To be right, or to be effective?Submitted by Michael Nystrom on Sat, 04/27/2013 - 20:51
This post is addressed to those who believe they have a divine right to discuss any and all conspiracy theories on the Daily Paul. After reading, I would appreciate it if you would answer the question at the bottom.
- - - -
So the government lies. This is well established. Is it news anymore? Do we have to go about documenting - in minute detail - every single lie and potential lie to the point that we're even making up lies ourselves?
Meanwhile, our rights are slowly drained away.
Telling people that the Boston Marathon bombing was a false flag with actors does one thing: It makes you look crazy.
What is it that people are after by pursuing that line of reasoning? Is the goal to be right, or to be effective?
Those screaming "FALSE FLAG!" are most certainly "right" - in their own minds. They "know" and have "proof" that it was all a hoax. To them it is so "obvious" that anyone who can't see it is an "idiot."
Is this an effective way to promote Liberty? For that, all you need is the Constitution, specifically, the 4th Amendment:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Which discussion is better for promoting liberty to non-initiates?
A) An argument over whether the 4th Amendment was violated in Boston by the door to door searches for the surviving Marathon Bomber,
B) An argument over whether the bombing was a staged Hollywood production with fake blood and actors who didn't have legs to begin with?