The Onion provides meaningful insight into the Truther world

[Alareth]

http://www.theonion.com/content/video/diebold_accidentally_leaks

I honestly believe this is exactly the world some of our paranoid "friends" live in on a daily basis and that makes me a sad panda.

[Spud1k]

"I take it that's a hint..."

LOL!!!

[Tippit]

http://www.theonion.com/content/video/diebold_accidentally_leaks

I honestly believe this is exactly the world some of our paranoid "friends" live in on a daily basis and that makes me a sad panda.

What's sad is that you interpret that as a parody of the paranoid instead of the sad state of US politics and stolen/meaningless elections.

[Tippit]

http://www.theonion.com/content/video/diebold_accidentally_leaks

I honestly believe this is exactly the world some of our paranoid "friends" live in on a daily basis and that makes me a sad panda.

The Onion News Network really is brilliant. Here is another video that is perhaps slightly more relevant:

http://www.theonion.com/content/video/9_11_conspiracy_theories

[Bobert]

WEIRD. Neither of those videos will load the play symbol just spins and spins.
Youtube works fine for me but neither one of those does, strange.

[Travis]

Stolen election BS? Have we really run out of stupid things to talk about?

[Pardalis]

What's sad is that you interpret that as a parody of the paranoid instead of the sad state of US politics and stolen/meaningless elections.

So you think the Onion really thinks there's a shadow government controlling everything?

:rolleyes:

Truthers are incapable of understanding sarcasm.

[Minadin]

:rolleyes:

Truthers are incapable of understanding sarcasm.


I guess we'll have to add that to the list, next to high-school physics, logic, engineering, materials science . . .

[Tippit]

So you think the Onion really thinks there's a shadow government controlling everything?

:rolleyes:

Truthers are incapable of understanding sarcasm.

Well, presumably "The Onion" is composed of a lot of individuals with the capability to form their own opinions, individually. I also think you don't know the difference between satire (http://www.tfd.com/satire) and sarcasm (http://www.tfd.com/sarcasm). It is obvious that the Onion produces satire, often infused with sarcasm.

Would you deduce from this video:

Bush Tours America To Survey Damage Caused By His Disastrous Presidency (http://www.theonion.com/content/video/bush_tours_america_to_survey)

that "The Onion" doesn't think President Bush's presidency has been a disaster, or does it represent satire?

It's mainstream news that there were serious flaws in Diebold voting machines, and allegations of vote fraud. The Onion piece was merely a humorous take on it.

[Alex Libman]

The election is unfair first and foremost on the basis that the individuals who choose not vote are expected to abide by the results. That's "taxation without representation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_taxation_without_representation)" (or a better term would be something like "governance without consent"). How is the government forcing me to accept representation on terms I don't agree with any different then the British Empire forcing its colonies to accept whatever terms it offered them (ex: virtual representation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_representation), etc)?

[Wildy]

The election is unfair first and foremost on the basis that the individuals who choose not vote are expected to abide by the results. That's "taxation without representation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_taxation_without_representation)" (or a better term would be something like "governance without consent"). How is the government forcing me to accept representation on terms I don't agree with any different then the British Empire forcing its colonies to accept whatever terms it offered them (ex: virtual representation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_representation), etc)?

So I assume that you are in favour of compulsory voting then?

Besides, the people that don't want to vote are just idiots. I personally think that if you have the right to vote, but don't, then you have no right to complain.

[Tippit]

So I assume that you are in favour of compulsory voting then?

Besides, the people that don't want to vote are just idiots. I personally think that if you have the right to vote, but don't, then you have no right to complain.

The problem with that logic, of course, assumes that you have a desirable selection of candidates representing favorable positions on issues that you find meaningful and relevant. This is conspicuously absent in the two-party monolith.

Votes of no-confidence when I have no candidates to vote for are a perfectly normal reaction. Anyone who pays taxes and is a member of society has a right to "complain". Especially those who don't buy into the bankrupt plurality voting system.

[Jontg]

The problem is, that's precisely what you have: a selection of candidates trying to appeal to the largest amount of people possible by posturing about things that nearly everybody can agree on. Even in this system, the minority is obliged to concede to the will of the majority, which is the implicit assumption that all government runs on. If you want to change the system, you need to persuade the majority that it's worth risking (in this case) a McCain presidency by voting for somebody other than Obama. Or the other way around, if you prefer. Simply put, the two candidates represent the two large groups America has divided itself into; it's essentially an adaptation on the part of both the people and their candidate.

[Alex Libman]

So I assume that you are in favour of compulsory voting then?

Wow! It takes a very twisted mind to misinterpret my comments like that! Not that you're abnormal or anything, just a product of government propaganda...

[Oliver]

...Simply put, the two candidates represent the two large groups America has divided itself into *snip*


LOL (http://i226.photobucket.com/albums/dd68/veritas227/DumbDumber.jpg)?

[Disenchanted]

The election is unfair first and foremost on the basis that the individuals who choose not vote are expected to abide by the results. That's "taxation without representation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_taxation_without_representation)" (or a better term would be something like "governance without consent"). How is the government forcing me to accept representation on terms I don't agree with any different then the British Empire forcing its colonies to accept whatever terms it offered them (ex: virtual representation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_representation), etc)?

To paraphrase Rush, if you choose not to vote then you still have made a choice.

That is a bad analogy because the colonists did not have representation, the U.S. government is made up of those who represent the people.

The U.S. Constitution and State Constitutions are social contracts and unless they are replaced with something else then everyone living here is bound by them.

There is a reason that your anarcho-capitalism has failed so miserably here in the free market of ideas and through out history whenever it has been put to the test. That reason is it is a rundown fantasy with no foundation in reality, so the free market has tossed it on the scrapheap where it belongs. It is only a few who try to rebuild the idea with the same fanciful pieces.

Have you considered living in Somalia?

[Wildy]

Wow! It takes a very twisted mind to misinterpret my comments like that! Not that you're abnormal or anything, just a product of government propaganda...

What the hell?

Where do you think I am in the world? I'm not an American, I am an Australian, so I am required by law to enrol to vote, and I am required by law to vote.

The $20 fine is also something of an incentive. (http://www.aec.gov.au/FAQs/Voting_Australia.htm#What%20happens%20if%20I%20do% 20not%20vote) I don't see the point in having to pay $20 for not writing a bunch of numbers on a couple of pieces of paper.

[Klimax]

Wow! It takes a very twisted mind to misinterpret my comments like that! Not that you're abnormal or anything, just a product of government propaganda...

Ehm and it takes big blinds to not see what you said.
As soon as you will NOT vote,you are giving up one of your rigths,namely right to vote and so you state you do not care whatever outcome is.

So you lose you right to complain about entire set of issues as you have not voted.You can try to get change,but it is far more difficult and often bound to failure as majority which voted had clearly decided.
(BTW Sometims czechs politic scene is perfect example as voters are less interested in voting,so radicals/corrupted gain seats and majority only complains at homes/pubs and not by voting...)

An what others said as usual. ;)

[Alex Libman]

LOL, I guess "VOTE!" is the American version of "Arbeit Macht Frei (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arbeit_macht_frei)" that American concentration camps will feature as a slogan...

And it's ironic that I've spent a lot of time on Anarcho-Capitalist forums being the moderate one, and at least trying to get them to vote for Ron Paul / Bob Barr. (Here's one particularly nasty thread (http://bbs.freetalklive.com/index.php?topic=21538.0), but it refers to conversations that took place elsewhere so good reading comprehending skills will be required to find the interesting bits.) I've become much wiser since then... ;)

http://anarchyinyourhead.com/comics/2007-12-14-no_more_kings.png (http://anarchyinyourhead.com/2007/12/14/no-more-kings/)


That is a bad analogy because the colonists did not have representation [...]

Yes they did. The king has a "divine right" granted by the flying spaghetti monster, or something like that. I'm sure a British loyalist at the time could explain it very well. Makes as much or as little sense as any other "social contract" that you're supposedly born into.


The U.S. Constitution and State Constitutions are social contracts and unless they are replaced with something else then everyone living here is bound by them.

http://anarchyinyourhead.com/comics/2008-07-11-paper_constitution.png (http://anarchyinyourhead.com/2008/07/11/what-papers-good-for/)


Have you considered living in Somalia?

Yes. Yes I have. If only the damned U.N. would leave it alone....

[Wildy]

Alex Libman

I have trouble understanding your position. First you claim that the people who don't vote shouldn't have to accept the authority of the new government because they are being taxed without being represented, but you also oppose measures that make people cast a vote.

You can't have it both ways you know.

If you don't want to vote then don't. Just don't go about claiming that "I'm not being represented" because you made the conscious decision not to vote.

[Giggywig]

It's pronounced Dee-bold, not Die-bold.

/that is all.

[TjW]

I think Heinlein may have said it best, putting it into the mouth of Lazarus Long:
"If you are part of a society that votes, then do so. There may be no candidates and no measures you want to vote for ... but there are certain to be ones you want to vote against. In case of doubt, vote against. By this rule you will rarely go wrong."

I find it interesting that Alex apparently only associates voting with national and state offices.
The results of local elections are far more likely to affect you directly. If your county implements an additional 1% sales tax to pay for something you're not in favor of, and you didn't go to vote it down, whose fault is that?

[Pardalis]

that "The Onion" doesn't think President Bush's presidency has been a disaster, or does it represent satire?

No, the satire in this piece is that Bush would admit his disastrous presidency, and make a tour about it.

We really have to explain everything to you?

[Disenchanted]

LOL, I guess "VOTE!" is the American version of "Arbeit Macht Frei (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arbeit_macht_frei)" that American concentration camps will feature as a slogan...

American concentration camps? That is just something put out there by paranoid, drama queens.

Yes they did. The king has a "divine right" granted by the flying spaghetti monster, or something like that. I'm sure a British loyalist at the time could explain it very well. Makes as much or as little sense as any other "social contract" that you're supposedly born into.

So because the kings claimed divine right that means the colonists had representation? That argument is astoundingly stupid. The colonists had no representation.

The social contract makes more sense than your non aggression principle fantasies.

http://anarchyinyourhead.com/comics/2008-07-11-paper_constitution.png (http://anarchyinyourhead.com/2008/07/11/what-papers-good-for/)

How weak an argument by lame cartoon.

There is nothing magical about the U.S. Constitution (I never said there was), it and state constitutions established the laws and rights that prevents any one individual from having king like authority.

One of those rights is free speech, which allows you to say things against the government here on the internet and elsewhere.

Free speech has resulted in a free market of ideas.

If your ideas are good they would make it in the free market, but so far they have been shown to be failed ideas.

Yes. Yes I have. If only the damned U.N. would leave it alone....

Ok please go there then if you think it is a good and safe place to be. The U.N. has been ineffective, so it should still be quite a fine place for you to live.

[Jontg]

LOL (http://i226.photobucket.com/albums/dd68/veritas227/DumbDumber.jpg)?

Quite simple to explain, if you'd bother to think about it: the country's split itself into Left and Right. Two overarching political super-philosophies, each with a "big tent" party trying to appeal to the lowest common ideology. Look at McCain, for example. As a senator, he was a reasonably intelligent, principled man that I actually respected--but in order to have a chance at the presidency, he's melted into this painfully generic Bush clone with no views of his own. One reason I respect Obama is because he's barely remade himself at all.
EDIT: And by the way, Alex, I say again: get over yourself. You aren't the first person to come up with this crap, and you definitely don't need links to explain the significance of that slogan (which, by the way, was only displayed over the gates of Auschwitz).

[Alex Libman]

I find it interesting that Alex apparently only associates voting with national and state offices.
The results of local elections are far more likely to affect you directly.

Local governments are better than imperial governments, because it's easier to move to a different neighborhood than continent, but they are still inherently evil for violating the Non-Aggression Principle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-aggression_principle), which is a defining quality of what a "government" is. Something that doesn't violate NAP, like a neighborhood association, is perfectly fine.


If your county implements an additional 1% sales tax to pay for something you're not in favor of, and you didn't go to vote it down, whose fault is that?

If you are kidnapped by terrorists and they tell you "we'll let you choose which finger we cut off to send with your ransom note", and you tell them "I don't negotiate with terrorists", and they cut off your favorite finger - whose fault is that?


First you claim that the people who don't vote shouldn't have to accept the authority of the new government because they are being taxed without being represented, but you also oppose measures that make people cast a vote.

I obviously have no problem with voting among people who voluntarily participate in some group or corporation: neighborhood association vote, stockholders vote, etc. But there's nothing voluntary about government - you're supposedly born as its subject and you have no way of opting out.


American concentration camps? That is just something put out there by paranoid, drama queens.

Yes, my bad, there have never been any concentration camps in this country. The Native Americans and slaves brought here from Africa just loved living in bondage. The Japanese during WW2 loved the cities the fuhrer, err, I mean president built for them. The ~8 million people (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incarceration_in_the_United_States) who are currently behind bars, on probation, or on parole in this country, many for entirely victimless crimes, are free to leave any time they wish. There is absolutely no reason to believe that the U.S. government is capable of cracking down on dissidents if its power is ever threatened, no sir. :boggled:


So because the kings claimed divine right that means the colonists had representation? That argument is astoundingly stupid. The colonists had no representation.

That's your argument, not mine. The colonists were told they had representation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_representation), that they didn't agree with. I am told I have representation, that I didn't agree with. What's the difference?


The social contract makes more sense than your non aggression principle fantasies.

We're comparing two different social contracts. My idea of a social contract is based on self-ownership and the Non-Aggression Principle (see intro flash here (http://www.isil.org/resources/introduction.swf)). Your idea of social contract is based on subjugation and force.


There is nothing magical about the U.S. Constitution (I never said there was), it and state constitutions established the laws and rights that prevents any one individual from having king like authority.

Only in the smallest of tribes can one autocrat have complete authority. In more complicated societies the monarch becomes a mere figurehead and the power is shared by a wider ruling class. So it doesn't matter if a single king or dictator exists or not, tyranny is still tyranny.


One of those rights is free speech, which allows you to say things against the government here on the internet and elsewhere. Free speech has resulted in a free market of ideas. If your ideas are good they would make it in the free market, but so far they have been shown to be failed ideas.

Freedom of speech merely means a dog can bark but cannot be taken off the leash - that doesn't make a dog free. My ideas are good, and only through the threat of violence does the state keep them in check.


Ok please go there then if you think it is a good and safe place to be. The U.N. has been ineffective, so it should still be quite a fine place for you to live.

No thank you. Things like the Free State Project (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_State_Project) and various seasteading ideas are more promising.


You aren't the first person to come up with this crap [...]

Of course not, and it took many years for the Anarcho-Capitalist philosophy to sink into my head. That's why I'm not expecting any instant converts here either, in fact I would be very suspicious of them. But people who have never been exposed to those ideas (you didn't expect government-controlled schools to give you an objective education, did you?) will be.

If it takes two years to vent out the fierce emotional rejection of Anarcho-Capitalism, and I get some people here started on this process, then I have done my part.

[TjW]

If your county implements an additional 1% sales tax to pay for something you're not in favor of, and you didn't go to vote it down, whose fault is that?

If you are kidnapped by terrorists and they tell you "we'll let you choose which finger we cut off to send with your ransom note", and you tell them "I don't negotiate with terrorists", and they cut off your favorite finger - whose fault is that?



Well, if the terrorists are operating under rules of engagement such that if you tell them "No, no fingers. Freedom for me" and they turn you loose (a la the Romans in Monty Python's Life of Brian), then I'd have to say it was your fault.

In other words, the two situations are not analogous, so, other than taking an opportunity to inappropriately compare government to terrorism, what is your point?

[Jontg]

You're actually trying to equate prisons with concentration camps? God, you are nuts. We should just let the criminals run loose, then? Or shoot them all, regardless of offense? The fact that the system is flawed does not mean it cannot be fixed. In the future, the criminal justice system will likely be done away with altogether or absorbed by the psychiatric health industry--but at the moment, incarceration is the only viable option for dealing with dangerous and maladjusted people.

[Jontg]

Local governments are better than imperial governments, because it's easier to move to a different neighborhood than continent, but they are still inherently evil for violating the Non-Aggression Principle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-aggression_principle), which is a defining quality of what a "government" is. Something that doesn't violate NAP, like a neighborhood association, is perfectly fine.

"No one may threaten or commit violence against another man's person or property. Violence may be employed only against the man who commits such violence; that is, only defensively against the aggressive violence of another. In short, no violence may be employed against a nonaggressor."
Dude, that's basically the foundation of ethics. Modern governments exist to enforce this principle.


If you are kidnapped by terrorists and they tell you "we'll let you choose which finger we cut off to send with your ransom note", and you tell them "I don't negotiate with terrorists", and they cut off your favorite finger - whose fault is that?

TjW already dealt with this.

I obviously have no problem with voting among people who voluntarily participate in some group or corporation: neighborhood association vote, stockholders vote, etc. But there's nothing voluntary about government - you're supposedly born as its subject and you have no way of opting out.

Yes, you do. Leave.

Yes, my bad, there have never been any concentration camps in this country. The Native Americans and slaves brought here from Africa just loved living in bondage. The Japanese during WW2 loved the cities the fuhrer, err, I mean president built for them. The ~8 million people (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incarceration_in_the_United_States) who are currently behind bars, on probation, or on parole in this country, many for entirely victimless crimes, are free to leave any time they wish. There is absolutely no reason to believe that the U.S. government is capable of cracking down on dissidents if its power is ever threatened, no sir. :boggled:

No, there really isn't. If enough people decide they don't like our government, it will be obliterated. It's happened before.

That's your argument, not mine. The colonists were told they had representation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_representation), that they didn't agree with. I am told I have representation, that I didn't agree with. What's the difference?

The difference is that you have real representatives, which you would have had a part in electing if you voted. You aren't being told that the senators from Texas represent you, your state has its own. But, like the rest of the apathetic idiots who think they can't make a difference, you don't bother to try. If all of you voted for one candidate, he'd likely get on the map with your votes alone.

We're comparing two different social contracts. My idea of a social contract is based on self-ownership and the Non-Aggression Principle (see intro flash here (http://www.isil.org/resources/introduction.swf)). Your idea of social contract is based on subjugation and force.

No, our idea of a social contract is based on merit. The ideal system selects the best smith to make plows, the best baker to make bread, the best scholar to teach, and the best leader to rule--and in an ideal world, idiots who think they're equally qualified to do all of the above wouldn't exist.

Only in the smallest of tribes can one autocrat have complete authority. In more complicated societies the monarch becomes a mere figurehead and the power is shared by a wider ruling class. So it doesn't matter if a single king or dictator exists or not, tyranny is still tyranny.

A dictator can only be removed by force. Senators and CEOs can be voted out.

Freedom of speech merely means a dog can bark but cannot be taken off the leash - that doesn't make a dog free. My ideas are good, and only through the threat of violence does the state keep them in check.

There are plenty of places in the world where a dog will be shot for barking. The leash exists because when you let a hundred dogs loose, at least ten of them wind up getting hit by cars or biting small children. Your ideas are worthless drivel, and the threat of violence is addressed to those who would initiate violence--the government is enforcing the non-aggression principle as only government can.

No thank you. Things like the Free State Project (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_State_Project) and various seasteading ideas are more promising.

Oh, lovely. Let me know when that works.

Of course not, and it took many years for the Anarcho-Capitalist philosophy to sink into my head. That's why I'm not expecting any instant converts here either, in fact I would be very suspicious of them. But people who have never been exposed to those ideas (you didn't expect government-controlled schools to give you an objective education, did you?) will be.

Actually, no--most of my teachers have had nothing good to say about the government. The simple truth is, you're nothing but an evangelist, convinced that the only reason your ravings aren't accepted as gospel truth is that nobody else is thinking for himself. Grow up. Find a new religion. I suggest Zen.

If it takes two years to vent out the fierce emotional rejection of Anarcho-Capitalism, and I get some people here started on this process, then I have done my part.

You are a smug, self-righteous, arrogant child with a Neo complex. If that sentence even makes you pause the contemplate the possibility that it might be true, then I've done mine.

[Damien Evans]

People, please, don't feed the troll.

[Jontg]

Hrm, do you really think he's a troll? Strikes me more as a fifteen-year-old who's read Atlas Shrugged. In before "Oh, that's the only thing you sheep can do now! Hah, that means I win!"

[Wildy]

I obviously have no problem with voting among people who voluntarily participate in some group or corporation: neighborhood association vote, stockholders vote, etc. But there's nothing voluntary about government - you're supposedly born as its subject and you have no way of opting out.

Why would you want to opt out? How exactly does opting out help you or society in general?

Clearly in your country by not voting you are basically opting out, and then you complain because you don't agree with the system in place.

That's your argument, not mine. The colonists were told they had representation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_representation), that they didn't agree with. I am told I have representation, that I didn't agree with. What's the difference?

Let's see, the "representation" of the colonists was based on the idea that a bloke in London who owned some land in the American Colonies voted for some MP, and that his vote represents all the votes of the colonists.

The colonists for all intents and purposes had no representation and no way of getting such representation without having to spend about a week or so sailing to the UK to vote.The colonists wanted to be represented directly in Parliament, and when they saw that the politicians in the UK weren't going to let them, rebelled so they could ensure that their people would be represented.

You however are completely different. You aren't being told that some guy 5000 km away who has property in your area being able to vote means that you are represented. You can easily go and cast a vote for who you want to represent you.

You have the ability to be represented but you don't. You willingly shirk your civic duty on election day because of something, and you have the gall to say "I'm not being represented"?

So to summarise: The colonists didn't agree with the argument that some guy who had land in the colonies and voted in the UK represented all of the colonists in the colonies. You don't agree with the choice of representative because you are too lazy to vote.

[Disenchanted]

Yes, my bad, there have never been any concentration camps in this country. The Native Americans and slaves brought here from Africa just loved living in bondage. The Japanese during WW2 loved the cities the fuhrer, err, I mean president built for them. The ~8 million people (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incarceration_in_the_United_States) who are currently behind bars, on probation, or on parole in this country, many for entirely victimless crimes, are free to leave any time they wish. There is absolutely no reason to believe that the U.S. government is capable of cracking down on dissidents if its power is ever threatened, no sir. :boggled:

Yes, those things that happened were bad, but some of the atrocities against Native Americans happened before there was much of a centralized authority and when the government did it did so as representatives of the settlers. Slavery was run by private slave traders with the government assistance. It would have gone on with or with out a government and was ended by the government.

It was wrong to imprison the Japanese Americans during WWII, but it was the government representing fearful population that did so.

The government is made up of people representing a larger group of people along with there own interests. One of those interests is staying in power.

There likely would not have been concentration camps if the German people did not allow the Nazi government to do so.

I am for legalizing what are victimless crimes, but as long as they are illegal in this country and someone chooses to participate in one of those crimes then going to jail is the consequence of those chosen actions.

There is no evidence that the government is likely to crackdown. Do you have any? Until you provide any your arguments just make you look like a paranoid, drama queen.

The government cannot crackdown without the consent of the people, the second amendment helps with that.

That's your argument, not mine. The colonists were told they had representation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_representation), that they didn't agree with. I am told I have representation, that I didn't agree with. What's the difference?

It is you who brought up divine right in comparison with the government we have, which made your argument astoundingly stupid.

The difference is you have choice of voting against the representation you do not agree with.

We're comparing two different social contracts. My idea of a social contract is based on self-ownership and the Non-Aggression Principle (see intro flash here (http://www.isil.org/resources/introduction.swf)). Your idea of social contract is based on subjugation and force.

No one is subjugated in this country, having a government does not means it owns people. Claiming this is absurd.

Mine is based on enforcing the rules agreed to by the citizens that are represented. If someone harms someone else, then the government should enforce those rules.

With or without a government someone will be using force. Without a government the force would be applied by someone else.

Only in the smallest of tribes can one autocrat have complete authority. In more complicated societies the monarch becomes a mere figurehead and the power is shared by a wider ruling class. So it doesn't matter if a single king or dictator exists or not, tyranny is still tyranny.

You must have the U.S. mistaken for some other country, there is no king or dictator in this country.

Tyranny? Once again displaying the argument of a drama queen. If you were really living under tyranny you would not be able to say so on this forum or anywhere.

Freedom of speech merely means a dog can bark but cannot be taken off the leash - that doesn't make a dog free. My ideas are good, and only through the threat of violence does the state keep them in check.

If your ideas were good then they would have made it through the free market. Freedom of Speech means you can speak against the government. You also have the right to organize with those who agree.

What threat of violence? So you are saying the government has threatened you for what you say? Can you please present evidence of this.

No thank you. Things like the Free State Project (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_State_Project) and various seasteading ideas are more promising.

Why no thank you? Why is it not as promising? Is it because you just might not be safe there?

[Wildy]

Are you going to respond Alex?

ETA: Stupid me. The guy has gotten himself suspended. (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=122334)

[dudalb]

Are you going to respond Alex?

ETA: Stupid me. The guy has gotten himself suspended. (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=122334)

He will take it as proof that The Man is out to get him....

You are a smug, self-righteous, arrogant child with a Neo complex. If that sentence even makes you pause the contemplate the possibility that it might be true, then I've done mine.

I would say it is more of a John Galt complex then a Neo complex, but otherwise that is a 100% accurate portrayal of Alex.
What gets to me is ability to completly ignore reality when is clashes with his fantasies.
And I don't have much respect for Anarchists anyway. Look at what happened in Minneapolis yesterday for reasons why.

[Disenchanted]

He will take it as proof that The Man is out to get him....



I would say it is more of a John Galt complex then a Neo complex, but otherwise that is a 100% accurate portrayal of Alex.
What gets to me is ability to completly ignore reality when is clashes with his fantasies.
And I don't have much respect for Anarchists anyway. Look at what happened in Minneapolis yesterday for reasons why.

I find it appropriate that it is the anarchists' actions at the convention that gives evidence to why anarchy has no basis in reality.

[Kthulhut Fhtagn]

What's sad is that you interpret that as a parody of the paranoid instead of the sad state of US politics and stolen/meaningless elections.

Actually it could go either way. A comment like this "If you can't trust your shadowy overlords to keep a secret, what is the purpose of voting in a puppet democracy?" could be interpreted rather easily as a dig at conspiracy theorists.

[Tippit]

Actually it could go either way. A comment like this "If you can't trust your shadowy overlords to keep a secret, what is the purpose of voting in a puppet democracy?" could be interpreted rather easily as a dig at conspiracy theorists.

It certainly could be. I think the Onion is best served by equal-opportunity mockery.

I went to the Onion to review some of the quotes in that video again, and saw this:

Cheney Waits Until Last Minute Again To Buy Sept. 11 Gifts (http://www.theonion.com/content/news/cheney_waits_until_last_minute)

The article finishes with:



Cheney said he plans to spend a quiet Sept. 11 at home this year, during which he will exchange gifts with loved ones and watch his taped VHS footage of the old 9/11 TV specials while he smiles and laughs.

"I have a feeling this is going to be the best Sept. 11 ever," Cheney said with a grin. "I just dread the day I have to tell my kids that 9/11 isn't real."

[Wildy]

Alex doesn't seem to have returned to this thread. Sad really.

ETA: Oh, mods, can we get the voting stuff split off to another thread?