In this video John Stossel brings to light a lot of the most foolish things the government has done in the last few years.
He brings to light the fact that people don't make the connection between what they see and what they don't see.
It was great when he quoted Paul Krugman as saying that 9/11 will be good for the economy! That joker has a Nobel Prize, for *blank*'s sake!! How despicable!
Another point in Stossel's report is that good anarchists protesting the G-20 helped destroy economic activity in the cities where it occurs. Yeah, go anarchy. Smashing and trashing a city is such a good thing. Destroying cars, store fronts and keeping law abiding people away from their property, businesses and regular activities is such a great thing, go anarchy.
So let's see. Liberals destroy property by destroying economic activity. Anarchists destroy property with bricks and by suppressing economic activity. Awesome, give me more.
Those weren't really anarchists...
Just because people protest big government, they aren't necessarily anarchists.
This article points out that they were likely Socialists, or other 'government-friendly' groups.
http://www.boston.com/bigpicture/2010/0 … ronto.html
"Tens of thousands of protesters descended on Toronto, looking to have their voices heard on a broad range of issues, from indigenous rights to anti-capitalist ideals, to human and animal rights, and much more."
Further down in the article, it actually shows that some of the people WANT the G20 meeting to deliver what they promise - thus they sure as hell aren't anarchists.
"Oxfam urged the leaders to deliver their promises made in past G8 meetings"
Nope, these are your people. You can't disown them just because they sometimes embarrass you.
You may have to add a room to your shack.
I didn't disown anyone - many of the protesters were PeTA, a group that wants more government; indigenous people who wanted government protection; and many other pro-government people.
Anyway, the OP was about the ENTIRE video, not just Krugman or Anarchists.
What better form of proving who you are than by acting as what you claim to be. To embrace anarchy is to be an anarchist. What do these people do but act lawlessly with no restraint by law, state or consideration of others? That sounds like anarchy. The anarchist must support the madness of a mob because to do other wise is to embrace suicide. With out law or government anarchy is brutality. If we believe that all men are angels than we will parish at the hands of those who are not, regardless of how strong our irrational faith.
Anarchists don't believe in state-run, state-monopoly law.
They do believe in law, though. Just not that which is ordained by false gods.
Not believing in laws generated by States is NOT the same thing as going around murdering and pillaging - that's called "theft".
My good sir, it seems you fail to understand that law can be divorced from state.
But we still have the problem that the law can not be divorced from the law makers and the upholders of the law.
but what if the law is voluntary? if you dislike "law-prescribing company #3", you can ditch them and voluntarily choose to use "law-prescribing company #5" without moving or too much hassle!
Hey, that John Holden has just burgled me, go and arrest him.
Sorry, no can do, the company he's with doesn't recognise burglary as a crime.
The company he works with doesn't believe burglary to be a crime?
... they wouldn't get many customers...
Not to worry. Commander Santa Claus will ride in on his armored unicorn and straighten everything out...
...makes as much sense as the private police idea.
I love anarchists. I wish the world was filled with truly committed liberals and anarchists. It would be so wonderful to be a Constitutional Republic with a price regulated free market in such a world. How prosperous a stable state of free people would be in a world filled with fools. Besides, being a little amoral wouldn't hurt either. Liberals with out guns and anarchists without police would be heaven for the armed and resourceful criminal.
There would be police under anarchic societies. Do you value your property? if you answer yes, then you would likely pay to protect it.
I value your property too. In fact I am so enamored of your property that I am going to pay my police force more and promise them a share of the booty.
But i'm paying my own police force, and the cost of invading me won't be worth the cost of the bad press of your invading company, nor the cost of your soldiers' lives and equipment
Invasion is a very cost inefficient method of obtaining wealth
But our press will just tell everybody that we have to invade you because you are Muslim and a threat to all our freedom.
When your press tries to deny this our press will just use this to convince everybody that your press is a tool of Islam.
"Not if you're the only game in town"
This argument is being used to argue against the idea of a State-run Government which has enormous land barriers and artificial sovereignty in a given territory.
The US government IS the only game in town, and has been for 200+ years.
Competition would easily make this problem of "the only game in town" much less likely.
murdoch ... never... invaded... a country... ...?
What has that got to do with anything?
He may not have invaded any country, he's certainly justified the invasion of several.
And anyway, the question was nothing to do with invading other countries, it was to do with bad publicity harming business.
yes, actually it did.
"I value your property too. In fact I am so enamored of your property that I am going to pay my police force more and promise them a share of the booty."
Invading someone else's property is an invasion
Granted, but is there any doubt that the press couldn't spin it in their favour? For instance, government buys you land under a compulsory purchase order and convinces everybody but those affected that it's a good thing and for the good of everybody.
But aren't you rearranging the goal posts again?
Uncorrectedvision was pointing out that under your system there was nothing to stop him helping him self to your property. You countered that by claiming bad publicity would prevent him acting in that way!
You've lost me here, what has that got to do with good and bad publicity?
If Murdoch Enterprises used it's customers' money to launch an invasion of another company, and then it used it's media outlets to try to play off what it did as a good thing...
... then A) there are other media outlets (HubPages, for example) that people could get their news from instead of Murdoch enterprises; B) people aren't idiotic enough to believe this stuff all the time (sure, some of the people some of the time); C) they will have lost money because of bad publicity; D) they will have lost money on the cost side -- invading a country is quite expensive, and launching a pro-invasion media blitz is also expensive.
Amongst other things.
And to address your "Murdoch did it" frame of mind: remember, Murdoch and his lackies likely benefited FROM STOLEN MONEY - tax payer money - from the pockets of the state. A business wouldn't have such theft-laden money to pay for whatever it wanted because people could just leave their company.
I'm afraid you are so fixated with your political ideas that you are blind to reality.
Businesses are built on stolen money, they steal off the workers and they steal off the customers.
The state gives you the option of not paying taxes if you don't earn enough to owe anything, no private business gives you the opportunity to benefit from their product if you can't afford to pay for it. The state allows you to vote for or against taxes and how they are spent, no private business does that.
Yet time honored. Invasion isn't the only way to win. Sun Tzu and Clauswitz have much to say on the subject.
Anarchists advocate this kind of violence, always have. Good thing there's only a handful of them left. The rest of society has grown up.
Here's another one who thought 9/11 was a good thing:
Report: Netanyahu says 9/11 terror attacks good for Israel
Last update - 17:34 16/04/2008
By Haaretz Service and Reuters
The Israeli newspaper Ma'ariv on Wednesday reported that Likud leader Benjamin Netanyahu told an audience at Bar Ilan university that the September 11, 2001 terror attacks had been beneficial for Israel.
"We are benefiting from one thing, and that is the attack on the Twin Towers and Pentagon, and the American struggle in Iraq," Ma'ariv quoted the former prime minister as saying. He reportedly added that these events "swung American public opinion in our favor." ...
Paul Krugman is the darling economist for liberal politicians in America. Politicians like Shining Handsome Obama. Netanyahu is a despised leader of a despised country - at least for SHO and liberals in this country. Netanyahu has no direct ability to destroy the economy in America but a liberal darling like Krugman does.
The point, foolishly embraced by many, is that wanton overt destruction of an existing object will create prosperity.
I think the tide is turning away from Israel, not that we should not support an ally but that they have too much influence on US policy.
"Netanyahu has no direct ability to destroy the economy in America but a liberal darling like Krugman does."
You better educate yourself. According to Bibiguns, Israel controls America.
Bibiguns? Controls America? Cryptic, cynical and maybe even a little antisemitic. What a powerful and meaningful response. Yet another example of the liberal mind - hen saying something silly it is tinged with vitriol instead of humor.
The video was shown on Friday night on Israel's Channel 10
Candid Camera 2001 -
Netanyahu:"I know what America is. America is a thing you can move very easily, move it in the right direction. They won't get in the way."
I'm not not anti-semitic, just Pro-American.
You, on the other hand, where do your loyalties lie?
My problem with John Stossel is that he blames borrowers instead of banksters for the housing bubble. And even though he admits the CRA/ACORN subprime loans were small in number in comparison to the shadow banking private ponzi loans, he dwells a hundred times more on the CRA because that is what his handlers, FAUX NEWS, wants.
Stossel is a liar because he knows the truth and yet dwells on the minors. I wrote about the guy.
You mean the tiny amount of loans purchased in the secondary market by Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac or the FM/FM guidelines that created lending instruments so loaded with risk that to mitigate those risks and protect investors and depositors banks created convoluted and complex fiduciary instruments? It is, and has been multiple times in the past, the insinuation of government in the real estate market that creates housing bubbles.
So, he's pointing out SOME enemies, but not the biggest enemies...
... and so he's a liar?
Evan, it is a distraction. He should be pounding the shadow bank system but Republicans on the committee to assign blame walked away from condemning the shadow banking system and didn't even want that word, shadow, in the report. http://njuice.com/Financial-Crisis-Pane … n-To-Blame
Here is proof the private MBS replaced Fannie and Freddie: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_h … 684/pg_13/
They want to blow another bubble and they want the shadow banking system to remain intact so they can start securitization again. Everyone knows that.
Wow what a powerful group of people. I wonder if Shining Handsome Obama and his Treasury Secretary - former head of the New York Federal Reserve Bank and formerly of Goldman-Sachs know about these evil, invisible men.
No one is saying the Democrats weren't involved in the scam and bailout. They were. But the Republicans don't even want the facts to come out because it would expose the propaganda coming from Faux News.
Cool, finally I see something interesting on political forums. Please continue, I got my wine and cheese already
Stossel's pretty good, just google his name in a video search
I rather meant your discussion with UCV, but looks like it died in infancy
Red or white wine? and what type of cheese?
by uncorrectedvision6 years ago
What was my title? I thought about it and decided that Paul Krugman was the real point of this forum. I do know something about economics, politics and Paul Krugman. I know very little about the...
by Kathryn L Hill10 months ago
Liberals do not like the concept of "survival of the fittest."Or do they?Wondering.
by Divy Raghuvanshi4 years ago
this is the story through out the world.from america's occupy wall street movement and anna hazare 's movement against corruption.most often anarchism is caused when the citizen of a society feel helpless and it...
by Ralph Deeds4 years ago
Not according to Paul Krugman who says economic zombie ideas have eaten Rubio's brain!!!http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/15/opini … n&_r=0
by SparklingJewel5 years ago
I am forwarding this....______________________________Tea Party Patriots push back against the liberal media and expose these “Occupy Wall Street” protesters for what they are: America-hating anarchists who...
by Ralph Deeds7 years ago
"The Third Depression"--http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/28/opini … ef=opinion
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.