The Economics of the Police State

[Kirk Freeman]

As you seem to have already known, there is no citation because it never happened.

The quote has been attributed to Nixon in error.

That's what I thought. I still want to chase it down.

I haven't had an opportunity to watch the video yet, but would a common mistake really invalidate the entire argument presented?

Yes as it undermines his credibility in the rest of his argument.

Remember, Libertarians tell us how different they are, but they are just the same old gasbags as other politicians.

Only cross examination, as Nixon did to Hiss, will keep them in line.

Bull****!

Yes, I know, that's why I have called your side on it.

You shouldn't make stuff up Kirk it undermines your credibility.

As the Arabs say, you accuse me of symptoms of your disease. I caught your side red handed and rather than provide the information I requested, you attack me for telling the truth. Telling.

 

[poptab]

That's what I thought. I still want to chase it down.



Yes as it undermines his credibility in the rest of his argument.

Remember, Libertarians tell us how different they are, but they are just the same old gasbags as other politicians.

Only cross examination, as Nixon did to Hiss, will keep them in line.



Yes, I know, that's why I have called your side on it.



As the Arabs say, you accuse me of symptoms of your disease. I caught your side red handed and rather than provide the information I requested, you attack me for telling the truth. Telling.

Sure Kirk, whatever you say.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Sure Kirk, whatever you say.

Great, I'll take that citation I have been asking for now then.

Surely one of the INGOtarians will spring to provide it. It's not like Libertarians make stuff up or anything. Il Duce indeed.

 

[Rookie]

Great, I'll take that citation I have been asking for now then.

Surely one of the INGOtarians will spring to provide it. It's not like Libertarians make stuff up or anything. Il Duce indeed.

Hold on! The person who consistently side steps questions wants answers?

That's pure irony.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

I am certain if I keep asking I'll get an answer to my request to the citation of Nixon saying what was claimed.

I mean, I am certain Libertarians only want the truth. That is what they are known for.

 

[Rookie]

And you're known for evasive answers.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

And you're known for evasive answers.

Ok, and the citation is . . . where exactly?

 

[Rookie]

Are you expecting me to answer?

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Yes. Unless you want to remain evasive.

I have asked for the citation where I believe I have caught a Libertarian making a misstatement.

 

[Rookie]

Yes. Unless you want to remain evasive.

Oh, that's rich. Let's play a game. You ask a question, I'll give you a straight answer. I ask a question, you give me a straight answer. First round will be simple yes or no. Wanna play? You can go first.

 

[mrjarrell]

5 pages. None of which pertains to the OP subject. All due to one member being a troll.

 

[Libertarian01]

To Kirk,

I did a small amount of research on your question today. I found several links that claim "congress" said it, but not President Nixon. It may have been attributed to his administration without his ever saying it.

I agree with you 100% that we should always seek the truth. You and I both know that knowledge many consider common is in reality inaccurate. I once tried to track down the famous Admiral Yamamoto quote "you cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass." I had heard it quoted dozens of times and thought it must be true until my research proved it to be inaccurate. While I am far from being the smartest man on earth I am reasonably hopeful of my distance from the other end of the spectrum. In the end I find that he did not say it at all, or if he did there is no verifiable source.

If I were to have quoted this in a speech and been called out on it I don't think I would then and there yield the ground without proof. That said, I would look into it after the fact and try to correct myself in future presentations. Would you then condemn all previous speeches I made using that quote in error as the sole cause of my downfall? I should hope that my use of what I considered "common knowledge" would not damn me to total disregard. After all, no one corrected my error before it was called.

I do see a need to constantly question and demand honesty from those making public presentations in order to persuade the audience to a certain course of action, but I believe we should look at the totality of their collection of facts and statements to condemn the entirety of presentation to ignominious ridicule. His mistake does not seem to be one of malice or hostility. There is a point to be made that somehow (again, according to my brief research) someone in Congress was dumb enough to make the declaration. Does it alter the logic of his statement just because one elected official of lower office may have made the declaration instead of a higher office? While his truth content may have been in error this does not then mean his logic component is in error? The "government" was still making a silly prediction.

Please always feel free to question any facts or foundations I may present on the boards. I look at the question as a beacon of light from which I can win either way! Either I find that I am truly correct and thus more firm in my resolve or thinking, or if I am in error I have a golden opportunity to expunge false information from my thinking and future presentations. This then gives me the opportunity to course correct. Either way, I win!

All that said, IF a speaker is questioned and corrected, THEN refuses to alter future presentations I will hold their presentations in lower esteem and of lower value than before.

Regards,

Doug

 

[vitamink]

Ill bring it back on topic. Kirk is correct about the the war on cancer that the speaker kept droning on about. Since the speaker was wrong about that, it certainly didn't surprise me that the rest of his conclusions were crap as well.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

5 pages. None of which pertains to the OP subject. All due to one member being a troll.

The best part of asking for citations from Libertarians is the butthurt.

 

[dusty88]

Why would you use the phrase "your side"? Do you perceive that there is a party platform on the issue being discussed?

 

[Libertarian01]

Ill bring it back on topic. Kirk is correct about the the war on cancer that the speaker kept droning on about. Since the speaker was wrong about that, it certainly didn't surprise me that the rest of his conclusions were crap as well.

To Vitamink,

I am somewhat concerned about your sensitivity level regarding the cynical phrase you use "droning on about." The speaker begins mentioning Pres Nixon's war on cancer at 1M40S and ends at 2M15S. That is a whopping 35 seconds out of a 2,278 second presentation. I took out 1M17S at the beginning before he started and cut 18 seconds from the end. This "Pres Nixon cancer section of the presentation" therefore represents approximately 1.5364% of the entire speech - IF my math is correct. Feel free to correct any math errors I may have made.

I don't think we are on the same page regarding the term "droning on."

Source and link for timing that you can measure: The Economics of the Police State | Thomas E. Woods, Jr. - YouTube

Regards,

Doug

 

[vitamink]

I'm sure we are not on the same page and I'll admit that droning on may have been excessive. When someone is wrong it's like nails on a chalkboard to me so it seems to take longer than it does for him to move on. So the preamble to his argument was 35 seconds of me saying, "no he didn't...you're an idiot" over and over to myself. He also brings up that incorrect nugget of information a couple of times throughout the rest of his comedy of errors. The rest of his speech was as ignorant as the beginning. Trust me i don't blame him, if i could weasel my way into one of those Al Sharpton, Jesse jackson, Radley Balko jobs where all i have to do is shout "militarization!" or "racism" and i immediately get a paycheck….I'd be a militarization/Racism shouting mother ****er!

His conclusions are absolute crap. Is Balko going to sue him for not citing him for the basis of his essay? He hasn't said anything monumental, just more of the same uniformed drivel.

 

[seedubs1]

5 pages. None of which pertains to the OP subject. All due to one member being a troll.

Yup. Came in here to read reasonable comments about the subject at hand and found a poor job of trolling over one minor detail in a 40 minute speech.

Kirk can't see the forrest from the tree he's staring at.

No doubt I can find some small stupid detail that isn't 100% accurate in ANY speech. A speech is not a research paper, though. Some people need to learn that.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Came in here to read reasonable comments about the subject at hand and found a poor job of trolling over one minor detail in a 40 minute speech.

I didn't have to listen that long before I found a questionable statement. The inaccurate statement goes directly to the rest of the speech.

Update: from the Nixon Library, on November 5, 1972 in a radio address entitled "Birthright of an American Child" Nixon talked about recent anti-cancer and anti-drug efforts but never made any promise of curing cancer by 1976.

A review of Nixon speeches shows no such reference. The American Presidency Project

I still await a citation for this claim by Il Duce, er, Richard M. Nixon.

 

[seedubs1]

I didn't have to listen that long before I found a questionable statement. The inaccurate statement goes directly to the rest of the speech.

Update: from the Nixon Library, on November 5, 1972 in a radio address entitled "Birthright of an American Child" Nixon talked about recent anti-cancer and anti-drug efforts but never made any promise of curing cancer by 1976.

A review of Nixon speeches shows no such reference. The American Presidency Project

I still await a citation for this claim by Il Duce, er, Richard M. Nixon.

You're trying to say an entire 40 minute speech is discredited because of one short statement. A statement that, if completely left out of the speech, would have made no difference in the speakers position and arguments.

You're acting like a typical person from an opposing party. You're grasping at straws to discredit an opposing view point.

Back up from the tree, Kirk.