Fellow 4-chers! Recently I was discussing the last hundred years of what the American Empire has been doing to foreign countries, such as invasion, trade blockades, the propagation of "free market theory", and quoted many of my sources (Noami Klien, Noam Chomsky, official documents, etc.). A neocon told me I was an idiot and I should be sent to boot camp for re-education! A neolib told me I'm full of shit and should be shot! I asked them to back up their claims against the people/documents I was quoting from, and they simply ignored me.
So I put it to you! For instance, I made the claim that since under the 1996 War Crimes Act, a Commander In Chief is liable for the actions of his soldiers, and under the Geneva Convention, the raid of a hospital of any kind, by either side, is a violation of the Geneva Convention. Does that mean because they raided a Fallujah General Hospital, that Bush can be put to death? The Commander In Chief is defined as a person who falls under the 1996 War Crimes Act passed by the Republicans, and thus would that make Bush liable?
http://www.beggarscanbechoosers.com/2005/11/did-us-forces-seize-fallujah-hospital.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Crimes_Act_of_1996
I was viciously spat at!
However, I realize this is one situation. Does anyone here have any direct evidence against, say, Noam Chomsky? That he's a fraud or doctored some of the documents he discussed? I really do need to know. I don't believe everything the man says, but I'm hard pressed to find anything contrary to what the guy says.
This isn't a troll post. :( I'm being serious. I want somebody to cite a critic of libertarian intellectuals. I can't find anyone who isn't a blatant idiotic neocon who presents information on a flat basis like Chomsky.
Reverse your arguments and see what happens.
Tell them that no politician should be responsible for his actions.
I bet you'll be spat at again.
Then draw your conclusions.
> I want somebody to cite a critic of libertarian intellectuals.
What variety of libertarian are you referring to?
I think your main problem is trying to argue with an extremist. They will not read or agree with anything that disagrees with their own ideas and ideals. NO MORE BACON
>>6
Lots of people will not read or listen to anything that disagrees with their ideals. Instead they create little echo chambers of people who agree with them, and it becomes a contest of who has the biggest echo chamber...
I'll gladly listen to criticism, but I'm not going to waste my time on people like Ann Coulter or Micheal Moore.
>>8
Fair enough. I think people should listen when other people seriously try to express a different point of view, but ignoring entertainers who are, if anything trying to cheerlead those who already agree, is another matter entirely. So yeah, I'm with you on that one.
I'm usually considered a lefty when it comes to political debates but unlike some of my peers I don't go to or make one one of those echo chambers as described by >>7 it will only stop you from looking at the big pixles and I do listen to what Coulter and Moore has to say because they represent the two extremes of opposing ideologies.
Why did you have to bump half the threads on the board to add nothing whatsoever to any of them? If you absolutely must post shit, learn to use sage.
>>1
It is called living in denial. You do not want to hear, see or consider any evidence which might bring you to the conclusion that you have made MAJOR mistakes and are just plain wrong or have been an idiot for a long time of your life. Consider those who believe in Jesus, Bible, Mohammed, Koran, Aliens, UFOs, Wizards and Harry Potter, etc. Fantasy books. Yet, people are willing to kill to protect their faith.
>>12
I, however, do want to see such evidence. Better to fix my mistakes sooner, rather than later (or never at all). That said, I am a young person so I don't have much at stake regarding my current beliefs and views.
>>1, do you realize that neoconservativism is a school of thought relating primarily to foreign policy, whereas neoliberalism is primarily a school of thought of economics? You can be both a neoconservative and a neoliberal at the same time. Neoliberalism emphasizes deregulation of the economy and establishing equality without the market, whereas neoconservativism stresses active involvement in world affairs especially through military means to secure national interests compounded with a conservative populism.
>>1
Your problem is obviously your sources, who are boring, shrill old-guard leftists that irk conservatives everywhere.
Also, look at Chomsky's 'two cases' comparisons of Latin American media response and American media response to a couple of lower-profile atrocities in the 1990s. The people who are spitting in your face are examples of the continuation of that trend of denial of the country's mistakes.