function controlstrip_init() { if (! $('lj_controlstrip') ){ HTTPReq.getJSON({ url: "/quasimodal/__rpc_controlstrip?user=quasimodal", onData: function (data) { var body = document.getElementsByTagName("body")[0]; var div = document.createElement("div"); div.innerHTML = data; body.appendChild(div); }, onError: function (msg) { } }); } } DOM.addEventListener(window, "load", controlstrip_init); var Site; if (!Site) Site = {}; var site_p = {"media_embed_enabled": 1,"inbox_update_poll": 0,"has_remote": 0,"statprefix": "http://p-stat.livejournal.com","ctx_popup": 1,"imgprefix": "http://p-stat.livejournal.com/img","esn_async": 1,"currentJournal": "quasimodal","siteroot": "http://www.livejournal.com","currentJournalBase": "http://quasimodal.livejournal.com"}; var site_k = ["media_embed_enabled", "inbox_update_poll", "has_remote", "statprefix", "ctx_popup", "imgprefix", "esn_async", "currentJournal", "siteroot", "currentJournalBase"]; for (var i = 0; i < site_k.length; i++) { Site[site_k[i]] = site_p[site_k[i]]; } The Libertarian Snakebite Kit  You are viewing ![[info]](http://p-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif) quasimodal's journalLog in Create a LiveJournal Account Learn moreExplore LJ Culture Entertainment Life Music News & Politics Technology Interest Region Site & User FAQ Email IM Info The Libertarian Snakebite Kit (Latest 20 entries) (Calendar) (Friends) (User info)Navigate: (Previous 20 entries) Saturday, December 10, 2005 4:32PM - Bush the anti-patroitThe 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." Saturday, December 3, 2005 11:24AM - It's Kelo all over againIt's Kelo all over again. In this story "Rio Rancho: Raise the rooftops, and retailers and a stronger tax base might come" on the The Albuquerque Tribune Web site, you might want to note the text of the article starting at paragraph five, especially the quote by Steve Tollefson, a Rio Rancho strategic planner: "Redevelopment is the acquisition of property for the public good." Yeah, and government taking land for commercial development is "the public good?" Wow, does this guy, need reining in or what?Even Governor Bill Richardson, not exactly a champion of property rights, has said that such loopholes will be closed in the next legislative session (in New Mexico the legislature meets only 30 days in odd years, 60 days in even years). Let's just hope that I'll be retroactive. Wednesday, November 23, 2005 2:02AM - Impeachment is what?The righty pinhead that runs this blog says in the article Cheerleading For Impeachment "... to fan the sparks of L’Affair Plame into a media barnfire adequate to provide the basis to overthrow an elected president."Overthrow an elected president? Since when? And since when does his election absolve him from obeying the "law" and the Constitution? (And didn't he want to say bonfire instead of barnfire? Is it apparent just to me that most righties are stupid slavering fools who have little or no education.)Impeachment is, according to m-w.com, "to charge with a crime or misdemeanor; specifically: to charge (a public official) before a competent tribunal with misconduct in office"Overthrow is "to cause the downfall of". If Bush is impeached, he brought on the impeachment by his actions in office to substantially rig "intelligence" to cause the invasion of Iraq under false pretenses. And Cheney and the rest of the Texas cabal ought to be impeached (and jailed) also. It appears to me that Dicky boy the "War Pig" rigged the invasion to fatten his own pocket (and Halliburton's). He is one of the first high public officails in recent memory to refuse to allow his investments to be placed in a blind trust; he intentionally misstated his residence as Wyoming in order to run as vice-President. We're not even going to go deeply into Dicky's refusal to enroll in the armed forces during the Vietnam War, stating that he had other priorities, and hiding under his wife's skirts to do so. And what does he get out of it? A queer daughter. God works in mysterious ways. I can only hope that Romans 12:19 holds true. Thursday, September 29, 2005 4:03PM - Serenity, the movie starts tomorrowSee 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 reviewI 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. 3:42PM - Here go the neocons supporting Tommy DeLayIn 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.aspI 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. Sunday, September 25, 2005 2:23PM - Anti-patriots, get out!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. Friday, September 23, 2005 2:18PMThere'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. Monday, August 29, 2005 1:58PM - A Useful Limitation of Legislative PowerThe 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. Current mood:  devious Sunday, August 28, 2005 12:32AM - Musings about government (so-called public) schoolsThe 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"? Thursday, July 21, 2005 10:46PM - Another conservative assholeFrom 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. Monday, June 20, 2005 2:27PM - Scalia - Strict Constructionist? Bullshit!!In the article What Was Scalia Thinking?, Mark Moller starts out by saying The verdict in Gonzales v. Raich last week was a stunning victory for federal power, and it came with an unusual endorsement. The Court upheld Drug Enforcement Agency prosecution of sick women who use medical marijuana to treat symptoms of their illnesses. Siding with the DEA, six justices held that the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution (which gives the federal government the power to "regulate Commerce...among the several States") allows Washington, D.C. to regulate purely local conduct when that activity is targeted as part of a "comprehensive" scheme of regulations. The Court held that it's irrelevant if the regulated activity is confined to just one state.Later Moller states First, background. Scalia came to the bench predisposed to look out for the interests of "comprehensive" federal regulatory programs, like the DEA's. He served as the head of the Department of Justice's prestigious Office of Legal Counsel (OLC), which advises agencies about the scope of their powers. His time there plainly had an impact on him: Today, he is known to hire clerks who have spent time working at OLC. Scalia's approach to administrative agencies—his belief in giving them a lot of leeway (in legalese, "deference") when they apply law to fact—is consistent with the institutional outlook of a former executive branch lawyer.He then cautions the reader to not consider the scumbag a executive branch stooge, and then begins to state his reasons for claiming this. Scalia's basic philosophy of judging is one of judicial restraint achieved by deciding cases, where possible, according to clear "rules" rather than vague standards. "When," he says, "I adopt a general rule, and say, 'This is the basis for our decision,' I not only constrain lower courts, I constrain myself as well. If the next case should have such different facts that my...preferences regarding the outcome are quite the opposite, I will be unable to indulge those preferences; I have committed myself to the governing principle." Thus, he writes, good judges should read the Constitution in a way that constrains future courts to a mechanical menu of decisions. This means to me that Scalia's incapable of admitting a mistake, and in this case, once he makes a extraordinarily unconstitutional decision, he's incapable of correcting himself. Scalia's almost as full of himself as Bork was/is, and both seem to be sociopaths, and as such, are not fit to be on the bench, any place where these deranged individuals might make judgments. Friday, June 10, 2005 12:34AMHere'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 sourceOther 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. 12:11AM - Military "service" as a religious experienceThis 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. Current mood:  amused Tuesday, June 7, 2005 9:06PM - Murders for JesusIt states in the article State Sanctified Murder:Christians who volunteer for the military and their pastors who encourage them are basically saying that killing someone you don’t know and may never have seen, in his own territory, is not murder (and therefore is not prohibited by the sixth commandment) if the U.S. government says that he should be killed.State sanctified murder.As a Bible-believing Christian, I reject this ghastly statolatry, and for two reasons: * "Thou shalt have no other gods before me" (Exodus 20:3). * "We ought to obey God rather than men" (Acts 5:29).It doesn’t take a Ph.D. in theology or even a Bible-college education to see that killing someone for the state in an aggressive, unconstitutional, non-defensive, foreign war is immoral. Killing someone for the state can be murder for the simple reason that the state can sanctify nothing. It is the state itself that needs sanctification. The state is the greatest killing machine in history. The twentieth century was the bloodiest century in human history precisely because of state aggression.Even though I also feel this is the case, demagogues on the right assert that God (and Jesus Christ) allow and in fact encourage such perversions. Monday, April 4, 2005 8:24PM - Re: Re: Greatest threat to American freedom today is religious right"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. 7:17PM - Why do you think your liberties are safer working with GOP than with Dems?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.htmI'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. 4:41PM - Just another neo-fascist ramblingIn 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. Saturday, February 19, 2005 2:14PM - up yours, "libertarian leaning" ReptileI 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". Tuesday, February 15, 2005 7:51PM - Bush Voters as Belly Crawling CowardsThere's a great article on Defeating the Republican Police State Mandate by Sergei Borglum Hoff. In the following quotes, substitute "Bush voter" for "Republicans", because it's my opinion that a large number of non-Republicans have the same warped notions that Republicans have.Tragically for this nation and probably the entire world, the President was certainly not reelected because of confidence. Alas, confidence—unrecognizable in Republicans today—was not the governing factor in his reelection. The observable causes of his victory were 'Party' loyalty, widespread renunciation of our founding principles, fear of personal responsibility and the potential hazards of liberty, and a willingness to be oppressed by one who they perceive as their own [Christian?].However, a few Republicans did provide reasons for their votes. The reasons given were the defense of Second Amendment rights and the restoration of family values. While others reasoned that George Bush is less evil than John Kerry.Later he goes on to state:...let the Republicans contemplate what they have sacrificed for their ill-fated victory. Instead of patriotically considering the elections as a means to return liberty, honor, integrity, and justice to our nation, they irresponsibly and immorally wasted their votes. Indeed, the Republicans handed George Bush what he has been striving for from the beginning; perpetual warfare and a police state mandate. The Republican Party has become the vanguard of degenerative Socialism, and further provided safe harbor for a tyrant.The Republicans have forgotten that while adopting the fundamentals for the creation of this nation, the Founding Fathers did not guarantee our education, health, prosperity, retirement, comfort, or personal safety. Wisely, as the predominant founding principle they instead guaranteed our liberty, which holds far greater potentials for the dignity and advancement of mankind.Out of ignorance, 'Party' loyalty, or fear, the Republicans are willing to submit, and give George Bush more control over their personal and professional lives. Bread, along with the well-deserved performing end of a circus will be their only rewards for submission. Will it really make any difference to these 'Party' loyalist whether their freedoms have been stolen by Communists, the United Nations, Democrats, or a fellow Republican?Defeating the Republican police state mandate will require courage and confidence in the founding principles of our nation. Saturday, February 12, 2005 3:09PM - Comment on pro_patriot communityme: why don't you just call this community right-wing fascists?culturalbaggage: because we're not into contradictions. fascism is left wing. and unwelcome here.me: Sorry, fascism is right-wing phenomenon. At least get your story straight.Fascism and nonfascist conservatisms: Collaboration and crossoverIn the Encyclopedia Britannica, they list 23 characteristics of fascist movements, here are some:- Opposition to Marxism - Opposition to political and cultural liberalism- Totalitarian ambitions (reptiles claim that they demolished the democraps, and that there'll be one-party rule for a long time)- Conservative economic programs- Corporatism- Imperialism - Military values- Identification with Christianity- Violence - Extreme nationalism - ScapegoatingKind of sounds like this community and the republican party, if you ask me (not that you care about contradictions, or anyone else's opinion that might interfere with your single-mindedness). Navigate: (Previous 20 entries) if (SnapShots) { SnapShots.init('livejournal.com', 'livejournal.ru');} |
|
