[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Your error here is in assuming I think Liberty Dollar did anything wrong. I don't. However, I also do believe that if the FBI feels the need to investigate the actions of the Liberty Dollar people, the field agents who served the search warrants aren't "evil", they're merely doing their jobs. Anyone who can consider serving search warrants even close to equal to Nazi's killing people needs a head exam.

[/ QUOTE ]

So it's OK to bust someone's door down and take their stuff if you get paid to do it?

[/ QUOTE ]

Who does this?

[/ QUOTE ]

You just said they're "merely doing their jobs." They get paid for it, so it's OK? Yes or no.

[/ QUOTE ]

Lollerskates at all of the ridiculousness in this thread, with a special achievement in ridiculousness award to you, pvn. Only an idiot believes that a legally executed search warrant = some kind of armed theft, and only an idiot thinks that agents acting under such a warrant in the United States = Nazi officers committing crimes against humanity.

Thanks for the laughs, though.

[/ QUOTE ]

You people are amazing to me. You analogyphobes. Its honestly shocking that you dont get called on this ridiculous laziness and dishonesty more often. Do you people even get the POINT OF ANALOGIES? Yes, in every single analogy, some aspects will be different. Sometimes these differences are even important, and could even invalidate the analogy. But just because you are clever enough to notice that one part of the analogy is has more vowels in it than the other part, or one part is on a grander scale than the other part, doesnt justify this childish dismissal of all analogies. Analogies serve the purpose of illuminating similarities and differences between two different things, and relating an unclear situation to one which is more clear to provide information.

Rather than say "ZOMG THESE GUYS ARENT NAZIS AMIRITE?" why dont you point out the parts of the analogy that are so fundamentally different that it invalidates the entire thing. So, you could say "These guys were seizing property, the Nazis were rounding people up for concentration camps AND THIS IS A FUNDAMENTALLY IMPORTANT DISTINCTION BECAUSE..." The bolded part there is the part that you guys never do. You say the first part with an exasperated tone or maybe some exclamation points, and think you've accomplished something. Its sloppy and its lazy. Somehow, its also effective. God knows why. No one is denying there are differences. They may or may not be material differences. Why dont you explain why they are?