" scenarios]
Viewing /Examining 911 Events Through a "Lens"?
All I have attempted here to do is point out in my previous post that there are [as I see it ] only 3 basic "lenses" available with which to view the events of 911 and similar, one of which is a complete waste of time, assuming that honest investigation is the ultimate goal for the observer/investigator.
Which "lens" an individual ultimately chooses is very important as it more or less completely controls the conclusions reached about the events examined, just as it does when looking at economic events without the insights available to us when economic events are observed through the lens of human action theory, and instead chooses some other "lens" for viewing economic events, for example choice [1] in my previous post.
Wright vs Baker , the N.I.S.T. and Investigative "Lenses"
Mr Wright starts his "investigation" of Bakers hypothesis by accepting unproven government story assumptions [that there were planes that crashed into WTC] as indisputably true, then "proves" Baker wrong, when his method has absolutely nothing to do with neutral, unassuming analysis as I outlined in choice [2].
N.I.S.T. proceeds with its investigations with the exact same assumptions firmly in place. This is not neutral, unbiased and it certainly not methodologically "scientific" in any way shape or form as far as I can see.
It is however, intellectually and fundamentally dishonest as , as far as I can see; any investigation of 911 that claims to be scientifically neutral and unbiased cannot assume the truth or falsity of any source at the outset, whether that source is the government or someone outside it .
The only 2 assumptions that I can see a "real" , honest, unbiased, scientific investigation of the events of 911 can legitimately make are :
[1] agreed on laws of physics [eg newtons laws],
[2] The WTC buildings were there on the morning of 911, by late afternoon they were [mostly ]not there anymore, for some reason or other [to be thoroughly investigated]
Although I might be missing something, it seems to me that those are the only assumptions that can be safely made at the outset of any real , truly scientific investigation into the events of 911, and that any investigation that assumes anything else [e.g. planes, or no planes] at the outset of the investigation is a charade.
But as I said, you are probably right, I probably am delusional. Oh well.
For more information about onebornfree, please see profile.[ i.e. click on forum name "onebornfree"].
onebornfreedotblogspotdotcom: Mr Wright starts his "investigation" of Bakers hypothesis by accepting unproven government story assumptions [that there were planes that crashed into WTC] as indisputably true, then "proves" Baker wrong, when his method has absolutely nothing to do with neutral, unassuming analysis as I outlined in choice [2]. N.I.S.T. proceeds with its investigations with the exact same assumptions firmly in place. This is not neutral, unbiased and it certainly not methodologically "scientific" in any way shape or form as far as I can see. It is however, intellectually and fundamentally dishonest as , as far as I can see; any investigation of 911 that claims to be scientifically neutral and unbiased cannot assume the truth or falsity of any source at the outset, whether that source is the government or someone outside it .
How was he simply accepting a government story, Wright simply takes Bakers various claims and explains how they are wrong using his expertise? How is he being dishonest?
onebornfreedotblogspotdotcom:The only 2 assumptions that I can see a "real" , honest, unbiased, scientific investigation of the events of 911 can legitimately make are : [1] agreed on laws of physics [eg newtons laws], [2] The WTC buildings were there on the morning of 911, by late afternoon they were [mostly ]not there anymore, for some reason or other [to be thoroughly investigated] Although I might be missing something, it seems to me that those are the only assumptions that can be safely made at the outset of any real , truly scientific investigation into the events of 911, and that any investigation that assumes anything else [e.g. planes, or no planes] at the outset of the investigation is a charade. But as I said, you are probably right, I probably am delusional. Oh well.
I don't see why [2] has to be considered legitimate. I mean, sure there are people who claim to have seen them but thats not proof, as it is the "government story" that the WTC existed after all. Really its not that much of a stretch from the no plane theory
New theory - the no tower theory.
Angurse: onebornfreedotblogspotdotcom: Mr Wright starts his "investigation" of Bakers hypothesis by accepting unproven government story assumptions [that there were planes that crashed into WTC] as indisputably true, then "proves" Baker wrong, when his method has absolutely nothing to do with neutral, unassuming analysis as I outlined in choice [2]. N.I.S.T. proceeds with its investigations with the exact same assumptions firmly in place. This is not neutral, unbiased and it certainly not methodologically "scientific" in any way shape or form as far as I can see. It is however, intellectually and fundamentally dishonest as , as far as I can see; any investigation of 911 that claims to be scientifically neutral and unbiased cannot assume the truth or falsity of any source at the outset, whether that source is the government or someone outside it . How was he simply accepting a government story, Wright simply takes Bakers various claims and explains how they are wrong using his expertise? How is he being dishonest? onebornfreedotblogspotdotcom:The only 2 assumptions that I can see a "real" , honest, unbiased, scientific investigation of the events of 911 can legitimately make are : [1] agreed on laws of physics [eg newtons laws], [2] The WTC buildings were there on the morning of 911, by late afternoon they were [mostly ]not there anymore, for some reason or other [to be thoroughly investigated] Although I might be missing something, it seems to me that those are the only assumptions that can be safely made at the outset of any real , truly scientific investigation into the events of 911, and that any investigation that assumes anything else [e.g. planes, or no planes] at the outset of the investigation is a charade. But as I said, you are probably right, I probably am delusional. Oh well. I don't see why [2] has to be considered legitimate. I mean, sure there are people who claim to have seen them but thats not proof, as it is the "government story" that the WTC existed after all. Really its not that much of a stretch from the no plane theory New theory - the no tower theory.
"How was he simply accepting a government story, Wright simply takes Bakers various claims and explains how they are wrong using his expertise? How is he being dishonest?"
I consider it as methodologically dishonest in scientific investigations to, at the outset, assume any parts of the official story, or of any other story are true , or untrue , for that matter. They may be, they may not- the goal of an unbiased investigation is to find out, or at least to offer plausible explanations based on an unbiased exhaustive review of all evidence from what ever source, regardless of where the pursuit of truth might lead.
Scientists are supposed to conduct their investigations from a neutral " I don't know one way or the other until all the evidence is in" point of view, as far as I am aware.
There should be no pre-existing bias for or against against any and all theories, no matter how outlandish, at the outset of a scientific investigation, no bias one way or another.
In fact, I had already answered your question. I had said: " Mr Wright starts his "investigation" of Bakers hypothesis by accepting unproven government story assumptions [that there were planes that crashed into WTC] as indisputably true,.." You just gotta pay attention
And of course ,you are free to choose to believe that there were no towers in the first place, if you like.
onebornfreedotblogspotdotcom: I consider it as methodologically dishonest in scientific investigations to, at the outset, assume any parts of the official story, or of any other story are true , or untrue , for that matter. They may be, they may not- the goal of an unbiased investigation is to find out, or at least to offer plausible explanations based on an unbiased exhaustive review of all evidence from what ever source, regardless of where the pursuit of truth might lead.
So by your criteria both sides were completely dishonest as from the outset the assumed that the towers existed.
onebornfreedotblogspotdotcom:Scientists are supposed to conduct their investigations from a neutral " I don't know one way or the other until all the evidence is in" point of view, as far as I am aware.
So any one with any anti-government bias is out.
onebornfreedotblogspotdotcom: There should be no pre-existing bias for or against against any and all theories, no matter how outlandish, at the outset of a scientific investigation, no bias one way or another.
Towers didn't exist. Until you "prove" it you are just a government schill.
onebornfreedotblogspotdotcom:In fact, I had already answered your question. I had said: " Mr Wright starts his "investigation" of Bakers hypothesis by accepting unproven government story assumptions [that there were planes that crashed into WTC] as indisputably true,.." You just gotta pay attention
Well no. He didn't accept unproven government stories at all. He looked at Bakers arguments and showed through his own expertise, why they were wrong. He didn't say "the government says it was the video quality, so you are wrong," he demonstrated how Baker completely ignored the video quality.
onebornfreedotblogspotdotcom:And of course ,you are free to choose to believe that there were no towers in the first place, if you like.
For the sake of science you have to (apparently).
Nothing happened. We all live in the Matrix.
Now prove that we don't
If I hear not allowed much oftener; said Sam, I'm going to get angry.
J.R.R.Tolkien, The Lord of the Rings
" So by your criteria both sides were completely dishonest as from the outset the assumed that the towers existed."
Well I suppose you could conceivably conclude that, yes, if you wish to be that pedantic. I suppose that scientists involved in such an investigation could be even that rigorous and have to first agree that the towers actually existed before they commenced further investigations- and personally i would have no problem with that. They would also have to agree that basic laws of physics both existed and that they actually applied before commencing investigation I would suppose - but, so what?
"So any one with any anti-government bias is out." It depends what you mean, so yes and no."
Assuming that the investigation were based purely on scientific methodology, and not a legal methodology. [A [US ] legal methodology mandates an automatic pre-bias against the governments case - at least in theory ].
But still, yes and no. Theories/hypothesis that contradict the governments story cannot be automatically discarded _because_ they contradict the government story , nor should they be accepted _because_ they are anti-government - just as the governments story could not be discarded because it was the governments story , but at the same could not be accepted just because it was the governments story.
Total neutrality by the observer/investigator is the goal, with all hypothesis being examined/ scrutinized/ proved/disproved, based on established fact and established physical laws, and given no weight one way or another merely because of originating source [eg pro or anti- government].
As to the Wright analysis, I will have to re-watch it/them again when I have more time, and get back to you and list which pro-government story assumptions I see him as having made going into it all - its been a while.
Video footage and eyewitness accounts prove that something hit the towers; the fact that two planes happened to get hijacked that same day suggests very strongly that it was them.
onebornfreedotblogspotdotcom:Well I suppose you could conceivably conclude that, yes, if you wish to be that pedantic. I suppose that scientists involved in such an investigation could be even that rigorous and have to first agree that the towers actually existed before they commenced further investigations- and personally i would have no problem with that. They would also have to agree that basic laws of physics both existed and that they actually applied before commencing investigation I would suppose - but, so what?
So what? Seriously? There isn't anything pedantic about questioning the existence of the very tower in question.
Basically, all of what you have said can be applied to those who deny that the planes existed. To accuse those who think such ideas are stupid and a waste of time as being ignorant or towing some government line is hardly any different then calling people who deny the very existence of the towers pedantic.
onebornfreedotblogspotdotcom: It depends what you mean, so yes and no." Assuming that the investigation were based purely on scientific methodology, and not a legal methodology. [A [US ] legal methodology mandates an automatic pre-bias against the governments case - at least in theory ].
It depends what you mean, so yes and no."
Why does US legal methodology mandate automatic pre-bias against the government? But its irrelevant as we were discussing neutral scientific methods, and by your criteria, anyone with a anti-government bias is out.
onebornfreedotblogspotdotcom:But still, yes and no. Theories/hypothesis that contradict the governments story cannot be automatically discarded _because_ they contradict the government story , nor should they be accepted _because_ they are anti-government - just as the governments story could not be discarded because it was the governments story , but at the same could not be accepted just because it was the governments story.
Exactly. So calling out libertarians for simply accepting the "government story right of the bat" or saying the swallowed it "hook, line, and sinker" is just poor conduct.
onebornfreedotblogspotdotcom: Total neutrality by the observer/investigator is the goal, with all hypothesis being examined/ scrutinized/ proved/disproved, based on established fact and established physical laws, and given no weight one way or another merely because of originating source [eg pro or anti- government].
Total neutrality is impossible, you have to accept some things just to start an investigation.
onebornfreedotblogspotdotcom:As to the Wright analysis, I will have to re-watch it/them again when I have more time, and get back to you and list which pro-government story assumptions I see him as having made going into it all - its been a while.
Even if he does make some pro-government assumptions, as you've said, it doesn't mean hes wrong in the least bit.
Angurse: onebornfreedotblogspotdotcom:Well I suppose you could conceivably conclude that, yes, if you wish to be that pedantic. I suppose that scientists involved in such an investigation could be even that rigorous and have to first agree that the towers actually existed before they commenced further investigations- and personally i would have no problem with that. They would also have to agree that basic laws of physics both existed and that they actually applied before commencing investigation I would suppose - but, so what? So what? Seriously? There isn't anything pedantic about questioning the existence of the very tower in question. Basically, all of what you have said can be applied to those who deny that the planes existed. To accuse those who think such ideas are stupid and a waste of time as being ignorant or towing some government line is hardly any different then calling people who deny the very existence of the towers pedantic. onebornfreedotblogspotdotcom: It depends what you mean, so yes and no." Assuming that the investigation were based purely on scientific methodology, and not a legal methodology. [A [US ] legal methodology mandates an automatic pre-bias against the governments case - at least in theory ]. Why does US legal methodology mandate automatic pre-bias against the government? But its irrelevant as we were discussing neutral scientific methods, and by your criteria, anyone with a anti-government bias is out. onebornfreedotblogspotdotcom:But still, yes and no. Theories/hypothesis that contradict the governments story cannot be automatically discarded _because_ they contradict the government story , nor should they be accepted _because_ they are anti-government - just as the governments story could not be discarded because it was the governments story , but at the same could not be accepted just because it was the governments story. Exactly. So calling out libertarians for simply accepting the "government story right of the bat" or saying the swallowed it "hook, line, and sinker" is just poor conduct. onebornfreedotblogspotdotcom: Total neutrality by the observer/investigator is the goal, with all hypothesis being examined/ scrutinized/ proved/disproved, based on established fact and established physical laws, and given no weight one way or another merely because of originating source [eg pro or anti- government]. Total neutrality is impossible, you have to accept some things just to start an investigation. onebornfreedotblogspotdotcom:As to the Wright analysis, I will have to re-watch it/them again when I have more time, and get back to you and list which pro-government story assumptions I see him as having made going into it all - its been a while. Even if he does make some pro-government assumptions, as you've said, it doesn't mean hes wrong in the least bit.
"There isn't anything pedantic about questioning the existence of the very tower in question."
I never said there was, I was calling _you_ pedantic in your argumentation.
"Why does US legal methodology mandate automatic pre-bias against the government?"
It is really sad/depressing to get this question [you are not the only one] from a "libertarian" on a major libertarian/anarcho-capitalist web forum. No offense but you need to read up on the Bill of Rights and study up on why it was dreamed up in the first place- seriously.
"we were discussing neutral scientific methods, and by your criteria, anyone with a anti-government bias is out."
No, scientists aim [or should] at putting aside their personal biases aside when conducting investigations - in theory as long as they can do that or there are safeguards to ensure that it does not affect the outcome of their work it should not matter whether they are pro or anti government.
"Exactly. So calling out libertarians for simply accepting the "government story right of the bat" or saying the swallowed it "hook, line, and sinker" is just poor conduct."
You are mixing 2 groups, [1] "scientists" who conduct pro-government biased "investigations" which lead to pro government conclusions [ eg N.I.S.T.] and [2] persons calling themselves "libertarians" "austrians" "anarchists" etc. who have {i} no interest or understanding of the need for neutral scientific investigation, as they have already decided , courtesy of official propaganda, that the official story is true, and just use the "evidence" spoon fed to them in the media etc. to reinforce what they think they already know, and {ii} are entirely ignorant of the political theory/ philosophy behind the Bill of Rights- such as yourself it would appear.
"Even if he does make some pro-government assumptions, as you've said, it doesn't mean hes wrong in the least bit."
Of course it does. If he has made completely unsubstantiated assumptions [either pro- or anti- government] , before conducting his "research" then all his conclusions are invalid /drawn from unproven assumptions made out of pre-bias. Such flawed "scientific" methodology must skew the results obtained from what they would otherwise be.
onebornfreedotblogspotdotcom:I never said there was, I was calling _you_ pedantic in your argumentation.
Its your criteria, live up to it.
onebornfreedotblogspotdotcom:It is really sad/depressing to get this question [you are not the only one] from a "libertarian" on a major libertarian/anarcho-capitalist web forum. No offense but you need to read up on the Bill of Rights and study up on why it was dreamed up in the first place- seriously.
I'm a Canadien, sorry.
onebornfreedotblogspotdotcom:No, scientists aim [or should] at putting aside their personal biases aside when conducting investigations - in theory as long as they can do that or there are safeguards to ensure that it does not affect the outcome of their work it should not matter whether they are pro or anti government.
Of course, assuming they can put such biases aside.
onebornfreedotblogspotdotcom: You are mixing 2 groups, [1] "scientists" who conduct pro-government biased "investigations" which lead to pro government conclusions [ eg N.I.S.T.] and [2] persons calling themselves "libertarians" "austrians" "anarchists" etc. who have {i} no interest or understanding of the need for neutral scientific investigation, as they have already decided , courtesy of official propaganda, that the official story is true, and just use the "evidence" spoon fed to them in the media etc. to reinforce what they think they already know, and {ii} are entirely ignorant of the political theory/ philosophy behind the Bill of Rights- such as yourself it would appear.
You did it again. You've just assumed that the people of this site are laughing at the "no plane" theory because they have no interest or desire for truth and just decided that the "government story" is correct. For the most part though its no different than one laughing at the "no tower" theory. The burden of proof is completely on you, you must show that all the video, audio, testimonials, friends, relatives, are lying/wrong. Instead you just call them willfully ignorant without consideration.
onebornfreedotblogspotdotcom:Of course it does. If he has made completely unsubstantiated assumptions [either pro- or anti- government] , before conducting his "research" then all his conclusions are invalid /drawn from unproven assumptions made out of pre-bias. Such flawed "scientific" methodology must skew the results obtained from what they would otherwise be.
That little "if" changes things a bit though. Him making the "pro-government" assumption that the towers existed is necessary to conduct research, but yes it could turn out to be completely wrong. Same goes for Barker though, so they are pretty much on equal footings.
"Him making the "pro-government" assumption that the towers existed is necessary to conduct research, but yes it could turn out to be completely wrong. Same goes for Barker though, so they are pretty much on equal footings."
Obviously Baker did not take the assumption that the towers existed before 911 as a "pro government "assumption. Obviously that they existed was an assumption made by both sides in their investigations, something that did not need to proved, pre- investigation by either side. A "given".
If yourself and others wish to conduct your own research based on/including the assumption that the towers never existed, or including whatever other assumptions you want, then "have at it"!
Baker and Wright obviously agreed on this [that the towers existed before 911] which is why thy could have some sort of discussion at least- however contentious. If you do not [that the towers existed before 911] - well good luck with that theory.
"I'm a Canadien, sorry." ...and... "the burden of proof is completely on you, you must show that all the video, audio, testimonials, friends, relatives, are lying/wrong."
Your being Canadian explains the latter statement, so you have a good excuse, but your assumption of burden of proof is completely "bass ackwards" under the US constitutional law system [specifically the Bill of Rights.]
Strange as it might seem to some [if not most here!], that burden of proof has always been on, and remains on, the US government , not on private individuals who question its fairy tales about planes flying through steel /concrete buildings without slowing down, miraculously piloted by expert arab terrorists etc. etc. and all the rest of its never ending claptrap.
The Bill of Rights was designed to ensure a level playing field within the courtroom by systemically enforcing an automatic pre-bias against the government case in all federal trials.
Since there has been no trial to prove that the government story/theory about what happened on 9/11 is actually true, [which , I might point out, has not prevented the government from declaring the guilt of certain parties and starting 2 wars based on its accusations of guilt] the [higher than for private individuals] burden of proof still remains with the government, and always will - even if it is only in my mind and the minds of other like-minded individuals [ but obviously not in the minds of most "libertarians or "anarcho-capitalists"].
As I said, your being Canadian explains your lack of knowledge in this very important area .
I'd say that a better question ought to be asked - what to do to prevent attacks.The answer is quite simple: stop interfering in other nations' affairs of state and cultures.
onebornfreedotblogspotdotcom:Obviously Baker did not take the assumption that the towers existed before 911 as a "pro government "assumption. Obviously that they existed was an assumption made by both sides in their investigations, something that did not need to proved, pre- investigation by either side. A "given". If yourself and others wish to conduct your own research based on/including the assumption that the towers never existed, or including whatever other assumptions you want, then "have at it"! Baker and Wright obviously agreed on this [that the towers existed before 911] which is why thy could have some sort of discussion at least- however contentious. If you do not [that the towers existed before 911] - well good luck with that theory.
But it is a pro-government assumption nonetheless. Just as most people assume the planes existed, as its simply a given. If you are going to claim to the contrary it is you who is going to have to prove otherwise and not just call people ignorant.
onebornfreedotblogspotdotcom: Your being Canadian explains the latter statement, so you have a good excuse, but your assumption of burden of proof is completely "bass ackwards" under the US constitutional law system [specifically the Bill of Rights.] Strange as it might seem to some [if not most here!], that burden of proof has always been on, and remains on, the US government , not on private individuals who question its fairy tales about planes flying through steel /concrete buildings without slowing down, miraculously piloted by expert arab terrorists etc. etc. and all the rest of its never ending claptrap.
Wrong. If you sue the U.S. government you are going to have to prove them wrong and prove your theory to be correct. Thats how all courts work as far as I know, the defendant technically doens't have to say a thing. The fact that it doesn't go very far among libertarians even, shows how much more work is needed (or how silly it it.)
onebornfreedotblogspotdotcom:The Bill of Rights was designed to ensure a level playing field within the courtroom by systemically enforcing an automatic pre-bias against the government case in all federal trials.
Think about that. An automatic pre-biase to ensure a level playing field. There is something unequal about that.
Angurse : "Wrong. If you sue the U.S. government you are going to have to prove them wrong and prove your theory to be correct. Thats how all courts work as far as I know, the defendant technically doens't have to say a thing. The fact that it doesn't go very far among libertarians even, shows how much more work is needed (or how silly it it.)"You are mixing apples and oranges - specifically, civil [lawsuits] and criminal trials, where, at least in the US, the standard for evidentiary truth is deliberately set far higher [ or was supposed to be!] via the Bill of Rights. onebornfreedotblogspotdotcom said: The Bill of Rights was designed to ensure a level playing field within the courtroom by systemically enforcing an automatic pre-bias against the government case in all federal trials. Angurse :"Think about that. An automatic pre-biase to ensure a level playing field. There is something unequal about that." Nevertheless, thats the way it was/is supposed to work. You appear to forget [conveniently?] that the government, not some completely independent neutral- bias private arbitrator, was/ is running all of these trials and therefor has a both vested interest and the actual systemic power to sway the outcome its way in all trials - absolutely every time. This was a major concern of the Anti-Federalists who had fought a revolution opposing [amongst other things], trials rigged by the British government. The Bill of Rights was an attempt to re-address/ offset the pre-existing pro-government bias that would always be a result of any criminal trials being conducted by the federal government.
onebornfreedotblogspotdotcom:You are mixing apples and oranges - specifically, civil [lawsuits] and criminal trials, where, at least in the US, the standard for evidentiary truth is deliberately set far higher [ or was supposed to be!] via the Bill of Rights.
As far as I know, In a civil suit the defendent (government in this case) only has to respond to the complaint itself (by showing up). The burden of proof is still fully on the plaintiff to make their case to the judge and jury.
onebornfreedotblogspotdotcom:Nevertheless, thats the way it was/is supposed to work.
Show where in the Bill of Rights it says that courts need to have a bias against government.
onebornfreedotblogspotdotcom:You appear to forget [conveniently?] that the government, not some completely independent neutral- bias private arbitrator, was/ is running all of these trials and therefor has a both vested interest and the actual systemic power to sway the outcome its way in all trials - absolutely every time.
Which is a reason for neutrality, as there isn't any way to quantify ones amount of bias. Obviously, neutrality is impossible, however just commanding a anti-government bias doesn't make anything any more equal. Just more complicated and ridiculous.
onebornfreedotblogspotdotcom:This was a major concern of the Anti-Federalists who had fought a revolution opposing [amongst other things], trials rigged by the British government. The Bill of Rights was an attempt to re-address/ offset the pre-existing pro-government bias that would always be a result of any criminal trials being conducted by the federal government.
The Bill of Rights was an attempt to re-address/ offset the pre-existing pro-government bias that would always be a result of any criminal trials being conducted by the federal government.
The U.S. Bill of Rights was used to reach an agreement between the anti-federalists and federalists, and much there is nothing in it commanding an anti-government bias in a court of law.
Everyone saw the planes hitting the towers in person or on video. You might want to give us reasons why everyone was hallucinating or what.
angurse said: " The U.S. Bill of Rights was used to reach an agreement between the anti-federalists and federalists, and much there is nothing in it commanding an anti-government bias in a court of law."
This does not make any sense, at least to myself.
Why would the anti-federalists agree to a ratification of the constitution if they believed that the Bill of Rights gave no protections against federal tyranny in the courtroom via its [the B. of R.] strict provisions for governmental evidentiary procedures? Please explain.
Regardless, the point is moot- nowadays the government has subverted any such protections, and pre-bias, whether initially real , or just imagined, as you would assert.. So "the goose" [i.e. "due process"] is pretty much "cooked" as far as I can see
scineram: Everyone saw the planes hitting the towers in person or on video. You might want to give us reasons why everyone was hallucinating or what.
"Everyone"? Yeah, sure.
"In person" Such as?
As to the "live" videos showing planes striking [actually on a 10-17sec. approx. time delay], they are proven fakes. ,
[if link does not work- my link ability seems to have mysteriously disappeared for now cut and paste this link instead :
http://killtown.blogspot.com/2008/07/air-vs-skyscraper-video.html
...so anyone who claims to have witnessed this on TV is definitely hallucinating if they believe that this was a real, real time event.
[Never believe anything you see on TV concerning major events, fer cryin out loud! ]
Furthermore, if any person claims to have witnessed the above linked to event "up close and personal " in real time, as depicted, then I am fully confident that they are either lying to you or yes, hallucinating , because the event as depicted is a scientific impossibilty. The video is a fake.
Sorry, U.S government and assorted sycophants, but " the jig is up"
onebornfreedotblogspotdotcom: This does not make any sense, at least to myself. Why would the ant-feds agree to ratify the constituition if they believed that the Bill of Rights gave no protections against federal tyranny in the courtroom via its [the B. of R.] provisions? Please explain. Regardless, the point is moot- nowadays the government has subverted any such protections, and pre-bias, whether initially real ,or imagined as you assert.
Why would the ant-feds agree to ratify the constituition if they believed that the Bill of Rights gave no protections against federal tyranny in the courtroom via its [the B. of R.] provisions? Please explain.
Regardless, the point is moot- nowadays the government has subverted any such protections, and pre-bias, whether initially real ,or imagined as you assert.
Because to give protection against federal tyranny isn't the same as a mandatory pre-bias against the government. Show where it says any such thing.
But yes, the point about the philosophy behind on the Bill of Rights is completely moot. Please, don't use it any further.
Here are some ideas, but we do not need to be attacked to implement. In fact the chances of attack would be remote if these steps were implemented (They were at one time!):
1. Stop intervening in every other nation's business.
2. Abolish the Federal Reserve.
3. Return to the Articles of Confederation.
4. Exponentially reduces its size and scope.
"La cuestión es siempre la misma: que el gobierno o el mercado. No hay tercera solución." -Ludwig von Mises
Angurse: onebornfreedotblogspotdotcom: This does not make any sense, at least to myself. Why would the ant-feds agree to ratify the constituition if they believed that the Bill of Rights gave no protections against federal tyranny in the courtroom via its [the B. of R.] provisions? Please explain. Regardless, the point is moot- nowadays the government has subverted any such protections, and pre-bias, whether initially real ,or imagined as you assert. Because to give protection against federal tyranny isn't the same as a mandatory pre-bias against the government. Show where it says any such thing. But yes, the point about the philosophy behind on the Bill of Rights is completely moot. Please, don't use it any further.
Thank you Sir [or madam as the case may be] , but no, the point about the philosophy is not moot, only the rights themselves [i.e they don't exist any more], and furthermore I'll use it/them whenever I feel like it.
And no, I am not going to explain/translate the specific evidence and evidentiary requirements [i.e for the gathering of and acceptance of such proposed federal evidence into a courtroom] as laid out in the provisions of the Bill of Rights, for you. Please do your own research!
MariusAureus: I'd say that a better question ought to be asked - what to do to prevent attacks.The answer is quite simple: stop interfering in other nations' affairs of state and cultures.
And what would stop other nations or groups from doing the same?
The Bill of Rights, as applied to the courtroom, simply provides an explicit guarantee that the burden of proof wasn't on the defendant. This only provides an antigovernmental bias insofar as the government is always the plaintiff in criminal cases.o
onebornfreedotblogspotdotcom: Thank you Sir [or madam as the case may be] , but no, the point about the philosophy is not moot, only the rights themselves [i.e they don't exist any more], and furthermore I'll use it/them whenever I feel like it.
Use it as you please, referring to it doesn't really help you though, not because you are incorrectly calling upon it, but it really doesn't hold any standing amongst libertarians.
onebornfreedotblogspotdotcom:And no, I am not going to explain/translate the specific evidence and evidentiary requirements [i.e for the gathering of and acceptance of such proposed federal evidence into a courtroom] as laid out in the provisions of the Bill of Rights, for you. Please do your own research!
I have actually, it simply doesn't command any pre-bias against government whatsoever.
For the record, NOBODY outside of site administrators, tells me when to stop using whatever it is they object to that I have written. Bad manners will not be tolerated. Grow up, get a clue, get a life. I'm afraid that this discussion is terminated this end. "It's bin real"
As to original intent of the Bill of Rights- with all due respect , personally I don't think you know what the hell you are talking about, but regardless, we'll just have to agree to disagree on this. Good luck and goodbye.
P.S. To anyone out there who comes across this thread [excluding the "angurse" entity, the PT entity, and the nirgrahamUk entity- and there may be others ] who might be curious as to exactly why I believe the Bill of Rights originally intended to put the burden of proof mostly on the government in criminal cases it prosecutes, I will be happy to consider polite private messaging on the subject.
onebornfreedotblogspotdotcom:As to original intent of the Bill of Rights- with all due respect , personally I don't think you know what the hell you are talking about, but regardless, we'll just have to agree to disagree on this.
This is simple enough for you to prove, just show where it says that courts need to have a bias against government, or show where in the federalist papers or some other related period documents basically saying such a thing. Otherwise I'm going to have to think that it is you who simply don't know what you are talking about.
Bush is innocent until proven guilty.
February 17 - 1600 - Giordano Bruno is burnt alive by the catholic church. Aquinas : "much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death."
scineram:Bush is innocent until proven guilty.
Considering that even Nixon didn't go on trial...
how is 9/11 a tragedy and why should USA avoid it?
Conagain:how is 9/11 a tragedy
3000 innocent people died
nobody in this country is innocent, we watched and let our government harm others, we are complicit
Conagain:nobody in this country is innocent, we watched and let our government harm others, we are complicit
So the 3000 deserved to die?
Poptech: So the 3000 deserved to die?
yes, and more do too if they think what the government does to other people is none of their business.
Conagain: Poptech: So the 3000 deserved to die? yes, and more do too if they think what the government does to other people is none of their business.
3000 dead?
Unfortunately, in a real criminal trial [which of course will never happen for obvious reasons ], on the "evidence" thus far produced with regard to "real" victims, as far as the current state of valid, verifiable evidence production [ or the almost complete lack thereof] is concerned, regarding the matter of the numbers of verified WTC building victims, a judge would be forced to clarify this extremely common assumption with the phrase :" assumes facts not in evidence" , or similar, in my opinion
Badly phrased, I know, so to re-state: 3000 dead "assumes facts not in evidence". [p.s. the same can be said about any/all parts of the official story - planes into buildings , Arab terrorists, blah blah blah etc. etc.
onebornfreedotblogspotdotcom: Unfortunately, in a real criminal trial [which of course will never happen for obvious reasons ], on the "evidence" thus far produced with regard to "real" victims, as far as the current state of valid, verifiable evidence production [ or the almost complete lack thereof] is concerned, regarding the matter of the numbers of verified WTC building victims, a judge would be forced to clarify this extremely common assumption with the phrase :" assumes facts not in evidence" , or similar, in my opinion
Well, hell, thats good news for Paul Tibbets Jr. Since we don't have absolutely perfect evidence that convinces everybody no matter how ill-informed, those 140,000 Japanese he murdered will have to be reconsidered. Its possible that he didn't harm anyone.
Poptech: Conagain:nobody in this country is innocent, we watched and let our government harm others, we are complicit So the 3000 deserved to die?
If you understand Conagain's statement, of course. Because that is the rationale the US used when it killed thousands of innocents in Afghanistan and Iraq.
liberty student: If you understand Conagain's statement, of course. Because that is the rationale the US used when it killed thousands of innocents in Afghanistan and Iraq.
That would be the U.S. military, not civilians (from other countries as well).
Angurse:That would be the U.S. military, not civilians (from other countries as well).
Both sides see civilians as fair game. And Poptech supports the actions of the US military.
Wars are not won when the military forces of the other side are depleted. They are won when the citizenry capitulates. That is why Iraq is still a war, 6 years after Hussein's army was crushed.