The Libertarian Snakebite Kit - Day

12:11AM - Military "service" as a religious experience

This is a reply to a post in pro_patriotism, where they seem to be afraid of conflicting opinions. After all, troll boy culturalbaggage lackeys infect a libertarian community, yst the pro_patriotism "community" has to screen posts (I'd have to assume its because they aren't as "open-minded" as they claim to be).


I always wanted to be in the military – from day one. Not to be recognized, but just to serve my country. Being on the news today, I was able to serve the military, hopefully not for the last time. I was able to tell people about the sacrifices we make, not only our Soldiers, but our families. That was a great opportunity today.


Isn't that nice, "serve my country". I always thought of it as having a job in the military. But I guess that righties have this worship of military duty, even if "serving", unlike this gentleman's experience, is as a REMF (rear echelon ...) desk clerk.

12:34AM

Here's another reply to a post in the pro_patriotism community:

why would i be outraged by your inability to read? i respect hayek enough to put him in his own context: british conservatism and american conservatism are very different beasts indeed.

Oddly enough, the quote was from the forward that, IIRC, was written especially for the American audience the book had attracted since its publication in 1944. It's on page xi of the edition I have, printed in 1967. And, according to this article "in 1950 Hayek became professor of social and moral sciences at the University of Chicago, where he stayed until 1962". So I hardly think that Hayek was unaware of this country's mores in 1956 when he wrote the forward..

here, where equality of opportunity is our raison d'etre, conservatism means defending our freedom to achieve, regardless of our backgrounds (and/or relative status of privilege/disprivilege).


Oh, you mean like the Bushes achievements (all due to political connections) despite their overall business incompetence...

that may require more than a second's thought, but i suppose someone who buys into the long-debunked myth that bush did coke doesn't have the time to think it through.


Gee, "long-debunked". I didn't realize September 2004 was a long time ago. I'll do something you seem capable of doing, that is, quote a source

Other acquaintances allege that as a 26-year-old National Guard, Bush "liked to sneak out back for a joint or into the bathroom for a line of cocaine".

Bush has admitted being an alcoholic but, asked during the 1999 election if he did drugs, he said: "I've told the American people that years ago I made some mistakes.

"I've learned from my mistakes and should I be fortunate enough to become president I will bring dignity and honour to the office."

Later an aide clarified his remarks saying Bush hadn't taken illegal drugs in the past 25 years.

That appears to be an evasion of the question right up Clinton's alley. I'd have to say that the rightie "christians" only forgive those on their "side".


as for a source corroborating the self-evident fact that hitler was a leftist, try reading the rest of hayek's "road to serfdom," since you love using small passages from it, out of context, talismanically. if you'll actually read it for comprehension sometime, you might learn something.

"Self-evident fact", wow, there's a stretch. Please, some quotes here. Again you insist on leaning on self-evident "truths" that don't exist. Like Fox Propaganda's "truths".

This phrase "hitler was a leftist" also confuses me. Where does Hayek state that Nazi Germany was a leftist state? I know you'll be screeching about "quoting out of context", but the dedication of the book is "To THE SOCIALISTS OF ALL PARTIES". You seem to have this delusion that, for example, farm aid is not socialistic in nature. A "farmer" that takes farm aid is no longer part of a free market system. The "farmer" much abide by government regulations controlling the output of the land. "Farmers" by their nature are conservatives. At the very least, "welfare" for businesses is much the same as the type of welfare that the "liberals" push. And I won't get into the "Energy Policy" that Dickey-boy Cheney was planning in collusion with large benefactors (or "cronies") from the oil industry. I guess that's not government planning in your eyes, it's just crooks in government colluding with crooks in industry.