The Libertarian Snakebite Kit

Bush the anti-patroit

2005-12-11T00:08:31Z

The article Bush seeks prompt Congress vote on anti-terrorism law on Yahoo says in part:

The law expanded the government's powers to track terrorism suspects after the September 11, 2001, attacks. Critics say it does not adequately protect civil liberties because it makes it easier for authorities to infringe on the privacy of Americans not involved in terrorism.

"Over the past four years, the Patriot Act has been a strong weapon for going after the terrorists," Bush said. He said it had been used to prosecute "terrorist operatives and supporters or break up terror cells" in New York, Oregon, Virginia, California, Texas, and Ohio.

"The Patriot Act is helping America defeat our enemies while safeguarding civil liberties for all our people," Bush said.

And have you fellow "citizens" tried to get a job lately? You have to undergo a background check, and in order to have the background done, you have give the company you are applying at all kinds of personal information that could be used for identity theft. Looks like every person in this country is considered to be a potential terrorist without right to protest this outrageous behavior.

I can't even cover adequately the government abuses and misuse of the data collected. See the book "Terrorism and Tyranny" by James Bovard for the gory details.

For a person who has sworn to uphold the Constitution, I'd say that space shot Bush needs a lesson in the Bill of Rights being part of the Constitution.

The fourth Amendment says:

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.

The sixth amendment says:

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

And the eighth amendment says:

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Bush and the rest of the neocons in Washington have no clue. Failing to uphold the Constitution should be grounds for impeachment and criminal prosecution, but when the Congress is willing co-conspirators, who will prosecute? An "independent" judiciary who are nothing but a bunch of unethical lawyers who are also nothing more than political hacks. All three branches of the Federal government are traitors.

And for all you cowards that think the PATRIOT Act is a good thing, Ben Franklin in 1755 had this to say about you: "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

Serenity, the movie starts tomorrow

2005-09-29T22:50:26Z

See the Serenity: official movie website if you haven't already heard the buzz!!!

There's also the fan site SerenityMovie.net, and the Universal fan site Browncoats for those Firefly junkies out there. Here's are some Test early screening reviews, and a another Serenity review

I already saw it at a preview yesterday (better late than never), the wait's finally over, but I plan to attend tomorrow also. Can't get enough of the first new things on Firefly since 2002! Can't miss on a combination of Western, screw the government, AND science fiction.

Here go the neocons supporting Tommy DeLay

2005-09-29T22:00:46Z

In response to this post on Yahoo by tarheeltroll (an Adult Profile. Every notice that the supporters of the current administration are all reprobates [one who is foreordained to damnation] and perverts?):

EDITOR'S NOTE: Travis County, Texas prosecutor Ronnie Earle, the man behind Wednesday's indictment of House Majority Leader Tom DeLay on state campaign-finance charges, has also indicted several corporations in the probe. But last June, National Review's Byron York learned that Earle offered some of those companies deals in which the charges would be dismissed — if the corporations came up with big donations to one of Earle's favorite causes. Here is that report, from June 20, 2005:

http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york200509290811.asp

I say:

Gee, there's a non-partisan source, the mouthpiece of the jew-boy neoconservative c-cksuckers that got the US into Iraq with their traitorous lies.

In case you haven't figured this out, corporations cannot be jailed, only fined, and the only kind of fine that might give corporations that size any pains is in the the of millions of dollars. And given that most judges are as corrupt as politicians, the fine would probably be overturned by one of those "fine, upstanding" crooked lawyer turned political hack judges.

Why don't you ask Ricky Lowry, the "esteemed" editor of the fascist "National Review, that if he's so much of a "patriot", why he hasn't enlisted in the Army. Oh, I forgot, the neocon patriotism only goes up to ranting about dissenters. The cowards DON'T EVER join the military, they only convince others to the do the dirty work while they fill their pockets with the money they take from losers like you.

There hasn't been an ethical Republican in the White House since Eisenhower. I hope all the bastards are roasting in Hell. (Probably no Democrat this century.)

Why don't you crawl back under your rock, fascist. And no I'm not a liberal, Birch boy, I'm a libertarian, and I don't need your pansy, incompetent government thugs to "protect" me. I say f--k off to the whole power structure in this country of chicken-shit, cowardly losers. I love America, not some corrupt government, and certainly not jingoist dirtbag anti-patriots like you.

Anti-patriots, get out!

2005-09-25T21:21:13Z

This post at Joi Ito's Web has an interesting take on the failure of the (governmental?) educational system to instill a reasonable regard for the Constitution and it's amendments. The survey that the BBC refers to is The Future of the First Amendment or a superfluous flash trash "page" for those that like shiny, useless content.

I derive from this survey that significant a percentage of the soon-to-be voting age public should be finding another country to live in. Since they don't believe in the Bill of Rights, freedom of expression or the rest of the First Amendment, they definitely should never be allowed to serve in a position that requires them to uphold the Constitution. I also see no reason to allow them citizenship, and favor deportation of the individuals concerned.

Yes, this a radical proposition, but I see no reason that people that refuse to conform to the founding principles of the United States should be allowed to stay here. After all, if they favor abrogation (as in "to treat as nonexistent" -- m-w.com) of other people's (notice I didn't say artificial entities like corporations) rights, I see no reason why they should be able to retain theirs. I consider this type of people as the most dangerous kinds of dissidents that can inhabit a country.

quasimodal @ 2005-09-23T14:18:00

2005-09-23T20:57:21Z

There's a favorable article about The Serenity movie at Serenity Now! by J.E. Crosby. At least it's another positive review that acknowledges the libertarian-like premises that reflects the current situation of liberty loving people in a United States where a increasingly repressive government seeks to control the population that they were elected to serve and protect.

A Useful Limitation of Legislative Power

2005-08-29T20:24:53Z

The article Mo. Law Banning Lap Dances Unconstitutional talks about two violations of Constitutional power in one bill that not only got through the legislature but was signed by Gov. Matt Blunt.

The article starts with:
A new state law banning seminude lap dances at Missouri strip clubs was declared unconstitutional by a judge Friday, two days before it was to go into effect.

Cole County Circuit Judge Richard Callahan said provisions of the law violate First Amendment protections and state constitutional limits on amending a bill beyond its original purpose.

"The state may not limit persons of majority age from engaging in lawful expressive conduct protected by the 1st Amendment of the United States Constitution without a substantial and direct connection to adverse secondary effects, a showing that has not been made," Callahan said in the declaratory judgment.

Later the article details the second violation of the Missouri Constitution:
The bill that included the strip club restrictions initially was labeled as a bill for alcohol-related traffic offenses but was passed under the heading of "crime."

This limitation, if enacted for all states AND the Federal governments sure would slow the legislative process, which is almost always a good thing.

Of course, it also would be nice have a provision in the Constitution that all government officials that violate the Constitution that they are sworn to uphold are immediately removed from office. Better would be an additional provision that bans them from any governmental office for the rest of their life.

Musings about government (so-called public) schools

2005-08-28T06:53:52Z

The article 'Men cleverer than women' claim, states that "[a] study to be published later this year in the British Journal of Psychology says that men are on average five points ahead on IQ tests." These statistics were "based on IQ tests given to 80,000 people and a further study of 20,000 students."

It amuses me that a number of women have attacked the researchers motives in a readers replies section after the end of the article. One even goes so far as to say "I don't read about a rush of women psychologists doing the same thing." Since when? Feminist researchers have been spewing rubbish research about women's supposed superiority for the past three decades, and most of it has no basis in reality.

And in a related article, Women cleverer than men, says MP, it says that

American educational researchers William Draves and Julie Coates have argued that it is not boys who are the problem but schools.

While boys are developing the skills they will need in the "knowledge jobs" of the future, schools are still preparing students for a past industrial age, they have said.

Gee, who'd of thought that the educational system is as out of touch with reality in England as it is here in the States.

I'll have to track down those researchers. Being in Amerikkka, I can't believe that the feminazis haven't managed to strip them of funding.

Hell, in the city I live, the public high school students are given time off from "education" to provide "community service" as a required part of the student's graduation requirements. Since when is "community service" a part of "education"?

Another conservative asshole

2005-07-22T05:14:12Z

From the Libertarian Party blog entry entitled "Background on Judge John Roberts":

David R. writes:
"By the way, I recommend to anyone Scalia's book, "A Matter of Interpretation". In it he talks about, among other more complicated things that Badnarik is utterly unacquipped [sic] to deal with, keeping policy-setting (that would include hardcore libertarianism) out of the process of statutory interpretation."

Hey David R., since you claim to be disgusted with libertarians, why don't you just crawl back into your reptile hole and spare us your arrogant rantings. As it says in a review of Scalia's "book" (he didn't even put it together, there was an editor credited with that task), Scalia's "philosophy of textualism, [is] an approach that eschews legislative intention in favor of focusing on the original meaning of the text to be interpreted." In other words, he sees no problem with the same kind of activism (making law) that conservatives rant about liberal judges doing.

To call Scalia a constitutional scholar superior to others (just because you agree with his opinions) sounds to me like the hypocrisy that conservatives are famous for. Scalia's superiority is a figment of your (and other conservatives) imagination. Scalia is a political hack, just like all judges, who was elevated because of his political viewpoint. And worse, his training is in the "law", a corrupt, self-serving and amoral (if not immoral too) profession if there ever was one.

quasimodal @ 2005-06-10T00:34:00

2005-06-10T07:55:36Z

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.

Military "service" as a religious experience

2005-06-10T06:34:40Z

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.

Re: Re: Greatest threat to American freedom today is religious right

2005-04-05T03:23:35Z

"Spirit of 76": I think the difference is that the Left is a very top-down form of coercion. The Right is more of a voluntary, bottom-up coercion.

Wow (to quote your previous stupid comment), tyranny is OK if the fascist right invokes it. What a concept.

"Spirit of 76": Political migration was the basis of the colonization of America after all! 'Tolerance' as we have come to understand the word is a by-product of 1920s vintage propaganda to try to ease the tensions brought about by the massive influx of Irish/Italian Roman Catholicism and Eastern European Jewry into what was then a strongly Protestant land. I submit that our problems today are a direct result of that period and the abandonment of the above-mentioned governing policies. (Of course, the Civil War and its resolution set the stage...)

Wow, the Irish started their huge influx in the 1840's and 1850's loser. The Irish Potato Famines. And Maryland was a state with a mostly Catholic population. The founders of this country were largely non-religious, I don't think that they would appreciate being called Protestant, because quite a few were definitely not. So I guess that makes it clear that you're one of those anti-Catholic KKK types. And further deluded by the right-wing revisionist pseudo-history. My one big question is, KKK boy, why do you hang out with the Jew-boys? I thought your type hated them too.

"Spirit of 76": But no. The American Right is not interested in a police state. I hope you will acknowledge the difference.

Sorry, but if you support the Bushies, mostly neocons, you support the Patriot Act police state they advocate. And as Ben Franklin stated in 1755 (I know, he's another anti-American liberal, yes, he was, a classical liberal): "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." And I pray that you burn in hell, too.

Why do you think your liberties are safer working with GOP than with Dems?

2005-04-05T02:24:12Z

In a feedback discussion related to that "wonderful" article suggesting that libertarians are stupid not to collude with the "conservatives"

E. Allen:
(1) The religious right wants to disincorporate the first amendment, returning us to the days when states could institute a state religion, use tax dollars to support it, ban those who blaspheme it, etc. Clarence Thomas has spoken approvingly of this idea. How do you think Bush's appointees will view it?

(2) The excesses of the Patriot Act. There are some conservatives working with the ACLU to help roll back these:

http://www.myrtlebeachonline.com/mld/sunnews/news/opinion/11236206.htm

I'm glad to see there are some in the GOP still care about some liberties. They're in a shrinking minority.

Andrew's (a so-called conservative-libertarian) reply:
1. The first amendment says 'congress shall pass no law' with respect to the establishment of religion. It was never intended to limit the states.
For me, democracy is the utmost freedom, and a supreme court that rewrites the constitution is undemocratic.

2. The 'excesses' of the patriot act take away none of our constitutional freedoms. At least, no list has ever been compiled.

My replies to Andrew's post:
1. And in most states, legislators pledge to uphold the federal and state constitutions as a part of their swearing in ceremony. And by the way, this is a Republic, not a democracy, stupid.

2.Try reading the book 'Terrorism and Tyranny:' by James Bovard.

As always, I expect Reptiles to have their head up their ass. The lesser of two evils is still evil.

Just another neo-fascist rambling

2005-04-04T23:21:26Z

In the article Saving the Marriage (Cont.), Pejman Yousefzadeh states:
Nowhere does Browne give any reason libertarians -- whether large-L or small-l -- "must give up [their] foolish notions and adopt Republican positions." I advocated no such thing in my article and what's more, that's not how political coalitions work. In the real world, if libertarians decide to throw their support to Republicans, they would do so on a quid pro quo basis -- as would just about any constituency seeking to be part of a governing coalition, or a coalition that hopes to achieve governing status. Libertarians would offer their support to Republicans in exchange for having the Republican Party adopt more libertarian positions on a variety of issues.

The only reason that we are supposed to join the 'coalition' is that the Republicans and Democrats do their best to limit real Americans choice to form other parties. Nowhere else except third world countries does the government decide who should be able to form a political party that reflects the views of its members.

For eample, I'd like to know how a libertarian's view that the government has no business regulating my private life is going to be reconciled with the religious right's insistence that they have the right to have every part of society conform to their prudish, sadistic and violent view of the world. Personally, I can't fathom the hypocrites that profess to be pro-life, yet support capital punishment; the hypocrites insist there is a difference between the two stances, but it never holds up under logic.

In the U.S., the B.O.Y.N. parties, as the author states well, are coalitions of people whose major aim is to grab power and retain it. There is no attempt to do anything for their constituents after being elected. If you don't believe me , just try writing to your "representatives" to the legislatures. All you get is some crappy boilerplate reply from a shit-bag that doesn't give a damn what their constituents views and concerns are. The only "constituents" that they care about are the contributers to their campaigns. After all, the best definition of a career politician that I know of is "a honest politician once bought, stays bought".

I don't know why I even bother to reply, because TCS seems to be slipping towards a neocon agenda. I don't care about power like this Semitic ( go check out the description of semitic in your dictionary before you call me a Jew hater, loser-Jews) freak. As far as I'm concerned the anti-American shit-bag author can go back to the land that s/he came from. The more extreme elements of the Republican party neocons want to install a one party system in America, which sounds to me like a authoritarian governemnt that tells me how I should live my life, which completely disregards the Constitution of the United States.

up yours, "libertarian leaning" Reptile

2005-02-19T21:35:50Z

I posted an article, Bush Voters as Belly Crawling Cowards, and one of the commenters (thudpucker) chose to categorize it as "this wonderfully single sided and slightly spittle flecked article". Here's one of my replies:

And, amazingly, Adams managed to get his point across with the use of the words "cocksucker", "dickweed", "cretin" or (always a winner) "fascist".

That's odd. Mr. Adams was the founder of the Sons of Liberty, a rabble rousing bunch of radicals that provoked the Boston Massacre. Under the Bushies definition, the Sons of Liberty would be classified "terrorists". Yes, the founding fathers lead and encouraged "terrorism". As did the founders of Israel, and quite a few other countries. And I don't think they were polite about it either. So fuck off.

As an aside for all you French haters out there, there would be no Declaration of Independence, no Constitution if not for the French. The French government and private citizens actively supported and/or condoned the rebellion.

In your original post, you presented information stating that anyone who voted for Bush was wrong. You did not present info against both parties, only the Republicans; both your post and the article came across as being presented as Liberals.

Well, how odd. I looked through your journal and found you criticisms of Kerry and none of Bush. In fact, on October 13, 2004 at 4:25 pm this is your post:

Title: "There were no WMD's, so there was no reason at all to intervene in Iraq's internal affairs."

"He said excavators found the body of a mother still clutching her baby. The infant was shot in the back of the head and the mother in the face." [ed note: report from the ever "fair and balanced" Fox Propaganda]

Christ.

You sound like ones of those "force is OK when I say it is" kind of "libertarians". I'm not saying that what was done was anything but evil, but rabid Bush supporters (and you) like Fox Propaganda are still trying to justify raiding a country under false pretenses. Since you seem to be so concerned about this story, what about all the Iraqi civilians killed by "coalition" forces? I'd guess that you don't care about "collateral damage".

I'm not even going to get too far into the details for the biggest issue: that this country built up Sadaam Hussein's power base by feeding it quite a bit of aid.

And what about the repressive right-wing governments that the US government supports? They love slaughtering their opponents. Reptiles, I don't think, have ever found a repressive right-wing government that they don't like. As James Bovard has said, governments in the 20th century have killed something in the range of 100 million people. What's your opinion about that?

--------------------------------------------------------------------

And then there's this post on November 15th, 2004 at 02:29 pm entitled "Reality Check from The Observer" which in part says:
Until a viable third party comes along, the best thing for the American people is having the two main parties actually present a position that is viable to the majority.

Well, we're not going to have a viable party system until the Demogogues and the Reptiles cease to actively suppress parties other than own. And the "media" is just another coconspirator in this scam. The Libertarian Party and all other "third parties" are in a constant battle to stay alive because of state actions () to decertify those parties.

That's in concert with Demogogue and the Reptile operatives telling people that ask about our candidates that they're "wasting" their vote if they vote for, say Badnarik. And then they throw in the FUD (fear, uncertainty, doubt) factor. What a crock of shit. If you extend that to its "logical" conclusion, everyone that doesn't vote for the winner "wastes" their vote. And if that's the case, we might as well have a one party system (like quite a few Reptile commentators would like to have).

Now shoo. The grownups would like to talk.

Fuck off, retard. I've been a classical liberal for over 35 years, and I'm sick of dealing with "libertarian leaning" Reptiles like you. I'd only agree with the analysis that the piece "came across as being presented as Liberals" if you used the term "liberal" in the European sense, which is the same as the term in America "classical liberal". If you don't believe in personal freedom and you don't detest the Patriot Act and other such "laws", then you have NO standing to clam that you're a libertarian. As you said, "People can claim anything".

The World's Smallest Political Quiz for Palm OS

2005-02-07T21:10:05Z

I never noticed this before:

At least not all "conservatives" are morons

2005-01-16T23:46:13Z

From The Ugly Mutation of American Conservatism by Steven LaTulippe (emphasis mine):

Lew Rockwell is correct. The seminal political event of the past several years in America has been the changing political ideology of Middle America from small-government conservatism to a virulent brand of fascism. There is barely any discernable [sic] connection between 1994 and 2004. Almost all the issues which were important to red state America then have since fallen off of their radar screen. They are advocating many policies that are in direct conflict with the fundamental tenets of traditional conservatism.

Some of my more strident libertarian friends claim that America is now descending politically into a Hitler-Stalin dynamic. I think that that is somewhat overstated. It is more analogous to say that the Republicans are degenerating into the tin-pot fascism of Anastasio Somoza circa 1975, while the Democrats have long since fallen to the tin-pot socialism of the Sandinistas circa 1985.

America is morphing into Nicaragua, with the public finances, the current account deficit, the civil liberties, and the electoral system of a typical Central American banana republic.

Many of us prayed for years that the liberals would one day fall from power and that the Republicans would rise to dominate the federal government.

When the Gods wish to punish us, they grant us our wishes.

I say amen to that. I just wonder when more "conservatives" wake up to the duplicitous nature of their "administration". Hey, I have no compunction to act just as the republicans do when they savage the democrats. Conservatives were traitors during the American Revolution and still are.

quasimodal @ 2005-01-11T23:10:00

2005-01-12T06:22:06Z

Bases on the latest ruckus that Tommy Delayed caused, you know the one about Bible reading? I had this to say in reply to all those charming replies by the troglodytes ( definition for the trogs: anyone who lives in a primitive, low, or degenerate fashion; since you probably don't know the word nor how to use a dictionary):

Have you noticed that the gutless conservative fascists are the ones that are mostly constantly screaming about the hate that everyone has, while they rant things like

The level of stupidity form complete f-ing morons...

and

AMERICAN LIBERALS..
FUCK YOU!!!!

and

Did any of you liberal retards know...

That's typical behavior for the Neanderthals. And the part I really love is that these 'christians' are always quoting the Old Testament instead of the New Testament? Some 'christians' they are; sounds more like neo-jew to me. Fits with the neocons in the Dick-Bush administration.

I have a question for all you hate freaks; if you're so "patriotic", why aren't you in Iraq? Because you're a flaming coward at heart? it's your war, not mine.

I want the same thing that sick little slut wanted from Kerry (not that I can stand that prick anymore than you can, I used to live in the Feminazi Republic of Massachusetts). You know, she didn't feel that she should have to pay taxes that support abortion. I don't think my taxes should support your war, scumbags. Or maybe I should say fu__ing scumbags, to be more in tune with your garbage mouthed rantings.

I pray that God notices and remembers all of this. And I doubt that your buck passing sham of a 'christian' religion with keep you out of Hell. Because KKKonservatives really follow Satan.

In Praise of Non-Conformity

2005-01-06T21:05:06Z

From Extremism In Defense of the Status Quo written by Butler Shaffer

I have been labeled just about everything from a "crackpot" to an "ivory-towered dreamer" to an "extremist," more often than not by people who have never bothered to inquire into the basis of my opinions. It seems to be enough that my views lie outside the boundaries of conventional thinking that have been carefully constructed to confine our minds. To those who do ask, I tell them that my social and political philosophy comes down to a very simple proposition: to not trespass upon the person or property of another. Such is the essence of my "extreme crackpottery!"

The playing out of that principle does, of course, bode ill for all political systems. The state is nothing more than organized theft, trespass, and killing, all of which are attacks upon privately-owned property. To support my proposition is to be an anarchist. No matter how deftly one tries to tap-dance around the subject – as with delusions of "limited government" – political systems are inherently at war with private property. If "government" is defined as a system with a monopoly on the lawful use of force, such force can only be exercised against the lives and property of individuals.

Re: Catastrophes and Their Cures

2005-01-01T06:41:06Z

As a reply to the author of this article, wealth definitely has no
bearing on the destruction caused by such an occurrence. The US has made
NO preparations for a tsunami in the Atlantic, even though there is an
increasing danger of a catastrophic event there. That's one reason why
I'm now in New Mexico at over 5,000 feet in elevation.

Just to let you know, I saw a reference to this site. It has the most graphic reminder that this tsunami took everything in its wake.

Boot On Your Neck (BOYN) Party

2005-01-01T04:39:10Z

Boot On Your Neck (BOYN) Party

Basically the Democrats and Republicans have given up (for the most
part) any semblance of supporting individual rights and limited
government when it gets in the way of their agenda. And look at the
degree to which they cooperate when it comes to growing government at
all levels. Why bother playing along with the illusion that they have
differing views on how government should behave, when most of their
differences are on the specifics and on which issues The State is going
to tax and regulate our lives?

--Mike Blessing

See also Liberty Action of the Week: Free speech cages, elections and WROF...
and my favorite Scott Bieser graphic, and my favorite BOYN flash.

Windoze losers and the EU's battle with Microsoft

2004-12-25T06:42:33Z

An article at Tech Central Station, Forget the Consumers By Carlo Stagnaro has got me fuming again. In part the author states:

Moreover, there seems to be no such thing as presumption of innocence in Europe, at least for large corporations. Any other citizen, under any legal system, would be regarded as innocent until a reasonable certainty has been reached on her or his possible guilt. Things may be different if it is true one of the following: (a) the accused one might hide or destroy some evidence; or (b) the offence might be reiterated.

Now, (a) is obviously false: there is no way to hide or destroy what everybody know, i.e. that Media Player was freely given to those who bought Windows. Rather, somebody might object that (b) is true: in fact, if the part or all of the ruling is suspended, Microsoft would go on with its "bundling." Paradoxically, however, the question is not who did it -- Microsoft did it. The question is whether bundling may be a means to prevent competition. If there is presumption of innocence, Microsoft should be left free to sell its products until it is demonstrated beyond any reasonable doubt that this is a way to limit competition.

I first replied to the feedback area:
You are just mouthing the standard Microsoft fud. Microsoft does NOT sell the media player, just like they don't sell the crappy Internet Explorer web browser.

They take part of the code for these separate applications, bury the code into the "operating system", and call the now integrated applications a part of the "operating system". Being a software engineer, I know this to be nothing but utter bullshit on the part of Microsoft.

Microsoft is using their monopoly position to take over new application areas that they couldn't be competitive in in normal circumstances. I don't need another shoddy piece of Microsoft software that I don't want or need, especially when other products fill my needs better.

I don't care what some moron that can barely use their PC without MS holding their hand wants to use. Since when is that "forgetting the consumer"? I specify more software for projects in a month than the losers (that "want" Microsoft's media player) will buy in a couple of years.

I want choice, not some "choice" forced down my throat "for my own good". Why do you feel that government force is bad and Microsoft's force is good?

One reader replied:

Message: >>'that intense competition will be penalized, not rewarded. This 'level the playing field' approach to competition policy does not promote risk taking,>>

Sounds a bit like 'from each according to his ability, to each according to his need', doesn't it?

Communism is such an idealistic philosophy - it's not really a bad one per se, it's just that it doesn't recognize human nature and attemmpts [sic] to impose an ideal solution through an imperfect tool - government made up of imperfect human beings. Who was it that said that 'the most dangerous man is the idealist...'?

My reply:
But it's OK for Microsoft to force me to use (and pay for) junk software that I neither want nor will willingly use?

In case you haven't noticed (because you're a Microsoft weenie), Microsoft software is full of enough latent bugs. It would be nice if they would sell me software that actually works the way its supposed to. I rather see them produce decent software, but Billy and Stevie have to destroy the competition in another application software realm (and of course make lots of money by providing shoddy overpriced media server software).

And of course Microsoft makes comparatively little effort to fix broken, buggy software because those users that have blindly bought into the Microsoft hegemony wont change software because they are too stupid and/or lazy to. So Microsoft has little incentive to do a better job on the software they've already foisted onto "customers".

It would also be nice to get an operating system that doesn't cost me extra money and time to protect my laptop from all kinds of deviants that further trash their software by manipulating Microsoft's shoddy software designs. But with losers like you around that undoubtedly blame the script kiddies that break the software rather than the idiots that made it so easy to break Microsoft's software, Microsoft can blow off the criticisms by acting like the wounded party instead of the co-conspirator.

Another reader replied in part:

I don't understand the problem at all. If the citizens of the EU don't feel that they are getting a fair 'value' for their money, then they won't buy the product. I am sure that these consumers can make this decision for themselves. I can and I'm not that bright. So what is this EU gov't think it is doing? Protecting their citizens from getting the best 'value' for their 'dollar'? Besides, IF the product is too expensive, ales [sic] would go down and MS would compensate by lowering prices.

My reply:
Since I don't have a choice given that my employers specify that I use Windoze, it seems I have no right to be able to use the minimal amount of Microsoft software that I choose to use since Microsoft forces me to use their media player if I buy a name brand computer with Windoze on it (a given, because no name brand computer company will sell you a computer without Windoze installed).

It is difficult to impossible to uninstall the application software that comes with Windoze. That includes Internet Explorer, Outlook Express, and Media Player, amongst others. In fact, you can't uninstall Internet Explorer at all because MS insists that it is part of the operating system.

I couldn't care less about the whole issue if Microsoft didn't install the software, but made it available for those consumers that wanted it, but I'm forced to endure their software so that they can sell Media Server (who knows how much it costs, I can't even get Microsoft's site to display that information) to clients because "every computer" has the media player pre-installed.

So why is force not OK for governments (a monopoly) and OK for Microsoft (a monopoly)?

Great Libertarian Quotes

2004-12-12T04:25:04Z

This page, on the LP of Boulder County site, has a few (over 1200) great quotes for libertarians. At the bottom of the page is a link to another site with libertarian quotes.

Gotta Love it...

2004-12-04T05:34:21Z

According to this blog entry "Writing in the Wall Street Journal, the military scholar Edward N. Luttwak says the incident was revealed by 'a pool of unpatriotic American television reporters and the Marine officers who started an immediate judicial investigation, for strict American legalism is alive and well even in the Marine uniform.'"

I guess that the Marines are supposed to get away with everything since the Bush fascists have declared the Geneva Conventions null and void.

Ahh, Bushies

2004-11-26T03:56:05Z

See the article Goebbels Rallies the People at www.harrybrowne.org

Another good article is George Bush, Lying, & the Dogs of War.

Bush and the "Christians"

2004-11-09T02:10:34Z

I have no idea what motivates these people. but evangelical Christians seem to be anything but followers of Jesus Christ.
- They seem to allow themselves that Jesus will grant unlimited forgiveness but do not grant it to others. Their hate of others that don't have the same viewpoint is anything but Christian.
- They are obsessed by material goods and physical pleasure. My one neighbor brags how she goes to Walmart to buy clothes for those less fortunate, but only when she can get them for a buck or so. Then she and her huband go on vacations 6 or more times a year.
- Their leaders do not follow Christ's teaching to give up their worldly goods and their families to follow Him, but in fact they insist on marrying and having families of their own
How they reconcile the Bible teachings and their lifestyle totally escapes me.

They also declare themselves Patriots, but the founders of this country would be appalled by the ideas and their beliefs. This country was founded on the basis of liberty and freedom of choice.