PDA

View Full Version : Glen Beck: IS THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT EVIL?




Live_Free_Or_Die
02-12-2010, 11:50 AM
nt

Liberty Star
02-12-2010, 11:52 AM
Holy Jesus, Beck is toast.

erowe1
02-12-2010, 11:53 AM
Put your eyes on the ball, the root issue.

This is the question and there is a mountain of empirical evidence against the U.S. government that should be rammed up Glen Becks ass.

Make the case and destroy his moral argument with prejudice.

That's the thing that really stood out to me as he continued lambasting Medina after the interview yesterday. He kept saying that the thing that makes trutherism so wrong is that it would mean the federal government is evil enough to do such a thing. I found that really illustrative. I'm not a truther. But the one thing I think they have right is that the federal government is definitely evil enough to do it. And if Beck doesn't think so, then he's clearly lying about a great deal of other stuff he pretends to believe.

Austin
02-12-2010, 12:00 PM
"Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one."
-- Thomas Paine

CapitalistRadical
02-12-2010, 12:02 PM
I think the biggest problem with 9/11 Truth is the idea that federal government is effective enough to pull it off. But there are plenty of other logistical problems.

Austrian Econ Disciple
02-12-2010, 12:03 PM
I think the biggest problem with 9/11 Truth is the idea that federal government is effective enough to pull it off. But there are plenty of other logistical problems.

Pulling something like this off is much much much easier than trying to get around immutable Economic laws.

dannno
02-12-2010, 12:04 PM
I think the biggest problem with 9/11 Truth is the idea that federal government is effective enough to pull it off. But there are plenty of other logistical problems.

non-argument.

Truthers believe the people who control the government did it, a few of those people holding positions within government, and the people who control the government help make it inept on purpose so that they are able to take advantage of the system more easily.

If the government was more adept, then they would have discovered that people within government aided in this attack.

If the government is so inept, then why would you believe the NIST or FEMA are adept enough to carry out an investigation into how the towers fell? There are no true logistical arguments against 9/11 being an inside job, there are logistical arguments against the official fairytale.

erowe1
02-12-2010, 12:06 PM
Pulling something like this off is much much much easier than trying to get around immutable Economic laws.

No, it's not easier than trying to get around immutable economic laws. It's easier than succeeding. But it's not easier than trying.

Live_Free_Or_Die
02-12-2010, 12:07 PM
nt

LibertyEagle
02-12-2010, 12:07 PM
That's the thing that really stood out to me as he continued lambasting Medina after the interview yesterday. He kept saying that the thing that makes trutherism so wrong is that it would mean the federal government is evil enough to do such a thing. I found that really illustrative. I'm not a truther. But the one thing I think they have right is that the federal government is definitely evil enough to do it. And if Beck doesn't think so, then he's clearly lying about a great deal of other stuff he pretends to believe.

Exactly what I was thinking.

Beck is a complete poser.

Uncle Emanuel Watkins
02-12-2010, 12:16 PM
Pulling something like this off is much much much easier than trying to get around immutable Economic laws.

We are so willing to laugh along with the laughtracks. So willing to applaud when the light comes on telling us to.

Austrian Econ Disciple
02-12-2010, 12:19 PM
We are so willing to laugh along with the laughtracks. So willing to applaud when the light comes on telling us to.

Could you not be so cryptic? Are you calling me a tyrant?

CapitalistRadical
02-12-2010, 12:23 PM
Attack the moral argument not the 9/11 issue

I think there's no doubt there are some people in our government that would happily kill 3000 or 10 times that number to achieve certain policy goals. All too often 9/11 Truth is derailed by the logistically improbable and psychologically redundant story of WTC controlled demolition. Then we start arguing metallurgy instead of policy.

I don't know or much care if Beck is being honest or if he is simply seeking legitimacy by distancing himself from the fringe elements of the Right.

Bruno
02-12-2010, 12:25 PM
I think there's no doubt there are some people in our government that would happily kill 3000 or 10 times that number to achieve certain policy goals. All too often 9/11 Truth is derailed by the logistically improbable and psychologically redundant story of WTC controlled demolition. Then we start arguing metallurgy instead of policy.

I don't know or much care if Beck is being honest or if he is simply seeking legitimacy by distancing himself from the fringe elements of the Right.

Every war we've been in, including the current two, proves that

Peace&Freedom
02-12-2010, 12:26 PM
I think the biggest problem with 9/11 Truth is the idea that federal government is effective enough to pull it off. But there are plenty of other logistical problems.

The only thing the government is effective at doing are things that further expand and centralize its power. In this light, false flags, secrecy and cover-ups fit right in as the exact class of operation that government should perform competently. Whatever, the whole "the state is a klutz" meme has always lacked plausibility because of the fact that it keeps growing. Since that is its primary impulse, how could it have succeeded in doing something that big if it's too incompetent to pull anything off? Clearly it is capable in some respects, so the 'ineffective' argument implodes upon itself.

Live_Free_Or_Die
02-12-2010, 12:27 PM
nt

moostraks
02-12-2010, 12:41 PM
Open your eyes and mind:



It is not about Glen Beck. Glen Beck is another tool in the shed (and a good one). It is not about 9/11. It is about control. By leading you to believe the U.S. Government is moral you believe it is ok to ostracize anyone who questions the morality of government and label them as a kook. In doing so you do the work of your masters without even realizing it.

Funny I just said something very similar but backwards from this on another thread. What an incredibly frustrating set of events and how divisive they have made the mere questioning of any official story.

sofia
02-12-2010, 12:49 PM
I think the biggest problem with 9/11 Truth is the idea that federal government is effective enough to pull it off. But there are plenty of other logistical problems.

ever hear of the Manahattan Project which built the A-bomb????

It went on for years and nobody leaked. Even Truman had no idea it was going on until he became President and was briefed about it.

i dont want to get into a pissing match over this....

but please....before you sound off against 911 truth.......do as I have and immerse yourself in many hours of open minded study study on the topic.

dont just take a superficial glance and then beat up on straw men.

Live_Free_Or_Die
02-12-2010, 12:53 PM
nt

AParadigmShift
02-12-2010, 12:58 PM
This is the question and there is a mountain of empirical evidence against the U.S. government that should be rammed up Glen Becks ass.

I made a comment (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=2540658&postcount=33) on that yesterday.

I thought it very telling of his mindset - especially, considering the fact that he has, on occasion, rewarded himself with the moniker of "libertarian".

erowe1
02-12-2010, 01:31 PM
I made a comment (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=2540658&postcount=33) on that yesterday.

I thought it very telling of his mindset - especially, considering the fact that he has, on occasion, rewarded himself with the moniker of "libertarian".

I like the point someone else made (which I won't bother hunting down to link), that the evil of 9/11 is not that different than the evil of the Cloward-Piven strategy of socialists deliberately harming the U.S. economy, which Beck seems to have no problem with.

ctiger2
02-12-2010, 01:40 PM
The US Govt is complicit in currently destroying the value of our money on purpose right now. I'd say that's evil.

tmosley
02-12-2010, 01:50 PM
Stealing is bad for society.

The government is funded 100% by theft.

Those things which are bad for society are considered "evil".

QED, the government is considered "evil".

Evil is a nebulous word, unfortunately.

ARealConservative
02-12-2010, 01:52 PM
evil is an individual trait based on free will.

Assigning individual traits to groups makes no sense to me.

Elwar
02-12-2010, 02:07 PM
Evil is defined as morally wrong or bad; harmful; injurious.

Morally wrong? Well, everyone has different morals. My morals include the morality of reason, contained in a single axiom: existence exists - and in a single choice: to live. The rest proceeds from these. To live, man must hold three things as the ruling values of his life: Reason-Purpose-Self-esteem. Reason, as his only tool of knowledge-Purpose, as his choice of the happiness which that tool must proceed to achieve-Self-esteem, as his inviolate certainty that his mind is competent to think and his person is worthy of happiness, which means: worthy of living.

Any government which stands in the way of this is, by definition, evil.

Harmful? Does our government do things that are harmful? Would killing thousands of people be harmful? Would manipulating the market in a way that ends up being destructive be harmful?

Would enacting socialist policies be injurious? Would spending our children's future be injurious? Would dumbing down our children through failed public schools be injurious?

Using reason, one can easily conclude that the US government is evil.

tmosley
02-12-2010, 02:23 PM
evil is an individual trait based on free will.

Assigning individual traits to groups makes no sense to me.

Not so. Group actions can be evil, even when no-one in the group is evil by themselves. Phillip Zimbardo termed it "the Lucifer effect", after witnessing it appear firsthand (and affecting him personally) in the Stanford Prison Experiment. The fundamental concept is that poorly structured social organizations can create hideously evil behaviors in those who would be incapable of doing such things on their own. The US government is one such organization, and on a scale that is massive beyond any that humanity has ever produced before.

Great Satan indeed.

ARealConservative
02-12-2010, 02:31 PM
Not so. Group actions can be evil, even when no-one in the group is evil by themselves. Phillip Zimbardo termed it "the Lucifer effect", after witnessing it appear firsthand (and affecting him personally) in the Stanford Prison Experiment. The fundamental concept is that poorly structured social organizations can create hideously evil behaviors in those who would be incapable of doing such things on their own. The US government is one such organization, and on a scale that is massive beyond any that humanity has ever produced before.

Great Satan indeed.


1000 people can see something, and 999 can claim it is not evil, while 1 claims it is evil.

And they would all be right

So yes, group action can be evil, but it is an individual deciding if it is evil or not.

Austrian Econ Disciple
02-12-2010, 02:34 PM
1000 people can see something, and 999 can claim it is not evil, while 1 claims it is evil.

And they would all be right

So yes, group action can be evil, but it is an individual deciding if it is evil or not.

The axiom of Natural Law, and any violations thereof is evil. There is no arguement against it. (pesky logic lmao)

ARealConservative
02-12-2010, 02:40 PM
The axiom of Natural Law, and any violations thereof is evil. There is no arguement against it. (pesky logic lmao)

the world is not so black and white my friend

but I used to think it was just as you currently do. :p

Austrian Econ Disciple
02-12-2010, 02:44 PM
the world is not so black and white my friend

but I used to think it was just as you currently do. :p

It is immutable logic. If you do not believe in Natural Law, then you do not believe you own yourself. In that scenario who owns you? Someone has to. If it is another, then who owns them? You cannot have private property if you do not own yourself. Without private property all sorts of evil ensues. Rape, Murder, Theft, etc.

Here I'll use the Socratic Method:

Do you believe rape is wrong? Why?

ARealConservative
02-12-2010, 02:45 PM
It is immutable logic. If you do not believe in Natural Law, then you do not believe you own yourself. In that scenario who owns you? Someone has to. If it is another, then who owns them? You cannot have private property if you do not own yourself. Without private property all sorts of evil ensues. Rape, Murder, Theft, etc.

Here I'll use the Socratic Method:

Do you believe rape is wrong? Why?

natural law requires man to have a deep understanding of nature, and we do not.

Your universal laws are born out of arrogance, not out of actual understanding.

Austrian Econ Disciple
02-12-2010, 02:47 PM
natural law requires man to have a deep understanding of nature, and we do not.

Your universal laws are born out of arrogance, not out of actual understanding.

Natural Law requires no such thing. Will you please answer the question?

There are indeed many apodictic statements. Are you a positivist/nihilist?

ARealConservative
02-12-2010, 02:51 PM
Natural Law requires no such thing. Will you please answer the question?

There are indeed many apodictic statements. Are you a positivist/nihilist?

your silly rape question?

no.

natural law is born out of nature. I'm to take it you have a profound understanding of nature?

Sounds pretty damn arrogant to me.

CapitalistRadical
02-12-2010, 03:10 PM
natural law is born out of nature. I'm to take it you have a profound understanding of nature?

Sounds pretty damn arrogant to me.

We can plumb the mysteries of DNA, we can comprehend quantum mechanics, but we still don't know enough about humans to figure out what their natural rights are? Really? Are you serious?

ARealConservative
02-12-2010, 03:17 PM
We can plumb the mysteries of DNA, we can comprehend quantum mechanics, but we still don't know enough about humans to figure out what their natural rights are? Really? Are you serious?


Of course I’m serious.

Throw the sophomorically simply rape type questions out the window.

Take on something with a little more meat to it….like meat for instance.

Some will argue that natural law allows for us to eat animals.

Others claim natural law prevents us from eating animals.

Both groups derive their set of beliefs based on their understanding of their place in the universe, but they are both just arrogant and ignorant.

Natural Law works great as a set of rules for man to coexist, but to take the next step and treat it as gospel goes too far.

Austrian Econ Disciple
02-12-2010, 03:24 PM
Of course I’m serious.

Throw the sophomorically simply rape type questions out the window.

Take on something with a little more meat to it….like meat for instance.

Some will argue that natural law allows for us to eat animals.

Others claim natural law prevents us from eating animals.

Both groups derive their set of beliefs based on their understanding of their place in the universe, but they are both just arrogant and ignorant.

Natural Law works great as a set of rules for man to coexist, but to take the next step and treat it as gospel goes too far.

You don't understand logic, and you refuse to answer the questions so I can demonstrate it to you.

ARealConservative
02-12-2010, 03:25 PM
You don't understand logic, and you refuse to answer the questions so I can demonstrate it to you.


Right. :rolleyes:

You picked something universally taboo to use to argue natural rights.

I gave a far better example, but I understand perfectly why you would not want to approach my example.

CapitalistRadical
02-12-2010, 03:26 PM
Of course I’m serious.

Throw the sophomorically simply rape type questions out the window.

Take on something with a little more meat to it….like meat for instance.

Some will argue that natural law allows for us to eat animals.

Others claim natural law prevents us from eating animals.

Both groups derive their set of beliefs based on their understanding of their place in the universe, but they are both just arrogant and ignorant.

Natural Law works great as a set of rules for man to coexist, but to take the next step and treat it as gospel goes too far.

OK, so when will we have gathered enough scientific data for us to finally answer this empirical question?

Austrian Econ Disciple
02-12-2010, 03:32 PM
Right. :rolleyes:

You picked something universally taboo to use to argue natural rights.

I gave a far better example, but I understand perfectly why you would not want to approach my example.

Or you could for the sake of the arguement answer the question so I can answer why anything that violates Natural Law is inherently evil. Will you allow me this demonstration? Since I can actually demonstrate it logically, whereas a positivist and nihilist can't demonstrate any of their beliefs.

As for your example, until an animal can reason, then it is not under Natural Law. Natural Law specifically applies to humans.

ARealConservative
02-12-2010, 03:43 PM
OK, so when will we have gathered enough scientific data for us to finally answer this empirical question?


How about never?

I love the scientific method, but you can only gain so much by formulating propositition, doing empirical experiments, and formulating conclusions.

What empirical evidence do you actually have to claim eating a pig is ok but eating an unborn fetus is evil?

ARealConservative
02-12-2010, 03:43 PM
Or you could for the sake of the arguement answer the question so I can answer why anything that violates Natural Law is inherently evil. Will you allow me this demonstration? Since I can actually demonstrate it logically, whereas a positivist and nihilist can't demonstrate any of their beliefs.

As for your example, until an animal can reason, then it is not under Natural Law. Natural Law specifically applies to humans.

you can show me how natural law handles the issue of eating animals

Austrian Econ Disciple
02-12-2010, 03:47 PM
you can show me how natural law handles the issue of eating animals

Animals are private property. Natural Law applies to human beings, because we can reason. Likewise any other creature that we encounter that can reason therefore falls under Natural Law. Pretty simple and logical.

So, do you believe in any apodictic statements? Also, would you once again, please answer the question so I can demonstrate the logic. You wouldn't have a problem if you knew I was wrong and Natural Law cannot be proven with logic would you...why not show me wrong?

CapitalistRadical
02-12-2010, 03:49 PM
How about never?

I love the scientific method, but you can only gain so much by formulating propositition, doing empirical experiments, and formulating conclusions.

What empirical evidence do you actually have to claim eating a pig is ok but eating an unborn fetus is evil?

But you said “natural law requires man to have a deep understanding of nature” This implies that a deep understanding is possible. Science is the only way we gain knowledge about nature. So why would we never be able to gain enough knowledge to finally discover what natural rights are?

ARealConservative
02-12-2010, 03:57 PM
But you said “natural law requires man to have a deep understanding of nature” This implies that a deep understanding is possible. Science is the only way we gain knowledge about nature. So why would we never be able to gain enough knowledge to finally discover what natural rights are?


No, that implies that natural rights is an invention of man, stemming from his own arrogance, which I not only implied, but explicitly stated from the very beginning.

aravoth
02-12-2010, 04:00 PM
Animals are private property. Natural Law applies to human beings, because we can reason. Likewise any other creature that we encounter that can reason therefore falls under Natural Law. Pretty simple and logical.

So, do you believe in any apodictic statements? Also, would you once again, please answer the question so I can demonstrate the logic. You wouldn't have a problem if you knew I was wrong and Natural Law cannot be proven with logic would you...why not show me wrong?

I disaggree with your view that animals are property. You can't create an animal, therefore, it does not belong to you. Animals can certainly reason as well. And a great many of them have an amazing capacity for critical thinking. As far as domestication is concerned, I can tell you that if there was no such thing as a leash, a good many dogs would be running like hell from thier "owners".

The fact that humans invented mathematics does not give us moralistic superiority over the entire animal kingdom. Mainly becuase we are an integral part of that kingdom. And we are not nessecarily the top of the food chain either.

ARealConservative
02-12-2010, 04:02 PM
Animals are private property. Natural Law applies to human beings, because we can reason. Likewise any other creature that we encounter that can reason therefore falls under Natural Law. Pretty simple and logical.

So, do you believe in any apodictic statements? Also, would you once again, please answer the question so I can demonstrate the logic. You wouldn't have a problem if you knew I was wrong and Natural Law cannot be proven with logic would you...why not show me wrong?

So invalids have no natural rights. Neither does a fetus because it can’t reason?

And how do you go about setting up a litmus test for reason?

It’s so absurd and illogical.

You are still in school, aren’t you?

CapitalistRadical
02-12-2010, 04:03 PM
No, that implies that natural rights is an invention of man, stemming from his own arrogance, which I not only implied, but explicitly stated from the very beginning.

Where is the arrogance? If you mean that we presume to understand nature, then it implies at some point we could discover some fact which would contradict our presumption.

Live_Free_Or_Die
02-12-2010, 04:09 PM
nt

Austrian Econ Disciple
02-12-2010, 04:11 PM
When did natural law obtain a food label?

Doesn't natural law simply acknowledge if a human being eats it lives and if it doesn't eat it dies?

Does natural law render a moral judgment on eating or does it simply follow that each person has an equal natural right to eat or not eat?

Natural Law = Self-Ownership.

ARealConservative
02-12-2010, 04:12 PM
When did natural law obtain a food label?

Doesn't natural law simply acknowledge if a human being eats it lives and if it doesn't eat it dies?

Does natural law render a moral judgment on eating or does it simply follow that each person has an equal natural right to eat or not eat?


Great question.

My opponent would say a litmus test based on one’s ability to reason is where we obtain a food label. Soylent Green is fine, so long as it is made of mashed imbeciles.

Live_Free_Or_Die
02-12-2010, 04:12 PM
nt

Austrian Econ Disciple
02-12-2010, 04:13 PM
I disaggree with your view that animals are property. You can't create an animal, therefore, it does not belong to you. Animals can certainly reason as well. And a great many of them have an amazing capacity for critical thinking. As far as domestication is concerned, I can tell you that if there was no such thing as a leash, a good many dogs would be running like hell from thier "owners".

The fact that humans invented mathematics does not give us moralistic superiority over the entire animal kingdom. Mainly becuase we are an integral part of that kingdom. And we are not nessecarily the top of the food chain either.

You can't create matter. So therefore, we should have no private property. I'll come kill you now. Why is it wrong?

ARealConservative
02-12-2010, 04:15 PM
Would this mean children are property since people can create them?

you can't create them

Austrian Econ Disciple
02-12-2010, 04:15 PM
So invalids have no natural rights. Neither does a fetus because it can’t reason?

And how do you go about setting up a litmus test for reason?

It’s so absurd and illogical.

You are still in school, aren’t you?

A fetus is a human being. Stop straw-manning. Will you answer any of my questions?

ARealConservative
02-12-2010, 04:17 PM
A fetus is a human being. Stop straw-manning. Will you answer any of my questions?


Look up straw man, you are incorrectly using the term.

You stated the ability to reason is where natural law derives from, not from the ability to demonstrate your chromosomes match another species chromosomes.

So my reply was not a straw man in the slightlest.

Live_Free_Or_Die
02-12-2010, 04:19 PM
nt

Austrian Econ Disciple
02-12-2010, 04:21 PM
Look up straw man, you are incorrectly using the term.

You stated the ability to reason is where natural law derives from, not from the ability to demonstrate your chromosomes match another species chromosomes.

So my reply was not a straw man in the slightlest.

Once again straw-man. I said, Human beings can reason. A fetus is a human being. Just because it takes a certain amount of time to develop this inate ability that every human has, does not invalidate. It is hard-wired. It just takes time to bring that ability out, and it is different for every human. Whereas, we are the only creature on earth with this ability. I am sure though one day we will create an AI with reason, and therefore this AI will have Natural Rights (Natural Law).

So again, will you answer my questions? STOP DUCKING.

Live_Free_Or_Die
02-12-2010, 04:21 PM
nt

ARealConservative
02-12-2010, 04:30 PM
Once again straw-man. I said, Human beings can reason. A fetus is a human being. Just because it takes a certain amount of time to develop this inate ability that every human has, does not invalidate. It is hard-wired. It just takes time to bring that ability out, and it is different for every human. Whereas, we are the only creature on earth with this ability. I am sure though one day we will create an AI with reason, and therefore this AI will have Natural Rights (Natural Law).

So again, will you answer my questions? STOP DUCKING.

“Natural Law applies to human beings, because we can reason”

So the minute is it shown that a life form can’t reason, they lose their rights?

Or are you saying that as because one human can reason, all humans have rights?

The difference between the two notions is profound and requires clarification.

But more importantly, who is the ultimate arbitrator of a litmus test to measure reason?

I hope to hell it isn’t you ~crosses fingers

Live_Free_Or_Die
02-12-2010, 04:38 PM
nt

ARealConservative
02-12-2010, 04:40 PM
I would like to re-frame this:

Natural Law is man's observation and understanding of the physical laws of nature.

Natural rights are self evident observations.

Natural rights provide a framework of human behavior.

This is a completely reasonable and agreeable definition.

AParadigmShift
02-12-2010, 06:30 PM
I would like to re-frame this:

Natural Law is man's observation and understanding of the physical laws of nature.

Natural rights are self evident observations.

Natural rights provide a framework of human behavior. (don't like the wording of this last one particularly but best i can think up at the moment)

I would add that, Natural Law theory accounts for the existence of said Rights, because we are human; and no other caveat or qualification is required to possess such Rights.

aravoth
02-12-2010, 06:57 PM
You can't create matter. So therefore, we should have no private property. I'll come kill you now. Why is it wrong?

No you can't create matter, very true. But you can arrange it. A house, a fence, a car, a toothbrush, all property, because it was all created but the hands of a person. But man can lay no claim to an animal, they did not create it, they do not own it.

It is wrong to kill me for the same reason that it is wrong to kill anyone, because I am a conscious being.


Originally Posted by Live_Free_Or_Die
Would this mean children are property since people can create them?

Sorta. And this is why Governments always attack families. This is why they try to get children away from thier parents as much as possible.

Family....

The Family is the only anarchistic institution in the world. Literally. It needs no governing force to come into being. It establishes it's own set of rules, is self sustaining, and can grow to incredible numbers. It feeds itself, it clothes itself, it helps and hurts itself. It also dissolves itself overtime, and replicates itself shortly after.

Absent the influence of governing institutions, it also educates itself, and more often than not, it does so in a manner that is far supierior to any government institution. Even the Federal Government's own stats prove that.

Athan
02-12-2010, 07:28 PM
Beck is evil.
http://i.imgur.com/3qpo5.png
^And apparently a rapist.

Live_Free_Or_Die
02-12-2010, 07:53 PM
nt

aravoth
02-12-2010, 10:37 PM
Is it owned because it was created or because man owns his labor and the arranging of matter requires work??

Nothing can be created without work. It is owned becuase it was created by a person through labor. Guess I should have made that more clear.



Is it wrong if a lion kills?
It is if you are the Zebra that got mauled.



Sorta? How can you construct an argument children are property and claim they are not property?

Because children are a byproduct of the combination of differing forms of DNA. Half of which is owned by one parent, but a parent does not own the child's labor, nor does the parent own the child's thoughts. No matter how much they think they do. So like I said. Sorta.

Anti Federalist
02-12-2010, 10:44 PM
If the government is so inept, then why would you believe the NIST or FEMA are adept enough to carry out an investigation into how the towers fell? There are no true logistical arguments against 9/11 being an inside job, there are logistical arguments against the official fairytale.

Check and mate.

Nice ;)

Vessol
02-12-2010, 11:42 PM
I think the biggest problem with 9/11 Truth is the idea that federal government is effective enough to pull it off. But there are plenty of other logistical problems.

Most "Truthers" don't believe that the mass majority of the government has anything to do with it, only those at the very top.

I personally believe that there were "useful idiots" whom were simply put into place and allowed to happen and go through tons of loopholes.

People will say "omg but if the government was responsible in any way, wouldn't there be huge leaks and questions", there are.

Stand-down orders. Flight 93. Building 7. Training of the same scenerio being that same day. So many coincidences in so many days and so many people that are connected to government or other various places(police, fire department, airline workers, etc) have come forward adding their doubt. But the media keeps downplaying saying that it is a fringe idea and that there are no questions about 9/11

Live_Free_Or_Die
02-13-2010, 12:20 AM
nt

BucksforPaul
02-13-2010, 03:19 AM
Beck is evil.
http://i.imgur.com/3qpo5.png
^And apparently a rapist.

:eek:

Is this for real?

And is it the same Glenn Beck?