Watching. Production quality is a little iffy but the content is sobering... no, disturbing.
Clayton -
And you thought the US was the only country with drones. What happens when we pick a fight with a country that can shoot back?
z1235:
Awesome! Ron Paul's campaign has come a long way. Anyone remember 2007?
Why anarchy fails
Can you give any book suggestions? I would like to read more stuff like Bureaucracy from Mises, a pure critique for why state is a bad way for producing anything. Mises said it's because of calculation in his Socialism, but i have always found the language of the book too hard to read and haven't finished it yet. I have thought about reading some public choice-stuff, so recommendations please. Basicly I don't want to read books about how free markets work, just critique for state.
(from drudgereport.com) Romney follows Ron Paul and snubs The Donald. Makes it clear who the true GOP front-runner is. Trump's going to debate with Gingrich only.
Clayton:That ad made me lol at work. I like how the narrator says "whining like little shitsssoos".
You might want to go with "Shih Tzu"...I don't think Rothbards disciple would be too happy with your more phonetic spelling.
From a recent Iowa ABC poll:
11. Regardless of who you may support, which of the Republican candidates do you think (ITEM)?
Full item wording: a. best understands the problems of people like you b. is the most honest and trustworthy c. has the best experience to be president d. has the best chance to defeat Barack Obama in the general election e. best reflects the core values of the Republican Party f. is most likely to stand up for what he or she believes in 12/4/11 – Summary table, likely Republican caucus-goers* Understands Honest Experience Defeat Values Stand up Newt Gingrich 22 13 43 29 25 24 Mitt Romney 12 12 16 24 12 10 Ron Paul 19 23 13 8 14 22
12. Regardless of who you may support, which of the Republican candidates do you trust most to handle (ITEM)?
Full item wording: a. The economy b. Immigration issues c. Social issues, such as abortion and gay marriage 12/4/11 – Summary table, likely Republican caucus-goers* Economy Immigration Social issues Newt Gingrich 31 27 14 Mitt Romney 20 8 12 Ron Paul 21 13 13
13. For each item I name, please tell me if it is a major reason to (support) that candidate, a major reason to (oppose) that candidate, or not a major factor?
12/4/11 – Summary table, likely Republican caucus-goers Major Major Not a reason to reason to major No support oppose factor op. a. Mitt Romney’s policies on health care when he was governor of Massachusetts 14 45 34 7 b. Mitt Romney’s religious beliefs 4 15 78 2 c. Mitt Romney’s business experience 61 7 27 5 d. Newt Gingrich’s political experience 70 11 15 4 e. Newt Gingrich’s marital history 1 16 79 3 f. Newt Gingrich’s position on illegal immigration 38 15 36 10 g. Ron Paul’s views on limited government 66 14 17 3 h. Ron Paul’s opposition to U.S. military interventions overseas 22 46 28 4 .
We are the soldiers for righteousnessAnd we are not sent here by the politicians you drink with - L. Dube, rip
What realy annoys me about democracy, is not only is it a circus in terms of principles and personalities. But the actual polling and voting system itself seems completely corrupted and faulty. This is not just in the US, this is all over the world.
Where there is an election there is voting fraud.
This may deserve a thread to itself but I'll post it here to start. Don't know if anyone has seen the news today (or past couple days) about the former president of Costa Rica writing a letter to the Hatian president saying that "an army would be an enemy of development, peace and freedom." Here are a couple of sources and the full letter. Really cool to hear another politician say this (not that it gives me hope for any other politicians).
http://www.defend.ht/politics/articles/international/2156-haiti-fmr-costa-rica-president-tells-martelly-army-is-an-qerrorq-letter
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/americas/nobel-laureate-haitian-leaders-plan-to-restore-disbanded-army-an-error/2011/12/05/gIQA0VV5XO_story.html
http://www.ticotimes.net/Current-Edition/News-Briefs/Oscar-Arias-to-Haiti-president-Plan-to-build-Army-an-error-_Tuesday-December-06-2011
Bert:
Someone could respond to that by saying that mega corporations do support libertarian ideals, such as lower taxes and deregulation. That person would be wrong, of course. I think an even better question would be: If libertarianism would benefit mega corporations, then why don't mega corporations support Ron Paul? After all, he would get rid of all regulations and taxes.
To paraphrase Marc Faber: We're all doomed, but that doesn't mean that we can't make money in the process. Rabbi Lapin: "Let's make bricks!" Stephan Kinsella: "Say you and I both want to make a German chocolate cake."
A really great Ron Paul interview
ATF used "Fast and Furious" to make the case for gun regulations
WikiLeaks Posts Spy Firm Videos Offering Tools For Hacking iTunes, Gmail, Skype
"... While most of the capabilities shown in the videos have been previously revealed in a special report by the Wall Street Journal that published dozens of surveillance firms’ sales documents , the Journal had posted only screenshots and short segments of the videos, perhaps fearing that Gamma International would take legal action against the newspaper for copyright violations. WikiLeaks seems to have no such concerns. ..."
Evilsceptic: A really great Ron Paul interview
He seemed completely at ease there. Probably had something to do with the interviewer...
http://www.amazon.com/Darwinian-Politics-Evolutionary-Origin-Freedom/dp/0813530962
Just from reading the first chapter and the preface, this is on my Christmas list.
AJ, James: you guys will probably find this book interesting.
Clayton, don't forget Larry Arnhart's work on Darwinian politics. He even has a blog.
You mean how polite she was? :)
Speaking of this Ron Paul "big dog" ad...Business Insider was kind enough to explain it to those of you who might not get it:
(POP up video)
I took the light rail in Salt Lake City one time and it was completly empty, except for two day laborers. This was on a Sunday* so everyone was at home, but it raises the question, "why was it running?"
*They're Mormon, so they don't leave the house on Sundays.
I thought this was pretty good. Who is Romney today?
Bert:I thought this was pretty good. Who is Romney today?
It's nice that even the Onion is taking notice, but the ridiculous examples they make up make it sound like they're mocking those who point out Romney's blatant inconsistencies...as if those people are being unreasonable. Kind of like when assholes put words in the mouths of people calling for a new 9/11 investigation...claiming anyone calling for a new investigation thinks that there were no planes and that green lizards in human suits carried out the whole thing.
Anyone else seeing this flood of Alan Greyson ads?
link em
The Anarch is to the Anarchist what the Monarch is to the Monarchist. -Ernst Jünger
Self promotion for my blog, my recent post Red Meat is Cancer. Out of everything that came up in a search I did (which was surprisingly easy for this), only one article with no evidence to back itself up on MensHealth.com claimed that red meat causing cancer was a myth.
Bert:...only one article with no evidence to back itself up on MensHealth.com claimed that red meat causing cancer was a myth.
Do you only count the first result of a google search?
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/releases/73040.php
http://www.meatsafety.org/ht/d/sp/i/41359/pid/41359
and many more articles...
Found with this search on google: http://tinyurl.com/czxcqmm
BTW: I am not interested to argue about this topic. But this argument is really lame..
I don't know if anyone's actually listened to any of the Louis Jordan songs I've posted, but in any case here's another one - Inflation Blues:
Do you only count the first result of a google search? http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/releases/73040.php http://www.meatsafety.org/ht/d/sp/i/41359/pid/41359 and many more articles... Found with this search on google: http://tinyurl.com/czxcqmm BTW: I am not interested to argue about this topic. But this argument is really lame..
I did the first five pages, but the search was a bit out of routine for me. If you go through the blog itself you'll see I try to find articles from medical journals (I mainly just go through Google scholar), something that's actually credible. That's the first post where I was posting articles from mainstream news sites. Why? To show how easy it is to come by this information.
But...
http://www.meatsafety.org/ht/d/sp/i/41359/pid/41359 - A website called Meat Safety giving a rebuttal that meat causes cancer, and they attack the Cancer Project because it's funded and operated by vegans and animal rights activists? That makes a lot of sense.
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/releases/73040.php - The articles I find that proves there is a correlation between red meat and cancer are more extensive than this.
http://tinyurl.com/czxcqmm - I like that the first article to pop up is from Mens Health, and they offered no science to back their case.
You don't have to argue this, but you don't have to say it's lame either. I have all the information I need on my blog to make my case.
Correlation/causation?
Either or.
So if you keep up with any of the libertarian outlets, you've probably come across this Veronique de Rugy woman. Virtually everyone has had her on their program, from John Stossel to Judge Napolitano to Reason TV to Cato. If you can't remember her name, you might end up simply calling her "the chart lady", as she's become famous for graphing everything.
While she does do some good by showing the idiocy and just plain falsity of a lot of government claims, my main problem is she's ultimately a statist who seems to simply be arguing for a better, more efficient, more competent government. She takes the government's claims, and puts them on a chart, and then charts the reality, and shows they're full of shit. But then she follows it up with something like "what a stimulus is supposed to do is put out that money right away"...which kills the most important part of her argument (government = bad) and leaves the argument to be simply "the government didn't perform its statist functions properly."
Watch how she ruins this otherwise good idea for showing how the stimulus didn't work. It's such a waste, because now I can't send this video to anyone.
After The Party - Egypt
10 min vid by Journeyman Pictures covering current status of resident uprising. Father of slain businessman claims his son had no need for a state, he just wanted his freedom and vows to become a terrorist if justice is not found for his dead son. Also noticed a circle A on a tree and a few dudes dressed in black and yellow.
Haha! If we could only turn Egypt into a stateless society :P
Edit: Whoopsies. Caught my statist mistake there -> "If we could only turn Egypt into a stateless society" <- Who is this "we"? We can't make a people do something. They themselves must initiate it for it to work :P
Bert: (Already had a reply and it didn't go through, don't know why, anyway.) I did the first five pages on a quick search which was out of routine for me. I try to find more credible evidence from medical journals etc. If you go through the blog you'll see this, and I generally use Google Scholar. Why did I post news sites? To show how easy it is to come across this information (which was easier than I thought). http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/releases/73040.php - The articles I post that prove there's a correlation between red meat and cancer are more extensive than this. http://www.meatsafety.org/ht/d/sp/i/41359/pid/41359 - A site called Meat Safety attacking the Cancer Project because it's funded and operated by vegans and animal rights activists? How is that a rebuttal? How is that logic? http://tinyurl.com/czxcqmm - Like that the first result was Mens Health who said meat causing cancer was a myth with no science to back it up. You don't have to argue this topic, but I don't know why you'd think it's lame.
(Already had a reply and it didn't go through, don't know why, anyway.)
I did the first five pages on a quick search which was out of routine for me. I try to find more credible evidence from medical journals etc. If you go through the blog you'll see this, and I generally use Google Scholar. Why did I post news sites? To show how easy it is to come across this information (which was easier than I thought).
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/releases/73040.php - The articles I post that prove there's a correlation between red meat and cancer are more extensive than this.
http://www.meatsafety.org/ht/d/sp/i/41359/pid/41359 - A site called Meat Safety attacking the Cancer Project because it's funded and operated by vegans and animal rights activists? How is that a rebuttal? How is that logic?
http://tinyurl.com/czxcqmm - Like that the first result was Mens Health who said meat causing cancer was a myth with no science to back it up.
You don't have to argue this topic, but I don't know why you'd think it's lame.
Bert, read again what you claimed:
“Out of everything that came up in a search I did (which was surprisingly easy for this), only one article with no evidence to back itself up on MensHealth.com claimed that red meat causing cancer was a myth.”
This means that you found only one article that argued against “red meat causes cancer”, and as kicker you mentioned that it didn’t even cite any scientific study. This is a plain wrong assertion. There are lots of articles who argue against “red meat causes cancer” with or without citing studies. It’s that simple.
Again I am not going to argue about the validity of the arguments used in the examples that I picked at random only to show you that there is many more than one..
I called it lame, because this looks very much like you are trying to formulate an artificial "consensus" argument, only brain dead narcissistic MensHealth readers would dare to question.
By the way: I am not subscribed to MensHealth, nor have I ever read it or similar magazines ;)
Writes Travis Holte:
"Here are the stats. Ron Paul, though running in a solid second place in the Iowa polls, received the fewest turns talking, 9, as well as the smallest amount of time at 8:40. Note: it was the most-watched debate yet, with 7.6 million viewers."
[for past times, see here and the link at the bottom]
Via Tom Woods:
A reader writes:
I am currently taking an Economics 101 class in college. My professor is clearly a Keynesian economist (and worked for the Fed). I have done my best to read about Austrian Economics and I know enough to realize that he has it all wrong. It makes me feel uncomfortable that the entire class is being indoctrinated, so I sometimes raise my hand and ask a subtle, provoking question. We are currently learning about the Fed and its powers, and we just got started on Open Market Operations. Forget that I’m slightly confused about the topic, do you have any ammunition for me to ask him about it during class? While you’re on that, do you have any general issues for me to raise during class?