Discussion:
A New Question for Randtards, Looneytarians and Other Rightards
(too old to reply)
Bret Cahill
2008-03-04 21:15:36 UTC
Permalink
"Does the laying of the foundation of a house precede the roofing of
said house?"

Wait! Wait! Don't tell me!

In order to answer the question rightards will need my definition of
"foundation" and "house" and "precede" and "roof."


Bret Cahill
Michael Gordge
2008-03-04 21:56:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bret Cahill
In order to answer the question rightards will need my definition of
"foundation" and "house" and "precede" and "roof."
Bret Cahill
Notice how in typical leftist fashion, anything Bwet gets for free he
fucks up abuses and wastes? speech


MG
phil scott
2008-03-04 22:19:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bret Cahill
"Does the laying of the foundation of a house precede the roofing of
said house?"
Wait!  Wait!  Don't tell me!
In order to answer the question rightards will need my definition of
"foundation" and "house" and "precede" and "roof."
Bret Cahill
ok ok ok..... MIster Cahill..... I see you have NOT been in the
engineering business..... there we *always produce the calculations
and design first....40 pages of drawings....... then...we glance at
what the issues might be, maybe.... sometimes we just send it out for
construction.

thats exciting.

Thats because you have to know what your GOAL is first... see? GET IT
CONSTRUCTED. If you need a roof over your head you do it FIRST....
dont you know about priorities?


same with bagdad.


shock and awe.... that was hot.
now they love us over there...andi its stabillzed oil prices and the
US economy.


same with those dead beat home owners, just attach their wages.....
or..... you could send em 600 bucks.

there are no shortage of solutions.... only idiots make life complex.










Phil scott
Bret Cahill
2008-03-05 22:50:33 UTC
Permalink
A Randroid dolt got the answer correct below.


Bret Cahill
Shrikeback
2008-03-04 22:30:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bret Cahill
"Does the laying of the foundation of a house precede the roofing of
said house?"
Of course not, and that's why free trade must precede each
and every instance of free speech. You can't color your
picture of W with a Hitler moustache without buying some
organic leaded crayons from the gulags of the People's
Republic.

None of the Shrilltankers at Daily Kos, Move On,
or the People's Kool-Aid Temple can answer this one
without cutting it out of their reply:

"Does free trade precede each and every discrete
free speech event?"
chazwin
2008-03-05 11:22:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Shrikeback
Post by Bret Cahill
"Does the laying of the foundation of a house precede the roofing of
said house?"
Of course not, and that's why free trade must precede each
and every instance of free speech.
These people offer the same mantras taken from the Holy books of Rand.
They think that the longer they say them the more convincing they
appear. Just like the religious who think that it is nobel to believe
without evidence, they go on to think that such a quality is a kind of
evidence in itslef: that the possiblity that their belief holds up
against evidence makes it more likely to be true. This is like an self
justifying circle, but it is an ever decreasing circle do their own
desperation.
Shrikeback
2008-03-06 01:10:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by chazwin
Post by Shrikeback
Post by Bret Cahill
"Does the laying of the foundation of a house precede the roofing of
said house?"
Of course not, and that's why free trade must precede each
and every instance of free speech.
These people offer the same mantras taken from the Holy books of Rand.
Rand's books are holey because it's so easy to shoot holes in
them.
Post by chazwin
They think that the longer they say them the more convincing they
appear. Just like the religious who think that it is nobel to believe
without evidence,
Remember when the Corporations were brainwashing smelly leftard
hippies to believe in Asstrology? "It is the dawning of the Age of
Aquariums. He's a pisces, probably working for scale." It's the
same old fundamentalist thinking. Meet the new boss, same as
the old boss. My Sweet Lord, Hare Krishna.
Post by chazwin
they go on to think that such a quality is a kind of
evidence in itslef: that the possiblity that their belief holds up
against evidence makes it more likely to be true.
But the issue is that the evidence is in. The jury is in. Case
closed.

Free trade precedes each and every free speech.

Even the Greenolas don't disagree, because they can't
come up with a single counterexample. It's a self-evident
truth.
Post by chazwin
This is like an self
justifying circle, but it is an ever decreasing circle do their own
desperation.
The only ones who are going in circles are the Greenolas,
shouting "repent, repent of thy capitalism, for the end is
nigh. The sky, it falleth. Yea, verily." You'd think the
LSD market had dried up.
chazwin
2008-03-06 18:26:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Shrikeback
Post by chazwin
Post by Shrikeback
Post by Bret Cahill
"Does the laying of the foundation of a house precede the roofing of
said house?"
Of course not, and that's why free trade must precede each
and every instance of free speech.
These people offer the same mantras taken from the Holy books of Rand.
Rand's books are holey because it's so easy to shoot holes in
them.
Post by chazwin
They think that the longer they say them the more convincing they
appear. Just like the religious who think that it is nobel to believe
without evidence,
Remember when the Corporations were brainwashing smelly leftard
hippies to believe in Asstrology?  "It is the dawning of the Age of
Aquariums.  He's a pisces, probably working for scale."  It's the
same old fundamentalist thinking.  Meet the new boss, same as
the old boss.  My Sweet Lord, Hare Krishna.
Post by chazwin
they go on to think that such a quality is a kind of
evidence in itslef: that the possiblity that their belief holds up
against evidence makes it more likely to be true.
But the issue is that the evidence is in.  The jury is in.  Case
closed.
Free trade precedes each and every free speech.
Even the Greenolas don't disagree, because they can't
come up with a single counterexample.  It's a self-evident
truth.
Post by chazwin
This is like an self
justifying circle, but it is an ever decreasing circle do their own
desperation.
The only ones who are going in circles are the Greenolas,
shouting "repent, repent of thy capitalism, for the end is
nigh.  The sky, it falleth.  Yea, verily."  You'd think the
LSD market had dried up.
Human speech began before the concept of trade was born. Case closed.
Shrikeback
2008-03-06 19:49:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by chazwin
Post by Shrikeback
The only ones who are going in circles are the Greenolas,
shouting "repent, repent of thy capitalism, for the end is
nigh. The sky, it falleth. Yea, verily." You'd think the
LSD market had dried up.
Human speech began before the concept of trade was born. Case closed.
We aren't talking about the birth of the _concept_ of
trade. We're talking about the actuality of trade.

Primates were doing the, "I'll scratch your flea bites,
if you scratch mine," thing long before they could
say that in words. In fact, the dinosaurs were
busy trading bodily fluids freely in their day. May
they rest in peace.

Going back even further, back to when the Big Bang
was still fresh in everyone's minds, the first free exchange
of electrons between atoms occurred.

Now, unless you're prepared to postulate some
deity who said, "let there be light," before the first
exchange of electrons between two atoms occurred,
you'll have to admit that exchange precedes speech
by billions of years.
r***@outgun.com
2008-03-07 13:24:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Shrikeback
Post by chazwin
Post by Shrikeback
The only ones who are going in circles are the Greenolas,
shouting "repent, repent of thy capitalism, for the end is
nigh. The sky, it falleth. Yea, verily." You'd think the
LSD market had dried up.
Human speech began before the concept of trade was born. Case closed.
We aren't talking about the birth of the _concept_ of
trade.  We're talking about the actuality of trade.
Primates were doing the, "I'll scratch your flea bites,
if you scratch mine," thing long before they could
say that in words.  In fact, the dinosaurs were
busy trading bodily fluids freely in their day.  May
they rest in peace.
Going back even further, back to when the Big Bang
was still fresh in everyone's minds, the first free exchange
of electrons between atoms occurred.
Now, unless you're prepared to postulate some
deity who said, "let there be light," before the first
exchange of electrons between two atoms occurred,
you'll have to admit that exchange precedes speech
by billions of years.
I hope you realize that what you posted is just one giant equivocation
on the word "trade".

When one speaks of "free trade", they're generally speaking of
economic agents buying and selling goods and services unimpeded by
government regulation, not atoms trading electrons.

If you want to defend free trade in the economic sense, then do it by
making an intelligent argument centered around concepts like
preference ordering and comparative advantage, not by making
meaningless statements like "every act of free speech is preceded by
free trade".
Fred Weiss
2008-03-07 15:15:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by r***@outgun.com
Post by Shrikeback
Now, unless you're prepared to postulate some
deity who said, "let there be light," before the first
exchange of electrons between two atoms occurred,
you'll have to admit that exchange precedes speech
by billions of years.
I hope you realize that what you posted is just one giant equivocation
on the word "trade".
Apparently you don't realize that he's being satirical - ridiculing
moonbat Brat and his incoherent mantra "does free speech precede each
and every free trade".

The equivocation here is entirely Brat's as a number of us having been
pointing out for a very long time now. Actually, Brat is even now
admitting his own equivocation in claiming that one can define one's
terms any way one wishes.

Fred Weiss
Malrassic Park
2008-03-07 17:14:43 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 7 Mar 2008 07:15:20 -0800 (PST), Fred Weiss
Post by Fred Weiss
Post by r***@outgun.com
Post by Shrikeback
Now, unless you're prepared to postulate some
deity who said, "let there be light," before the first
exchange of electrons between two atoms occurred,
you'll have to admit that exchange precedes speech
by billions of years.
I hope you realize that what you posted is just one giant equivocation
on the word "trade".
Apparently you don't realize that he's being satirical - ridiculing
moonbat Brat and his incoherent mantra "does free speech precede each
and every free trade".
That is the funniest thread title I have seen in a long time.

Of course political freedom (free speech, 1st amendment) "precedes" or
is the condition of economic freedom.
Post by Fred Weiss
The equivocation here is entirely Brat's as a number of us having been
pointing out for a very long time now. Actually, Brat is even now
admitting his own equivocation in claiming that one can define one's
terms any way one wishes.
Fred Weiss
--
We usually go over the top w/ our new found freedoms.
Unfortunately, her 'followers' are as radical as Pat
Robertson's. Discernment goes out the window.
- A youtube poster
Fred Weiss
2008-03-07 19:36:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Malrassic Park
Of course political freedom (free speech, 1st amendment) "precedes" or
is the condition of economic freedom.
That's true - and vice versa

But that's obviously not what Brat is saying. If he were, he would
just say it in that straightforward way and no "market economist"
would disagree. Instead he thinks he's playing "gotcha" but which he
achieves only by obfuscation...and equivocation.

He obviously has no interest in free trade - and certainly no real
interest in free speech. Quite the opposite.

Fred Weiss
Ynot B. Dull
2008-03-07 23:44:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Fred Weiss
Post by Malrassic Park
Of course political freedom (free speech, 1st amendment) "precedes" or
is the condition of economic freedom.
That's true - and vice versa
No it is not a vice-versa situation.

Free trade/economic freedom is not necessary to precede free speech.

That that is true, is clearly proven in the fall of the USSR, and the fall
of the Berlin Wall in particular.

And if you opened up a history book, you might also notice that it was a
lack of "economic freedoms" that generated the Declaration of Independence
in 1776.
Post by Fred Weiss
But that's obviously not what Brat is saying. If he were, he would
just say it in that straightforward way and no "market economist"
would disagree. Instead he thinks he's playing "gotcha" but which he
achieves only by obfuscation...and equivocation.
He obviously has no interest in free trade - and certainly no real
interest in free speech. Quite the opposite.
Fred Weiss
LOL even when it is "spelled out" you still can't understand or guage the
ramifications of what is being stated.

So if you are a "market economist" then why do you not answer the question
in the "affirmative" ???

What are you afraid of by saying : YES, free speech MUST precede each and
every free trade, or it is NOT a free trade!
Fred Weiss
2008-03-08 02:42:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ynot B. Dull
Post by Fred Weiss
Post by Malrassic Park
Of course political freedom (free speech, 1st amendment) "precedes" or
is the condition of economic freedom.
That's true - and vice versa
No it is not a vice-versa situation.
Free trade/economic freedom is not necessary to precede free speech.
That that is true, is clearly proven in the fall of the USSR, and the fall
of the Berlin Wall in particular.
And if you opened up a history book, you might also notice that it was a
lack of "economic freedoms" that generated the Declaration of Independence
in 1776.
Historically, that's true. But without free markets, free speech will
not last long. It is noticeable today that along with increasing
constraints on markets and calls for more, that free speech is also
being restricted and increasingly attacked.

A clear example is the gov'ts claim to ownership of the airways and
the constraints it imposes on free speech. It is far less in the
considerably more free-wheeling world of cable/satellite and virtually
non-existent on the Internet. Altho note that in countries which have
far more regulated markets than we do, there is more control even over
the Internet there as well - even in Western countries, but it is
certainly blatant elsewhere.

Note the connection between free markets and free speech in Cuba:

http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/03/06/america/06cuba.php

However, you are correct that before free markets have a chance in
Cuba they first must have free speech.

However, none of this has anything to do with Brat since he has no
grasp of either genuine free speech or free markets.

Fred Weiss
Ynot B. Dull
2008-03-08 04:00:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Fred Weiss
Post by Ynot B. Dull
Post by Fred Weiss
Post by Malrassic Park
Of course political freedom (free speech, 1st amendment) "precedes" or
is the condition of economic freedom.
That's true - and vice versa
No it is not a vice-versa situation.
Free trade/economic freedom is not necessary to precede free speech.
That that is true, is clearly proven in the fall of the USSR, and the fall
of the Berlin Wall in particular.
And if you opened up a history book, you might also notice that it was a
lack of "economic freedoms" that generated the Declaration of
Independence
in 1776.
Historically, that's true.
Yes, then it's true. Nothing can or will change that.
Post by Fred Weiss
But without free markets, free speech will
not last long. It is noticeable today that along with increasing
constraints on markets and calls for more, that free speech is also
being restricted and increasingly attacked.
A clear example is the gov'ts claim to ownership of the airways and
the constraints it imposes on free speech.
Be specific, do you mean Russia today? Or the USA, or what?
Post by Fred Weiss
It is far less in the
considerably more free-wheeling world of cable/satellite and virtually
non-existent on the Internet. Altho note that in countries which have
far more regulated markets than we do, there is more control even over
the Internet there as well - even in Western countries, but it is
certainly blatant elsewhere.
Examples such as China and Burma over the Internet and other press/speech
matters has nothing to do with their "regulated markets" as such. It's
political control , pure and simple.

As to other "western countries" I have no idea what you're talking about
regarding free speech being curtailed in markets that are more regulated
than anywhere else.
Post by Fred Weiss
http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/03/06/america/06cuba.php
However, you are correct that before free markets have a chance in
Cuba they first must have free speech.
Then, what Brett is saying, and has been saying is also true.

Why you argue such a simple point when you are in agreement with his simple
notion is a mystery. You can disagree on other matters but why disagree on
something you agree with?

If however your counter point is valid, then the abondaning of the trade
embargo on Cuba, which is NOT free trade at present will open the gateway to
free speech there, so I'm wondering why do you support any kind of trade
embargo or controls over a "free market"?

If free trade was available in Cuba, many more people could enjoy a cuban
cigar, and more cubans would have some $$$ to get online and expand "free
speech".

I wonder why the fluidity of your and others principles into situational
expediency.

Either free trade, and open markets are good for all [irrepsective of their
current politcal situation on the ground], or they are not.
Post by Fred Weiss
However, none of this has anything to do with Brat since he has no
grasp of either genuine free speech or free markets.
Fred Weiss
That's an opinion not supported by the evidence, but it's a free speech
environment, so even if what you say doesn't make any logical or rational
sense, you're free to hold to your opinions nevertheless.
Bret Cahill
2008-03-08 06:06:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ynot B. Dull
Post by Fred Weiss
However, you are correct that before free markets have a chance in
Cuba they first must have free speech.
Then, what Brett is saying, and has been saying is also true.
It's true on the micro as well as macro level. In fact the micro
version is a self evident truth:

Free speech _must_ precede each and every free trade.

Rand was mostly discussing the macro I believe.
Post by Ynot B. Dull
Why you argue such a simple point when you are in agreement with his simple
notion is a mystery. You can disagree on other matters but why disagree on
something you agree with?
He probably suspects that the simple point is just the tip of some
huge [seemingly] omnious iceberg.

In that case his suspicions have some basis. The reason I can offer
$200 for an answer from the outspoken "market" economists at the
Hoover Inst., the Heritage Foundation, the American Enterprise Inst.,
the Chicago School, Cato, von Mises Inst. is because I already know
every last "market" economist from those "think tanks" has already
seen The Question and every last one knows he'll get fired pronto if
he touches it in any way shape or form.

If any GOP economist admits to the self evident truth he knows it'll
end up in a U. S. Supreme Court petition concerning trillions a year
in productivity and he'll soon be looking for work in the productive
sector.

If he denies the self evident truth he knows he'll just draw attention
to the truth as well as look ridiculous and he'll soon be looking for
work in the productive sector

The only thing left is to pretend no one ever asked the question so
that's what they do. But acting dumb or ignorant isn't the smartest
option for a scholarly expert either. GOP politicians have already
abandoned free market rhetoric in favor of jingoism which is the real
reason for the Iraq quagmire.
Post by Ynot B. Dull
If however your counter point is valid, then the abondaning of the trade
embargo on Cuba, which is NOT free trade at present will open the gateway to
free speech there, so I'm wondering why do you support any kind of trade
embargo or controls over a "free market"?
It's not clear he does. Cuba policy is a legacy of the Cold War
bedfellowed with the hot headed Cuban exile community.

Some here haven't updated their boilerplate since the 1980s.
Post by Ynot B. Dull
If free trade was available in Cuba, many more people could enjoy a cuban
cigar, and more cubans would have some $$$ to get online and expand "free
speech".
Miami Cubans want above all else to "send Fidel a message" which
shouldn't be surprising because they never gave a rat's ass about the
Cuban people _before_ Castro.

In the meantime Fidel Castro lives like a king so the one and only
goal of the embargo is a failure. As Jay Leno said after Castro
resigned after FIFTY (50) YEARS, "hey, the embargo worked!"
Post by Ynot B. Dull
I wonder why the fluidity of your and others principles into situational
expediency.
Either free trade, and open markets are good for all [irrepsective of their
current politcal situation on the ground], or they are not.
GOP "market" economists have to do some pretty fancy footwork on some
issues.
Post by Ynot B. Dull
Post by Fred Weiss
However, none of this has anything to do with Brat since he has no
grasp of either genuine free speech or free markets.
Fred Weiss
That's an opinion not supported by the evidence, but it's a free speech
environment, so even if what you say doesn't make any logical or rational
sense, you're free to hold to your opinions nevertheless.
By constantly looking for a way around The Question he's been
priceless.


Bret Cahill
PeterBP
2008-03-09 11:19:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ynot B. Dull
Post by Fred Weiss
However, none of this has anything to do with Brat since he has no
grasp of either genuine free speech or free markets.
Fred Weiss
That's an opinion not supported by the evidence, but it's a free speech
environment, so even if what you say doesn't make any logical or rational
sense, you're free to hold to your opinions nevertheless.
It's odd that this accusation is directed at Fred and not at Bret. One
can wonder...
--
regards , Peter B. P. http://macplanet.dk
Washington D.C.: District of Criminals

"I dont drink anymore... of course, i don't drink any less, either!
Fred Weiss
2008-03-09 14:41:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ynot B. Dull
Post by Fred Weiss
However, you are correct that before free markets have a chance in
Cuba they first must have free speech.
Then, what Brett is saying, and has been saying is also true.
That has nothing to do with what Brat has been saying. He has no
interest in actual free speech or free trade. It's a scam. He's
admitted as much. Read his posts. He has advocated "leveling wealth"
for example, even to the extent of guillotining the rich. If that is
an exercise of free speech or free trade, then so was the Nazis
extermination of the Jews and the confiscation of their property.
Post by Ynot B. Dull
If however your counter point is valid, then the abondaning of the trade
embargo on Cuba, which is NOT free trade at present will open the gateway to
free speech there, so I'm wondering why do you support any kind of trade
embargo or controls over a "free market"?
There is no evidence I am aware of causally linking trading with
dictatorships and the advancing of freedom in those countries. In fact
the evidence suggests the opposite, that trading with them promotes
their longevity and legitimizes the regimes.

Our efforts should be directed at toppling them, not bolstering them.
Post by Ynot B. Dull
If free trade was available in Cuba, many more people could enjoy a cuban
cigar, and more cubans would have some $$$ to get online and expand "free
speech".
You should have told that to Castro who squelched even the most modest
attempts at free markets in Cuba. To advocate trading with Cuba while
at the same time not demanding the opening of free markets within Cuba
is blatantly hypocritical. Leftists only advocate trading with Cuba -
as they did previously with other communist dictatorships - because
they know it cannot survive without that support from capitalism.

But the impoverishment of Cuba is a direct result of the crushing of
capitalism *within* the country. It had little to do with our embargo
(which in any case was ignored by most other countries including many
of our purported allies). The trade Cuba had with Mexico, Canada,
other Latin American countries, etc. didn't seem to help it very much
economically. The reason is that with the crushing of capitalism
within the country, Cuba had little to trade.

Cuba has survived - barely - without famine (in contrast with N.
Korea) through tourism and handouts from Cuban-Americans to their
Cuban relatives. Even with that it still rations food - and that even
with American food exports to Cuba which are permitted.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationing_in_Cuba

Fred Weiss
Bret Cahill
2008-03-09 17:04:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Fred Weiss
Post by Ynot B. Dull
Post by Fred Weiss
However, you are correct that before free markets have a chance in
Cuba they first must have free speech.
Then, what Brett is saying, and has been saying is also true.
That has nothing to do with what Brat has been saying.
That's exactly what I've been saying. Free speech precedes free
marketry.

Rand understood the macro but I can go further:

Free speech precedes each and every free trade.
Post by Fred Weiss
He has no
interest in actual free speech or free trade.
Then why would I be bringing it up all the time?

Why would I be touting financiers like free market experts like Buffet
and Soros as levelers of wealth?
Post by Fred Weiss
It's a scam.
It's easy to identify the scammers who aren't interested in free
speech or free markets.

They are the outspoken market economists at the Hoover Inst., Heritage
Foundation, American Enterprise Inst., the Chicago School, von Mises
who are too disreputable to answer a simple question about free
markets and free speech:

"Does free speech precede each and every free trade?"

I'm not the one discrediting them.

They discredit themselves by dodging a question basic to their own
field.
Post by Fred Weiss
He's
admitted as much.
Where?

Remember, no dodgin' 'n dodgin'.
Post by Fred Weiss
Read his posts. He has advocated "leveling wealth"
With free speech.
Post by Fred Weiss
for example, even to the extent of guillotining the rich.
As a loyal patriotic American, I must pay homage to Jefferson.

But in reality, I don't think it's really necessary anymore.

. . .
Post by Fred Weiss
Our efforts should be directed at toppling them, not bolstering them.
As Leno pointed out, "Castro resigned after 50 years! THE EMBARGO
WORKED!"
Post by Fred Weiss
Post by Ynot B. Dull
If free trade was available in Cuba, many more people could enjoy a cuban
cigar, and more cubans would have some $$$ to get online and expand "free
speech".
You should have told that to Castro who squelched even the most modest
attempts at free markets in Cuba. To advocate trading with Cuba while
at the same time not demanding the opening of free markets within Cuba
is blatantly hypocritical.
Not nearly as hypocritical as not trading at all.

After all, when you trade with some entity, say, Walmart, do you
demand they do everything you want that's not directly related to that
purchase?

Trading with the USSR helped topple Soviet style communism.

Not that I personally think having Putin as a Czar is much better but
all of your rightard economists seem to be happy.


Bret Cahill
Shrikeback
2008-03-09 19:38:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bret Cahill
Post by Fred Weiss
Post by Ynot B. Dull
Post by Fred Weiss
However, you are correct that before free markets have a chance in
Cuba they first must have free speech.
Then, what Brett is saying, and has been saying is also true.
That has nothing to do with what Brat has been saying.
That's exactly what I've been saying. Free speech precedes free
marketry.
Actually, there would be no free speech in Cuba
without independent media. State-sponsored
speech is not free. Perhaps the state will tolerate
new openness, but such speech is not free, it is
merely tolerated. Glaznost and perestroika were
introduced simultaneously. Competitive speech
is a pre-requisite of free speech.
Post by Bret Cahill
Free speech precedes each and every free trade.
Actually, you mean free trade precedes each and
every free speech. Speech that is at the whim of the
monopoly state is not free.
Post by Bret Cahill
Post by Fred Weiss
He has no
interest in actual free speech or free trade.
Then why would I be bringing it up all the time?
Why would I be touting financiers like free market experts like Buffet
and Soros as levelers of wealth?
Because you are a Seeker. A Seeker need never
feel lonely, because there's a Seeker born every minute.
Post by Bret Cahill
Post by Fred Weiss
It's a scam.
It's easy to identify the scammers who aren't interested in free
speech or free markets.
Yes, it is. They say things like:

"Oiling my gun at the adult bookstore during a nekkid nazi parade."

"Tax cut recession."

"Robber baron corp-whore media not giving a tinkers cuss
for a graffito artist like myself."

and...

"They are the outspoken market economists at the Hoover Inst., Heritage
Foundation, American Enterprise Inst., the Chicago School, von Mises
who are too disreputable to answer a simple question about free
Post by Bret Cahill
"Does free speech precede each and every free trade?"
I'm not the one discrediting them.
That's for damn sure.
Post by Bret Cahill
They discredit themselves by dodging a question basic to their own
field.
The only people discrediting themselves are the smelly
greenolas babbling nonsensically about "Global warming
will kill us all, the Republicans are to blame."
Post by Bret Cahill
Post by Fred Weiss
He's
admitted as much.
Where?
Look up.
Post by Bret Cahill
Remember, no dodgin' 'n dodgin'.
Look down. Look all around.
Post by Bret Cahill
Post by Fred Weiss
Read his posts. He has advocated "leveling wealth"
With free speech.
It takes some mighty bad breath to level anything.
Perhaps one of those microwave death rays will
be required for back up.
Post by Bret Cahill
Post by Fred Weiss
for example, even to the extent of guillotining the rich.
As a loyal patriotic American, I must pay homage to Jefferson.
So you'd cut Jefferson's head off for being a rich capitalist?
Post by Bret Cahill
But in reality, I don't think it's really necessary anymore.
Yes, he's already dead. And right now he's turning over in
his grave when you mention his name, so the black lady is
on top.
Post by Bret Cahill
Post by Fred Weiss
Our efforts should be directed at toppling them, not bolstering them.
As Leno pointed out, "Castro resigned after 50 years! THE EMBARGO
WORKED!"
Post by Fred Weiss
Post by Ynot B. Dull
If free trade was available in Cuba, many more people could enjoy a cuban
cigar, and more cubans would have some $$$ to get online and expand "free
speech".
You should have told that to Castro who squelched even the most modest
attempts at free markets in Cuba. To advocate trading with Cuba while
at the same time not demanding the opening of free markets within Cuba
is blatantly hypocritical.
Not nearly as hypocritical as not trading at all.
The real hypocrisy is this:

we trade with the PRC and Saudi Arabia, both of which
are just as repressive as Cuba.
Post by Bret Cahill
After all, when you trade with some entity, say, Walmart, do you
demand they do everything you want that's not directly related to that
purchase?
Trading with the USSR helped topple Soviet style communism.
No it didn't. Competing with the USSR is what helped topple
Georgism.
Post by Bret Cahill
Not that I personally think having Putin as a Czar is much better but
all of your rightard economists seem to be happy.
At least he's not liquidating the kulaks. Improvement is
improvement. And at least the PRC isn't slaughtering
millions. Down to 15,000 executions a year: that's progress.
Bret Cahill
2008-03-09 19:48:57 UTC
Permalink
Did the NRA git another Hollywood actor to dupe them home 'n hearthers
out of their money?

I like the way that Hollywood actor would hiss, "out of my cold dead
hands" just like in an exciting Hollywood action movie.

Them nutters just went wild.

The NRA better git themselves another Hollywood actor.


Bret Cahill
Fred Weiss
2008-03-09 21:55:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bret Cahill
Post by Fred Weiss
He has no
interest in actual free speech or free trade.
Then why would I be bringing it up all the time?
Because like irrationalists need the sanction of reason in order to
justify their irrationality (see Kant for example), so socialists need
the sanction (and language) of freedom to justify their tyranny, i.e.
doublespeak.
Post by Bret Cahill
Why would I be touting financiers like free market experts like Buffet
and Soros as levelers of wealth?
Because they are socialists? You might as well tout Armand Hammer who
was a supporter and apologist for the Soviet Union. Marx to the
contrary notwithstanding, one's class does not determine one's
thought. It is possible to be a rich socialist and a poor pro-
capitalist.
Post by Bret Cahill
Post by Fred Weiss
It's a scam.
It's easy to identify the scammers who aren't interested in free
speech or free markets.
You being one of the more obvious examples.
Post by Bret Cahill
Post by Fred Weiss
Read his posts. He has advocated "leveling wealth"
With free speech.
Not of those whose wealth you are looting. To any extent that you
confiscate wealth, you reduce that person's ability to have his voice
heard.

You might as well say that Castro doesn't prevent people from leaving
Cuba. They can swim, can't they?
Post by Bret Cahill
Post by Fred Weiss
You should have told that to Castro who squelched even the most modest
attempts at free markets in Cuba. To advocate trading with Cuba while
at the same time not demanding the opening of free markets within Cuba
is blatantly hypocritical.
Not nearly as hypocritical as not trading at all.
Not nearly as hypocritical as trading with one's enemies.
Post by Bret Cahill
After all, when you trade with some entity, say, Walmart, do you
demand they do everything you want that's not directly related to that
purchase?
Walmart by itself doesn't determine American foreign policy and,
further, as typical of you, you are erecting a strawman. The issue has
nothing to do with demanding that someone "do everything you want".
Post by Bret Cahill
Trading with the USSR helped topple Soviet style communism.
That would be hard to prove. I'm far more inclined to think that it
extended its longevity, possibly by a great deal. It would be
interesting to speculate if they would have even survived WWll had we
not provided them with massive aid.

Fred Weiss
B***@peoplepc.com
2008-03-10 03:11:58 UTC
Permalink
We traded with Communist China which was such a rip roaring success
story they will overtake the U. S. economy in 20 years.

Why not Cuba?


Bret Cahill
Ynot B. Happie
2008-03-10 05:59:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by B***@peoplepc.com
We traded with Communist China which was such a rip roaring success
story they will overtake the U. S. economy in 20 years.
Why not Cuba?
Bret Cahill
World wide 60 year Blockade by America maybe?? :)
Shrikeback
2008-03-11 03:42:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by B***@peoplepc.com
We traded with Communist China which was such a rip roaring success
story they will overtake the U. S. economy in 20 years.
Overtake the U. S. economy in CO2 output is what you mean.
Good. The Greenolas can go protest at Tianneman Square.
Post by B***@peoplepc.com
Why not Cuba?
Bret Cahill
Ynot B. Wiser
2008-03-10 01:03:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Fred Weiss
Post by Ynot B. Dull
Post by Fred Weiss
However, you are correct that before free markets have a chance in
Cuba they first must have free speech.
Then, what Brett is saying, and has been saying is also true.
That has nothing to do with what Brat has been saying.
well i think it does. maybe you're missing something?

He has no
Post by Fred Weiss
interest in actual free speech or free trade. It's a scam. He's
admitted as much. Read his posts. He has advocated "leveling wealth"
for example, even to the extent of guillotining the rich. If that is
an exercise of free speech or free trade, then so was the Nazis
extermination of the Jews and the confiscation of their property.
It's a newsgroup .... you are not the only one to apply extreme humour and
silliness.
Post by Fred Weiss
Post by Ynot B. Dull
If however your counter point is valid, then the abondaning of the trade
embargo on Cuba, which is NOT free trade at present will open the gateway to
free speech there, so I'm wondering why do you support any kind of trade
embargo or controls over a "free market"?
There is no evidence I am aware of causally linking trading with
dictatorships and the advancing of freedom in those countries. In fact
the evidence suggests the opposite, that trading with them promotes
their longevity and legitimizes the regimes.
Well Cuba, Nth Korea, and Iran are definitely NOT an example that supports
such a notion. With 60 years of history for two, and 30 years for the
latter, one would think it clearly shows your theory is unfounded.
Post by Fred Weiss
Our efforts should be directed at toppling them, not bolstering them.
Weren't you the one who has often advocated "free markets" as being the
underpinning of democratic freedoms, and the wedge that undermines over
controlling government?
Post by Fred Weiss
Post by Ynot B. Dull
If free trade was available in Cuba, many more people could enjoy a cuban
cigar, and more cubans would have some $$$ to get online and expand "free
speech".
You should have told that to Castro who squelched even the most modest
attempts at free markets in Cuba. To advocate trading with Cuba while
at the same time not demanding the opening of free markets within Cuba
is blatantly hypocritical. Leftists only advocate trading with Cuba -
as they did previously with other communist dictatorships - because
they know it cannot survive without that support from capitalism.
But the impoverishment of Cuba is a direct result of the crushing of
capitalism *within* the country. It had little to do with our embargo
(which in any case was ignored by most other countries including many
of our purported allies).
Your dreaming an illusion of reality here. I don't see any Toyota's or BMW's
in Cuba.

AND you are also totally ignoring the 30 year trade with the Communist
dictators of China.

Is asking for some "consistency" regarding free trade, free trade, and free
markets in regards the US position that much to ask for?

South Africa was not democratic under Reagan .. never stopped trade.
Chile under Pinochet was not democratic, never stopped trade .... the LIST
is endless.

The trade Cuba had with Mexico, Canada,
Post by Fred Weiss
other Latin American countries, etc. didn't seem to help it very much
economically. The reason is that with the crushing of capitalism
within the country, Cuba had little to trade.
Like I said, dreaming and ignoring reality that goes beyond Castro as a
dictator. I'm not agreeing with his philosophy, but agruing the point about
the role of "trade with Cuba" that the USA has controlled and imposed on
it's trading partners for 60 years.
Post by Fred Weiss
Cuba has survived - barely - without famine (in contrast with N.
Korea) through tourism and handouts from Cuban-Americans to their
Cuban relatives. Even with that it still rations food - and that even
with American food exports to Cuba which are permitted.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationing_in_Cuba
Fred Weiss
You cherry pick stuff that suits your "ideological beliefs", and defends the
USA's actions over decades despite the bleeding obvious.

The USA trades with Vietnam ... it;s a communist one party dictatorship ....
doesn't stop trade, the USA traded with the TALIBAN and gave them millions
in AID, the USA traded with BURMA .....

Now tell me hopw bad Castro is again and why that tiny irrelevant nation
earns the continual eire of all USA adminstrations for 60 years in refusing
point blank to trade with them, and to BLOCK whenever possible all other
nations from trading with Cuba as well?

Tell my why the US has allowed an "exclusion" for Californian drug companies
from dealing with and trading with Cuba for it's anti-cancer treatments that
it has developed despite not having a "free market economy" or private
education system?

And try being "consistent" and not cherry picking from the known facts, if
possible.
Fred Weiss
2008-03-10 10:17:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ynot B. Wiser
You cherry pick stuff that suits your "ideological beliefs", and defends the
USA's actions over decades despite the bleeding obvious.
The inconsistency of US policy is not by my choice.
Post by Ynot B. Wiser
Now tell me hopw bad Castro is again and why that tiny irrelevant nation
earns the continual eire of all USA adminstrations for 60 years...
Because it's 90miles from our shores and we have a long-standing
relationship with it. Because Castro nationalized and looted American
companies Because we have a million Cuban refugees. Because Castro is
a communist hero.
Post by Ynot B. Wiser
Tell my why the US has allowed an "exclusion" for Californian drug companies
from dealing with and trading with Cuba for it's anti-cancer treatments that
it has developed despite not having a "free market economy" or private
education system?
Now who is doing the cherry-picking?

It's "anti-cancer treatments" don't matter much to its imprisoned
political dissidents or impoverished Cubans on food rations, anymore
than did Soviet space programs to Russians waiting on long lines for
bread.

Fred Weiss
Ynot B. Happie
2008-03-10 12:03:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Fred Weiss
Post by Ynot B. Wiser
You cherry pick stuff that suits your "ideological beliefs", and defends the
USA's actions over decades despite the bleeding obvious.
The inconsistency of US policy is not by my choice.
Nor is it the Cubans in Cuba their choice what Castro did with US companies,
but you repeatedly rally around polities that impact on their life, whilst
what they do impacts on your life absolutely zero.
Post by Fred Weiss
Post by Ynot B. Wiser
Now tell me hopw bad Castro is again and why that tiny irrelevant nation
earns the continual eire of all USA adminstrations for 60 years...
Because it's 90miles from our shores and we have a long-standing
relationship with it. Because Castro nationalized and looted American
companies Because we have a million Cuban refugees. Because Castro is
a communist hero.
Distance is irrelevant - if you don't like your mother-in-law, you can
always move?
Long standing relationships are a two-edged sword. America holds the sharp
edge too.
What castro did in the 50's is irrelevant today - get over it.
Business necessitates RISK, it's no secret, it's a "cost of doing business",
those companies made very BAD INVESTMENTS ..... no one should "bail them
out", that's YOUR principles comeing back to bite you on the backside.
Again, get over it, the losses were a Tax deduction in the 50's ... it's now
2008.
Custer was an American hero .... he too was a flawed human being, again, get
over it!!! 98% of Cubans were not even alive when castro came to power, they
also deserve a life without the oppression of the USA and it's inability to
grow up and face a new reality 60 years on.

The Cold war is over, communism [ dictatorships ] lost. You won. Show some
humility in the victory.
Post by Fred Weiss
Post by Ynot B. Wiser
Tell my why the US has allowed an "exclusion" for Californian drug companies
from dealing with and trading with Cuba for it's anti-cancer treatments that
it has developed despite not having a "free market economy" or private
education system?
Now who is doing the cherry-picking?
Not me, it's the USA that is cherry picking, and that's THE point. Either
embargo or don't, but when you break your own enbargo it just goes to show
how pathetic the policy is.
Post by Fred Weiss
It's "anti-cancer treatments" don't matter much to its imprisoned
political dissidents or impoverished Cubans on food rations, anymore
than did Soviet space programs to Russians waiting on long lines for
bread.
Fred Weiss
Blind men cant see, and deaf one's can't hear, but some fully functional
humans are as blind and deaf as those who are nevertheless.
Fred Weiss
2008-03-10 12:37:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ynot B. Happie
The Cold war is over, communism [ dictatorships ] lost. You won. Show some
humility in the victory.
Tell that to a Cuban on a raft trying to make it to Florida.

And freedom is never fully won. There are always those trying to
diminish it, even destroy it.

"Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty". - Thomas Jefferson
Post by Ynot B. Happie
Post by Fred Weiss
Post by Ynot B. Wiser
Tell my why the US has allowed an "exclusion" for Californian drug companies
from dealing with and trading with Cuba for it's anti-cancer treatments that
it has developed despite not having a "free market economy" or private
education system?
Now who is doing the cherry-picking?
Not me, it's the USA that is cherry picking, and that's THE point. Either
embargo or don't, but when you break your own enbargo it just goes to show
how pathetic the policy is.
It's an illustration of the inconsistency of our foreign policy. And
yes, in many respects it's pathetic and often boomerangs on us. It's
the product of pragmatism over principles.

Fred Weiss
Ynot B. Happie
2008-03-10 13:41:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Fred Weiss
Post by Ynot B. Happie
The Cold war is over, communism [ dictatorships ] lost. You won. Show some
humility in the victory.
Tell that to a Cuban on a raft trying to make it to Florida.
Isn't that what makes America great? Send us your huddled masses etc. ?
Immigration and refugees are good for America. There's room for one more
from Cuba I'm sure.
Post by Fred Weiss
And freedom is never fully won. There are always those trying to
diminish it, even destroy it.
"Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty". - Thomas Jefferson
Yes, I totally agree with that quote. And these:

"The majority, oppressing an individual, is guilty of a crime, abuses its
strength, and by acting on the law of the strongest breaks up the
foundations of society." --Thomas Jefferson to Pierre Samuel Dupont de
Nemours, 1816. ME 14:490

[my comment : there is a foundation of society in the world beyond the USA
territory, and the power of 300 million [ the majority ] abusing it's
strength on an island of a few million [ the individual ] empoverished
people, for whatever reason, is guilty of a crime. ]


As far as the difference between the 1950's to 2008 I offer the following
Quote:

"That our Creator made the earth for the use of the living and not of the
dead; that those who exist not can have no use nor right in it, no authority
or power over it; that one generation of men cannot foreclose or burthen its
use to another, which comes to it in its own right and by the same divine
beneficence; that a preceding generation cannot bind a succeeding one by its
laws or contracts; these deriving their obligation from the will of the
existing majority, and that majority being removed by death, another comes
in its place with a will equally free to make its own laws and contracts;
these are axioms so self-evident that no explanation can make them plainer;
for he is not to be reasoned with who says that non-existence can control
existence, or that nothing can move something. They are axioms also pregnant
with salutary consequences." --Thomas Jefferson to Thomas Earle, 1823. ME
15:470
Post by Fred Weiss
Post by Ynot B. Happie
Post by Fred Weiss
Post by Ynot B. Wiser
Tell my why the US has allowed an "exclusion" for Californian drug companies
from dealing with and trading with Cuba for it's anti-cancer
treatments
that
it has developed despite not having a "free market economy" or private
education system?
Now who is doing the cherry-picking?
Not me, it's the USA that is cherry picking, and that's THE point. Either
embargo or don't, but when you break your own enbargo it just goes to show
how pathetic the policy is.
It's an illustration of the inconsistency of our foreign policy. And
yes, in many respects it's pathetic and often boomerangs on us. It's
the product of pragmatism over principles.
Fred Weiss
Then you agree it wasn't me that's cherry picking?

And you also agree that in many respects USA foreign policy is pathetic, and
often boomerangs on you because of the inconsistency over your very own
Principles.

Maybe one would be better to focus on those issues within your own nation,
and leave Cuba to the Cubans? N'est pa?
Ynot B. Happie
2008-03-10 13:22:36 UTC
Permalink
Alternatively, if Cuba is so precious, and Castro such a bad bad communist
hero, then simply invade, annex the bloody island as a new territory, show
the Cubans how great American democracy and free market capitalism is, and
move on. There will be rejoicing in the streets with their new found
freedoms. And you might even find Oil there.

Just like Indonesia did with East Timor ..... oh hang on, that didn't work
out either. There was a 30 year insurgency by the locals who didn't ask or
want to be annexed by a bigger nation. Ooops. Back to the drawing board. :)

You know, if a policy is in place to achieve a particular goal, and yet it
is obviously unsuccessful for 60 years, there is a slim chance that it is
the actual policy itself, and the attitude/philosophy behind it, that is the
real problem.
Post by Fred Weiss
Post by Ynot B. Wiser
You cherry pick stuff that suits your "ideological beliefs", and defends the
USA's actions over decades despite the bleeding obvious.
The inconsistency of US policy is not by my choice.
Still, you choose freely to support specific policies against Cuba. That's
your choice, not Cuba's, nor mine.
PeterBP
2008-03-10 14:28:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ynot B. Happie
Alternatively, if Cuba is so precious, and Castro such a bad bad communist
hero, then simply invade, annex the bloody island as a new territory, show
the Cubans how great American democracy and free market capitalism is, and
move on. There will be rejoicing in the streets with their new found
freedoms. And you might even find Oil there.
Odd - spreading democracy and capitalism by the sword? Iraq and
Afghanistan shows the futiity of that excersize and I'm sure the
socialists will have a field day with the latter, especially if it's
being done by a Republican prez.
Post by Ynot B. Happie
Just like Indonesia did with East Timor ..... oh hang on, that didn't work
out either. There was a 30 year insurgency by the locals who didn't ask or
want to be annexed by a bigger nation. Ooops. Back to the drawing board. :)
You know, if a policy is in place to achieve a particular goal, and yet it
is obviously unsuccessful for 60 years, there is a slim chance that it is
the actual policy itself, and the attitude/philosophy behind it, that is the
real problem.
Bingo.

FWIW, I think the US Cuba embargo should be lifted immediately.
--
regards , Peter B. P. http://macplanet.dk
Washington D.C.: District of Criminals

"I dont drink anymore... of course, i don't drink any less, either!
Shrikeback
2008-03-11 02:12:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by PeterBP
Odd - spreading democracy and capitalism by the sword? Iraq and
Afghanistan shows the futiity of that excersize and I'm sure the
socialists will have a field day with the latter, especially if it's
being done by a Republican prez.
Japan and Germany show that the exercise is not futile.
B***@peoplepc.com
2008-03-11 04:43:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Shrikeback
the exercise is not futile.
Depends on if you are an obese gun nutter who won't do the exercise.

Now when are you going to waddle over to yer local army recruiter and
defend the homes 'n hearths of Iraqis?


Bret Cahill
Shrikeback
2008-03-11 18:29:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by B***@peoplepc.com
Post by Shrikeback
the exercise is not futile.
Depends on if you are an obese gun nutter who won't do the exercise.
It's interesting you should bring Michael Moore up.
Remember his gun-nutter film, _Blowing for Columbine,
wherein he blames Slick's bombing of Kosovo for the
gothtards going postal?

But he's rich enough he can hire burned out hippies
to do his bike riding for him, so his prostate doesn't
swell up as big as his chin.
Bret Cahill
2008-03-11 22:09:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Shrikeback
Post by B***@peoplepc.com
Post by Shrikeback
the exercise is not futile.
Depends on if you are an obese gun nutter who won't do the exercise.
It's interesting you should bring Michael Moore up.
MM ain't no gun nutter.


Bret Cahill
Shrikeback
2008-03-11 22:48:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bret Cahill
Post by Shrikeback
Post by B***@peoplepc.com
Post by Shrikeback
the exercise is not futile.
Depends on if you are an obese gun nutter who won't do the exercise.
It's interesting you should bring Michael Moore up.
MM ain't no gun nutter.
He's a nutter, that's self-evident. And among his obsessions is
guns. Else, why make _Blowing for Columbine_?

Hence, Micheal Moore is a big gun nutter, like you.
You seem to be unable to get off the subject. Perhaps
for you, it's gun envy or something.

KKKahill: Goddamn them NRA whacks with bigger
guns than mine. I'll grab those guns and oil them myself.
PeterBP
2008-03-19 02:29:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Shrikeback
Post by Bret Cahill
Post by Shrikeback
Post by B***@peoplepc.com
Post by Shrikeback
the exercise is not futile.
Depends on if you are an obese gun nutter who won't do the exercise.
It's interesting you should bring Michael Moore up.
MM ain't no gun nutter.
He's a nutter, that's self-evident. And among his obsessions is
guns. Else, why make _Blowing for Columbine_?
Hence, Micheal Moore is a big gun nutter, like you.
You seem to be unable to get off the subject. Perhaps
for you, it's gun envy or something.
KKKahill: Goddamn them NRA whacks with bigger
guns than mine. I'll grab those guns and oil them myself.
Freud had a word or two to say about that. :)
--
regards , Peter B. P. http://macplanet.dk
Washington D.C.: District of Criminals

"I dont drink anymore... of course, i don't drink any less, either!
Shrikeback
2008-03-11 20:02:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Shrikeback
Post by PeterBP
Odd - spreading democracy and capitalism by the sword? Iraq and
Afghanistan shows the futiity of that excersize and I'm sure the
socialists will have a field day with the latter, especially if it's
being done by a Republican prez.
Japan and Germany show that the exercise is not futile.
Aside from ending slavery, fascism, communism, and
Georgism, what has war ever done for mankind?
r***@telus.net
2008-03-13 20:16:16 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 11 Mar 2008 20:02:21 GMT, "Shrikeback"
Post by Shrikeback
Post by Shrikeback
Post by PeterBP
Odd - spreading democracy and capitalism by the sword? Iraq and
Afghanistan shows the futiity of that excersize and I'm sure the
socialists will have a field day with the latter, especially if it's
being done by a Republican prez.
Japan and Germany show that the exercise is not futile.
Aside from ending slavery, fascism, communism, and
Georgism, what has war ever done for mankind?
Aside from lying about Georgism, what have you ever done for the
enemies of freedom, justice and truth?

-- Roy L
PeterBP
2008-03-18 02:16:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Shrikeback
Post by Shrikeback
Post by PeterBP
Odd - spreading democracy and capitalism by the sword? Iraq and
Afghanistan shows the futiity of that excersize and I'm sure the
socialists will have a field day with the latter, especially if it's
being done by a Republican prez.
Japan and Germany show that the exercise is not futile.
Aside from ending slavery, fascism, communism, and
Georgism, what has war ever done for mankind?
Slavery was not ended in the US war of Secession; slavery persisted for
quite a while even after the South had been defeated. Historically,
slavery has been ended by popular dissent and rights thought; Denmark,
fx. was the first western nation to end slavery in 1848. (Ofc, we have
then gone from chattel slavery to wage and tax slavery - you work for
those who are privileged to hold nature-given resources, and for that
pittance, the government takes anywhere from ~10% (US low income worker)
to 40% (danish low income worker) of your wages. But hey, at least they
don't outright whip us when we won't work!).

Fascism and communism arose either directly due to or in part due to war
- Fascism in Italy arose following WWI where disillusioned war veterans
came home to a country that offered them nothing for their sacrifice
(ironically, Mussolini was originally a Marxist, but turned his back on
Marxism).

If we accept that Nazism is a kind of Fascism, then it still goes -
Hitler came to power, feeding on the desperation of a Germany that was
impoverished by war debts and under foreign restraints - Hitlers
popularity exploded because he brought Germany back to relative
prosperity by suspending the WWI war debt payments and thus allowed
Germany to grow again.

Communism arose in Russia in 1917, when the nation was weakened and
wartorn in the freezing mud of the Eastern Front. If the resources of
the Tzarist nation had not been expended on that useless bloodshed, the
revolutionaries had most likely easily been struck down by the White
Army. Also, a reason the communists could make a revolution in the first
place was also popular dissent against the war.
--
regards , Peter B. P. http://macplanet.dk
Washington D.C.: District of Criminals

"I dont drink anymore... of course, i don't drink any less, either!
B***@peoplepc.com
2008-03-18 04:06:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by PeterBP
Slavery was not ended in the US war of Secession; slavery persisted for
quite a while even after the South had been defeated. Historically,
slavery has been ended by popular dissent and rights thought; Denmark,
fx. was the first western nation to end slavery in 1848. (Ofc, we have
then gone from chattel slavery to wage and tax slavery - you work for
those who are privileged to hold nature-given resources, and for that
pittance, the government takes anywhere from ~10% (US low income worker)
to 40% (danish low income worker) of your wages. But hey, at least they
don't outright whip us when we won't work!).
So far so good.
Post by PeterBP
Fascism and communism arose either directly due to or in part due to war
- Fascism in Italy arose following WWI where disillusioned war veterans
came home to a country that offered them nothing for their sacrifice
Whoaaa! That's gonna happen right here in the U. S. in about 14
months!

In fact, Dumbya Bush will probably get the Mussolini "treatment."
Post by PeterBP
(ironically, Mussolini was originally a Marxist, but turned his back on
Marxism).
If we accept that Nazism is a kind of Fascism, then it still goes -
Hitler came to power, feeding on the desperation of a Germany that was
impoverished by war debts and under foreign restraints - Hitlers
popularity exploded because he brought Germany back to relative
prosperity by suspending the WWI war debt payments and thus allowed
Germany to grow again.
Communism arose in Russia in 1917, when the nation was weakened and
wartorn in the freezing mud of the Eastern Front. If the resources of
the Tzarist nation had not been expended on that useless bloodshed, the
revolutionaries had most likely easily been struck down by the White
Army. Also, a reason the communists could make a revolution in the first
place was also popular dissent against the war.
I once worked for a Danish inspection company. They sent a ship over
crewed by a lot of cute Danish girls in jump suits. (This is _not_ a
fantasy.)

I felt really bad because I was freezing to death on the water front.
The temp. never dropped below 55 F but I needed a ski mask.

They must have thought I was a wimp.


Bret Cahill
Topaz
2008-03-19 00:00:06 UTC
Permalink
Here is part of Hitler's speech at Rheinmetall-Borsig Works, Berlin,
on December 10, 1940:

"In this Anglo-French world there exists, as it were, democracy, which
means the rule of the people by the people. Now the people must
possess some means of giving expression to their thoughts or their
wishes. Examining this problem more closely, we see that the people
themselves have originally no convictions of their own. Their
convictions are formed, of course, just as everywhere else. The
decisive question is who enlightens the people, who educates them? In
those countries, it is actually capital that rules; that is, nothing
more than a clique of a few hundred men who possess untold wealth and,
as a consequence of the peculiar structure of their national life, are
more or less independent and free. They say: 'Here we have liberty.'
By this they mean, above all, an uncontrolled economy, and by an
uncontrolled economy, the freedom not only to acquire capital but to
make absolutely free use of it. That means freedom from national
control or control by the people both in the acquisition of capital
and in its employment. This is really what they mean when they speak
of liberty. These capitalists create their own press and then speak of
the 'freedom of the press.'

In reality, every one of the newspapers has a master, and in every
case this master is the capitalist, the owner. This master, not the
editor, is the one who directs the policy of the paper. If the editor
tries to write other than what suits the master, he is ousted the next
day. This press, which is the absolutely submissive and characterless
slave of the owners, molds public opinion. Public opinion thus
mobilized by them is, in its turn, split up into political parties.
The difference between these parties is as small as it formerly was in
Germany. You know them, of course - the old parties. They were always
one and the same. In Britain matters are usually so arranged that
families are divided up, one member being a conservative, another a
liberal, and a third belonging to the labor party. Actually, all three
sit together as members of the family, decide upon their common
attitude and determine it. A further point is that the 'elected
people' actually form a community which operates and controls all
these organizations. For this reason, the opposition in England is
really always the same, for on all essential matters in which the
opposition has to make itself felt, the parties are always in
agreement. They have one and the same conviction and through the
medium of the press mold public opinion along corresponding lines. One
might well believe that in these countries of liberty and riches, the
people must possess an unlimited degree of prosperity. But no! On the
contrary, it is precisely in these countries that the distress of the
masses is greater than anywhere else. Such is the case in 'rich
Britain.'

She controls sixteen million square miles. In India, for example, a
hundred million colonial workers with a wretched standard of living
must labor for her. One might think, perhaps, that at least in England
itself every person must have his share of these riches. By no means!
In that country class distinction is the crassest imaginable. There is
poverty - incredible poverty - on the one side, and equally incredible
wealth on the other. They have not solved a single problem. The
workmen of that country which possesses more than one-sixth of the
globe and of the world's natural resources dwell in misery, and the
masses of the people are poorly clad.. In a country which ought to
have more than enough bread and every sort of fruit, we find millions
of the lower classes who have not even enough to fill their stomachs,
and go about hungry. A nation which could provide work for the whole
world must acknowledge the fact that it cannot even abolish
unemployment at home. For decades this rich Britain has had two and a
half million unemployed; rich America, ten to thirteen millions, year
after year; France, six, seven, and eight hundred thousand. Well, my
fellow-countrymen - what then are we to say about ourselves?
It is self-evident that where this democracy rules, the people as such
are not taken into consideration at all. The only thing that matters
is the existence of a few hundred gigantic capitalists who own all the
factories and their stock and, through them, control the people. The
masses of the people do not interest them in the least. They are
interested in them just as were our bourgeois parties in former times
- only when elections are being held, when they need votes. Otherwise,
the life of the masses is a matter of complete indifference to them.

To this must be added the difference in education. Is it not ludicrous
to hear a member of the British Labor Party - who, of course, as a
member of the Opposition is officially paid by the government - say:
'When the war is over, we will do something in social respects'?
It is the members of Parliament who are the directors of the business
concerns - just as used to be the case with us. But we have abolished
all that. A member of the Reichstag cannot belong to a Board of
Directors, except as a purely honorary member. He is prohibited from
accepting any emolument, financial or otherwise. This is not the case
in other countries.

They reply: 'That is why our form of government is sacred to us.' I
can well believe it, for that form of government certainly pays very
well.. But whether it is sacred to the mass of the people as well is
another matter.

The people as a whole definitely suffer. I do not consider it possible
in the long run for one man to work and toil for a whole year in
return for ridiculous wages, while another jumps into an express train
once a year and pockets enormous sums. Such conditions are a disgrace.
On the other hand, we National Socialists equally oppose the theory
that all men are equals. Today, when a man of genius makes some
astounding invention and enormously benefits his country by his
brains, we pay him his due, for he has really accomplished something
and been of use to his country. However, we hope to make it impossible
for idle drones to inhabit this country.

I could continue to cite examples indefinitely. The fact remains that
two worlds are face to face with one another. Our opponents are quite
right when they say: 'Nothing can reconcile us to the National
Socialist world.' How could a narrow-minded capitalist ever agree to
my principles? It would be easier for the Devil to go to church and
cross himself with holy water than for these people to comprehend the
ideas which are accepted facts to us today. But we have solved our
problems.

To take another instance where we are condemned: They claim to be
fighting for the maintenance of the gold standard as the currency
basis. That I can well believe, for the gold is in their hands. We,
too, once had gold, but it was stolen and extorted from us. When I
came to power, it was not malice which made me abandon the gold
standard. Germany simply had no gold left. Consequently, quitting the
gold standard presented no difficulties, for it is always easy to part
with what one does not have. We had no gold. We had no foreign
exchange. They had all been stolen and extorted from us during the
previous fifteen years. But, my fellow countrymen, I did not regret
it, for we have constructed our economic system on a wholly different
basis. In our eyes, gold is not of value in itself. It is only an
agent by which nations can be suppressed and dominated.
When I took over the government, I had only one hope on which to
build, namely, the efficiency and ability of the German nation and the
German workingman; the intelligence of our inventors, engineers,
technicians, chemists, and so forth. I built on the strength which
animates our economic system. One simple question faced me: Are we to
perish because we have no gold; am I to believe in a phantom which
spells our destruction? I championed the opposite opinion: Even though
we have no gold, we have capacity for work.

The German capacity for work is our gold and our capital, and with
this gold I can compete successfully with any power in the world. We
want to live in houses which have to be built. Hence, the workers must
build them, and the raw materials required must be procured by work.
My whole economic system has been built up on the conception of work.
We have solved our problems while, amazingly enough, the capitalist
countries and their currencies have suffered bankruptcy.

Sterling can find no market today. Throw it at any one and he will
step aside to avoid being hit. But our Reichsmark, which is backed by
no gold, has remained stable. Why? It has no gold cover; it is backed
by you and by your work. You have helped me to keep the mark stable.
German currency, with no gold coverage, is worth more today than gold
itself. It signifies unceasing production. This we owe to the German
farmer, who has worked from daybreak till nightfall. This we owe to
the German worker, who has given us his whole strength. The whole
problem has been solved in one instant, as if by magic.
My dear friends, if I had stated publicly eight or nine years ago: 'In
seven or eight years the problem of how to provide work for the
unemployed will be solved, and the problem then will be where to find
workers,' I should have harmed my cause. Every one would have
declared: 'The man is mad. It is useless to talk to him, much less to
support him. Nobody should vote for him. He is a fantastic creature.'
Today, however, all this has come true. Today, the only question for
us is where to find workers. That, my fellow countrymen, is the
blessing which work brings.

Work alone can create new work; money cannot create work. Work alone
can create values, values with which to reward those who work. The
work of one man makes it possible for another to live and continue to
work. And when we have mobilized the working capacity of our people to
its utmost, each individual worker will receive more and more of the
world's goods.

We have incorporated seven million unemployed into our economic
system; we have transformed another six millions from part-time into
full-time workers; we are even working overtime. And all this is paid
for in cash in Reichsmarks which maintained their value in peacetime.
In wartime we had to ration its purchasing capacity, not in order to
devalue it, but simply to earmark a portion of our industry for war
production to guide us to victory in the struggle for the future of
Germany...

One thing is certain, my fellow-countrymen: All in all, we have today
a state with a different economic and political orientation from that
of the Western democracies.
Well, it must now be made possible for the British worker to travel.
It is remarkable that they should at last hit upon the idea that
traveling should be something not for millionaires alone, but for the
people too. In this country, the problem was solved some time ago. In
the other countries - as is shown by their whole economic structure -
the selfishness of a relatively small stratum rules under the mask of
democracy. This stratum is neither checked nor controlled by anyone.

It is therefore understandable if an Englishman says: 'We do not want
our world to be subject to any sort of collapse.' Quite so. The
English know full well that their Empire is not menaced by us. But
they say quite truthfully: 'If the ideas that are popular in Germany
are not completely eliminated, they might become popular among our own
people, and that is the danger. We do not want this.' It would do no
harm if they did become popular there, but these people are just as
narrow-minded as many once were in Germany. In this respect they
prefer to remain bound to their conservative methods. They do not wish
to depart from them, and do not conceal the fact.

They say, 'The German methods do not suit us at all.'
And what are these methods? You know, my comrades, that I have
destroyed nothing in Germany. I have always proceeded very carefully,
because I believe - as I have already said - that we cannot afford to
wreck anything. I am proud that the Revolution of 1933 was brought to
pass without breaking a single windowpane. Nevertheless, we have
wrought enormous changes.

I wish to put before you a few basic facts: The first is that in the
capitalistic democratic world the most important principle of economy
is that the people exist for trade and industry, and that these in
turn exist for capital. We have reversed this principle by making
capital exist for trade and industry, and trade and industry exist for
the people. In other words, the people come first. Everything else is
but a means to this end. When an economic system is not capable of
feeding and clothing a people, then it is bad, regardless of whether a
few hundred people say: 'As far as I am concerned it is good,
excellent; my dividends are splendid.'

However, the dividends do not interest me at all. Here we have drawn
the line. They may then retort: 'Well, look here, that is just what we
mean. You jeopardize liberty.'
Yes, certainly, we jeopardize the liberty to profiteer at the expense
of the community, and, if necessary, we even abolish it. British
capitalists, to mention only one instance, can pocket dividends of 76,
80, 95, 140, and even 160 per cent from their armament industry.
Naturally they say: 'If the German methods grow apace and should prove
victorious, this sort of thing will stop.'

They are perfectly right. I should never tolerate such a state of
affairs. In my eyes, a 6 per cent dividend is sufficient. Even from
this 6 per cent we deduct one-half and, as for the rest, we must have
definite proof that it is invested in the interest of the country as a
whole. In other words, no individual has the right to dispose
arbitrarily of money which ought to be invested for the good of the
country. If he disposes of it sensibly, well and good; if not, the
National Socialist state will intervene.

To take another instance, besides dividends there are the so-called
directors' fees. You probably have no idea how appallingly active a
board of directors is. Once a year its members have to make a journey.
They have to go to the station, get into a first-class compartment and
travel to some place or other. They arrive at an appointed office at
about 10 or 11 A.M. There they must listen to a report. When the
report has been read, they must listen to a few comments on it. They
may be kept in their seats until 1 P.M. or even 2. Shortly after 2
o'clock they rise from their chairs and set out on their homeward
journey, again, of course, traveling first class. It is hardly
surprising that they claim 3,000, 4,000, or even 5,000 as compensation
for this: Our directors formerly did the same - for what a lot of time
it costs them! Such effort had to be made worth while! Of course, we
have got rid of all this nonsense, which was merely veiled
profiteering and even bribery.
In Germany, the people, without any doubt, decide their existence.
They determine the principles of their government. In fact it has been
possible in this country to incorporate many of the broad masses into
the National Socialist party, that gigantic organization embracing
millions and having millions of officials drawn from the people
themselves. This principle is extended to the highest ranks.

For the first time in German history, we have a state which has
absolutely abolished all social prejudices in regard to political
appointments as well as in private life. I myself am the best proof of
this. Just imagine: I am not even a lawyer, and yet I am your Leader!
It is not only in ordinary life that we have succeeded in appointing
the best among the people for every position. We have
Reichsstatthalters who were formerly agricultural laborers or
locksmiths. Yes, we have even succeeded in breaking down prejudice in
a place where it was most deep-seated -in the fighting forces.
Thousands of officers are being promoted from the ranks today. We have
done away with prejudice. We have generals who were ordinary soldiers
and noncommissioned officers twenty-two and twenty-three years ago. In
this instance, too, we have overcome all social obstacles. Thus, we
are building up our life for the future.

As you know we have countless schools, national political educational
establishments, Adolf Hitler schools, and so on. To these schools we
send gifted children of the broad masses, children of working men,
farmers' sons whose parents could never have afforded a higher
education for their children. We take them in gradually. They are
educated here, sent to the Ordensburgen, to the Party, later to take
their place in the State where they will some day fill the highest
posts....

Opposed to this there stands a completely different world. In the
world the highest ideal is the struggle for wealth, for capital, for
family possessions, for personal egoism; everything else is merely a
means to such ends. Two worlds confront each other today. We know
perfectly well that if we are defeated in this war it would not only
be the end of our National Socialist work of reconstruction, but the
end of the German people as a whole. For without its powers of
coordination, the German people would starve. Today the masses
dependent on us number 120 or 130 millions, of which 85 millions alone
are our own people. We remain ever aware of this fact.

On the other hand, that other world says: 'If we lose, our world-wide
capitalistic system will collapse. For it is we who save hoarded gold.
It is lying in our cellars and will lose its value. If the idea that
work is the decisive factor spreads abroad, what will happen to us? We
shall have bought our gold in vain. Our whole claim to world dominion
can then no longer be maintained. The people will do away with their
dynasties of high finance. They will present their social claims, and
the whole world system will be overthrown.'
I can well understand that they declare: 'Let us prevent this at all
costs; it must be prevented.' They can see exactly how our nation has
been reconstructed. You see it clearly. For instance, there we see a
state ruled by a numerically small upper class. They send their sons
to their own schools, to Eton. We have Adolf Hitler schools or
national political educational establishments. On the one hand, the
sons of plutocrats, financial magnates; on the other, the children of
the people. Etonians and Harrovians exclusively in leading positions
over there; in this country, men of the people in charge of the State.
These are the two worlds. I grant that one of the two must succumb.
Yes, one or the other. But if we were to succumb, the German people
would succumb with us. If the other were to succumb, I am convinced
that the nations will become free for the first time. We are not
fighting individual Englishmen or Frenchmen. We have nothing against
them. For years I proclaimed this as the aim of my foreign policy. We
demanded nothing of them, nothing at all. When they started the war
they could not say: 'We are doing so because the Germans asked this or
that of us.' They said, on the contrary: 'We are declaring war on you
because the German system of Government does not suit us; because we
fear it might spread to our own people.' For that reason they are
carrying on this war. They wanted to blast the German nation back to
the time of Versailles, to the indescribable misery of those days. But
they have made a great mistake.

If in this war everything points to the fact that gold is fighting
against work, capitalism against peoples, and reaction against the
progress of humanity, then work, the peoples, and progress will be
victorious. Even the support of the Jewish race will not avail the
others.

I have seen all this coming for years. What did I ask of the other
world? Nothing but the right for Germans to reunite and the
restoration of all that had been taken from them - nothing which would
have meant a loss to the other nations. How often have I stretched out
my hand to them? Ever since I came into power. I had not the slightest
wish to rearm.
For what do armaments mean? They absorb so much labor. It was I who
regarded work as being of decisive importance, who wished to employ
the working capacity of Germany for other plans. I think the news is
already out that, after all, I have some fairly important plans in my
mind, vast and splendid plans for my people. It is my ambition to make
the German people rich and to make the German homeland beautiful. I
want the standard of living of the individual raised. I want us to
have the most beautiful and the finest civilization. I should like the
theater - in fact, the whole of German civilization - to benefit all
the people and not to exist only for the upper ten thousand, as is the
case in England.

The plans which we had in mind were tremendous, and I needed workers
in order to realize them. Armament only deprives me of workers. I made
proposals to limit armaments. I was ridiculed. The only answer I
received was 'No.' I proposed the limitation of certain types of
armament. That was refused. I proposed that airplanes should be
altogether eliminated from warfare. That also was refused. I suggested
that bombers should be limited. That was refused. They said: 'That is
just how we wish to force our regime upon you.' ...



http://www.ihr.org/ http://www.natvan.com

http://www.thebirdman.org http://www.nsm88.com/

http://wsi.matriots.com/jews.html
Shrikeback
2008-03-19 19:14:34 UTC
Permalink
Ah, Colenol Klink here has joined the thread to remind us
that there is one group of people even dumber than 911 Troothers:
Nazis. But he has also served a purpose in bringing up the similarity
between Hitler's bottom fishing and Bret KKKahill's.
Post by Topaz
Here is part of Hitler's speech at Rheinmetall-Borsig Works, Berlin,
Here you have it. Hitler's somewhat more prolix (he's a
kraut, what do you want?) explication of KKKahill's
Post by Topaz
"In this Anglo-French world there exists, as it were, democracy, which
means the rule of the people by the people. Now the people must
possess some means of giving expression to their thoughts or their
wishes. Examining this problem more closely, we see that the people
themselves have originally no convictions of their own. Their
convictions are formed, of course, just as everywhere else. The
decisive question is who enlightens the people, who educates them? In
those countries, it is actually capital that rules; that is, nothing
more than a clique of a few hundred men who possess untold wealth and,
as a consequence of the peculiar structure of their national life, are
more or less independent and free. They say: 'Here we have liberty.'
By this they mean, above all, an uncontrolled economy, and by an
uncontrolled economy, the freedom not only to acquire capital but to
make absolutely free use of it. That means freedom from national
control or control by the people both in the acquisition of capital
and in its employment. This is really what they mean when they speak
of liberty. These capitalists create their own press and then speak of
the 'freedom of the press.'
The fact of the matter is there are only two choices:
a private free market press and a State press. Everything
else is utopian horseshit. Anybody who complains about
the private market in free speech is pushing for state control.

Free trade precedes freedom of the press.

Also, while we have a Nazi in our midst, we should ask
why all skinheads are meth addicts. Actually, it's a Nazi
tradition, since Adolf himself was known to fire it up and
stick a needle in his arm. And the comfort for a fag who has
a concealed weapon is that they can re-enact the victory
over fascism when the neo-Nazis get set for a good old
game of beat the fag to death. And why do Nazis consider
fags perverts but not Adolf himself; he attempted to coerce
his niece into sex, after all.

-----------------------------------------------------------
My name is John McCain and I helped push for the legislation
that requires Shrikeback to state, "My name is Shrikeback
and I approve this message," when it's the last 60 days of
an election anyway.
Topaz
2008-03-19 21:19:34 UTC
Permalink
Here are some quotes from Mein Kampf:

"The man who is not opposed and vilified and slandered in the
Jewish Press is not a staunch German and not a true National
Socialist. The best rule whereby the sincerity of his convictions, his
character and strength of will, can be measured is by the hostility
which his name arouses among the mortal enemies of our people.
"The followers of the movement, and indeed the whole nation,
must be reminded again and again of the fact that, through the medium
of his newspapers, the Jew is always spreading falsehood and that if
he tells the truth on some occasions it is only for the purpose of
masking some greater deceit, which turns the apparent truth into a
deliberate falsehood. The Jew is the Great Master of Lies. Falsehood
and duplicity are the weapons with which he fights.
"Every calumny and falsehood published by the Jews are tokens of
honor which can be worn by our comrades. He whom they decry most is
nearest to our hearts and he whom they mortally hate is our best
friend.
"If a comrade of ours opens a Jewish newspaper in the morning
and does not find himself vilified there, then he has spent yesterday
to no account. For if he had achieved something he would be
persecuted, slandered, derided and abused. Those who effectively
combat this mortal enemy of our people, who is at the same time the
enemy of all Aryan peoples and all culture, can only expect to arouse
opposition on the part of this race and become the object of its
slanderous attacks.
"When these truths become part of the flesh and blood, as it
were, of our members, then the movement will be impregnable and
invincible."

" Then I began to examine my favorite 'World Press', with that fact
before my mind. "The deeper my soundings went the lesser grew my
respect for that Press which I formerly admired. Its style became
still more repellant and I was forced to reject its ideas as entirely
shallow and superficial. To claim that in the presentation of facts
and views its attitude was impartial seemed to me to contain more
falsehood than truth. The writers were- Jews.

"Thousands of details that I had scarcely noticed before seemed
to me now to deserve attention. I began to grasp and understand
things which I had formerly looked at in a different light."

"Thus another weapon beside that of freemasonry would have to be
secured. This was the Press. The Jew exercised all his skill and
tenacity in getting hold of it. By means of the Press he began
gradually to control public life in its entirety."

http://www.ihr.org/ http://www.natvan.com

http://www.thebirdman.org http://www.nsm88.com/

http://wsi.matriots.com/jews.html

PeterBP
2008-03-10 14:28:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ynot B. Happie
Post by Fred Weiss
Because it's 90miles from our shores and we have a long-standing
relationship with it. Because Castro nationalized and looted American
companies Because we have a million Cuban refugees. Because Castro is
a communist hero.
Distance is irrelevant - if you don't like your mother-in-law, you can
always move?
snip

Hint: Cuban Missile Crisis.

I think there was somethign about people being a it agitated about the
comcept of USSR nukes 90 miles from the US back in those days, correct
me if I'm wrong.
--
regards , Peter B. P. http://macplanet.dk
Washington D.C.: District of Criminals

"I dont drink anymore... of course, i don't drink any less, either!
Ynot B. Happie
2008-03-11 00:35:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by PeterBP
Post by Ynot B. Happie
Post by Fred Weiss
Because it's 90miles from our shores and we have a long-standing
relationship with it. Because Castro nationalized and looted American
companies Because we have a million Cuban refugees. Because Castro is
a communist hero.
Distance is irrelevant - if you don't like your mother-in-law, you can
always move?
snip
Hint: Cuban Missile Crisis.
I think there was somethign about people being a it agitated about the
comcept of USSR nukes 90 miles from the US back in those days, correct
me if I'm wrong.
You are correct, but missing the context of Fred's comments to my comments
before. I'm talking about NOW. That's all I ever talk about, the present.
The rest is irrelevant, as is missiles in 1963 - that was 45 years ago now,
and irrelevant to anything about Cuba except middle school history! :)

imho of course
Post by PeterBP
--
regards , Peter B. P. http://macplanet.dk
Washington D.C.: District of Criminals
"I dont drink anymore... of course, i don't drink any less, either!
B***@peoplepc.com
2008-03-11 04:54:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ynot B. Happie
Post by PeterBP
Post by Ynot B. Happie
Post by Fred Weiss
Because it's 90miles from our shores and we have a long-standing
relationship with it. Because Castro nationalized and looted American
companies Because we have a million Cuban refugees. Because Castro is
a communist hero.
Distance is irrelevant - if you don't like your mother-in-law, you can
always move?
snip
Hint: Cuban Missile Crisis.
I think there was somethign about people being a it agitated about the
comcept of USSR nukes 90 miles from the US back in those days, correct
me if I'm wrong.
You are correct, but missing the context of Fred's comments to my comments
before. I'm talking about NOW. That's all I ever talk about, the present.
The rest is irrelevant, as is missiles in 1963 - that was 45 years ago now,
and irrelevant to anything about Cuba except middle school history! :)
Few U. S. rightards ever made it out of the 1980s.

I often feel like Zarathustra coming out of the mountains and, instead
of finding a holy man, finding a rightard trying to peddle his out of
date boilerplate.

I ask, "can it be, he has not heard, that rightardism is dead?"


Bret Cahill
h***@nospam.org
2008-03-11 07:59:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by B***@peoplepc.com
Post by Ynot B. Happie
Post by PeterBP
Post by Ynot B. Happie
Post by Fred Weiss
Because it's 90miles from our shores and we have a long-standing
relationship with it. Because Castro nationalized and looted American
companies Because we have a million Cuban refugees. Because Castro is
a communist hero.
Distance is irrelevant - if you don't like your mother-in-law, you can
always move?
snip
Hint: Cuban Missile Crisis.
I think there was somethign about people being a it agitated about the
comcept of USSR nukes 90 miles from the US back in those days, correct
me if I'm wrong.
You are correct, but missing the context of Fred's comments to my comments
before. I'm talking about NOW. That's all I ever talk about, the present.
The rest is irrelevant, as is missiles in 1963 - that was 45 years ago now,
and irrelevant to anything about Cuba except middle school history! :)
Few U. S. rightards ever made it out of the 1980s.
I often feel like Zarathustra coming out of the mountains and, instead
of finding a holy man, finding a rightard trying to peddle his out of
date boilerplate.
I ask, "can it be, he has not heard, that rightardism is dead?"
unfortunately, while the rich have all the money, rightardism will
always be with us. True democratic socialism is the only thing that
will kill the right wing off permanently. And sadly it is too late
for that short of bloody revolution.

Hal
Post by B***@peoplepc.com
Bret Cahill
B***@peoplepc.com
2008-03-11 13:42:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by h***@nospam.org
Post by B***@peoplepc.com
Post by Ynot B. Happie
Post by PeterBP
Post by Ynot B. Happie
Post by Fred Weiss
Because it's 90miles from our shores and we have a long-standing
relationship with it. Because Castro nationalized and looted American
companies Because we have a million Cuban refugees. Because Castro is
a communist hero.
Distance is irrelevant - if you don't like your mother-in-law, you can
always move?
snip
Hint: Cuban Missile Crisis.
I think there was somethign about people being a it agitated about the
comcept of USSR nukes 90 miles from the US back in those days, correct
me if I'm wrong.
You are correct, but missing the context of Fred's comments to my comments
before. I'm talking about NOW. That's all I ever talk about, the present.
The rest is irrelevant, as is missiles in 1963 - that was 45 years ago now,
and irrelevant to anything about Cuba except middle school history! :)
Few U. S. rightards ever made it out of the 1980s.
I often feel like Zarathustra coming out of the mountains and, instead
of finding a holy man, finding a rightard trying to peddle his out of
date boilerplate.
I ask, "can it be, he has not heard, that rightardism is dead?"
unfortunately, while the rich have all the money, rightardism will
always be with us.  
If that were true than Jefferson, et. al., would never have been able
to give the private sector of his day, George III, the ol' heave ho.
Post by h***@nospam.org
True democratic socialism is the only thing that
will kill the right wing off permanently.  
You don't even need socialism.

It's easy to show rightards are scared of _democratic freedom_.

What am I saying?

Rightards are scared to death of free speech and free markets.
Post by h***@nospam.org
And sadly it is too late
for that short of bloody revolution.
It's not necessary. The only thing propping up the oligarchy is the
corp. media and the internet is taking out that nonsense.

Revolution nodays consists of simply calling them on their gush
hyping.

When was the last time you heard a corp media whore gush, "9/11
changed EEEVERYthing?"


Bret Cahill
Shrikeback
2008-03-11 18:46:38 UTC
Permalink
<***@peoplepc.com> wrote in message news:0b2b04e1-2bd0-4250-aa64-***@e23g2000prf.googlegroups.com...

It started dying in the late seventies high-tax Jimmy Carter
economic stagflation boom. Jim Jones' socialist Kool-Aid
helped too. Then the Berlin Wall fell, and that changed
everything. Now, leftards are a threatened species, barely
able to feed themselves, begging always for a hand out,
and hopin' to level wealth when they can finally afford
enough ammonium nitrate.
Post by B***@peoplepc.com
Post by h***@nospam.org
unfortunately, while the rich have all the money, rightardism will
always be with us.
If that were true than Jefferson, et. al., would never have been able
to give the private sector of his day, George III, the ol' heave ho.
Anyone who's smarter than a frayed old copy of Das
Kapital knows that George III was the public sector.
Of course, this depends on what your definition of the
word, "smarter," is. If, "smarter," to you means, "dumber
than a bowl of organically grown E Coli," then perhaps
I'm wrong.

And Jefferson was just another capitalist landowner
tired of paying taxes to old George III. You can take
your taxes when you pry them out of my cold dead
hands.
Post by B***@peoplepc.com
Post by h***@nospam.org
True democratic socialism is the only thing that
will kill the right wing off permanently.
Damn kulaks. First Ve Line Zem Up, Zen Ve
Shoot Zem. If a person causes you distress,
no person, no distress!
Post by B***@peoplepc.com
You don't even need socialism.
Nobody "needs" socialism, aside from guys who
spend all their time posting graffiti at the Employment
Division.
PeterBP
2008-03-12 01:44:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by h***@nospam.org
Post by B***@peoplepc.com
Post by Ynot B. Happie
Post by PeterBP
Post by Ynot B. Happie
Post by Fred Weiss
Because it's 90miles from our shores and we have a long-standing
relationship with it. Because Castro nationalized and looted American
companies Because we have a million Cuban refugees. Because Castro is
a communist hero.
Distance is irrelevant - if you don't like your mother-in-law, you can
always move?
snip
Hint: Cuban Missile Crisis.
I think there was somethign about people being a it agitated about the
comcept of USSR nukes 90 miles from the US back in those days, correct
me if I'm wrong.
You are correct, but missing the context of Fred's comments to my comments
before. I'm talking about NOW. That's all I ever talk about, the present.
The rest is irrelevant, as is missiles in 1963 - that was 45 years ago now,
and irrelevant to anything about Cuba except middle school history! :)
Few U. S. rightards ever made it out of the 1980s.
I often feel like Zarathustra coming out of the mountains and, instead
of finding a holy man, finding a rightard trying to peddle his out of
date boilerplate.
I ask, "can it be, he has not heard, that rightardism is dead?"
unfortunately, while the rich have all the money, rightardism will
always be with us. True democratic socialism is the only thing that
will kill the right wing off permanently. And sadly it is too late
for that short of bloody revolution.
Hal
I can only shake my head when I read stuff like the above. You
apparently do not understand the pettiness of assigining people you
disagree with and people YOU THINK you disagree with into a certain box
named 'X', muddle them all together, and then declaring they they, and
only they (and naturally not yourself or anybody outside of said box),
are the cause of all the trouble in the world.

In that regard, you and all people employing the same foolish rhetoric
and mindset like you, are quite like all the (other) religious
fundamentalists of the world. Generalize, lie, persecute, and eventually
violently annihilate - the M.O. of religious fanatics everywhere.
--
regards , Peter B. P. http://macplanet.dk
Washington D.C.: District of Criminals

"I dont drink anymore... of course, i don't drink any less, either!
strabo
2008-03-12 09:25:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by h***@nospam.org
Post by B***@peoplepc.com
Post by Ynot B. Happie
Post by PeterBP
Post by Ynot B. Happie
Post by Fred Weiss
Because it's 90miles from our shores and we have a long-standing
relationship with it. Because Castro nationalized and looted American
companies Because we have a million Cuban refugees. Because Castro is
a communist hero.
Distance is irrelevant - if you don't like your mother-in-law, you can
always move?
snip
Hint: Cuban Missile Crisis.
I think there was somethign about people being a it agitated about the
comcept of USSR nukes 90 miles from the US back in those days, correct
me if I'm wrong.
You are correct, but missing the context of Fred's comments to my comments
before. I'm talking about NOW. That's all I ever talk about, the present.
The rest is irrelevant, as is missiles in 1963 - that was 45 years ago now,
and irrelevant to anything about Cuba except middle school history! :)
Few U. S. rightards ever made it out of the 1980s.
I often feel like Zarathustra coming out of the mountains and, instead
of finding a holy man, finding a rightard trying to peddle his out of
date boilerplate.
I ask, "can it be, he has not heard, that rightardism is dead?"
unfortunately, while the rich have all the money, rightardism will
always be with us. True democratic socialism is the only thing that
will kill the right wing off permanently. And sadly it is too late
for that short of bloody revolution.
Left and Right, Up and Down; the Direction-Freaks persist in
self-delusion when there are only degrees of individual freedom.

If the rich perplex and insult you so, then go take their
money away from them. The intent at least is honest. That's
more than can be said for devising manipulative schemes to
legitimatize theft.
Post by h***@nospam.org
Hal
Your implied utopia, "true democratic socialism", can never be.

Pure Socialism requires a central power to ensure 'proper' socialization
of the subjects. This means removing power from individuals and
eliminating the competition of family and religion. That much power
would corrupt those making the decisions.

The Bolsheviks, the USSR, the Nazis, Mussolini, Mao, Pol Pot,
Castro and other regimes have all failed in just the past
hundred years. These utopian experiments only cost about 150
million lives.

But, there's always some arrogant know-it-all who believes he
has a better mouse trap.
Post by h***@nospam.org
Post by B***@peoplepc.com
Bret Cahill
----== Posted via Pronews.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.pronews.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= - Total Privacy via Encryption =---
PeterBP
2008-03-18 02:16:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by strabo
Hal
Your implied utopia, "true democratic socialism", can never be.
Yes; I have a conundrum for advocates of Democratic Socialism:

What if the electorate decides to abolish socialism by democratic means?

Then what?
Post by strabo
Pure Socialism requires a central power to ensure 'proper' socialization
of the subjects. This means removing power from individuals and
eliminating the competition of family and religion. That much power
would corrupt those making the decisions.
The Bolsheviks, the USSR, the Nazis, Mussolini, Mao, Pol Pot,
Castro and other regimes have all failed in just the past
hundred years. These utopian experiments only cost about 150
million lives.
And untold suffering for those who were unfortunate enought to go on
living.
Post by strabo
But, there's always some arrogant know-it-all who believes he
has a better mouse trap.
It's a very human thing. So is ignoring the negative outcomes of your
actions, as well.

Problem is, in politics, when someone fucks up, it hurts EVERYONE, not
just themselves. Thats why politics must be limited... for the common
good! :)
--
regards , Peter B. P. http://macplanet.dk
Washington D.C.: District of Criminals

"I dont drink anymore... of course, i don't drink any less, either!
Dan Bloomquist
2008-03-18 05:17:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by PeterBP
Post by strabo
Hal
Your implied utopia, "true democratic socialism", can never be.
What if the electorate decides to abolish socialism by democratic means?
Then what?
Now, this is great stuff.

****
Randy Newman:

When Karl Marx was a boy
he took a hard look around
He saw people were starving all over the place
while others were painting the town
The public spirited boy
became a public spirited man
So he worked very hard and he read everything
until he came up with a plan

There'll be no exploitation
of the worker or his kin
No discrimination 'cause of the color of your
skin
No more private property
It would not be allowed
No one could rise too high
No one could sink too low
or go under completely like some we all know

If Marx were living today
he'd be rolling around in his grave
And if I had him here in my mansion on the hill
I'd tell him a story t'would give his old heart
a chill

It's something that happened to me
I'd say, Karl I recently stumbled
into a new family
with two little children in school
where all little children should be
I went to the orientation
All the young mommies were there
Karl, you never have seen such a glorious sight
as these beautiful women arrayed for the night
just like countesses, empresses, movie stars and
queens
And they'd come there with men much like me
Froggish men, unpleasant to see
Were you to kiss one, Karl
Nary a prince would there be

Oh Karl the world isn't fair
It isn't and never will be
They tried out your plan
It brought misery instead
If you'd seen how they worked it
you'd be glad you were dead
just like I'm glad I'm living in the land of the
free
where the rich just get richer
and the poor you don't ever have to see
It would depress us, Karl
Because we care
that the world still isn't fair
Post by PeterBP
Post by strabo
The Bolsheviks, the USSR, the Nazis, Mussolini, Mao, Pol Pot,
Castro and other regimes have all failed in just the past
hundred years. These utopian experiments only cost about 150
million lives.
And untold suffering for those who were unfortunate enought to go on
living.
Post by strabo
But, there's always some arrogant know-it-all who believes he
has a better mouse trap.
It's a very human thing. So is ignoring the negative outcomes of your
actions, as well.
Problem is, in politics, when someone fucks up, it hurts EVERYONE, not
just themselves. Thats why politics must be limited... for the common
good! :)
And where Marx may have had good intentions. But fell when to believe
man was more than an animal......

Our personal aspirations are meaningless in the real world.
PeterBP
2008-03-12 01:44:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by B***@peoplepc.com
Post by Ynot B. Happie
Post by PeterBP
Post by Ynot B. Happie
Post by Fred Weiss
Because it's 90miles from our shores and we have a long-standing
relationship with it. Because Castro nationalized and looted American
companies Because we have a million Cuban refugees. Because Castro is
a communist hero.
Distance is irrelevant - if you don't like your mother-in-law, you can
always move?
snip
Hint: Cuban Missile Crisis.
I think there was somethign about people being a it agitated about the
comcept of USSR nukes 90 miles from the US back in those days, correct
me if I'm wrong.
You are correct, but missing the context of Fred's comments to my comments
before. I'm talking about NOW. That's all I ever talk about, the present.
The rest is irrelevant, as is missiles in 1963 - that was 45 years ago now,
and irrelevant to anything about Cuba except middle school history! :)
Few U. S. rightards ever made it out of the 1980s.
I often feel like Zarathustra coming out of the mountains and, instead
of finding a holy man, finding a rightard trying to peddle his out of
date boilerplate.
I ask, "can it be, he has not heard, that rightardism is dead?"
Zarathustra made a lot more sense than you have, Bret. I guess the next
self-pat-ontheback from you will be comparing yourself with Galilei. No
absurdity is beyond you, it seems.

Back in the killfile with you and your pollution.
--
regards , Peter B. P. http://macplanet.dk
Washington D.C.: District of Criminals

"I dont drink anymore... of course, i don't drink any less, either!
Bret Cahill
2008-03-12 03:20:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by PeterBP
I guess the next
self-pat-ontheback from you will be comparing yourself with Galilei.
If you wish. I'm _very_ service oriented.

Just don't expect me to do anything dumb like climbing up on a hill
with lanterns at night to measure the speed of light.


Bret Cahill


"Maybe Nature abhors a vacuum to 28 feet and after than Nature no
longer abhors a vacuum."

-- Galileo
Bret Cahill
2008-03-09 17:12:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Fred Weiss
However, you are correct that before free markets have a chance in
Cuba they first must have free speech.
That's what I've been saying all along, not just for Cuba but for the
U. S. and everywhere else on the planet.

Genuine free markets require free speech _as a precondition_ as you
stated above.

Ayn Rand would agree so everyone is on the same page.

Except our outspoken "market" economists employed at will by GOP shill
tanks, Hoover, Heritage, Am. Enterprise, Cato, the Chicago School, von
Mises, etc.

They'll dodge that issue like there's no tomorrow.

In fact, there _is_ no tomorrow for out GOP shill tank "market"
economists.


Bret Cahill
Malrassic Park
2008-03-08 06:29:58 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 7 Mar 2008 11:36:28 -0800 (PST), Fred Weiss
Post by Fred Weiss
Post by Malrassic Park
Of course political freedom (free speech, 1st amendment) "precedes" or
is the condition of economic freedom.
That's true - and vice versa
But that's obviously not what Brat is saying. If he were, he would
just say it in that straightforward way and no "market economist"
would disagree. Instead he thinks he's playing "gotcha" but which he
achieves only by obfuscation...and equivocation.
He obviously has no interest in free trade - and certainly no real
interest in free speech. Quite the opposite.
I'm really saying that he is committing a category error. There is no
actual political or religious communication necessary before two or
more individuals can engage in a free trade. Or if he's asking simply
if it does happen, then I'd say: maybe in the asylum, just before one
inmate trades a pack of gum for a pack of cigarettes.

--
We usually go over the top w/ our new found freedoms.
Unfortunately, her 'followers' are as radical as Pat
Robertson's. Discernment goes out the window.
- A youtube poster
Bret Cahill
2008-03-08 07:12:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by chazwin
There is no
actual political or religious communication necessary before two or
more individuals can engage in a free trade.
How do you consent to a trade w/o having free speech?

Not that free speech isn't required for other reasons before the
trade, i. e., free speech to communicate the price, what's being
traded, when, where, etc., but you must have an IQ in the single
digits to screw up the consent part.

That some people even try to debate a self evident truth shows how
much they've been dumbed down by the corp. media.

A looneytarian or Randroid is like a Slave who can obey his Master but
not Reason.


Bret Cahill
Ynot B. Dull
2008-03-07 23:35:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Fred Weiss
Post by r***@outgun.com
Post by Shrikeback
Now, unless you're prepared to postulate some
deity who said, "let there be light," before the first
exchange of electrons between two atoms occurred,
you'll have to admit that exchange precedes speech
by billions of years.
I hope you realize that what you posted is just one giant equivocation
on the word "trade".
Apparently you don't realize that he's being satirical - ridiculing
moonbat Brat and his incoherent mantra "does free speech precede each
and every free trade".
The answer to the question is : YES, or it is not "free" trade, but
contrived and controlled trade.

Just like what has occurred in the Sub-prime melt down, and every other
con-job on the share markets and NAFTA et al.
Post by Fred Weiss
The equivocation here is entirely Brat's as a number of us having been
pointing out for a very long time now. Actually, Brat is even now
admitting his own equivocation in claiming that one can define one's
terms any way one wishes.
Fred Weiss
Your interpretations are your own, only cowards and fools let others do
their thinking for them. :)

So free speech is free speech. and free trade is free trade.

It depends on what meaning you give to the word "free" I guess.

Are you "free" or "controlled and manipulated"? <vbg>
Shrikeback
2008-03-08 01:36:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by r***@outgun.com
Post by Shrikeback
Post by chazwin
Post by Shrikeback
The only ones who are going in circles are the Greenolas,
shouting "repent, repent of thy capitalism, for the end is
nigh. The sky, it falleth. Yea, verily." You'd think the
LSD market had dried up.
Human speech began before the concept of trade was born. Case closed.
We aren't talking about the birth of the _concept_ of
trade. We're talking about the actuality of trade.
Primates were doing the, "I'll scratch your flea bites,
if you scratch mine," thing long before they could
say that in words. In fact, the dinosaurs were
busy trading bodily fluids freely in their day. May
they rest in peace.
Going back even further, back to when the Big Bang
was still fresh in everyone's minds, the first free exchange
of electrons between atoms occurred.
Now, unless you're prepared to postulate some
deity who said, "let there be light," before the first
exchange of electrons between two atoms occurred,
you'll have to admit that exchange precedes speech
by billions of years.
I hope you realize that what you posted is just one giant equivocation
on the word "trade".
That depends on what your definition of the word, "equivocation," is.
Post by r***@outgun.com
When one speaks of "free trade", they're generally speaking of
economic agents buying and selling goods and services unimpeded by
government regulation, not atoms trading electrons.
In those early days, atoms exchanged electrons completely
free of government regulation. In fact, the free trade of
electrons precedes each and every government regulation.
Of course, regulations that are designed to facilitate free
trade don't count as inhibitors of free trade, now do they?
Post by r***@outgun.com
If you want to defend free trade in the economic sense, then do it by
making an intelligent argument centered around concepts like
preference ordering and comparative advantage, not by making
meaningless statements like "every act of free speech is preceded by
free trade".
Look. Read my header. This question is not for people who can
understand intelligent economic arguments centered around
concepts like preference ordering and comparative advantage,
it's for "leftards, moonbats, and other smelly old hippies."
Whenever you ask this question of them they run for their
granola pipes for inspiration. But none ever comes, so they
repeat gibberish like:

"If'n I git my oily gun pushed too far."

"Tax cut recession"

"Hillary can bring back a full-fledged Jimmy Carter high-tax
economic boom"

"I'm biking for climate change."

and

"Does free speech precede each and every free trade?"
Fred Weiss
2008-03-04 23:05:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bret Cahill
"Does the laying of the foundation of a house precede the roofing of
said house?"
Sure, the same way that being clear on one's terms precedes the making
of an argument - and thus being understood by one's listeners.

Can a crew build a house if they all don't have the same understanding
of "concrete" or "wood"?

You are devoting a great deal of energy to duck 'n dodge a very simple
question. I wonder why.

Fred Weiss
Bret Cahill
2008-03-05 22:49:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bret Cahill
"Does the laying of the foundation of a house precede the roofing of
said house?"
Sure,
Now try this:

"Does free speech precede each and every free trade?"


Bret Cahill
Shrikeback
2008-03-06 00:33:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bret Cahill
Post by Bret Cahill
"Does the laying of the foundation of a house precede the roofing of
said house?"
Sure,
"Does free speech precede each and every free trade?"
Nobody cares. What's really important is that free trade
precedes each and every instance of free speech. Find
one counterexample.
Bret Cahill
2008-03-06 01:11:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Shrikeback
Nobody cares.
No one cares about having the stoppin' power to defend your home 'n
hearth?


Bret Cahill
Shrikeback
2008-03-06 02:58:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bret Cahill
Post by Shrikeback
Nobody cares.
No one cares about having the stoppin' power to defend your home 'n
hearth?
That depends on what your definition of "stoppin' power" is.
It also depends on what your defintiion of "definition" is.
Some folks who have very little stoppin' power try to tell
us the size of the stoppin' power doesn't matter. But we
know better.

Anyway, this dodges the central issue, which is that you
cannot answer this question:

"Does free trade precede each and every instance of free
speech?"

without going through paroxysms of dodging. Cut the
question. Ignore the question. But never answer the
question.

That's why your hopes for another high-tax Jimmy Carter
People's Temple economic stagflation boom will be dashed.
But you'll retreat to your comforting pink-tinted shades
and kick back in the quiet room of your commune, and then
come back with some kind of echolalia-head-in-the-sand
KKKahill racist crap.
Bret Cahill
2008-03-06 17:27:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Shrikeback
Post by Bret Cahill
Post by Shrikeback
Nobody cares.
No one cares about having the stoppin' power to defend your home 'n
hearth?
That depends on what your definition of "stoppin' power" is.
BATF takes your AK-47 out of your live warm hands.

That's real stoppin' power.


Bret Cahill
Shrikeback
2008-03-06 17:38:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bret Cahill
Post by Shrikeback
Post by Bret Cahill
Post by Shrikeback
Nobody cares.
No one cares about having the stoppin' power to defend your home 'n
hearth?
That depends on what your definition of "stoppin' power" is.
BATF takes your AK-47 out of your live warm hands.
That's real stoppin' power.
That's nothing compared to what Janet "I love the smell
of barbequed flesh in the mornging" Reno could
do with a flamethrower. Will Obama re-animate the
Janet Reno zombie?
Bret Cahill
2008-03-06 18:21:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Shrikeback
Post by Bret Cahill
Post by Shrikeback
Post by Bret Cahill
Post by Shrikeback
Nobody cares.
No one cares about having the stoppin' power to defend your home 'n
hearth?
That depends on what your definition of "stoppin' power" is.
BATF takes your AK-47 out of your live warm hands.
That's real stoppin' power.
That's nothing
You think you got enough stoppin' power to take on BATF?

BATF can afford $5.00/gallon fuel.

If you hop in your truck and flee you'll have to hop out as soon as
you are on empty.


Bret Cahill
Shrikeback
2008-03-06 19:04:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bret Cahill
Post by Shrikeback
Post by Bret Cahill
Post by Shrikeback
Post by Bret Cahill
Post by Shrikeback
Nobody cares.
No one cares about having the stoppin' power to defend your home 'n
hearth?
That depends on what your definition of "stoppin' power" is.
BATF takes your AK-47 out of your live warm hands.
That's real stoppin' power.
That's nothing
You think you got enough stoppin' power to take on BATF?
Me and Major Major got enough stoppin'
power to take on anyone in the DEA.
Post by Bret Cahill
BATF can afford $5.00/gallon fuel.
I drive a Tesla.

Anyway, be thankful it ain't $10 a gallon
European petrol.
Post by Bret Cahill
If you hop in your truck and flee you'll have to hop out as soon as
you are on empty.
It won't matter because the Janet Reno
zombie will fry everyone for miles around.
Soylent Green for everyone! Happy Earth
Day!

-----------------------------------------------------------
My name is Shrikeback and this message is certified
carbon-neutral, so the tax on it is nil.
chazwin
2008-03-06 18:29:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bret Cahill
Post by Bret Cahill
"Does the laying of the foundation of a house precede the roofing of
said house?"
Sure,
"Does free speech precede each and every free trade?"
Nobody cares.  What's really important is that free trade
precedes each and every instance of free speech.  Find
one counterexample.
There is no example of this let alone a counter example. Speech and
trade and not necessarily causally linked. You might as well say every
banana preceeds every teapot.
This entire thread is a waste of virtual ink.

All you guys need to get a life.
Shrikeback
2008-03-06 20:01:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by chazwin
Post by Bret Cahill
Post by Bret Cahill
"Does the laying of the foundation of a house precede the roofing of
said house?"
Sure,
"Does free speech precede each and every free trade?"
Nobody cares. What's really important is that free trade
precedes each and every instance of free speech. Find
one counterexample.
There is no example of this let alone a counter example.
Of course there is.

A group of smelly old hippies decides to parade in downtown
Washington D.C. with some placards emblazoned with McCain's
glowing visage with a Hitler moustache plastered under the nose.
They need to order the moustache from a Chinese gulag on the
Internet. They also need some lead-laced crayons manufactured
in a Chinese gulag to write:

"Down with crapitalism. McCain can eat me."

There you have it. Now, try to give a counterexample,
and you will find that free speech is 100% dependent on
free trade.
Post by chazwin
Speech and
trade and not necessarily causally linked.
It should be noted that two events being linked
chronologically does not imply they are linked
causally.
Post by chazwin
You might as well say every
banana preceeds every teapot.
That's close to the truth. Every banana republic
is preceded by a tin pot despot. Is that what
you were trying to get at?
Post by chazwin
This entire thread is a waste of virtual ink.
Virtual ink is as cheap as asian labor.
Post by chazwin
All you guys need to get a life.
That's what it's all about. Life, liberty, and the avoidance
of a high-tax Jimmy Carter economic stagflation boom.
Fred Weiss
2008-03-06 07:56:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bret Cahill
Post by Bret Cahill
"Does the laying of the foundation of a house precede the roofing of
said house?"
Sure,
"Does free speech precede each and every free trade?"
Now you try explaining what it means.

Start by telling us what you mean by "free speech".

Simple question and you keep saying it's a simple answer. But we keep
waiting for it and never hear it. You just keep duckin' an' dodgin'.

Of course we both know why, so it's all rhetorical. You want to use
the language of freedom - just as you constantly quote a few of its
major proponents - but to convey the exact opposite. To seem to be
advocating freedom while actually promoting its destruction. It's a
very old slimey propaganda trick of Marxists which when it is revealed
for what it is, they go scurrying around like rats trying desperately
to avoid the admission.

Exhibit A: Brat

Fred Weiss
Ynot B. Cilly
2008-03-06 13:35:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Fred Weiss
Post by Bret Cahill
Post by Bret Cahill
"Does the laying of the foundation of a house precede the roofing of
said house?"
Sure,
"Does free speech precede each and every free trade?"
Now you try explaining what it means.
Start by telling us what you mean by "free speech".
Simple question and you keep saying it's a simple answer. But we keep
waiting for it and never hear it. You just keep duckin' an' dodgin'.
Of course we both know why, so it's all rhetorical. You want to use
the language of freedom - just as you constantly quote a few of its
major proponents - but to convey the exact opposite. To seem to be
advocating freedom while actually promoting its destruction. It's a
very old slimey propaganda trick of Marxists which when it is revealed
for what it is, they go scurrying around like rats trying desperately
to avoid the admission.
Exhibit A: Brat
Fred Weiss
Jefferson warned about the dangers from people like you way back in the
1800's. How twisted things have become since. Still it lasted longer than he
probably expected.
Bret Cahill
2008-03-06 17:23:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Fred Weiss
Post by Bret Cahill
Post by Bret Cahill
"Does the laying of the foundation of a house precede the roofing of
said house?"
Sure,
"Does free speech precede each and every free trade?"
Now you try explaining what it means.
Start by telling us what you mean by "free speech".
Same as above. Anything _you_ want it to mean.

You've demonstrate you can answer simple questions about building
construction.

Why do you dodge simple questions about free markets and free speech?

After all, you spend much more time on market economics than building
construction.


Bret Cahill
Shrikeback
2008-03-06 17:52:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bret Cahill
Post by Fred Weiss
Post by Bret Cahill
Post by Bret Cahill
"Does the laying of the foundation of a house precede the roofing of
said house?"
Sure,
"Does free speech precede each and every free trade?"
Now you try explaining what it means.
Start by telling us what you mean by "free speech".
Same as above. Anything _you_ want it to mean.
All this is purest dodge material. We all know that
"free speech" means nekkid nazis parading around
SF shouting "kill the fags".
Post by Bret Cahill
You've demonstrate you can answer simple questions about building
construction.
Why do you dodge simple questions about free markets and free speech?
It is you who is dodging the simplest and most important
question of all:

"Does free trade preced each and every free speech?"

This is the question that sends all leftards back to the
commune to freebase granola. It sends them back
to their Wonderland rabbit holes cockroaches under
the refrigerator at the trailer park.
Post by Bret Cahill
After all, you spend much more time on market economics than building
construction.
That's right. It's time to stop dodging and just answer
the question, KKKahill.
Bret Cahill
2008-03-06 18:24:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Shrikeback
It is you who is dodging the simplest and most important
"Do gun nutters have enough stoppin' power when BATF gits all the $5/
gallon fuel they want?"


Bret Cahill
Shrikeback
2008-03-06 19:10:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bret Cahill
Post by Shrikeback
It is you who is dodging the simplest and most important
"Do gun nutters have enough stoppin' power when BATF gits all the $5/
gallon fuel they want?"
I don't know. That's just a dodge, because you can't confront
the central philosophical issue that plagues your high-tax Jimmy
Carter economic stagflation utopia, back when men were men,
and granola was pure and shipped straight from the labs of Berkeley:

"Does free trade precede each and every instance of free speech?"

This is the question that sends old smelly hippies on a major
flashbacking reverie to the nostalgic good old days of double-
digit everything. They can't answer this one, so they'll always
dodge, and go on some stilted memorized script about gittin'
your dirty warm live hands offa my stoppin' power (I'm not as
easy as I look).
Bret Cahill
2008-03-07 04:32:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Shrikeback
Post by Bret Cahill
Post by Shrikeback
It is you who is dodging the simplest and most important
"Do gun nutters have enough stoppin' power when BATF gits all the $5/
gallon fuel they want?"
I don't know.
Then you shouldn't have dropped out of middle skool.

There's more to life than oiling your gun on the front porch.


Bret Cahill
Shrikeback
2008-03-07 19:47:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bret Cahill
Post by Shrikeback
Post by Bret Cahill
Post by Shrikeback
It is you who is dodging the simplest and most important
"Do gun nutters have enough stoppin' power when BATF gits all the $5/
gallon fuel they want?"
I don't know.
Then you shouldn't have dropped out of middle skool.
Sigh. I think you did drop out of kindergarten, since
that's where we all learned to listen before answering.
Seek first to understand, then to be understood. Of
course, neither of those is your goal here. Your goal
is to return to the glorious proletarian late seventies,
when men were men, taxes were high (and not indexed
to inflation), interest rates were high, inflation was high,
the hippies were high, and life was beautiful all the
time for the slackers on the left. And they're coming
to take you away, haha.
Post by Bret Cahill
There's more to life than oiling your gun on the front porch.
In my state, you can't just oil your gun on the front
porch, or they'll get you for lewd conduct and exposing
yourself. I don't know how it is out there in your
People's Temple high-tax socialist utopian commune.
But, 'round here, even fags can't oil their guns on the
front porch. In SF, they can, during the parade.
Fred Weiss
2008-03-07 00:17:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bret Cahill
Post by Fred Weiss
Post by Bret Cahill
Post by Bret Cahill
"Does the laying of the foundation of a house precede the roofing of
said house?"
Sure,
"Does free speech precede each and every free trade?"
Now you try explaining what it means.
Start by telling us what you mean by "free speech".
Same as above. Anything _you_ want it to mean.
Same as what above? The definitions of "foundation", "house", and
"roof" are not "anything _you_ - or _I_ for that matter - want it to
mean".

They have precise meanings which we all understand.
Post by Bret Cahill
Why do you dodge simple questions about free markets and free speech?
Why do you dodge telling us what _you_ mean by them? As a matter of
fact, even in conventional discussion there is some controversy about
their meaning, even in some contexts considerable controversy. But
that problem is compounded in your case because you have your own
idiosyncratic definition which is clear in the fact that in the
conventional sense your question is meaningless gibberish so that not
only "market economists" but no one can answer it because they don't
know what the fuck you are talking about and therefore what you are
asking - and you refuse to say.

The only relevant question is therefore why you refuse to say.

Fred Weiss
Bret Cahill
2008-03-07 04:27:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Fred Weiss
Post by Fred Weiss
Post by Bret Cahill
Post by Bret Cahill
"Does the laying of the foundation of a house precede the roofing of
said house?"
Sure,
"Does free speech precede each and every free trade?"
Now you try explaining what it means.
Start by telling us what you mean by "free speech".
. . .
Post by Fred Weiss
�Anything _you_ want it to mean.
The definitions of "foundation", "house", and
"roof" are not "anything _you_ - or _I_ for that matter - want it to
mean".
You think all foundations and roofs are identical?
Post by Fred Weiss
They have precise meanings which we all understand.
Only if you think "materials" is a precise word.
Post by Fred Weiss
Why do you dodge simple questions about free markets and free speech?
Why do you dodge telling us what _you_ mean by them?
Because I'm not an autocrat.

I'm not a dictator.

I do _not_ decide the definitions of words.

Only _you_ and the people can decide definitions of words.


Bret Cahill
Fred Weiss
2008-03-07 11:47:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bret Cahill
Post by Fred Weiss
Post by Bret Cahill
Why do you dodge simple questions about free markets and free speech?
Why do you dodge telling us what _you_ mean by them?
Because I'm not an autocrat.
I'm not a dictator.
I do _not_ decide the definitions of words.
No, but you decide what _you_ mean by them and that's what I've been
asking you.

Further, you have no point - nor much of a bet - if those famed
"market economists" you keep deriding can define them any way that
they wish. And you - not being an autocrat or dictator - should have
no problem with them making up any definition they wish.

Therefore, what point do you think you are making by the pronouncement
about free speech preceding free trade?
Post by Bret Cahill
Only _you_ and the people can decide definitions of words.
So, if you have no problem if I define "free speech" as "virus" and
"free trade" as "pneumonia", please send me $200.

Fred Weiss
Bret Cahill
2008-03-07 17:24:23 UTC
Permalink
Randroids, self proclaimed experts on logic, free markets and freedom
generally can answer simple questions on building construction.

They automatically know the definitions of all types of foundations
and roofing even though they rarely discuss the field.

Curiously they cannot answer even _one_ simple question in their own
field, free markets, without demanding definitions, and not dictionary
definitions or even their _own_ definitions.

They want to steal _your_ definitions.

For example, if you ask them,

"Does free speech precede each and every free trade?"

They will suddenly become too dumb to know the meanings of terms
they've been using for years and years without a single qualification
or foot note.

The problem with acting dumb is -- surprise surprise -- everyone
thinks you are dumb.
Post by Fred Weiss
Post by Bret Cahill
Post by Fred Weiss
Post by Bret Cahill
Why do you dodge simple questions about free markets and free speech?
Why do you dodge telling us what _you_ mean by them?
Because I'm not an autocrat.
I'm not a dictator.
I do _not_ decide the definitions of words.
No, but you decide what _you_ mean by them and that's what I've been
asking you.
Every individualist is free to choose to decide what he means by his
words.

Or, if you are a collectivist, then society decides.

Either way Bret Cahill does _not_ decide the meanings of words.
Post by Fred Weiss
Further, you have no point - nor much of a bet - if those famed
"market economists" you keep deriding can define them any way that
they wish.
Outspoken GOP "market" economists at Hoover, Heritage, American
Enterprise, Cato, the Chicago School, von Mises, etc., might be on the
losing side of history but they aren't stupid.

They know they'ld be laughed out of their credibility -- and jobs --
by asking for definitions of words they've been using without
definition, asterisk, footnote or other comment every day for decades.

Supposing you just got hired as a roofer claiming you had decades of
experience in the construction industry. You appear at the job site
and find the house is already framed and stacks of roofing shingles
are out front.

The contractor asks you to start taking the bundles of roofing
shingles up on the roof.

Your answer?

"OK."

No that's not your answer. Instead you ask the contractor, "what's
your definition of roofing shingles?"

The contractor will respond, quite properly BTW, "you told me you knew
something about construction and now it turns out you are a fraud or
stupid or both. You have exactly 30 seconds to get your stuff and get
the f--- off this property."
Post by Fred Weiss
And you - not being an autocrat or dictator - should have
no problem with them making up any definition they wish.
I'll pay $200 for a facious answer, _any text whatsoever_.

But they won't do it for the same way our fraud roofer ain't gonna try
gold bricking by asking for definitions.

GOP politicians and their tax cuts for the rich would be run out of DC
by November but the shill tank economist would be looking for work in
the productive sector _even faster_.
Post by Fred Weiss
Therefore, what point do you think you are making by the pronouncement
about free speech preceding free trade?
Those who claim to support free marketry don't support free markets.

They are frauds.
Post by Fred Weiss
Post by Bret Cahill
Only _you_ and the people can decide definitions of words.
So, if you have no problem if I define "free speech" as "virus" and
"free trade" as "pneumonia", please send me $200.
Are you an outspoken economist on the payroll at the Hoover Inst.,
Heritage Foundation, American Enterprise Inst., Cato, the Chicago
School of Economics or the von Mises Inst.?

I've stated the simple rules to get the $200 many times:

1. The original hardcopy letterhead must be that of the Hoover Inst.,
Heritage Foundation, American Enterprise Inst., Cato, the Chicago
School of Economics or the von Mises Inst.

2. Said hardcopy must include the question:

"Does free speech precede each and every free trade?"

3. Immediately below said question some text must look like it's in
answer to said question. Said text can be any word or words, i. e.,
"yes" or "no" or "maybe" or "what's your definition of 'free markets'"
or "first I'll define 'free speech' as 'virus'" or "you're a smelly
hippy pinko commie."

4. The signature must be that of an outspoken "market" economist on
the payroll of said organizations above , i. e., Thomas Sowell at
Hoover.

5. Scan and Email a tiff or pdf copy of the letter to
***@aol.com along with a USPS mailing address or some other
location you want the $200 money order delivered.

I'll even stuff cash under a stump anywhere legal in the lower 48
states if you want, i. e., the top of White Mt. Peak, under a dumpster
in the worse neighborhood in Detroit, etc.

I'll include my mailing address so you can, on your honor, send me the
original.

But "honor" and the "dodge by definition" are two things that will
never be associated in my mind.


Bret Cahill
Fred Weiss
2008-03-07 19:49:11 UTC
Permalink
On Mar 7, 12:24 pm, Bret Cahill <***@aol.com> wrote:

<snip irrelevant Brat Babble>
Post by Bret Cahill
Post by Fred Weiss
Therefore, what point do you think you are making by the pronouncement
about free speech preceding free trade?
Those who claim to support free marketry don't support free markets.
They are frauds.
Well, gee, what a surprise that you think so. What does "free speech"
have to do with it and why specifically must it "precede each and
every free trade"?

So tell us Brat. Do _you_ support free markets? If you support free
markets but "market economists" don't, what is the difference in your
views of free markets? How many of your teeth will we have to pull
this time to get you to provide a straightforward answer - and why are
you afraid to provide a straightforward answer?

Fred Weiss
Bret Cahill
2008-03-08 05:05:55 UTC
Permalink
The age of censorsip is over. Get used to it:

The issues you dodged are reinserted:

~~~~~~~~

Randroids, self proclaimed experts on logic, free markets and freedom
generally can answer simple questions on building construction.

They automatically know the definitions of all types of foundations
and roofing even though they rarely discuss the field.

Curiously they cannot answer even _one_ simple question in their own
field, free markets, without demanding definitions, and not
dictionary
definitions or even their _own_ definitions.

They want to steal _your_ definitions.

For example, if you ask them,

"Does free speech precede each and every free trade?"

They will suddenly become too dumb to know the meanings of terms
they've been using for years and years without a single qualification
or foot note.

The problem with acting dumb is -- surprise surprise -- everyone
thinks you are dumb.
Post by Fred Weiss
Post by Bret Cahill
Post by Fred Weiss
Post by Bret Cahill
Why do you dodge simple questions about free markets and free speech?
Why do you dodge telling us what _you_ mean by them?
Because I'm not an autocrat.
I'm not a dictator.
I do _not_ decide the definitions of words.
No, but you decide what _you_ mean by them and that's what I've been
asking you.
Every individualist is free to choose to decide what he means by his
words.

Or, if you are a collectivist, then society decides.

Either way Bret Cahill does _not_ decide the meanings of words.
Post by Fred Weiss
Further, you have no point - nor much of a bet - if those famed
"market economists" you keep deriding can define them any way that
they wish.
Outspoken GOP "market" economists at Hoover, Heritage, American
Enterprise, Cato, the Chicago School, von Mises, etc., might be on
the
losing side of history but they aren't stupid.

They know they'ld be laughed out of their credibility -- and jobs --
by asking for definitions of words they've been using without
definition, asterisk, footnote or other comment every day for
decades.

Supposing you just got hired as a roofer claiming you had decades of
experience in the construction industry. You appear at the job site
and find the house is already framed and stacks of roofing shingles
are out front.

The contractor asks you to start taking the bundles of roofing
shingles up on the roof.

Your answer?

"OK."

No that's not your answer. Instead you ask the contractor, "what's
your definition of roofing shingles?"

The contractor will respond, quite properly BTW, "you told me you
knew
something about construction and now it turns out you are a fraud or
stupid or both. You have exactly 30 seconds to get your stuff and
get
the f--- off this property."
Post by Fred Weiss
And you - not being an autocrat or dictator - should have
no problem with them making up any definition they wish.
I'll pay $200 for a facious answer, _any text whatsoever_.

But they won't do it for the same reason our fraud roofer ain't gonna
try
gold bricking by asking for definitions.

GOP politicians and their tax cuts for the rich would be run out of
DC
by November but the shill tank economist would be looking for work in
the productive sector _even faster_.

~~~~~~~~~~
Post by Fred Weiss
Post by Bret Cahill
Post by Fred Weiss
Therefore, what point do you think you are making by the pronouncement
about free speech preceding free trade?
Those who claim to support free marketry don't support free markets.
They are frauds.
Well, gee, what a surprise that you think so.
Obviously the "free marketeers" _themselves_ think they are frauds or
they wouldn't be dodging The Question:

"Does free speech precede each and every free trade?"

After all, if you are an outspoken self proclaimed expert in a field,
you wouldn't dodge the most simple most basic issues in that field.

You'ld respond with a scholarly, "____ covered that back in 267 BC."

Or, "that's like the Zeroth Law of Marketry. ____ thought of it after
they formulated the 1st and 2nd Laws."

But you wouldn't just sit there like a bump on a log while some scum
bag taunts you and undermines your credibility by offering $200 for a
response.
Post by Fred Weiss
What does "free speech"
have to do with it
Do you think that free speech does _not_ precede each and every free
trade?

If so then it ought to be easy to get a GOP "market" economist to
answer the question and make an easy $200.
Post by Fred Weiss
and why specifically must it "precede each and
every free trade"?
It's a self evident truth. It's comical to even debate the issue.

Even a 3rd rate thinker like Rand knew the answer.

That's why GOP "market" economists refuse to answer The Question.

If they say "no" they know they are contradicting a self evident truth
and will look utterly ridiculous and will have to retrain for the
productive sector.

If they say "yes" then they know they have the right answer but that
will force them to retrain for the productive sector even faster.

Their only hope is to delay the inevitable by dodging and dodging.
But as I pointed out above, the problem with acting dumb is, people
just think you are dumb and the "market" economists will eventually
have to retrain for the productive sector anyway.
Post by Fred Weiss
So tell us Brat. Do _you_ support free markets?
I'm the _only_ one I know of doing anything in support of free
markets.
Post by Fred Weiss
If you support free
markets but "market economists" don't, what is the difference in your
views of free markets?
The most significant difference is that when they say they support
free markets, they are lying .

If the GOP "market" economists really supported free markets they'ld
jump at a chance to popularize free markets, to show the superiority
of free markets over "socialism."

At a minimum they'ld want to be highly regarded as scholars.

But this isn't reality.

Instead their disreputable issue dodging will eventually force them to
retrain for the productive sector.

Already GOP politicians have astutely abandoned the cowardly "market"
economists in favor of jingoism. Not that jingoism will help the GOP
hang onto power and tax cuts for the rich much longer either . . .
Post by Fred Weiss
Post by Bret Cahill
Only _you_ and the people can decide definitions of words.
So, if you have no problem if I define "free speech" as "virus" and
"free trade" as "pneumonia", please send me $200.
Are you an outspoken economist on the payroll at the Hoover Inst.,
Heritage Foundation, American Enterprise Inst., Cato, the Chicago
School of Economics or the von Mises Inst.?

I've stated the simple rules to get the $200 many times:

1. The original hardcopy letterhead must be that of the Hoover
Inst.,
Heritage Foundation, American Enterprise Inst., Cato, the Chicago
School of Economics or the von Mises Inst.

2. Said hardcopy must include the question:

"Does free speech precede each and every free trade?"

3. Immediately below said question some text must look like it's in
answer to said question. Said text can be any word or words, i. e.,
"yes" or "no" or "maybe" or "what's your definition of 'free
markets'"
or "first I'll define 'free speech' as 'virus'" or "you're a smelly
hippy pinko commie."

4. The signature must be that of an outspoken "market" economist on
the payroll of said organizations above , i. e., Thomas Sowell at
Hoover.

5. Scan and Email a tiff or pdf copy of the letter to
***@aol.com along with a USPS mailing address or some other
location you want the $200 money order delivered.

I'll even stuff cash under a stump anywhere legal in the lower 48
states if you want, i. e., the top of White Mt. Peak, under a
dumpster
in the worse neighborhood in Detroit, etc.

I'll include my mailing address so you can, on your honor, send me
the
original.

But "honor" and the "dodge by definition" are two things that will
never be associated in my mind.


Bret Cahill
Shrikeback
2008-03-07 19:18:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bret Cahill
Post by Fred Weiss
Post by Bret Cahill
Post by Bret Cahill
"Does the laying of the foundation of a house precede the roofing of
said house?"
Sure,
"Does free speech precede each and every free trade?"
Now you try explaining what it means.
Start by telling us what you mean by "free speech".
. . .
Post by Bret Cahill
Post by Fred Weiss
?Anything _you_ want it to mean.
The definitions of "foundation", "house", and
"roof" are not "anything _you_ - or _I_ for that matter - want it to
mean".
You think all foundations and roofs are identical?
That depends on what your definition of the word,
"identical," is. One can construct any equivalence
class one wants.
Post by Bret Cahill
Post by Fred Weiss
They have precise meanings which we all understand.
Only if you think "materials" is a precise word.
That depends on what your definition of the word,
"precise," is. Like precisely where did you answer
the question:

"Does free trade precede each and every instance
of nekkid gay nazi parades?"
Post by Bret Cahill
Post by Fred Weiss
Why do you dodge simple questions about free markets and free speech?
Why do you dodge telling us what _you_ mean by them?
Because I'm not an autocrat.
Well, that's for sure, anyway. Unless your definition of the
word, "autocrat," is "identical" to your definition of the phrase
"empty-headed leftard."
Post by Bret Cahill
I'm not a dictator.
I do _not_ decide the definitions of words.
Only _you_ and the people can decide definitions of words.
Okay. I nominate that the phrase "Bret KKKahill"
means the same thing as loopy moonbat. All against
say "Neigh." Silence is tacit consent.
Ynot B. Cilly
2008-03-07 03:15:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bret Cahill
Post by Fred Weiss
Post by Bret Cahill
Post by Bret Cahill
"Does the laying of the foundation of a house precede the roofing of
said house?"
Sure,
"Does free speech precede each and every free trade?"
Now you try explaining what it means.
Start by telling us what you mean by "free speech".
Same as above. Anything _you_ want it to mean.
You've demonstrate you can answer simple questions about building
construction.
Why do you dodge simple questions about free markets and free speech?
Why?

One of the main forces opposing efforts to achieve sustainability is
narcissism, and narcissistic defenses. Both are often misunderstood and
unrecognized as they undermine efforts at promoting sustainability. These
forces are universal, and exist in almost all organizations in some form.
They are effective for three main reasons; first, they are unrecognized;
second, people are unprepared mentally and emotionally to deal with them;
and lastly people under appreciate the dynamics of empowerment.

Twenty years ago when one heard the phrase "he or she is so narcissistic"
people would be reminded of the Greek story of Narcissus staring at his own
reflection in a pool of water. Since that time through the work of Heinz
Kohut, James Masterson, Robert Johnson and others we have gained a much more
thorough understanding of narcissism, its manifestations, dynamics, and its
consequences in interpersonal settings. It is important to understand and
appreciate that these dynamics operate the same whether they are in the
private, work or public sectors.

Below is a chart which summarizes the parts of the narcissistic self. The
pie chart can be an effective tool in gaining a working understanding of
narcissistic defenses because it breaks the defense into components. This is
important because the parts represent the exact opposite of what narcissism
is addicted to: a complete domination over whatever space or situation it
finds itself, which serves as an affirmation of its grandiosity and its all
powerful nature.

On the surface narcissism presents so the individual appears as confident
and entitled. NARCISSISM loves and demands attention to reinforce its
grandiosity. It needs to dominate and control the "space," to be "more
special" than anyone else. It also needs perfection and immediate
gratification to satisfy its all powerful aspect of its grandiosity. As a
result, inside the individual, the narcissism feels extremely arrogant.

However, underneath the surface narcissism is fragile. Disappointment and
frustration threaten its grandiosity, leaving it vulnerable to feelings of
shame and humiliation exacerbated by its harsh, punitive component. Along
with the shame and humiliation come deep fears of annihilation which are
fueled by the black and white, rigid thinking component: "if I am not
perfect and all powerful, then I am nothing." The extreme fear of being
found out to not be omnipotent requires the narcissism to resort to hiding
its deeper nature. This act of hiding ultimately leaves the narcissistic
self vulnerable to forces that have trust at their core, not fear.



FACTORS ENABLING NARCISSISM TO SABOTAGE SUSTAINABILITY

How do these developmental and genetic factors which become dominant aspects
of both individuals' and groups' consciousness and behaviors interfere with
efforts at sustainability? The narcissistic defense seeks to dominate every
space in which it participates - both on individual and group levels. This
force of narcissism is interested in, committed to, and obsessed with power
and control, and it will sacrifice people and resources indiscriminately.
The narcissistic defense interferes by stonewalling, intimidating, and
dominating attention in group settings.

NARCISSISM is distinguished from true leadership (which shares attention) by
narcissism's use, abuse and exploitation of people, as opposed to enhancing
and facilitating the value of others. Sustainability is dependent on
collaborative, mutually complementary group efforts that seek to maximize
benefits for the largest amount of people without exploiting each other or
the integrity of the environment. This is offensive to narcissism because it
is in direct contradiction to narcissism's values of dominance, exploitation
and control.

So what does narcissism do in the presence of sustainability proponents? It
resists. It resists in a methodical, calculated way toward the end of either
distracting, derailing, or simply stopping whatever program the
sustainability contingent is seeking to implement. Character assassination,
misinformation, and blocking access to funding and other resources are
commonly employed methods.

When narcissism perceives that it could lose control of a situation or
process, it often feels threatened. The grandiosity's sense of omnipotence
is being threatened. When this happens, narcissism's response can be one of
character assassination of those who are threatening its objectives. The
presence of character assassination is another way of detecting the presence
of narcissism.

There is another important way to recognize narcissism. Narcissism is often
contained in language through the use of "I". If a person listens carefully
to another's use of "I" one can detect the grandiosity inside, the part
speaking for the whole.

INTERACTING EFFECTIVELY WITH NARCISSISM FORCES

Recognizing the presence of narcissistic forces is an important aspect of
the transformational process. Moving to the next phase, interacting
effectively with narcissistic forces, involves a number of important factors
which include: awareness of and freedom from victim complexes, freedom from
being intimidated, skills to deal with intimidation efforts, excellent
emotional boundaries, accountability skills, skills for building consensus
with others in the group, empowering others, and a highly developed inner
ability to tolerate frustration and anxiety.


Most people feel victimized by narcissistic forces and narcissists. This is
because they have felt consistently oppressed, suppressed, or frustrated by
narcissistic forces (e.g. bosses, companies, owners, partners, religious
organizations, governments). This becomes problematic in terms of achieving
sustainability. When one is in a "victim state," one sees the oppressor as
the enemy, as the one with the power, and as a result, the victim is easily
manipulated into frustration and anger. The narcissist will utilize this
dynamic to incite people into emotional states which can be exploited into
distractions from the core issues.

Victim states can be detected by the accent the person puts on "they, them,
he or she", which conveys that the other is bad. The most debilitating
component of victimhood in terms of sustainability and transformation is
that the victim perceives the power as being in the other and outside of
oneself. This is in direct opposition to a principle tenet of sustainability
that power is shared, and essential power is achieved through collaboration,
not dominance.

Narcissistic forces are also critical; they can be harsh in their judgments
of anything short of perfection. They can be bullying and abusive in their
verbal criticism, daring others to challenge their destructive communication
tactics. Their underlying message contains some or all of the following: "I
can intimidate you anytime I want. You are afraid to stand up to me, to
challenge me. You are weak and spineless. Sometimes I will say something
that I know is completely untrue or bullshit just to prove that you won't
challenge me." Intimidation is used like a large boulder on a mountain road,
saying "deal with me, or go down the mountain, and forget going ahead. I am
the roadblock through which you must go."

------



SKILLS FOR DEALING WITH NARCISSISM

Skills for dealing with attempts to intimidate can be divided into two
areas, intrapersonal and interpersonal. Intrapersonally, it is essential not
to react. This means that reactions of fear, impatience, or anger are not
practical. In their place should be patience and curiosity. On an
interpersonal level, responses and questions like, "that's interesting;
could you explain that?; or, "I am not clear about that; would you please
clarify (or elaborate)?; or, "it seems like there is a contradiction in your
logic." All of these can generate positive results in terms of reducing the
control of the narcissistic forces. This is done through the non-reaction,
which communicates, "you are not so powerful that you can manipulate me, or
us, and distract us from the issue. It is also done through the questions
which communicate, "I/we are not afraid of you; we are not leaving the
space/situation to your control alone; we will challenge you if necessary;
you cannot win through intimidation or disinformation."

Questions like the following are the medium for accountability skills:

How did you come to your decision/position?

What factors influenced your decision?

Have you considered the possibility that you are contradicting yourself?

Have you considered that you have avoided considering some important
factors?

Can you clarify your intent and how it includes the following factors (e.g.
your lack of accurate information/your resistance/your unwarranted/excessive
criticism (which is actually character assassination)?

http://ceres.ca.gov/tcsf/pathways/chapter12.html

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

http://www.narcissisticabuse.com/characteristics.html
samvaknin
2008-03-11 15:10:22 UTC
Permalink
Hi,

For a more detailed view of pathological narcissism and the
Narcissistic
Personality Disorder (NPD) - click on these links:

http://malignantselflove.tripod.com/npdglance.html

http://malignantselflove.tripod.com/narcissismglance.html

Other Personality Disorders

http://malignantselflove.tripod.com/faqpd.html

Pathological Narcissism and Other Mental Health Disorders

http://malignantselflove.tripod.com/faq82.html

More about narcissistic collectives, cultures, and societies - click
on
these links:

http://malignantselflove.tripod.com/14.html

http://malignantselflove.tripod.com/journal87.html

http://malignantselflove.tripod.com/lasch.html

http://malignantselflove.tripod.com/journal62.html

http://malignantselflove.tripod.com/journal63.html

http://malignantselflove.tripod.com/faq47.html

http://malignantselflove.tripod.com/15.html

Narcissism and Religion

http://malignantselflove.tripod.com/journal45.html

http://malignantselflove.tripod.com/faq47.html

Take care.

Sam
Bret Cahill
2008-03-06 17:16:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Fred Weiss
Post by Bret Cahill
"Does the laying of the foundation of a house precede the roofing of
said house?"
Sure, the same way that being clear on one's terms
Where did I define "foundation" or "house or "before?"


Bret Cahill
Shrikeback
2008-03-06 17:34:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bret Cahill
Post by Fred Weiss
Post by Bret Cahill
"Does the laying of the foundation of a house precede the roofing of
said house?"
Sure, the same way that being clear on one's terms
Where did I define "foundation" or "house or "before?"
That depends on what your definition of the word,
"define," is.
Bret Cahill
2008-03-06 18:29:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Shrikeback
Post by Bret Cahill
Post by Fred Weiss
Post by Bret Cahill
"Does the laying of the foundation of a house precede the roofing of
said house?"
Sure, the same way that being clear on one's terms
Where did I define "foundation" or "house or "before?"
That depends on what your definition of the word,
"define," is.
Exactly!

Stoppin' power: When BATF takes a gun nutter's AK-47 out of his live
warm hands and the nutter screams "if I git pushed too far . . ."


Bret Cahill
Shrikeback
2008-03-06 19:15:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bret Cahill
Post by Shrikeback
Post by Bret Cahill
Post by Fred Weiss
Post by Bret Cahill
"Does the laying of the foundation of a house precede the roofing of
said house?"
Sure, the same way that being clear on one's terms
Where did I define "foundation" or "house or "before?"
That depends on what your definition of the word,
"define," is.
Exactly!
Stoppin' power: When BATF takes a gun nutter's AK-47 out of his live
warm hands and the nutter screams "if I git pushed too far . . ."
That doesn't qualify as a definition. According to the definition
of the word, "define," agreed to by everyone in the free-speaking
world:

Define: to specify the meaning of

There is no meaning here. According to the definition of the
word, "meaning", given to us by Hitlery's Religious Left crowd:

Meaning: it takes a village to raise an idiot.

Remember, too, that the Religious Left is worse by half
than the Religious Right. They are just as puritanical and
fascist (the American Religious Left gave us Prohibition --
nuff said), and they also want to level your wealth. You have
to guard your balls and your wallet at the same time. They'll
get my balls when they pry them outta my cold dead hands.
And my wallet too. In that order.
Fred Weiss
2008-03-07 00:00:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bret Cahill
Post by Fred Weiss
Post by Bret Cahill
"Does the laying of the foundation of a house precede the roofing of
said house?"
Sure, the same way that being clear on one's terms
Where did I define "foundation" or "house or "before?"
Has anyone asked you for a definition?

Fred Weiss
Shrikeback
2008-03-07 00:24:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Fred Weiss
Post by Bret Cahill
Post by Fred Weiss
Post by Bret Cahill
"Does the laying of the foundation of a house precede the roofing of
said house?"
Sure, the same way that being clear on one's terms
Where did I define "foundation" or "house or "before?"
Has anyone asked you for a definition?
That depends on what your definition of the
word, "asked," is.
Fred Weiss
2008-03-07 04:24:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Shrikeback
Post by Fred Weiss
Post by Bret Cahill
Post by Fred Weiss
Post by Bret Cahill
"Does the laying of the foundation of a house precede the roofing of
said house?"
Sure, the same way that being clear on one's terms
Where did I define "foundation" or "house or "before?"
Has anyone asked you for a definition?
That depends on what your definition of the
word, "asked," is.
Well, according to Brat, it can mean anything I want it to mean.

You know, that makes answering his perennial question pretty easy
because all you have to do is make up a definition for "free speech"
and "free trade" which makes some sense of his question.

For example, suppose we decide to define "free speech" as "virus" and
"free trade" to mean "pneumonia", then it's pretty uncontroversial
that free speech (a virus) precedes each and every free trade (case of
pneumonia).

Somehow I don't think that's what Brat wants.

Somehow I also don't think this is what he means by free speech and
not even though he postures to support the political power of the
Internet:

http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/03/06/america/06cuba.php?page=2

"Cyber-rebels in Cuba defy state's limits"

Fred Weiss
Bret Cahill
2008-03-07 04:22:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Fred Weiss
Post by Bret Cahill
Post by Fred Weiss
Post by Bret Cahill
"Does the laying of the foundation of a house precede the roofing of
said house?"
Sure, the same way that being clear on one's terms
Where did I define "foundation" or "house or "before?"
Has anyone asked you for a definition?
In that case, answer this question:

"Does free speech precede each and every free trade?"


Bret Cahill
Patriot Games
2008-03-04 21:55:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bret Cahill
"Does the laying of the foundation of a house precede the roofing of
said house?"
Wait! Wait! Don't tell me!
In order to answer the question rightards will need my definition of
"foundation"
That would be your ass.
Post by Bret Cahill
and "house"
That would be the equivalent size of your ass.
Post by Bret Cahill
and "precede"
That's what happenned to your hair, back when you had some.
Post by Bret Cahill
and "roof."
That would the hat you wear on your hairless head.
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...