Comments on: Swine Fraud http://www.ultimateminority.com/2009/10/21/swine-fraud/ Whenever you find that you are on the side of the majority, it is time to reform - Mark Twain Sat, 04 Sep 2010 23:14:05 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0 By: DM http://www.ultimateminority.com/2009/10/21/swine-fraud/comment-page-1/#comment-46 DM Thu, 29 Oct 2009 07:05:40 +0000 http://www.ultimateminority.com/?p=208#comment-46 Facebook: Dave Martin One thing is clear Frank, we're both committed to our position. I'm against the state, you believe it's a necessary and vital institution. I use a priori logic to show the state as a lying, manipulative monopoly on the use of force, you apply positivism to support your worldview that the state is the organizing principle of humanity, and reject any evidence that threatens it. When presented with evidence that contradicts your faith in the state, you'll dig as deep into their lies as you can to justify it. You've been reduced to citing WHO statistics and the NREVSSS (an organization I'm certain you'd never heard of before) to support your faith in the state. Why should the WHO be used to compile numbers that could be easily be collected at the state and local level? Don't state and local "officials" have an interest in collecting this information to assess the threat? Why have they been told to stop collecting this information? You've never refuted my initial citations, and when you challenged them I showed you more sources and invalidated your faith-based position. If it wasn't a big enough gubment official statement for you, I showed you where the small-timers got their numbers. If we keep this up, you'll be arguing about what the definition of "is" is. There are logical questions to be asked here: Why does the central gubment tell the child gubments to stop testing, and why is something that is a 1/36th threat now a national emergency? These questions are glossed over. The burden of proof is now upon you: What is the national emergency? Facebook:

Dave Martin
One thing is clear Frank, we’re both committed to our position. I’m against the state, you believe it’s a necessary and vital institution.

I use a priori logic to show the state as a lying, manipulative monopoly on the use of force, you apply positivism to support your worldview that the state is the organizing principle of humanity, and reject any evidence that threatens it.

When presented with evidence that contradicts your faith in the state, you’ll dig as deep into their lies as you can to justify it. You’ve been reduced to citing WHO statistics and the NREVSSS (an organization I’m certain you’d never heard of before) to support your faith in the state. Why should the WHO be used to compile numbers that could be easily be collected at the state and local level? Don’t state and local “officials” have an interest in collecting this information to assess the threat? Why have they been told to stop collecting this information?

You’ve never refuted my initial citations, and when you challenged them I showed you more sources and invalidated your faith-based position. If it wasn’t a big enough gubment official statement for you, I showed you where the small-timers got their numbers.

If we keep this up, you’ll be arguing about what the definition of “is” is.

There are logical questions to be asked here: Why does the central gubment tell the child gubments to stop testing, and why is something that is a 1/36th threat now a national emergency? These questions are glossed over. The burden of proof is now upon you: What is the national emergency?

]]>