Conza88: This is a joke. Only it's not funny. It's people like you who spread the disinfo, that give those who reasonably question the offical version of events, a bad name. onebornfreedotblogspotdotcom:"I have no desire, or need to convert others to NPT." Good, because I've heard it all before and it's delusional. Btw, don't take this is as a queue to delve into your pet fantasy theory. onebornfreedotblogspotdotcom:I'm a "newbie" here- although not a newbie as far as Austrian economic theory goes. I was a member of the LVM institute back in the mid 80's through mid 90's, [before the internet] and have read most Von Mises as well as Rothbard, Menger et al. What have you read? How'd you find out about LvMI? Who do you know from back in the day? onebornfreedotblogspotdotcom:Post -Austrian? [perhaps the only one in the world?] However, although I still read Lewrockwell.com daily, I no longer call myself "an Austrian", but "post- Austrian" instead. This is because I believe that Austrian economics has become largely corrupted with persons with, for me, irrelevant, political "change the world" agendas and such like. Fallacious. What part of Tu ne cede malis sed contra audentior ito, do you NOT understand? onebornfreedotblogspotdotcom:Or maybe it has always been that way and I've just grown out of it/become more aware of it. Yes. Quite clearly the problem is you and not anyone else. onebornfreedotblogspotdotcom:Also, maybe it's just me, but I see many prominent "Austrians" posting at L. Rockwells' site expressing views that I see as inconsistent with the lessons of Mises and Rothbard, in the areas of government, banking, fiduciary media, and most of all, the area of economic prediction [mostly for investment purposes]. If you need more specific examples [North, Rozeff etc.let me know.] Give it all. No holds barred, dish it all out. So far, you have been amazingly unconvincing.
This is a joke. Only it's not funny.
It's people like you who spread the disinfo, that give those who reasonably question the offical version of events, a bad name.
onebornfreedotblogspotdotcom:"I have no desire, or need to convert others to NPT."
Good, because I've heard it all before and it's delusional. Btw, don't take this is as a queue to delve into your pet fantasy theory.
onebornfreedotblogspotdotcom:I'm a "newbie" here- although not a newbie as far as Austrian economic theory goes. I was a member of the LVM institute back in the mid 80's through mid 90's, [before the internet] and have read most Von Mises as well as Rothbard, Menger et al.
I was a member of the LVM institute back in the mid 80's through mid 90's, [before the internet] and have read most Von Mises as well as Rothbard, Menger et al.
What have you read? How'd you find out about LvMI? Who do you know from back in the day?
onebornfreedotblogspotdotcom:Post -Austrian? [perhaps the only one in the world?] However, although I still read Lewrockwell.com daily, I no longer call myself "an Austrian", but "post- Austrian" instead. This is because I believe that Austrian economics has become largely corrupted with persons with, for me, irrelevant, political "change the world" agendas and such like.
However, although I still read Lewrockwell.com daily, I no longer call myself "an Austrian", but "post- Austrian" instead.
This is because I believe that Austrian economics has become largely corrupted with persons with, for me, irrelevant, political "change the world" agendas and such like.
Fallacious.
What part of Tu ne cede malis sed contra audentior ito, do you NOT understand?
onebornfreedotblogspotdotcom:Or maybe it has always been that way and I've just grown out of it/become more aware of it.
Yes. Quite clearly the problem is you and not anyone else.
onebornfreedotblogspotdotcom:Also, maybe it's just me, but I see many prominent "Austrians" posting at L. Rockwells' site expressing views that I see as inconsistent with the lessons of Mises and Rothbard, in the areas of government, banking, fiduciary media, and most of all, the area of economic prediction [mostly for investment purposes]. If you need more specific examples [North, Rozeff etc.let me know.]
If you need more specific examples [North, Rozeff etc.let me know.]
Give it all. No holds barred, dish it all out. So far, you have been amazingly unconvincing.
************************************************
"This is a joke. Only it's not funny"
My sincere apologies for failing to amuse you. I'll try harder- 'promise.
"It's people like you who spread the disinfo"
What do you believe is "disinfo" that I am spreading, and why is it "disinfo" in your opinion?
"What part of Tu ne cede malis sed contra audentior ito, do you NOT understand?"
None of it- I do not speak dead languages [Latin?]
"So far, you have been amazingly unconvincing"
First of all, my initial post is merely a profile, a quick summary of some of my beliefs, which may or may not interest yourself and others.
From my point of view there is no need for you to believe anything that I do - nor do I expect you or anyone else to.
What is it that you believe I am trying to convince you of ?
For more information about onebornfree, please see profile.[ i.e. click on forum name "onebornfree"].
Saiphes: I wanted the thread to gie, but I couldn't resist. I did entertain the possibility of the pentagon plane being perhaps smaller - who knows - I frankly don't care. I've relegated much of the Zeitgeist movie to the "uncited tripe" file. I checked out your site. I find the bullets penetrating steel metaphorical argument absurd. The airspeed argument was refuted as well. I find this guy more convincing. http://www.youtube.com/user/alawson911 I think concrete conspiracy theory leaves you open to ridicule and the possibility of being wrong - simply accepting the fact that states use crises to expand power with public opinion is sufficient. It is adaquate theory for me that they weren't shot down.
I wanted the thread to gie, but I couldn't resist.
I did entertain the possibility of the pentagon plane being perhaps smaller - who knows - I frankly don't care. I've relegated much of the Zeitgeist movie to the "uncited tripe" file.
I checked out your site.
I find the bullets penetrating steel metaphorical argument absurd. The airspeed argument was refuted as well.
I find this guy more convincing. http://www.youtube.com/user/alawson911
I think concrete conspiracy theory leaves you open to ridicule and the possibility of being wrong - simply accepting the fact that states use crises to expand power with public opinion is sufficient. It is adaquate theory for me that they weren't shot down.
"I find the bullets penetrating steel metaphorical argument absurd."
Exactly which "bullets penetrating steel " argument are you referring to, and exactly why do you find it absurd?[ If you wish]
GilesStratton: onebornfreedotblogspotdotcom:However, as the majority of "Austrians" appear to wish to use economic theory to predict inflation, deflation, economic catastrophe etc. , and to push for political ends [such as abolish the Fed, elect Ron Paul, install a gold standard etc.], What, exactly, is wrong with this? onebornfreedotblogspotdotcom:I think it prudent to separate myself from those persons and allow them to continue calling themselves "Austrian", while I prefer the term "post Austrian" for myself. Why are you a true Austrian? I do not understand what is so objectionable about people's political beliefs being informed by their economic beliefs.
onebornfreedotblogspotdotcom:However, as the majority of "Austrians" appear to wish to use economic theory to predict inflation, deflation, economic catastrophe etc. , and to push for political ends [such as abolish the Fed, elect Ron Paul, install a gold standard etc.],
What, exactly, is wrong with this?
onebornfreedotblogspotdotcom:I think it prudent to separate myself from those persons and allow them to continue calling themselves "Austrian", while I prefer the term "post Austrian" for myself.
Why are you a true Austrian? I do not understand what is so objectionable about people's political beliefs being informed by their economic beliefs.
"What, exactly, is wrong with this?"
Nothing, if you believe that Austrian theory can be reliably used to predict future economic events[ i.e inflation, deflation, etc.], or that governments can be constitutionally limited, or that it is possible to have a government _without_ a government owned and operated fractional reserve banking "system", or that economic theory can and should be used to enlighten people/change/improve the world to your own standards.
"Why are you a true Austrian?"
I'm not, someone else here has attempted to label me as such. If that is what they wish to call me so be it - I would prefer "post austrian taoist", or simply "lunatic", "heretic" ,"unclean" or somesuch.
failure to understand that aboloshing the fed, allowing free market money, are not political ends.
they are anti-politics. libertarians are beyond politics. politics is the statist crime.
furthermore, if you believe economic theory cant be used to predict events, its incredible you think its worth knowing anything about.
Again coming back to the fact that Mises himself is widely credited for having recognised and understood the causes of austrian inflation in the 20's, and then used his knowledge to stop it in its tracks, leads you to believe both that its not possible for him to have done so, despite it being something he did, and furthermore that he shouldnt have tried.
so again, you are so 'austrian' you've outgrown the Mises. or maybe you didnt know that much to start with.
feel fee to respond
if you wish
Where there is no property there is no justice; a proposition as certain as any demonstration in Euclid
Fools! not to see that what they madly desire would be a calamity to them as no hands but their own could bring
onebornfreedotblogspotdotcom:However, as the majority of "Austrians" appear to wish to use economic theory to predict inflation, deflation, economic catastrophe etc.
There is nothing wrong with trying to use economic science to predict the future, as long as you don't try to call that USAGE of economic science an INSTANCE of economic science.
For example, the Pythagorean theorem is an undeniably true "instance" of the science of geometry. One can try to use the theorem to inferentially measure things in the real world. But that usage is geodesy, not geometry; as such, it is uncertain. Even though the theorem is undeniably true, the measurements you're using it to infer FROM are not; and you can't even be sure you're dealing with a true right triangle.
Mises saying that you can't use economics to make certain predictions is like Euclid saying you can't use geometry to make certain real-world measurements.
What North and Rozeff are trying to do is not pure economic science, but it is worth doing, because we have to make SOME choice of how to allocate our own personal resources, so it would be awfully helpful to having a working prediction about whether the value of the money sitting in my bank account is going to rise or fall in value. Any such predictions may turn out right or wrong; but they'd be more likely to turn out right with good theory than bad.
onebornfreedotblogspotdotcom:push for political ends [such as abolish the Fed, elect Ron Paul, install a gold standard etc.]
Moreover, economic theory DOES make ceteris paribum predictions about the real world. Of course all things are not equal, so who knows, maybe abolishing the Fed would through some freakish turn of events end up bringing about a super-Fed that was even worse than before. But again, as homo agens we necessarily must act according the best foresight we can muster (which you will concede, if you are as much of a student of Mises as you profess). And the best foresight I can muster tells me that abolishing the Fed, electing Ron Paul, and abolishing monetary restrictions (which I believe will naturally lead to a gold standard) would do TREMENDOUSLY more good than bad.
onebornfreedotblogspotdotcom:If you wish to label me as "true Austrian" however, so be it.
I was only clarifying what it was that you were trying to portray yourself as.
Austrian Theory of the Business Cycle in 9 steps (Soliciting comments)
Saiphes: I find this guy more convincing. http://www.youtube.com/user/alawson911
Thats because instead of reviewing 911 no plane theory[NPT] and similar from a completely neutral , scientific , skeptical standpoint and fully reviewing all available evidence from that standpoint before reaching any conclusions about what happened, [let alone starting from a legal posture, which instead of unbiased neutrality, _requires_ and demands pre-prejudice against the governments version of events, and to therefor rigorously question all aspects of the governments story], you have instead started with a pre- bias towards the governments story, with a corresponding willingness to swallow scientific impossibilities in order to carry on believing what you had already chosen to believe through the aid of unquestioned official propaganda[ ie the mainstream media.]
As you already chose to believe the official version, your ego demands that you continue to believe in it, no matter what evidence might be presented to contradict/refute that version, such as:
http://blip.tv/file/1272900/
As I see it, and like most here, psychologically speaking you are incapable of seriously reviewing/believing anything other than the official version [or perhaps a minor variation thereof], simply because you have already allowed yourself to be conditioned as to what you should and should not believe about 911.
Your ego demands support via a continued belief in what you already "know" to be true , in order to survive, and so you believe Mr Lawsons video and the US governments fantastic version of events, wherein large ,plastic nosed, hollow, aluminum bodied jetliners really can fly intact _through_ 500,000 tons of concrete and steel without even slowing down, and without any parts falling off at impact, while leaving cartoonish "Roadrunner" entry holes to conveniently mark their passage.
Belief in such fantastic , impossible events is perfectly natural, psychologically speaking; after a successful conditioning, your ego demands it..
I don't like this new guy...he seems to full of himself.
I took the red pill quite a while ago - when I found out about the lies about lincoln, the lucitania, pearl harbor. I assure you my ego and conditioning are no longer threatened by the possibility that 911 was a lie. Your psychoanalyzing is nothing more than adhominem, and I'll no longer feed the troll.
Conza88: onebornfreedotblogspotdotcom:I'm a "newbie" here- although not a newbie as far as Austrian economic theory goes. I was a member of the LVM institute back in the mid 80's through mid 90's, [before the internet] and have read most Von Mises as well as Rothbard, Menger et al. What have you read? How'd you find out about LvMI? Who do you know from back in the day?
You avoided addressing these questions. You completely ignored them. This does not surprise me.
onebornfreedotblogspotdotcom: "What part of Tu ne cede malis sed contra audentior ito, do you NOT understand?" None of it- I do not speak dead languages [Latin?]
You say you've been an Austrian for... roughly 30 years?
Yet you don't know the above motto...
The one that is next to the title of this very page: "Ludwig Von Mises Institute"... a phrase that was Mises child hood motto that he held his entire life. One that is exactly what this institute stands for. Something that has been quoted on Lewrockwell.com periodically, countless times.
You're not an Austrian. You're a troll. You fail remarkably.
So you make up some bs story, throw out a few main authors of the school, which you obtained from about a 5 min wiki search and then come in here with No Planes Theory.
Conza88: onebornfreedotblogspotdotcom:Also, maybe it's just me, but I see many prominent "Austrians" posting at L. Rockwells' site expressing views that I see as inconsistent with the lessons of Mises and Rothbard, in the areas of government, banking, fiduciary media, and most of all, the area of economic prediction [mostly for investment purposes]. If you need more specific examples [North, Rozeff etc.let me know.] Give it all. No holds barred, dish it all out. So far, you have been amazingly unconvincing.
You've got bugger all. You failed to address this. You asked if anyone wanted more specific examples. I called you out. You were given the prime opportunity to shut me down. You ignored it. You've got nothing. This is becoming rather predictable.
First of all, my initial post is merely a profile, a quick summary of some of my beliefs, which may or may not interest yourself and others. From my point of view there is no need for you to believe anything that I do - nor do I expect you or anyone else to. What is it that you believe I am trying to convince you of ?
Your second post. Re-read it. Then re-read my response. Then image your response. The one that doesn't exist, because you chose to ignore the request. And address the point I made.
'What are you trying to convince me of?'
Nothing. I gather you're here to tie bullshit whack theories to a respectable institution. And if that's not your intent, which I can only speculate on. It is certainly what your actions are doing. Please don't do that. You are being too obvious.
onebornfreedotblogspotdotcom: "So far, you have been amazingly unconvincing" First of all, my initial post is merely a profile, a quick summary of some of my beliefs, which may or may not interest yourself and others. From my point of view there is no need for you to believe anything that I do - nor do I expect you or anyone else to. What is it that you believe I am trying to convince you of ?
There is no government cabal and there is no big complex conspircy theory by the federal government to plot the death of 3000 Americans. Planes really did crash into pentagon and the WTC.
It is all one big Stand Alone Complex. The federal government really did fund Al Queda. Than they came back to bite the American people for government's bad foreign policies. Foolish government officials thought they could solve the "terrorist" problem by waging unjust wars, which cause more problem. Then our freedom get trampled even more in the name of "safety".
It is all spontaneous, irrational, and deadly. And it doesn't require a criminal mastermind. Mine is much more simple so it is more likely to be correct.
I win.
http://libregamewiki.org - The world's only encyclopedia on free(as in freedom) gaming.
Nick. B: I don't like this new guy...he seems to full of himself. it.
I don't like this new guy...he seems to full of himself. it.
Peace
JonBostwick: Nick. B: I don't like this new guy...he seems to full of himself. it.
An accurate correction.
onebornfreedotblogspotdotcom:Nothing, if you believe that Austrian theory can be reliably used to predict future economic events[ i.e inflation, deflation, etc.], or that governments can be constitutionally limited, or that it is possible to have a government _without_ a government owned and operated fractional reserve banking "system", or that economic theory can and should be used to enlighten people/change/improve the world to your own standards.
Why don't you believe it?
"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows"
Bob Dylan
nirgrahamUK: failure to understand that aboloshing the fed, allowing free market money, are not political ends. they are anti-politics. libertarians are beyond politics. politics is the statist crime. furthermore, if you believe economic theory cant be used to predict events, its incredible you think its worth knowing anything about. Again coming back to the fact that Mises himself is widely credited for having recognised and understood the causes of austrian inflation in the 20's, and then used his knowledge to stop it in its tracks, leads you to believe both that its not possible for him to have done so, despite it being something he did, and furthermore that he shouldnt have tried. so again, you are so 'austrian' you've outgrown the Mises. or maybe you didnt know that much to start with. feel fee to respond if you wish
You wanted me banned, now you want to talk some more? Get real- seriously.
you are free to choose not to respond if you feel i lack a certain 'serious-ity'. do as you please. if you wish.
Daniel J. Sanchez: onebornfreedotblogspotdotcom:However, as the majority of "Austrians" appear to wish to use economic theory to predict inflation, deflation, economic catastrophe etc. There is nothing wrong with trying to use economic science to predict the future, as long as you don't try to call that USAGE of economic science an INSTANCE of economic science. For example, the Pythagorean theorem is an undeniably true "instance" of the science of geometry. One can try to use the theorem to inferentially measure things in the real world. But that usage is geodesy, not geometry; as such, it is uncertain. Even though the theorem is undeniably true, the measurements you're using it to infer FROM are not; and you can't even be sure you're dealing with a true right triangle. Mises saying that you can't use economics to make certain predictions is like Euclid saying you can't use geometry to make certain real-world measurements. What North and Rozeff are trying to do is not pure economic science, but it is worth doing, because we have to make SOME choice of how to allocate our own personal resources, so it would be awfully helpful to having a working prediction about whether the value of the money sitting in my bank account is going to rise or fall in value. Any such predictions may turn out right or wrong; but they'd be more likely to turn out right with good theory than bad. onebornfreedotblogspotdotcom:push for political ends [such as abolish the Fed, elect Ron Paul, install a gold standard etc.] Moreover, economic theory DOES make ceteris paribum predictions about the real world. Of course all things are not equal, so who knows, maybe abolishing the Fed would through some freakish turn of events end up bringing about a super-Fed that was even worse than before. But again, as homo agens we necessarily must act according the best foresight we can muster (which you will concede, if you are as much of a student of Mises as you profess). And the best foresight I can muster tells me that abolishing the Fed, electing Ron Paul, and abolishing monetary restrictions (which I believe will naturally lead to a gold standard) would do TREMENDOUSLY more good than bad. onebornfreedotblogspotdotcom:If you wish to label me as "true Austrian" however, so be it. I was only clarifying what it was that you were trying to portray yourself as.
"There is nothing wrong with trying to use economic science to predict the future"
For yourself, Rozeff, North and others, perhaps not, for myself and others [ie my own clients] who are looking for realistic ways to protect long term savings from what we view as entirely unpredictable economic events , there is.
"What North and Rozeff are trying to do is not pure economic science, but it is worth doing, because we have to make SOME choice of how to allocate our own personal resources, so it would be awfully helpful to having a working prediction about whether the value of the money sitting in my bank account is going to rise or fall in value. Any such predictions may turn out right or wrong; but they'd be more likely to turn out right with good theory than bad."
North , Rozeff and others who make their economic predictions always, to a man focus almost exclusively on the supply of money via the Fed[ ie mb -monetary base].
It is almost as if they never read [or understood] Mises' "Theory of Money and Credit" [or the economic forecasting/prediction chapter- I forget its name- near the end of "Human Action" ].
In that book [Theory of Money and Credit], LVM shows that ,as with anything else, the price of money is set at any point in time by the interaction of the twin factors of supply, and demand for that supply. [ie the demand side of the supply /demand equation as always constitutes an entire 50% of that equation]
Since demand can never be known at any point in time , the price of money can only be seen in hindsight, or retrospect, by looking backward at the final price as it was last month, last year, or even in the last decade, relative to what it was in another time period, when the final results of the interaction between supply and demand back then are clearly evident.
For example, if we knew from Fed figures that for the years 1995-2000 that there were large percentage increases in mb, but that prices in general for goods/services fell, it can be fairly safely deduced _in hindsight_, that despite those increases in the money supply, demand for that increased supply increased even more rapidly [for whatever reasons] han the supply itself , with the net effect of maintaining or even increasing the value of each dollar unit relative to both itself and to other fiat currencies, and resulting in a disinflationairy [ie a decrease in rate of inflation, price stabilization or perhaps falling prices] tendency for that time period.
N.B. the above example for the time period 1995-2000 is merely a hypothetical example to make a point, it is not supposed to be my real life explanation of what happened back then.
On the other hand, if demand for that increased supply had fallen rapidly over the same time period, then each dollar unit would have decreased in value [ie caused inflationary tendencies].
There are many permutations of supply and demand interaction to be considered, [eg supply falls, but demand for that supply falls faster, causing price inflation] but the point [and I think, LVM's point too] is always the same- while supply can be known accurately at any point in time, an entire 50% of the price of money equation [ie demand for that supply] is entirely unknown at any point in real time, and can only be seen in hindsight [retrospect] after its effects on the supply have finally become apparent.
For myself, making inflationary predictions based on increases in the money supply [or even the opposite- making deflationary predictions based on decreases in supply] is irresponsible,egotistical , simplistic tomfoolery.
"And the best foresight I can muster tells me that abolishing the Fed, electing Ron Paul, and abolishing monetary restrictions (which I believe will naturally lead to a gold standard) would do TREMENDOUSLY more good than bad."
In medicine, all diseases cause symptoms.
If you have the disease, you will manifest certain symptoms. If you suppress the symptoms they merely cause the manifestation of other, even worse symptoms.
The fed is not a disease, merely the symptom of a disease. The disease is government. If you have the disease[government], then sooner or later you must exhibit its symptoms [ the fed or something like it, centralized banking, fiat currencies being just one of those many symptoms].
Trying to get rid of, or suppress/control disease symptoms [eg the fed] while keeping the disease[ government] , is in my opinion, a waste of time.
If you have the disease, you _must _exhibit the symptoms.
GilesStratton: onebornfreedotblogspotdotcom:Nothing, if you believe that Austrian theory can be reliably used to predict future economic events[ i.e inflation, deflation, etc.], or that governments can be constitutionally limited, or that it is possible to have a government _without_ a government owned and operated fractional reserve banking "system", or that economic theory can and should be used to enlighten people/change/improve the world to your own standards. Why don't you believe it?
"Why don't you believe it?"
Please see my reply [prior post] to DJ Sanchez. If that is not clear enough for you get back to me and I'll attempt to further clarify.
Conza88: Conza88: onebornfreedotblogspotdotcom:I'm a "newbie" here- although not a newbie as far as Austrian economic theory goes. I was a member of the LVM institute back in the mid 80's through mid 90's, [before the internet] and have read most Von Mises as well as Rothbard, Menger et al. What have you read? How'd you find out about LvMI? Who do you know from back in the day? You avoided addressing these questions. You completely ignored them. This does not surprise me. onebornfreedotblogspotdotcom: "What part of Tu ne cede malis sed contra audentior ito, do you NOT understand?" None of it- I do not speak dead languages [Latin?] You say you've been an Austrian for... roughly 30 years? Yet you don't know the above motto... The one that is next to the title of this very page: "Ludwig Von Mises Institute"... a phrase that was Mises child hood motto that he held his entire life. One that is exactly what this institute stands for. Something that has been quoted on Lewrockwell.com periodically, countless times. You're not an Austrian. You're a troll. You fail remarkably. So you make up some bs story, throw out a few main authors of the school, which you obtained from about a 5 min wiki search and then come in here with No Planes Theory. Conza88: onebornfreedotblogspotdotcom:Also, maybe it's just me, but I see many prominent "Austrians" posting at L. Rockwells' site expressing views that I see as inconsistent with the lessons of Mises and Rothbard, in the areas of government, banking, fiduciary media, and most of all, the area of economic prediction [mostly for investment purposes]. If you need more specific examples [North, Rozeff etc.let me know.] Give it all. No holds barred, dish it all out. So far, you have been amazingly unconvincing. You've got bugger all. You failed to address this. You asked if anyone wanted more specific examples. I called you out. You were given the prime opportunity to shut me down. You ignored it. You've got nothing. This is becoming rather predictable. First of all, my initial post is merely a profile, a quick summary of some of my beliefs, which may or may not interest yourself and others. From my point of view there is no need for you to believe anything that I do - nor do I expect you or anyone else to. What is it that you believe I am trying to convince you of ? Your second post. Re-read it. Then re-read my response. Then image your response. The one that doesn't exist, because you chose to ignore the request. And address the point I made. 'What are you trying to convince me of?' Nothing. I gather you're here to tie bullshit whack theories to a respectable institution. And if that's not your intent, which I can only speculate on. It is certainly what your actions are doing. Please don't do that. You are being too obvious.
OK, OK ! I give up! I'm a fraud, a charlatan! You are more "Austrian" than I am [even though I never claimed to be "Austrian" in the first place] - you know more about Austrian economics than I do, you know more "real" "Austrians" than I do, you've read more "Austrian" books than I have,you know more latin than I do, hell , you are even a better person than I am! I "fail remarkably"- Yay!
Are you happy yet?
You're a new member with some unpopular views. You might want to try being polite if you want to be tolerated at all.
GilesStratton: You're a new member with some unpopular views. You might want to try being polite if you want to be tolerated at all.
Are you referring to a particular post of mine or is this just a general observation?
If,for example, you were referring to the prior post [conza88] , this person appears to insist on playing a fruitless, unwinnable, unprovable "I know more than you know", "I know more Austrians from way back when than you do" ,"prove it" type game which, as far as I am concerned, is entirely irrelevant, territorial chest -thumping- nothing more. Sorry, I don't play that game.
Do you believe, as a moderator, that I should continue to be polite to someone who in their initial post resorts to rudeness, swearing, name-calling, or who wish to engage me in fruitless, unwinnable, unprovable "I know more than you know", "I know more Austrians from way back when than you do" ,"prove it" type arguments and posturing etc. merely by virtue of the fact that they have been around here longer ?
If so, [and I'm not saying it is] how honest/unbiased is that?
I have been as clear honest and forthright as I can about my viewpoints. I expect/welcome serious questioning about those beliefs. But in the end, people can either believe what I say about myself, or not.
If they find my viewpoints interesting ,stimulating, or thought provoking great- if not, so be it.
To be clear, if you closely check my [short] history of posts/replies, I think that you will find that in every case I have been exceptionally polite- as long as the other person remains so. [I have been sworn at, called denigrating names etc.],
However, as soon as they get confrontational/abusive or made threats [which in number of instances has occurred with a persons very first post to me], as far as I'm concerned they changed the rules, not I.
However, I have still not resorted to name calling, or attempted to denigrate [maybe a little sarcasm].
Already there is one poster[possibly two] here who I refuse to further engage with merely by virtue of the fact that they flat called for banning my account just because they find my views heretical.
Or are you seeing something I'm not?
Saiphes: I took the red pill quite a while ago - when I found out about the lies about lincoln, the lucitania, pearl harbor. I assure you my ego and conditioning are no longer threatened by the possibility that 911 was a lie. Your psychoanalyzing is nothing more than adhominem, and I'll no longer feed the troll.
....Allrighty then. That explains it, your red pill just wore off, or you need to increase the dosage and frequency :-)
You are aware of my position [no planes hit WTC1 or 2, no plane hit the Pentagon, possibly no plane in Shanksville], and I know yours.
If you wish to discuss this matter further in a civilized manner let me know- I'm happy to do so- if not , that's fine too.
Yes, we're aware of your position. And it's been dismissed as laughably impossible due to the LIVE VIDEO OF THE PLANES HITTING THE WTC.
And the debris of the other planes.
etc.
It's one thing to question the "they attacked us because we're free" nonsense; it's another to deny live video.
Knight_of_BAAWA: Yes, we're aware of your position. And it's been dismissed as laughably impossible due to the LIVE VIDEO OF THE PLANES HITTING THE WTC. And the debris of the other planes. etc. It's one thing to question the "they attacked us because we're free" nonsense; it's another to deny live video.
As I said, no planes hit WTC1 or 2, no plane hit the Pentagon, and it looks like there was no plane crash [flight 93]in Shanksville either.
The "live" feeds [actually one shared feed from Fox and CNN] you believe you saw that morning during the time of the 2nd strike were actually on a 7 -13 sec. time delay [thereby accounting for the apparent strike time discrepancies between seismic evidence and the official account/ network versions of strike time] ; a time delay which allowed enough time for computer generated imaging technology [CGI] to insert plane profiles into the supposed "live" feed and create the illusion of an airliner hitting WTC2.
The 1st strike [WTC1] was never seen live on TV [ "live" network feeds were set up _after_that supposed strike ] ,and was only shown on TV the next day, in the famous Naudet Brothers video- which has now also proven to have mostly been faked.
All supposed , subsequent "amateur" 2nd strike videos of flight 175 striking and then fully entering WTC2 without slowing down, without breaking up, [ie in one complete piece, like a knife through butter ] are also rather obvious fakes [since they defy some of the known laws of Newtonian physics], and were almost invariably produced by video compositing professionals hours later .
Of course, those "amateur" 2nd strike videos were never shown live either.
You've been had.
onebornfreedotblogspotdotcom: OK, OK ! I give up! I'm a fraud, a charlatan! You are more "Austrian" than I am [even though I never claimed to be "Austrian" in the first place] - you know more about Austrian economics than I do, you know more "real" "Austrians" than I do, you've read more "Austrian" books than I have,you know more latin than I do, hell , you are even a better person than I am! I "fail remarkably"- Yay!
For crying out loud, they were simple questions and if you were actually what you say you are, you would have simple answers to them.I just want answers, yet you dodge them every time.
What do you expect me to think?
onebornfreedotblogspotdotcom:Are you happy yet?
I was never "angry". lol
But I'll be more happy if you stop avoiding the questions and pussy footing around like a bafoon.
onebornfreedotblogspotdotcom:If,for example, you were referring to the prior post [conza88] , this person appears to insist on playing a fruitless, unwinnable, unprovable "I know more than you know", "I know more Austrians from way back when than you do" ,"prove it" type game which, as far as I am concerned, is entirely irrelevant, territorial chest -thumping- nothing more. Sorry, I don't play that game.
And by that, you really mean: "Sorry, I cannot answer your very reasonable, basic, legitimate and extremely relevant questions... because I don't have a reasonable, intelligent, coherent response to offer."
You do realise you've completely erected a strawman. Right?
I've been in the school for 6 months? You say you've been in the school for 20-30 years.
I know no Austrians from back in the day. See: 6 months.
In all cases, you should know more than me in every regard. Yet you don't even know the basics. Which I find rather insane. So I asked for more details to verify. And you can't provide squat.
'Prove it' = please do what you said you would do, provide more examples on request. I requested... and the response was: .
onebornfreedotblogspotdotcom: Do you believe, as a moderator, that I should continue to be polite to someone who in their initial post resorts to rudeness, swearing, name-calling, or who wish to engage me in fruitless, unwinnable, unprovable "I know more than you know", "I know more Austrians from way back when than you do" ,"prove it" type arguments and posturing etc. merely by virtue of the fact that they have been around here longer ? If so, [and I'm not saying it is] how honest/unbiased is that?
This is another strawman. What number are we at now?
Please review all my posts, you will see no swearing or name calling. Quote me if you can.
onebornfreedotblogspotdotcom:I have been as clear honest and forthright as I can about my viewpoints. I expect/welcome serious questioning about those beliefs. But in the end, people can either believe what I say about myself, or not.
No you haven't. You can't even answer the most basic of questions.
onebornfreedotblogspotdotcom:To be clear, if you closely check my [short] history of posts/replies, I think that you will find that in every case I have been exceptionally polite- as long as the other person remains so. [I have been sworn at, called denigrating names etc.], However, as soon as they get confrontational/abusive or made threats [which in number of instances has occurred with a persons very first post to me], as far as I'm concerned they changed the rules, not I.
No it didn't.
onebornfreedotblogspotdotcom:However, I have still not resorted to name calling, or attempted to denigrate [maybe a little sarcasm]. Already there is one poster[possibly two] here who I refuse to further engage with merely by virtue of the fact that they flat called for banning my account just because they find my views heretical. Or are you seeing something I'm not?
I haven't done such a thing. So answer the questions.
onebornfreedotblogspotdotcom:Like I said, no planes hit WTC1 or 2, no plane hit the Pentagon, possibly no plane in Shanksville either.
And no: Elvis and JFK are not alive. Bigfoot isn't real. There wasn't a gunman on the grassy knoll. The US government isn't hiding evidence of extraterrestrials at Area 51.
Grow up.
What a troll!
Let's not discuss buildings hitting airplanes around here, please!
It's not fascism when the government does it.
“We must spend now as an investment for the future.” - President Obama
onebornfreedotblogspotdotcom: As I said, no planes hit WTC1 or 2, no plane hit the Pentagon, possibly no plane in Shanksville either. The "live" feeds [actually one shared feed from Fox and CNN] you believe you saw that day during the time of the 2nd strike were actually on a 7 -13 sec. time delay [thereby accounting for the apparent strike time discrepancies between seismic evidence and the official account/ network versions] , which allowed enough time for computer generated imaging technology [CGI] to insert plane profiles into the supposed "live" feed. The 1st strike was never seen live on TV but was only shown on TV the next day in the famous Naudet Brothers video- which has now also proven to have been faked. All supposed , subsequent "amateur" 2nd strike videos of flight 175 striking and then fully entering WTC2 without slowing down, without breaking up, [ie in one complete piece, like a knife through butter ] are also rather obvious fakes [since they defy some of the known laws of Newtonian physics], and were almost invariably produced by video compositing professionals , and were never shown live but several hours later. You've been had.
As I said, no planes hit WTC1 or 2, no plane hit the Pentagon, possibly no plane in Shanksville either.
The "live" feeds [actually one shared feed from Fox and CNN] you believe you saw that day during the time of the 2nd strike were actually on a 7 -13 sec. time delay [thereby accounting for the apparent strike time discrepancies between seismic evidence and the official account/ network versions] , which allowed enough time for computer generated imaging technology [CGI] to insert plane profiles into the supposed "live" feed.
The 1st strike was never seen live on TV but was only shown on TV the next day in the famous Naudet Brothers video- which has now also proven to have been faked.
All supposed , subsequent "amateur" 2nd strike videos of flight 175 striking and then fully entering WTC2 without slowing down, without breaking up, [ie in one complete piece, like a knife through butter ] are also rather obvious fakes [since they defy some of the known laws of Newtonian physics], and were almost invariably produced by video compositing professionals , and were never shown live but several hours later.
Uuugh...
Listen, I have some fairly strong evidence that you don't exist. You are obviously a government plant sent to mislead as many Misesians as possible. Your account is managed by a joint commission set up by the FBI and Homeland Security. Also you may be a reptilian, so watch out for that.
Knight_of_BAAWA: There wasn't a gunman on the grassy knoll.
There wasn't a gunman on the grassy knoll.
I despute that, but thats a thread for another day.
Knight_of_BAAWA: onebornfreedotblogspotdotcom:Like I said, no planes hit WTC1 or 2, no plane hit the Pentagon, possibly no plane in Shanksville either.And you're a deluded fool who refuses to acknowledge reality. There was live video which wasn't shared, despite your blatant lie (and yes, it is a lie). There was video captured by the man-in-the-street. It's time for you to man up and accept reality. And no: Elvis and JFK are not alive. Bigfoot isn't real. There wasn't a gunman on the grassy knoll. The US government isn't hiding evidence of extraterrestrials at Area 51. Grow up.
Could you [politely?] inform me as to which man in the street video you refer [possibly with a link], and how exactly that has anything to do with major network feeds? And also where you got the impression that I have referred to them [network and man in the street videos] as one and the same or linked in some way ?
And as I said in a previous post about this particular subject :"If you wish to discuss this matter further in a civilized manner let me know- I'm happy to do so- if not , that's fine too."
Thank you.
onebornfreedotblogspotdotcom: And as I said in a previous post about this particular subject :"If you wish to discuss this matter further in a civilized manner let me know- I'm happy to do so- if not , that's fine too."
It's not civilized to ignore someones reasonable, courteous and pertinent questions simply because the answers will more than likely lend credence to the destruction of your credibility. And instead you choose to only address / focus on the issues that fulfill your agenda ie. NPT, ignoring all others.
Temp Ban - to allow time for you to come up with some kind of response?
ProudCapitalist: What a troll! Let's not discuss buildings hitting airplanes around here, please!
A "troll" indeed.
You are obviously unaware that, as I mention in my opening post in this thread, one of the contributors for Lewrockwell.com , Mr Morgan Reynolds, holds pretty much exactly the same views that I have expressed here regarding 911 and no planes and video fakery.
Here is a link to his LRC archives [although very little on 911] : http://www.lewrockwell.com/reynolds/reynolds-arch.html
and here is a link to his website [ loads on 911, no planes etc.] : http://nomoregames.net/index.php?page=home
...and no, I'm not Mr Reynolds, as can be seen by comparing our site photos. Enjoy!
Nick Ricci: . . Your account is managed by a joint commission set up by the FBI and Homeland Security. Also you may be a reptilian, so watch out for that.
. . Your account is managed by a joint commission set up by the FBI and Homeland Security. Also you may be a reptilian, so watch out for that.
Well that's nice to know- thanks :-)
Lewrockwell.com, Fake Videos and No Plane theory [NPT]
You are all obviously unaware that, as I mention in my opening post in this thread, one of the contributors for Lewrockwell.com , Mr Morgan Reynolds, holds pretty much exactly the same views that I have expressed here regarding 911 and no planes and video fakery.
if he had posted what you had posted.
i would have posted what i posted.
onebornfreedotblogspotdotcom:You are all obviously unaware that, as I mention in my opening post in this thread, one of the contributors for Lewrockwell.com , Mr Morgan Reynolds, holds pretty much exactly the same views that I have expressed here regarding 911 and no planes and video fakery. Here is a link to his LRC archives [although very little on 911] : http://www.lewrockwell.com/reynolds/reynolds-arch.html and here is a link to his website [ loads on 911, no planes etc.] : http://nomoregames.net/index.php?page=home ...and no, I'm not Mr Reynolds, as can be seen by comparing our site photos. Enjoy!
Trying to link lewrockwell.com to your delusional No Pants Theory is just another notch on your frayed belt of bs. You and your ever so frequent love of fallacies really should get a room. Preferably in a pysch ward. </ad homs> It's Guilt by association this time. But more importantly, none of the articles written by Mr Reynolds on Lew Rockwell prescribe to your NPT delusions. Just the opposite actually.
The hilarious part is, it doesn't actually support your argument in anyway, shape or form. So what if he has written for LR before? Doesn't change squat.
Again for the short minded: none of the articles written by Mr Reynolds on Lew Rockwell prescribe to your NPT delusions.
Now... have you had long enough to ponder a response yet?
Adding to the list:What are you actually doing here? Besides the blatantly obvious..
onebornfree:Hello From a "Post- Austrian",Anarcho-Capitalist ,Taoist, 911 "No- Planer".
Hello friend!
Myself, I'm a Post-Swiss, fascist-communist, Buddhist, 911 "I-believe-the-twin-towers-never-even-were-built-to-begin-with" believer.
I think that you and me might have a looots of things in common to discuss...
ProudCapitalist: onebornfree:Hello From a "Post- Austrian",Anarcho-Capitalist ,Taoist, 911 "No- Planer". Hello friend! Myself, I'm a Post-Swiss, fascist-communist, Buddhist, 911 "I-believe-the-twin-towers-never-even-were-built-to-begin-with" believer. I think that you and me might have a looots of things in common to discuss...
OK...... such as?
Such as, how many 911 "ways-to-classify-people" do you believe that there exist? Should we start greeting each other with "what kind of 911:er are you today?" I believe there are 911 ways, but then I'm a hopeless believer in coincidental numbers too. It comes with the game...
Are you a dadaist also? Or are you already post that too?
I believe that the Twin Towers WAS an airplane!
ProudCapitalist: Such as, how many 911 "ways-to-classify-people" do you believe that there exist? Should we start greeting each other with "what kind of 911:er are you today?" I believe there are 911 ways, but then I'm a hopeless believer in coincidental numbers too. It comes with the game... Are you a dadaist also? Or are you already post that too? I believe that the Twin Towers WAS an airplane!
Stop the flame baiting.
Conza88:Trying to link lewrockwell.com to your delusional No Pants Theory is just another notch on your frayed belt of bs.
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."