|
|
Sigh
Posted by Stephen Green · 10 February 2006
In response to my question, "Where have the Democrats been," someone calling himself "True Progressive" comments: Oh know [sic], we don't get a whiny neocon on our side. Big loss. Listen up, do think there is an "in-between" on social justice? Well there isn't. So you take your Randian-fascist views and keep them to yourself. We progressives don't need you, and we don't need your militia-KKK buddies either. Keep pumping the corporate and Rovian messages over and over...we are watching you. You nazis won't infiltrate us. You will be stopped. Way to win the middle! It used to be, Democrats prayed for high turnout on election day. The thinking was that a majority of voters held Democratic beleifs - and judging by the results, the thinking was correct. But if "True Progressive" is any indication, the vast majority is no longer welcome in his party, as evidenced by both his arguments and his attitude. So if the Democrats aren't about winning the majority, maybe they're dedicated to disgusting us all so much, that they can win in low-turnout elections. Comments
It's the old 'liberals good, conservatives evil' meme. If you don't agree with them by definition you are evil. No thought, arguing or convincing required. It's really sad you see this so much. Posted by: Will Gore at February 10, 2006 10:18 AMGotta be a troll. Posted by: yk at February 10, 2006 10:25 AMThis one paragraph that successfully distills the volatile vapor of the leftists fever swamp into a nice wormwood aperitif. You dont even have to respond that sort of nonsense, all you have to do is report what they say. They have managed to cut out the middleman when it comes to discrediting their own arguments about tolerance and "open mindedness". Posted by: frank martin at February 10, 2006 10:27 AMMe, I read this and thought it was a joke. Posted by: LNS at February 10, 2006 10:31 AMrandian-fascist? is that like jumbo shrimp? Posted by: jw at February 10, 2006 10:34 AMTO: Stephen Green "So if the Democrats aren't about winning the majority, maybe they're dedicated to disgusting us all so much, that they can win in low-turnout elections." -- Stephen Green ...considering that there are fewer of these sorts [True Progressive] being born every year, just like there are fewer Europeans being born every year, in due time there will be no significant number of them. Consider it another aspect of the Roe Effect. Regards, Chuck(le) I mean, we're talking prima facia 'evidence' here, {nudge-nudge, wink-wink} ardsgaine.... Posted by: Chuck Pelto at February 10, 2006 10:35 AMIt's not something I can take seriously at face value. It's either a troll or someone so far to the left that he makes Pol Pot look like a Republican. Posted by: rbj at February 10, 2006 10:46 AMPersonally I would like to find the progressive who started taking names and turning them into adjectives as synonyms for "evil" (e.g. Rove to Rovian, RAND to Randian) and kung-fu chop him in the throat. I cannot even BEGIN to tell you how obnoxious and Halliburtony that is... Posted by: John Noonan at February 10, 2006 11:32 AMJohn: The "Rand" in question is almost certainly Ayn Rand, not the RAND Corporation. ... It's long been apparent to me that "Progressive" means only "Socialist", and sometimes even "Communist", and that obsession with "corporate" anything (especially where "corporations" are taken as a homogenous, co-operative, aligned group with a single agenda) marks one as a complete moron. Of course, this may just be sample bias due to what's popular with complete morons right now. Posted by: Sigivald at February 10, 2006 11:36 AMhttp://tinyurl.com/94mb9 I highly recommend this book. It's Snobbery: The American Version by Joseph Epstein, and it's a fun read. He has a whole chapter on moral/political snobbery that nicely outlines this left good/right evil false dichotomy. Posted by: Anjali at February 10, 2006 11:38 AMGotta be a troll. No, unfortunately, it doesn't. I've talked to leftists who sounded more or less the same, with only minor changes to account for me being there in person instead of a screen 1000 miles away. And if you go over to, say, Democratic Underground and hang around for a while, you'll hear many, many posts with exactly the same tone. That's what convinced me that it was real - that it sounded so much like a typical DUer. By the way, if you've never visited the fantasyland known as Democratic Underground, you really ought to spend some time on the forums over there. It will be an eye-opening experience, especially if you have only spent your time on right or libertarian sites. Posted by: Billy Hollis at February 10, 2006 11:38 AMI'd like to believe that "True Progressive" is a troll or is just making funny comments. Unfortunately, he/she is all too typical of what left-of-center politics has become. Take a gander at how Joe Lieberman -- you know, the Democrats' VP candidate in 2000 -- is treated on the left-of-center blogosphere. For that matter, look at Chrisopher Hitchens' treatment. I hate to say it, but this is the group that pushed the Democrats so far to the left that they had to run a Massachusetts liberal as the "electable" alternative. Increasingly, even run-of-the-mill liberals (my wife comes to mind) are turning away from politics in revulsion. Posted by: Bill at February 10, 2006 11:50 AMIts not much different from the message coming out of Howard Dean’s mouth. Its just coming from less-polished amateurs. I'm not sure which came first: leftwing blogs and BBSs, which allow that "screw you, a**hole!" tone to run rampant, or the tone itself. In the past, as long as the media could put the best veneer possible on the left, it wasn't all that apparent, except, perhaps, to diehard political junkies. But it's now out in the open, making articles such as this AP wire piece, which attempt to deny or gloss over it, seem pretty silly. I don't think real leftists like that leave their circles, I bet it's a parody. Posted by: aaron at February 10, 2006 12:03 PMIf it is a parody, it's pretty spot-on. Posted by: tim maguire at February 10, 2006 12:12 PMStephen, You've said that you hold your nose and vote Republican because national security is such an overriding issue and other than the WoT, you think Bush is doing a poor job and Republicans in congress are in a passel of trouble. You are appealing to your natural Democratic cohort to bring you back into the fold. Who among Democrats in office or out, could you support for president in 2008? jw wrote: is that like jumbo shrimp? No, it's more like a square circle.
If it is a troll, ya'll shouldn't feed it. If it isn't, I think the appropriate response is "Whatever, douchebag." Honestly folks, what does responding to asshats like that do but get your blood pressure up? You can't talk to or reason with people like that. It sounds or looks like they're using English, but what comes out makes as much sense as an adult in a Charlie Brown cartoon. Just laugh at it and then go play fetch with your dog or something. Posted by: Garrett at February 10, 2006 12:42 PMChuck(le) wrote: It's prima facie. (Quack, quack.) Methinks you're having too much fun playing Bait the Atheist. ;) Garrett, I do laugh at it a lot. I visit DU mostly for the humor value. But it's also troubling that one of our two major political parties has been effectively captured by such a mindset. I'd like to laugh about that (thinking about how they're going to continue to lose elections), but I can't. We need a rational opposition party to keep the GOP from becoming insufferable. And right now we don't have one. Posted by: Billy Hollis at February 10, 2006 12:49 PMBilly, I totally agree with you about the neccessity of a rational opposition. But folks like 'True Progressive' won't be part of it. I read something not too long ago speculating that the two big parties in this country were headed for a major shake-up/realignment. I tend to think this is probably true. I think the Democratic Party currently has a similar problem as that shared by the Muslim world. Both groups are currently suffering the effects of letting thier looniest minority be thier public face. Eventually, in both cases, the moderates will have to do something or be sucked into the abyss. Posted by: Garrett at February 10, 2006 01:20 PMSo much for the 'Big Tent' or 'Wide Umbrella' or whatever the fuck the latest metaphor is. Let the Dems keep trying to satisfy this bunch of loons. The faster the Democratic Party implodes, the faster we get to that multi-party re-alignment. Whatta tool.... Posted by: NukemHill at February 10, 2006 01:31 PMman, that fool sounds like any number of the city council in Dallas... the sort that lowers the collective IQ by merely opening their mouth. how's that for snobbery? Posted by: Clay at February 10, 2006 01:53 PMWay to win the middle! "Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake." - Napoleon Bonaparte Posted by: V-Man at February 10, 2006 01:55 PMTO: ardsgaine "It's prima facie. (Quack, quack.) Methinks you're having too much fun playing Bait the Atheist. ;)" -- ardsgaine When life hands you shotgun rounds, you shoot the ducks. Regards, Chuck(le) Posted by: Chuck Pelto at February 10, 2006 02:15 PMTO: V-Man ""Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake."- Napoleon Bonaparte
The last of the truly awesome epics. Cast of thousands and thousands. Honest to God cavalry charges. Sakes.... Regards, Chuck(le) Posted by: Chuck Pelto at February 10, 2006 02:17 PMWhen will they ever release that in the States on DVD? Yeah, I just saw it in the stores. Oops, sorry, that wasn't Napoleon Bonaparte, it was Napoleon Dynamite.... Posted by: Billy Hollis at February 10, 2006 02:22 PMBilly Hollis: who needs DU? I saw this sort of thing for a decade in Usenet, and in BBS's long before that. All In General: I say that anyone who attempts to sneer-off this sort of thing is simply deluded. To those people: You're just not paying attention to what's happening and why. Pay close attention: "Listen up, do think there is an 'in-between' on social justice? Well there isn't."This person knows what you don't, which is the power of principles. And; they've got it all over you in terms of tactics, and they have for about a century, now. All of this is fully implicit in things like the Gramscian "Long March", and Der Field Marhsal's Rodham's rejection of Saul Alinsky's recruitment in the early-70's in favor of the Fabian approach on the inside. In practical terms, what this means is that every single time you compromise, they win. The wins accrue on their side over time (look at history, kids), and they have time because their own lives actually mean nothing to them in the big picture. They're quite happy to dedicate themselves to The Long Run for victory, and -- knowing things that you don't -- they know how to look at history and add up the score. And I will say that I fully agree with that creep in this: on some crucial things, there is no difference to be split. For the life of me, I cannot understand these various pinings for "moderation" or respect for "a rational opposition party", when the whole antagonism of our time is between collectivism and individualism, especially when we're talking about the state of the only culture in world history explicitly set forth on individualist principles. Knowing how America became what it became, and where its going and how it's getting there, this whole issue is why I call this period of history "The Endarkenment". And you people are going the way of the Eloi as earnestly as you can. Lots of people don't understand why I always have such a rotten attitude on. It's really not hard to figure out: I am heartbroken and outraged, and for excellent reason. There is just no excuse for this. This is not humanity's first lap around the mulberry-bush. But we're going to go around, again, just because the savages know what they're winning on that track, and you don't. Posted by: Billy Beck at February 10, 2006 02:29 PMTO: Bill Hollis "Oops, sorry, that wasn't Napoleon Bonaparte, it was Napoleon Dynamite...." -- Bill Hollis Waterloo, that is. The 1960s movie starring Christopher Plummer as Wellington and Rod Steiger as Napoleon. Superbly done. I've got it on VHS. It's available in Europe on DVD, but not HERE!!! "That gentleman is going to ruin the dance." -- Lady Wellington to the duke upon seeing the muddy Prussian officer come to inform the duke that the French had broken through the Prussian defenses and entered Belgium. Regards, Chuck(le) Posted by: Chuck Pelto at February 10, 2006 02:40 PMI've become convinced over the last 5+ years that the Democratic party has lost sight of the fact that it needs to be winning elections. It appears to grow more interested in scoring nothing but cheap political points and keeping the ravening far left hordes at a safe distance by pandering to them. So guys, when is the next militia-KKK meeting? I need to mark my calender. Posted by: Mark at February 10, 2006 03:13 PM"We need a rational opposition party to keep the GOP from becoming insufferable." Heh. That ship has sailed, no? Posted by: Midwestern Progressive at February 10, 2006 03:27 PMTO: Mark "So guys, when is the next militia-KKK meeting? I need to mark my calender." -- Mark Can't say. I'm a member of neither. When's the next witches coven gathering? Regards, Chuck(le) Posted by: Chuck Pelto at February 10, 2006 03:40 PM"So guys, when is the next militia-KKK meeting? I need to mark my calender." As the late Hunter S. Thompson wrote in Hell's Angels, not me, I'm Kiwanis. Posted by: Ed Driscoll at February 10, 2006 03:48 PM"And after suffering the belch (Beck), the crowd feasted on . . ." Billy B--These folks cannot argue outside the political box . . . They are precisely right where the politicians of either stripe wish them to be. Deer in the headlights . . . Posted by: jb at February 10, 2006 04:17 PMSooner or later, jb, and one way or another, they're going to learn just how flimsy is that box. There is no escape from principles, and reality is going to have its way in the end. You won't find honest debate. People like True Progressive won't engage you (he's either incapable of presenting and defending his viewpoint, or he hates you so bitterly that he can't engage you on equal terms), and the rational members of the Democratic Party have their hands full trying to be adults. If the Democratic Party does vanish (and right now I think that would be a good thing) we won't be stuck with one party. The Republican party will split and two new organizations will reform, roughly on right vs. left, or better yet individualist vs. collectivist lines. In the meanwhile, expect the Democrats to continue wooing you by patiently shrieking how stupid and evil you are. It must be an effective tactic, else they would have abandoned it. Posted by: Steve Skubinna at February 10, 2006 05:44 PMChuck, For what it's worth, Amazon seems to claim to have the version of Waterloo you're looking for. Posted by: don at February 10, 2006 07:19 PMTO: don "For what it's worth, Amazon seems to claim to have the version of Waterloo you're looking for." -- don ...a WONDERFUL Valentine's Day gift. But that Chinese characters under the title look 'odd'. Regards, Chuck(le) Posted by: Chuck Pelto at February 10, 2006 07:44 PMBilly Beck - Interesting post. You do have one problem, when you speak of ideas there hasn't been a new idea on the left (ahem progressive hehe - I love how they lie to themselves) since FDR. Their only faith is that they know how best to spend other people's money. That is why they no longer win elections and will end up losing to a damaged GOP in 06, unreal. Posted by: JEM at February 10, 2006 08:44 PMThose who are trying, desperately, to retain their position (let alone move forward) tend to get a little hot and short. Methinks the left in the USA is in that position. They are trying to hold onto their gains as a confident foe moves against them and swallows up more and more of their territory. As they try to explain their losses they move more and more to trying to find traitors, rather than address the true errors that have led to their defeat. Hence the cheap slams, such as Billy's. They are heading down, they know it, and they rage. Posted by: Mikey at February 10, 2006 09:02 PM"Oh know [sic], we don't get a whiny neocon on our side. Big loss." No, 2000 was a big loss. Just, um, not ours... *G* Posted by: richard mcenroe at February 10, 2006 10:24 PMLook, the rule is simple: Dealing with them on any other basis is like Patrick O'Brian's old Catalan provide about washing your donkey's head. It wastes your soap and annoys the ass... Posted by: richard at February 10, 2006 10:27 PMMikey -- let me explain something to you sonny: I am no more on the left than you are Joan Crawford risen from the grave, and I never have been in my whole life. If you could actually read, you would have understood this from what I wrote, but you didn't, so: sit down and shut the fuck up, you laughable ignoramus. JEM: I disagree, sir. They constantly have new ideas of how to spend others' money, and more: their premises have never once been refuted on moral grounds. They can point to a stretch of about eighty years of compromise, which -- to them, and like I said -- constitutes actual victories, and which are by now so complete that we get to enjoy the spectacle of a Republican president putting LBJ in the shade. Their whole complaint about Bush -- and I mean all of it, throughout all the noise about the war and everything -- is wholly about the fact that he's not commie enough for them. At the street-level, they're impatient. I am convinced, however, that the leadership knows where things are headed, and that's why they play him more moderately. (Yes, I know: that looks wildly implausible, but it's really not, and if you don't think so, then all you have to do is check in at DU now & then and reflect on the fact that you don't hear the Party leadership getting that hysterical. Even Howard Dean isn't anywhere nearly so fulminant as your average DU or Kos punk. He kinda reminds me of Kerensky, c. January 1917, although it's a pretty loose comparison and definitely arguable.) Like I said: theirs is a very long-term game. And they don't need "new ideas", if by that we mean principles or their implications. They like the old ones just fine. That's why they haven't given them up. And they might get their asses kicked in '06, but I'm not so sure of that. In any case, though, it wouldn't be the first time. Reagan just about looked like the second coming of Christ by the time he finished with Carter in 1980. "Conservative principles" claimed a whole decade, the USSR went to hell, that idiot Fukuyama made a big noise about shit he didn't understand, and guess what: The Goddamned Thing -- the re-animating idea of socialism -- keeps rising like the un-dead. This "news ideas" indictment is rampant nonsense. And they can afford to lose an election like '06, or even the big one in '08. They won't like it, and lot of them won't even realize the fact that they can afford it. All the while, however, the long run is running their way. There simply can be no reasonable dispute about this. New ideas? Their old one is the whole Big Idea of the 20th century, and it is swinging into the 21st far better than just about anyone is ready to admit. I'm glad you found my post "interesting". But I don't think you understood the implications, at all. There are a lot of them, and they're large scale. We are in a de facto civil war in this country. It's taking place at the polls instead of with guns, but that can't last forever, or even for very much longer. And very, very few people can put their finger on the essence of the thing. I named it in my first post in this discussion. Anyone who wants to understand should grasp what it is, and then start abstracting the implications. There is an enormous amount of work to do, and pining away for "moderation" is just ridiculously inept. Anyone doing that is only whistling past the graveyard., or just giving up without the nerve to admit it out loud. Are you people still arguing Democrats vs. Republicans? In 2006? You would do well to listen to Mr. Beck and try to wrap your minds around what he's getting at, instead of ignoring the inconvenient principles of the matter in order to continue your meaningless political board games. Posted by: Roy W. Wright at February 10, 2006 11:42 PMAh well, in the very midst of my typing, Billy came and made my comment unnecessary. Posted by: Roy W. Wright at February 10, 2006 11:47 PMNot at all, Roy. For Christ's sake: help me. I've been beating my fingertips to bloody nubs on this stuff for more years than anyone around me thinks has been good for my health, and all I see are bloody yellow smiley-faces just about everywhere I look. "The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and to hasten the resurrection of the dead."(William Lloyd Garrison, January 1, 1831) I don't know what to do next. All I know is what's going on. I wouldn't know how to begin to help, Billy. How you muster the strength of will to address people like these -- who speak of the decline of the Democrat Party while a band of raging socialists hold the reins of power in Washington now and for the foreseeable future -- I can't understand. Posted by: Roy W. Wright at February 11, 2006 12:36 AMPerhaps Khrushchev was correct, he and his brethren have beat us from the inside. It took a long long time to come about but Satan has patience. Now we have people like "True Progressive" and the rest of his "revolutionary comrades" leading the once proud and honorable Democrat party. Pity that. Posted by: Wayne Fielder at February 11, 2006 08:41 AMI'm fighting for my own life, Roy. That's really all there is to it. TO: Roy W. Wright "How you muster the strength of will to address people like these..." -- Roy W. Wright From MY [christian] perspective, you give up on your own life. Something like I did when I raised my right hand and swore to uphold and defend the ideals of the Constitution of the United States, in 1970. I figured I was bound for Nam and there was a good chance I wouldn't return. Being a christian is a LOT like that. You give up on your own life. After all, you'll never make it out of here alive.... Regards, Chuck(le) Billy, Roy - there are plenty of us that are not that distant from you on the general trends towards socialism. This isn't a football game to us. It's more about the last chance to change direction before reaching the point of no return. It appears that you guys think we're past that point already. Fine. I can see why you might think that. But if that's that case, what do you suggest? Lay in the guns and wait for the collapse? Hey, you guys don't mind if we do a little politicking while we wait do you? Can't hurt. Or are of that utopian variety that wants to bootstrap a new political party or something? In that case, I'd say you're the one who's out of touch. I wasted fifteen years trying that approach, only to end up further behind at the end than at the start. "I know the game is rigged, but it's the only game in town." And the game of winning elections is definitely rigged against everyone except the two major parties. In any event, just calling us names isn't getting you anywhere. If you think we're beyond redemption, and the whole political dynamic is out of control and headed to catastrophe anyway, why argue about it? Unless you're recommending what brands of guns to buy, or something. Posted by: Billy Hollis at February 11, 2006 09:01 AMTO: Billy Hollis "If you think we're beyond redemption, and the whole political dynamic is out of control and headed to catastrophe anyway, why argue about it?" -- Billy Hollis It's kinda like trying to stop a drunk from getting into his car. Regards, Chuck(le) Posted by: Chuck Pelto at February 11, 2006 09:16 AM"I wasted fifteen years trying that approach, only to end up further behind at the end than at the start." That distinction of ahead/behind has no useful function, and has not for some time. The true "waste" is to return to thinking the debate can be framed politically. That is kaput. Period. The patient is terminal and comatose. The flurry of nurses at the bedside will bring no cure. To think so, is idiocy. The cancer will not cure itself. It's over, Sports Fans. Gird your loins--it's gonna get real stupid from here on out. Posted by: jb at February 11, 2006 10:06 AMThe story of the film so far: Typical poster: "The Democrats are incoherent. I wish they would change." Catastrophist: "What difference does it make? You saps! You can't do anything that will help." Typical poster: "So what do you suggest as an alternative?" Catastrophist: "What difference does it make? You saps! You can't do anything that will help." Typical poster: "Um, I understand that you think the politcal stuff won't work. But what will work?" Catastrophist: "What difference does it make? You saps! You can't do anything that will help." Typical poster: "Are you telling us to just hole up in the hills?" Catastrophist: "What difference does it make? You saps! You can't do anything that will help." Any chance of breaking out of this pattern? If not, I'm ready to call it a day. Posted by: Billy Hollis at February 11, 2006 10:15 AMBilly H It's Saturday--take a break. Even the pols chill a bit on weekends, so the end will probably not occur until Moday at the earliest. ATB Posted by: jb at February 11, 2006 10:45 AM"Even voting for the right is doing nothing for it."(Henry David Thoreau) You want an idea? My idea is passive civil disobedience. Stop paying for this bloody charade. But here is what a lifetime of actual practice of the thing in my own life, and propounding the idea has taught me: people hope against hope. The factual realities of American politics now are no serious inducement to action of any sort that our forebears would respect, because almost nobody can actually face what they mean. If Ethan Allen could see what we've come to, I have no doubt that his immediate instinct would be to roll cannon into Washington and start blowing great bloody holes in the Capitol. Of course, we face far more complex challenges now, in an age of robotic warfare, and that's not my idea. But my idea won't gain traction in a population scared shitless of such drastic wave-making, or too stupid to add things up, or both. So. We're on the rocket-sled to hell, and the most important political evolution of the past five hundred years is devolving. A long time ago, a Usenet compadre of mine pointed out: "It's France here now." That's the goddamned truth, and all of human history is going to be the worse for it. If this light goes out, there is no telling how long it will be before it sparks again, if it ever does. Let me tell you something, Hollis: if my pointing out the catastrophe makes me a "catastrophist", then so be it. But the way you sling the word results in something a bit past irony after your complaint about name-calling. Hey, Billy, I didn't mean anything derogatory by using the word "catastrophist". It's just the first term that came to mind to describe the "we're all going to hell" position. As I said earlier, I can even see why some have come to such a conclusion. If you've got a preferred alternative term, by all means let's hear it. ("Beckists"?) As long as it's not "realist". That one's overloaded too many times. Posted by: Billy Hollis at February 11, 2006 11:38 AMWell . . . It appears defending the system will continue as the proverbial handbasket makes its descent. Heaven forbid realism should enter the picture . . . It's overloaded. Ah, yeah it is. Posted by: jb at February 11, 2006 11:54 AM"Not at all, Roy. For Christ's sake: help me. I've been beating my fingertips to bloody nubs on this stuff for more years than anyone around me thinks has been good for my health, and all I see are bloody yellow smiley-faces just about everywhere I look." - Billy Beck I don't know if there's any help for it, Billy. I gave up awhile back - I'm just waiting for the guns to come out. 'Tis inevitable now. Look at what you're arguing about, folks. There's not a jot of real difference between the "Parties" except that for people like True Progressive, Bush doesn't have a (-D) after his name. It's all about power, and it's all about taking your money at the point of a bloody gun to buy off other people with in the search for an ever more solid lock on power and influence. And the Republicans are Players at that just exactly like the Dems. Bush is a TR Progressive Republican with all that implies, and so is everyone in the current crop of political leeches on both sides. Or else they're flat out socialists. Matter of degrees. Yer playin' this game thinking that one is much different from the other, and yer playin it by their rules to their advantage... while they use that to take away your rights, your freedoms, and your property - and use them to beat you to fucking death with. Principles, not Personalities. And the principles are individualist against collectivist. There ain't no "moderation". There ain't no compromise that matters. There's just that rod up your back that says "No man owns me - that sumbitch ain't been born yet" vs those that believe that what's yours is "theirs by Right". You don't fix government by throwing more government with a different lable at it. "The Republican party will split and two new organizations will reform, roughly on right vs. left, or better yet individualist vs. collectivist lines." They'll split along Statist-socialist vs Slightly Better Disguised Statist-socialist lines. Because that's what buys acquiesence from voters who believe they have a right to what's yours. "If you think we're beyond redemption, and the whole political dynamic is out of control and headed to catastrophe anyway, why argue about it? Unless you're recommending what brands of guns to buy, or something." - Billy Hollis Try Kim du Toit's. He's got all the firearm reccomendations you'll ever need. "It appears that you guys think we're past that point already. Fine. I can see why you might think that. But if that's that case, what do you suggest? Lay in the guns and wait for the collapse?" - Billy Hollis Works for me. "Hey, you guys don't mind if we do a little politicking while we wait do you? Can't hurt." - Billy Hollis Yeah, we mind. You're Politickin' on what surrogate you're going to have take my property, productivity, rights, liberties - and those of my godkids - at gunpoint to use for your own benefit. It does hurt. "Or are of that utopian variety that wants to bootstrap a new political party or something? In that case, I'd say you're the one who's out of touch." - Billy Hollis *snicker* Occassionally, following the link on someone's sig like Beck's and reading what they're about keeps one from sticking one's feet in it. ;] I don't recall Beck mentioning anything about forming a "New Betterer Collective to Fight the Old Worn Out Ones!" You? "Typical poster: 'Um, I understand that you think the politcal stuff won't work. But what will work?'" - Billy Hollis You get to the meat and bone of it finally... Stop sanctioning it. Quit voting for a choice of criminals. Quit giving them defacto permission to rob you. Quit funding it. Quit thinking you're doing something "moral" by putting other people's rights and property to majority consensus. Starve the beast. If you believe that it's wrong to determine someone else's life by force, then stop participating in doing so. And do your level best to convince others to follow your example and starve the beast as well. You want to break the damn pattern, you have to stop flying in formation with it. There ain't no easy, safe, or guaranteed way. "That is kaput. Period. The patient is terminal and comatose. The flurry of nurses at the bedside will bring no cure." - jb Pretty much. And it's already been stupid from here on in - why should it change from here on out? ;) Oh well. It was a good idea 200+ years ago. Too bad we couldn't keep it, as the man said. Posted by: Ironbear at February 11, 2006 12:23 PMNo kiddin', jb. The truth isn't good enough, precisely because so many people have been beating it out of shape for so long. And so, now, we're talking about a fashion-show. And not only that, but the fashions themselves have to fit a sound-bite attention span in order to validate a marketing program pitching to x-box rutabagas. "The Eloi." Like I said. Boy, are we ever fucked. Heh. X-posted with yas, Billy. ;] Posted by: Ironbear at February 11, 2006 12:26 PMTO: JB, Billy, Billy and Roy [Note: Does that sound like a Deep South law firm?] ...have we got a consensus then? It's all over except for the mayhem, murder and maggots? Bring on the Four Horsemen? Stick a fork in US? Interesting. You guys gonna become survivalists? Form a klan? Move to Ruby Ridge? Will you let others join? I think we're to the point where we can unite this thread with the one that it is a spin-off of, as the two seem to be coalescing into one. Regards, Chuck(le) Chuckles Nah. I am optimistic. The sun will rise tomorrow. It just might not shine in DC. No great loss. As to the rest of what you said, Beck and Ironbear covered it fully. Read again. Truth is a bitch, but it is what it is. :-) Posted by: jb at February 11, 2006 01:46 PMTO: JB "I am optimistic." -- JB They have a group here. Or are you thinking of forming another group under that name? Have a care. I think they'll defend their registered tradename in court. I'm something of an optimist myself. But not in anything of THIS venue.... Regards, Chuck(le) I can see that, Bear. And I might have more to say for you, but I think you've wrapped things quite nicely, and besides: there's dinner with my name on it at a local Mexican joint. "Consensus", Chuck? I think you'd have to ask the host here. Dunno, but he ought to have some authority in the matter. TO: Billy Beck [of JB, Billy, Billy and Roy] "Dunno, but he ought to have some authority in the matter." -- Billy Beck I think he has the authority to 'kill'. Not to build 'consensus'. Regards, Chuck(le) Posted by: Chuck Pelto at February 11, 2006 04:33 PMHeh. Enjoy your dinner, Billy. ;) I BBQ'd some ribs and had a few n/a St. Pauli's while relaxing in the 'bear Cave and *not* politickin' other people's stuff away and *not* particularly waiting for the inevitable (de)evolutions that Chuck(le)s thinks he's snickerin' at. Tasted pretty good, too. ;] Chuck-e... there's an old 'net term for folks like you who read words on the phosphor screen without comprehension and then apply their own text to respond to. But since I like Steven, I'm not going to crap up his blog by expounding in it in your direction. No need to thank me. Meanwhile, while you're busy making jerking off motions at the screen and smugging at how cute you are by twitting the "neanderthal catastrophists" - there's a "representative" out there you voted for figuring out how to one day make a Carl Drega out of you to their profit. Or you might get lucky and they'll bite your neighbor in the ass. Either way, it's the profit of propping up the game. Their profit, always, not your'n. Sleep well. And keep telling yourself: "I'm the Smart One!" *snicker* Take care, jb. Been real, been fun, and was good to meet you in passing. Posted by: Ironbear at February 11, 2006 09:51 PMTO: Ironbear "Meanwhile, while you're busy making jerking off motions at the screen..." -- Ironbear ...you're projecting, here. RE: A Drega Moment "...there's a "representative" out there you voted for figuring out how to one day make a Carl Drega out of you to their profit." -- Ironbear While New Hampshire has it's Drega. Colorado has Marvin Heemeyer, 4 June 2004, Granby, CO, and an armor-plated bulldozer. But he didn't murder anyone. Again, I suspect you are projecting. You're the one who displays more (1) animosity and (2) dispair. Besides, I'm more pro-active in my communities politcs. The distaff is the chair of a city commission. I'm on serveral city/county and citizens' committees. So, as you see, I have an outlet for my angst. And it's fairly effective. Last year, Jan 2005, we turned a City Council effort to put itself above its own laws around, the members who were trying to carry it off, didn't even bother showing up for the meeting to cast their vote. We had filled the chambers with others who felt as we do. RE: Who's the Better One? "Sleep well. And keep telling yourself: "I'm the Smart One!" *snicker*" -- Ironbear I'll let someone else be the judge of that. But here's something for YOU to ponder, as you drift off to dreamland.... ....is it better or worse to NOT participate in the 'game'? As our neighborhood association puts it, "We're one of the players, not the field." Regards, Chuck(le) TO: richard ""Liberals aren't." Never heard that one before. I'll have to add it to the list of quoteable quotes. Reminds me of the old programming axiom... Constants aren't. Variables won't. Regards, Chuck(le) Posted by: Chuck Pelto at February 12, 2006 08:04 AMChuck(le), You're not getting it. Beck's (and, it seems, Roy's) position is that the act of politicking (and especially voting) is a violation of others' natural rights to be secure in their own property. You can disagree and argue on that point, but right now you seem to be missing what their fundamental philosophical starting point is. Posted by: Russell Wardlow at February 12, 2006 01:03 PMTO: Russell Wardlow "Beck's (and, it seems, Roy's) position is that the act of politicking (and especially voting) is a violation of others' natural rights to be secure in their own property." -- Russell Wardlow And...what do they propose as an alternative? Chaos theory? Their current approach seems to be all P&M [piss and moan]. Personally, I don't think that's very effective. Then we have Ironbear, who I think would go Drega LONG before I would. Not that I couldn't, mind you. I don't think I'm so far off in understanding their position. And I think my 'get involved' approach is much more effective. Apathy, especially the self-inflicted 'we got no rights' type, is the 'road to perdition', as far as I can tell. Dregas and Heemeyer probably both had the sort of insufferable masochism that lead them to their extreme outbursts. But hey...it's a free-country...at least freer than any other I can readily identify. Might not be the libertarian paradise that some others envision—thank God—but it's more than adequate for all of our purposes. The alternative is the anarchy that the [pure] libertarians would prefer. Regards, Chuck(le) "what do they propose as an alternative?" That is no moral touchstone, Chuckles. You're not funny. TO: Billy Beck "You're not funny." -- Billy Beck I had no intention of being such. The question still stands unanswered. Regards, Chuck(le) Posted by: Chuck Pelto at February 12, 2006 06:09 PMChuck(le), Your "get involved" approach is anathema to the very philosophical first principle that Billy and Roy believe in. It's really not that hard. Roy and Billy (who can correct me if I'm wrong) believe that all confiscation of another's property or liberty (that presumably isn't directly related to stopping the violation of another's similar rights) is a violation of basic natural law. Therefore, voting itself (and especially any voting that results in the abovementioned results) is an unacceptable act of violence because it forces political consequences on those who have not consented to have their liberty thus constrained. I presume (again, open to correction) that the only form of "politicking"-esque behaviour that wouldn't sour Billy, Roy and similarly minded folks would be that of individual persuasion. I would surmise Beck's air of despair is precisely because such an idea is considered completely alien to 99.99% of the population right now. So, no offense meant, but yeah, you're still not getting what the basic point of disagreement is, and your arguments are thus doomed to fly ever high and wide. Posted by: Russell Wardlow at February 12, 2006 06:58 PMTO: Russell Wardlow "Your "get involved" approach is anathema to the very philosophical first principle that Billy and Roy believe in." -- Russell Wardlow Then I guess they have no justification to complain when things don't work out in their favor. And, as I suspected, they'll more likely end up h'ors de Dregas than I. RE: Don't Ya Just Love It? "I would surmise Beck's air of despair is precisely because such an idea is considered completely alien to 99.99% of the population right now." -- Russell Wardlow Democracy, that is. Voting. Majority rule. All that good stuff. Some people might consider what I just said 'glotting', but I'm not. Rather, I'm pointing out that these guys are full of complaints and no suggestion on how to modify the situation, that they think is awful. Or maybe they DO have a 'suggestion'? Albeit one they'd rather not express in public. But, even if a cosmic spit-ball came hurtling out of space and knocked us all back to somewhere around Mesopotamia, they'd STILL be unable to implement their form of mismanagement. Life goes on, despite what a lot of people might wish. And those who refuse to engage end up with the 'fuzzy end of the lollipop'. But for those who do engage, if they play by a particular set of rules, it seems that things work out for the better. And if more people play by those rules things just keep getting better, exponentially. Regards, Chuck(le) Boy last time I go out of town. Listen, very little in the modern state would make any of the founders very happy - they would view the scope of the federal government the embodiment of the changing of ancient Rome from a republic to an empire/dictatorship - though the country lasted much longer as such. I guess what my contention is is that we must avoid going down the proverbial path of Western Europe - the poster child for democracies that eat themselves. Right now the only chance is to elect the one party that will try to keep the judiciary from acting like a legislature. It is true that Bush and GOP have spent like a drunken sailor - the worst being a medicare drug bill and the federalization of the state education system (NCLB). I know that one party in particular, but both show signs of this no doubt, buys its votes. I am hoping to try and reform the one party that gives me a chance, not the one that is so far gone that they are willingly doing what they can to expand the red state region of the country, despite some critical misteps by the red staters. That is probably where the talk about a dem implosion and a split in the GOP comes from. I know what you are talking about - I don't need the lecture - it is just that your warnings,while true, have nothing behind them, just empty despair, although eloquently stated. Kind of like a faux intellectual. I understand your sentiment and frustration. But it helps nothing, nor does anything to prevent the Western Europeanization of America. It is almost like you don't exist. Posted by: JEM at February 12, 2006 10:33 PMMajority rule is not "good stuff", Chuckle. And you have no right at all to vote on the dispostion of my rights. I wouldn't do that to you, and I never have. And all that is the answer to your question. It is irrefutable, but only if you actually put your mind to work on it, and you're the only one who can do that. "I am hoping to try and reform the one party that gives me a chance..."You're going to fail. Always remember that I told you that. When you figure out that I'm right, your next challenge will be to figure out how I knew that. Posted by: Billy Beck at February 13, 2006 07:32 AM BB - You are such a dear. You need to get out your dictionary. A right is that which "is due to anyone by law..." So how exactly are laws made in this country, hmmm... the legislature which is currently composed of people mostly from one of the two political parties. They make laws and vote on rights all the time. Although occasionally the courts like to play too. And in some states, the people via direct ballot make that decision rather than their representatives. Therefore I guess you have never voted since you would never vote on the disposition of my rights. And by the way, from what I can gather from your posts, there is very little you profess not to know about, though you fail to demonstrate you know much at all, except that the poltical system in this country is screwed up. That isn't a big secret. I am in awe of your superior intellect, or is that something else? OK I am now done feeding the troll. Posted by: JEM at February 13, 2006 09:24 AMTO: JEM "...very little in the modern state would make any of the founders very happy..." -- JEM There are a lot of things about how the country is being run at the moment that I'm not happy with either; Baker v. Carr, Roe v. Wade, Kelo v. New London, etc., etc. I think you're on-target with the analysis that the biggest problem is the judiciary run amok. However unlike the likes of Billy, Billy, JB and Roy, I'm not sitting on the sidelines, wringing my hands and grousing that nothing can be done. I know such is a lie, as I've proven it myself to be a lie. These self-defeated are part of the problem, not part of the solution. Regards, Chuck(le) Posted by: Chuck Pelto at February 13, 2006 09:52 AM[All that is necessary for evil to prevail is for Billy, Billy, JB and Roy, and their ilk, to do nothing.] Posted by: Chuck Pelto at February 13, 2006 09:53 AMTO: Billy Beck "And you have no right at all to vote on the dispostion of my rights." -- Billy Beck I have as many rights as you do, Billy Beck. The difference betwixt us is that I exercise mine. Regards, Chuck(le) Posted by: Chuck Pelto at February 13, 2006 09:54 AMJEM -- you're going to take a definition of rights from a dictionary and then crack wise about intellect? (cackle) Beat it, kid. Chuckle -- I'm not "grousing that nothing can be done". You're not paying attention. And I don't have a right to vote on the disposition of someone else's rights, so don't try to assert that I'm claiming something that you don't have. I'm not. And I could say that your position is a lie -- just the way you've insinuated that mine is -- but I don't have any reason to believe that and I don't presume things that serious. Yeah, that's it, Stephen. Way to take a single vile comment and use it to represent the whole. I see your mastery of logical fallacies is intact. If you want generosity from the so-called "left" (non Bush followers), be magnanimous, not petty. Posted by: Rob at February 13, 2006 10:45 AMHowever unlike the likes of Billy, Billy, JB and Roy, I'm not sitting on the sidelines, wringing my hands and grousing that nothing can be done. Apparently you skimmed over Beck's "My idea is passive civil disobedience. Stop paying for this bloody charade." I would hesitate to assume you know the extent of what these individuals do with their time. Despite your prolific comments, I don’t think you spend all your time talking on blogs. Does the "exercise of your rights" include voting on what's to be done with my property (or picking a third party to expropriate it)? An easy example: being forced to pay for military expenditures. If so, then apparently the balance of rights is tilted in your or your proxy's favor and we your "I have as many rights as you do" doesn't hold up. You've referenced Kelo but seem to have a problem with individuals stating the obvious moral counterweight to that SCOTUS opinion. Why is that? Posted by: Charles Hueter at February 13, 2006 10:47 AMTO: Charler Hueter "Apparently you skimmed over Beck's "My idea is passive civil disobedience. Stop paying for this bloody charade."" -- Charles Hueter That's better than nothing. However, it's still rather 'passive'. Is Billy Beck going to passively sit there while the bulldozers line up just outside his property line? Would it not be more effective to be getting others organized and on his side? After all, if they bulldoze one place, what's to prevent them from doing in another? The answer is "people getting organized" and voting out the louses. Not 'passivity'. RE: My Time "Despite your prolific comments, I don’t think you spend all your time talking on blogs." -- Charles Hueter Currently waiting for replies on how to get around some programming issue that have me stumped. I have to come up for air now and then and clear the mental sluices before diving in again to see if I can solve the problem. Hence the 'prolific' postings. RE: Military Expenditures Example "An easy example: being forced to pay for military expenditures." -- Charles Hueter Talk about short-sighted. We'd be singing God Save the Queen if we followed your thought processes. See what good THAT would get you. RE: Balance of "Rights"? "...apparently the balance of rights is tilted in your or your proxy's favor and we your "I have as many rights as you do" doesn't hold up." -- Charles Hueter So. I've got more 'rights' than Billy Beck? Prove it. I doubt you can. Rather, more people agree with me than with Billy Beck et al. And that equates to 'power'. Not to 'rights'. We all have the same amount of rights. However, only those with the wit and courage to exercise their rights, vigorously, have power. The 'passives' just end up being part of the playing field. When did you study civics? And where? RE: Kelo v. New London "You've referenced Kelo but seem to have a problem with individuals stating the obvious moral counterweight to that SCOTUS opinion. Why is that?" -- Charles Hueter I have no problem with people 'stating the obvious moral counterwieght' to a decision by a court. I have a problem with people whining and not doing anything MORE about it. Why IS 'that'? Because I think they lack (1) intelligence and (2) intestinal fortitude. Some wag commented... Eternal vigulance is the price of liberty. However, vigulance only alerts you something is happening. It does nothing to intervene nor mitigate what you perceive as happening. For that you must be pro-active. Passive disobedience could be part of the overall program, but it is not likely to be effective all by itself. Therefore, whenever I encounter this sort of mental block, I do something to try to break it open for a more effective approach. Sometimes it takes a mental two-by-four up aside the head.
Chuck(le) Posted by: Chuck Pelto at February 13, 2006 11:15 AMChuckle, you would do well to bone-up on passive civil disobedience. Gandi toppled an empire with it, and Martin Luther King tipped-over the most pernicious manifestations of America's original sin with it, in your lifetime. It's not what you're insinuating. And here's your two-by-four, once more, with feeling: you have no right to vote on others' rights. Nobody does. If what you say is true, then all it would take in order to vote your life out of existence would be a bigger gang than yours at the polls. Now, you could stop arguing from rote habit and start thinking through this like a grown-up. As it is right now, though, you have nothing serious to say. TO: Billy Beck "...you would do well to bone-up on passive civil disobedience." -- Billy Beck And the Falon Gong Gang are in prison in China still. Nor have the Japanese-Americans been properly reimbursed. Sure, I'm familiar with Martin Luther King Jr. And Gandhi too. Stellar examples. However, India would still be the jewel in the crown, if it had not been for political activists pushing for legislation to give it home rule. The same goes for passing legislation in Congress and some good action by courts to remove the Jim Crow laws. That all required people being more active than 'passive'. Regards, Chuck(le) Posted by: Chuck Pelto at February 13, 2006 12:03 PMTO: Billy Beck "If what you say is true, then all it would take in order to vote your life out of existence would be a bigger gang than yours at the polls." -- Billy Beck And, praytell, what do you think the courts are supposed to be there for? You have SERIOUS problems with your understanding of the way those old guys organized this little experiment. Don't you.... And, by the by, they have already put in place laws, through the established 'system', to vote YOUR life as well as MINE, out of existance. You brake certain laws....YOUR life is 'over', if you're caught. Or did you miss that business vis-a-vis the Dregas incident? Maybe you should have a chat with Ironbear. Regards, Chuck(le) Posted by: Chuck Pelto at February 13, 2006 05:51 PMP.S. "Now, you could stop arguing from rote habit and start thinking through this like a grown-up. As it is right now, though, you have nothing serious to say." -- Billy Beck Call me again, after you have 27 years in the infantry..... Posted by: Chuck Pelto at February 13, 2006 05:53 PMI've got thirty years in free markets. Piss off, punk. Sure, I'm familiar with Martin Luther King Jr. And Gandhi too. Stellar examples. ...of what can be accomplished via certain methods, against relatively decent opponents. If Ghandi (or MLK) had tried those tactics on Stalin, Mao, or any number of other bastards we never would have heard of either of them. Proponents of civil disobedience would do well to keep that in mind. Posted by: rosignol at February 13, 2006 11:56 PMTO: rosignol "If Ghandi (or MLK) had tried those tactics on Stalin, Mao, or any number of other bastards we never would have heard of either of them." -- rosignol Let us not forget our friends the 'ragheads'. I'm sure civil disobedience will be VERY effective with them. Just look how effective its been in the Sudan! We've sure stopped the bombing and rape and murder and pillage there.... Regards, Chuck(le) Posted by: Chuck Pelto at February 14, 2006 05:22 AMTO: Billy Beck "I've got thirty years in free markets. Piss off, punk." -- Billy Beck Getting a tad testy are we? Your verbiage is exactly what you were implying mine was; lacking in 'grown-up' aspects. 'Piss off, punk', indeed. Well....Billy [Bo Bob] Beck, I've got 55 years in free markets, buckie. 27 of them in a green suit protecting our free markets. And I think I and my comrades-in-arms did a better job than what I suspect your ideal military could have done. Thank you for doing nothing more, nor any less, than I expect of your ilk. But, as I've said elsewhere, I've been abused by the best. And you ain't squat.... Regards, Chuck(le) "Getting a tad testy are we?" When you run an impertinence at me like the one that you did, you'll get it in your face every single time, in spades. And what I said to you is not impertinent. Your military service means shit in this discussion. What matters is that you don't see the implications of your reverence for some peoples' power to control others' lives and your manifest (so far) inability to think your way through it. Now, this is obvious to people who have done that. And when you don't make the effort, you're simply not worth the effort. "Every man thinks meanly of himself for never having been a soldier, or a sailor with hard service at sea." Sez you, moron. I was raised in a military family. I happen to revere the essence of what that's all about. But nobody gets to run that on me out of bounds. Nobody. Fuck you. TO: Billy Beck "Sez you, moron. I was raised in a military family. I happen to revere the essence of what that's all about. But nobody gets to run that on me out of bounds. Nobody." -- Billy Beck So...why did you break the chain? If you're under 40 years of age, it's not too late. The Army has raised it's maximum age for recruitment. I recommend airborne-ranger. Been there. Done that.It's a hoot! Oh...yeah... ...about that 'moron' business. What's YOUR Mensa membership number? Will I see you at the next AG? Regards, Chuck(le) TO: Others Shooting fish in a barrel is REALLY boring. But it is a pleasant relief from beating my head up against the monitor trying to develope a work-around for an apparent bug in the IDE. Regards, Chuck(le) P.P.S. Billy Beck...don't think you can get away with going 'raghead' on me. Posted by: Chuck Pelto at February 14, 2006 09:49 AM"If Ghandi (or MLK) had tried those tactics on Stalin, Mao, or any number of other bastards we never would have heard of either of them." Consider seriously the implications of what you're saying. I'm talking about America, and you're the one drawing comparisons to the worst tyrants in modern history. Ghandi knew that his tack would never have worked in a culture without a moral conscience to which to make his point. Now, I maintain that there is enough of that conscience (and consciousness of individualism) remaining in this country to at least open a serious discussion (always remember that this is a metaphor, because only individuals reason). I also maintain that it's going away, and that is one thing that makes the matter time-critical. If I'm wrong, however, and your implicit comparison is actually valid, then it's all over but the shooting. Because that's what it always comes to when there is no hope of reason. You can have it your way -- history proves this -- but every sensible person should be doing everything possible to head that off. TO: Billy Beck "Consider seriously the implications of what you're saying. I'm talking about America, and you're the one drawing comparisons to the worst tyrants in modern history." -- Billy Beck I doubt if you'll find much compassion alleviating problems in places like Darfur. Or Laos. Or Communist China. These tyrants wouldn't give a hoot in hell about people exercising 'civil disobedience'. Even less of world-wide criticism. If they DID, they'd stop what they are doing. But they aren't.... You're fortunate to live in this land. Sure. It's got its problems. What country doesn't. And that is not an excuse for doing nothing when you see something you honestly preceive to be horribly wrong. But, it does require that you recognize the good things when you see them as well. Besides...dwelling on the evil can give you a distorted perspective. It is better to approach all issues with a good sense of balance. Regards, Chuck(le) Posted by: Chuck Pelto at February 14, 2006 10:19 AM"You're fortunate to live in this land." I have travelled around the world all my life. My baby sister was born in Tripoli, Libya. I did three jaunts to Asia last year alone. I know exactly what I'm fighting for, and why. Sit down and close your insipid mouth. TO: Billy Beck "I know exactly what I'm fighting for, and why." -- Billy Beck Nice to know you're not completely ignorant, although your posts would indicate otherwise. RE: Shut Up You Mouth "Sit down and close your insipid mouth." -- Billy [Boris Badinov] Beck And here, just a little bit ago, you were supposedly 'all praises' for what a wonderful land US lives in. But, here you are, not a few seconds later, trying to play 'raghead' with me. I guess your claim of being 'so well aware of what you are FIGHTING for', is just so much bluster and obfuscation. You're obviously fighting against other people having an opinion that differs from YOURS. Too bad...for you. Your credibility rating just to a SERIOUS 'hit'. Rgards, Chuck(le) P.S. You got any relations in Denver area? Does the name "Art" ring a bell? Beck is not that common a name.... Posted by: Chuck Pelto at February 14, 2006 11:03 AMYou don't count, and I'll take my chances with an at-large audience. TO: Billy Beck "You don't count..." -- Billy Beck I sense a contradiction in your previously stated position about the 'rights' of others. RE: But... "...nd I'll take my chances with an at-large audience." -- Billy Beck ...still and all. I do believe that in THIS democracy, i.e., at the national level, I'm still in the majority of the 'at-large audience'. Regards, Chuck(le) Posted by: Chuck Pelto at February 14, 2006 12:31 PMP.S. And as I have previously pointed out.... ...THAT is where it 'counts'. Posted by: Chuck Pelto at February 14, 2006 12:44 PMP.P.S. Isn't the attitude that other people "don't count" typical of the 'raghead' mentality? Maybe you should consider a change of 'faith'? Posted by: Chuck Pelto at February 14, 2006 12:46 PMTO: Charles Hueter If you're concerned about the amount of time I've spent here. Consider this.... ...I've been up since 3 am. Mostly doing code. Now I'm relaxing and preparing tonights feast... Grilled salmon with creamed dill sauce. [Note: I chose last night; James Cagney in One, Two, Three. It's a hoot of a comedy about Coca-Cola in Berlin after the Communists erected the Wall. If I could give orders like that, I'd have retired with at least three stars on my flag.] Posted by: Chuck Pelto at February 14, 2006 12:56 PMP.S. I also have to prepare something of a snack for the Master Gardeners program course for tomorrow. I'm thinking along the lines of a spinach-cream cheese dip inside of a shepherds loaf. The bread is already in the oven; the poulish being started last night. Posted by: Chuck Pelto at February 14, 2006 01:40 PMTO: Ironbear Scratch the green beans almondine. I don't have any. Switching to honey-mustard glazed carrots, instead. Besides the green beans would go better with the trout.... Regards, Chuck(le) P.S. Regarding the Master Gardeners course class tomorrow.... ...I regret that I can't bring in a bucket of martinis to go with this spinach-cheese dip. They would go VERY well together. Either that or a nice chardonney..... Posted by: Chuck Pelto at February 14, 2006 03:25 PMIs Billy Beck going to passively sit there while the bulldozers line up just outside his property line? Ask him. The choice is rightly his and every person has their breaking point for taking action. In any event, no one is saying civil disobedience is in all circumstances be an effective, wise, and prudent tactic "all by itself." If we were whispering in a candlelit cellar of a Soviet dissident's home in 1982, being disobedient would be a polite way of describing what should be done. Would it not be more effective to be getting others organized and on his side? After all, if they bulldoze one place, what's to prevent them from doing in another? The answer is "people getting organized" and voting out the louses. No, Mr. Pelto. That "answer" says loud and clear: it is OK to hold a vote regarding what should be done with my property and I endorse this process in order to control what is already rightfully mine. What's to prevent them from wheeling around town and doing it elsewhere? Perhaps running into enough honest people refusing to budge and fully prepared to act in self-defense. Perhaps the absence of enough money in the treasury (as a result of refusing to pay taxes and buy bonds) to pay the machinery's operators. Talk about short-sighted. We'd be singing God Save the Queen if we followed your thought processes. My "sight" extends to the end of my life. I only get one of these fragile things so I intend on exploiting it. I'm also from a military family (Father: Colonel, USA, Ret.) and without the threat of police violence imposed upon the American population for not giving in to extortion, my parents wouldn't have even met and this conversation would have one less participant. You can put away the "bad shit happens without taxes!" argument because I won't bite. I've got more 'rights' than Billy Beck? Prove it. I doubt you can. Rather, more people agree with me than with Billy Beck et al. And that equates to 'power'. Not to 'rights'. You seem to think the federal government can/is right to compel American citizens to give up part of their income so certain state activities are financed. You seem to think I don't have an inalienable right to my property. So answer me this: if everyone in the Beltway follows the Constitutional S.O.P. and they "legally" decide to impose a 5% income tax on every living American soul…that tells me they think they have a right to my income that supersedes my own. No sir, politicians do think they have more rights than others and the Number One smokescreen they deploy when defending their actions? A majority of the vote cast in their election said, "you - be my friend in Washington." They got the votes so they think they have the right. Conversely, the voters think they have the right to tell others how to live and what to own because…I dunno, they can pick proxies to handle the dirty work? It's bullshit. "[W]hat do [I] think the courts are supposed to be there for?" Just what do you expect the courts to do for me if I refuse to pay my taxes? Apologize? This is long-settled precedent, far more unyielding than Roe v Wade. The people who wrote and subsequently endorsed We hold these truths to be self-evident... would probably rethink their little experiment if they saw what it evolved into decades prior to this moment. The courts offer more problems than solutions, primarily because their foundational document pays lip service to the ideals set out in the Declaration, secondarily because despite all the yapping you hear about "rule of law" the rule is still interpreted by men and humans will bend a principle all to shit if they want a certain outcome enough. I have a problem with people whining and not doing anything MORE about it. Why IS 'that'? Because I think they lack (1) intelligence and (2) intestinal fortitude. Knowing that you are outgunned, out manned, are viewed as a quaint oddity in legal circles, are out funded (with your own stolen wealth!!!), and are almost certain to be viewed as an unsympathetic, selfish nut tends to put a damper on one's enthusiasm to stage protests calling for (to pick something at random) the complete abolition of the Department of Health and Human Services. I lack Mr. Beck's optimism and I don't think there is enough consciousness of individualism remaining to not only stop the machine but reverse decades of "social justice progress." By the time something really pierces into the skulls of Mr. Everyman and his 2.1 children and convinces him hardcore, radical change is now a necessity, I'll probably be dead or already on the road far, far away. Let us not forget our friends the 'ragheads'. I'm sure civil disobedience will be VERY effective with them. [later...] These tyrants wouldn't give a hoot in hell about people exercising 'civil disobedience'. That's because the context of refusing to pay taxes in America and refusing to take off a T-shirt with Mohammed's face on it in downtown Medina (or refusing to put in your assigned hours at the Byelorussian farm collective) are TWO DIFFERENT THINGS. Just because the results are somewhat the same (you get assaulted) doesn't mean the situations are the same. It's got its problems. What country doesn't. And that is not an excuse for doing nothing when you see something you honestly preceive to be horribly wrong. But, it does require that you recognize the good things when you see them as well. The remaining good things in this land are dying because so many people continue to think they have the right to vote how others should live and what others should own. TO: Charles Hueter "The remaining good things in this land are dying because so many people continue to think they have the right to vote how others should live and what others should own." -- Charles Hueter The 'remaing good things in this land are dying because" people are poorly educated in the idiology of the Founding Fathers and the Constitution and civics. And we can thank the vaunted American public education system for THAT. If people have their priorities in the proper order, everything will fall into its proper place. However, if you teach people an improper order, things will go to 'hell in a hand-basket'. Regards, Chuck(le) TO: Charles Hueter "Knowing that you are outgunned, out manned, are viewed as a quaint oddity in legal circles, are out funded (with your own stolen wealth!!!), and are almost certain to be viewed as an unsympathetic, selfish nut tends to put a damper on one's enthusiasm to stage protests calling for (to pick something at random) the complete abolition of the Department of Health and Human Services." -- Charles Hueter I'm not 'out-gunned'; unless they drag in a M1A2 Abrams MBT and even then, I can give it a contest for its life, and that of its crew. Look upon it as a matter of 'education'. As one of my fav axioms goes... Hunting tanks is easy and fun. -- 82d Airborne Division Personally, I favor universal governmental service, with the first eight weeks being 'basic training'. But that's another issue. And I suspect a future high school debate topic. If we had THAT we'd have a better educated citizenry. Civics courses would better prepare the young adult to assume their responsibility in society. And there would be no serious threat to the Republic. Regards, Chuck(le) Charles. Observe: "Would it not be more effective to be getting others organized and on his side? After all, if they bulldoze one place, what's to prevent them from doing in another? The answer is 'people getting organized' and voting out the louses." No, Mr. Pelto. That "answer" says loud and clear: it is OK to hold a vote regarding what should be done with my property and I endorse this process in order to control what is already rightfully mine.It is not unusual for me to come across someone so relentlessly and tediously stupid as this creature. It's just an indication of the scope of this whole disaster. You can take it as generally representative. I would commend this bit to your consideration: Observe all its noise about "democracy" (which, for no small implication, it brought as a crashing non-sequitur at least once, above), and the assertion concerning the purpose of courts ("Really Bad Civics [Lessons]", above). And then, you might ask yourself what kind of a walking, talking rutabaga it takes to ask about bulldozers in the wake of Kelo. There is nothing to be done for something like this. No power on earth can reach into someone else's head and bolt concepts together, or hold contexts together for them. And what this illustrates is that we face an enormous cultural problem which can only be solved one mind at a time. Taking the rutabaga as representative, I just don't see it. Not for generations, if ever. Especially when I realize, for instance, that what passes for "education", now, is in the business of cultivating rutabagas. Believe me: I hate to be so dreary about it. But I am not constituted to ignore facts. It is what it is. And there is no way in life that a rutabaga is going to try to understand the much finer point you're making in what I quoted from you. TO: Billy [Bo Bob] Beck "It is what it is. And there is no way in life that a rutabaga is going to try to understand the much finer point you're making in what I quoted from you." -- Billy [Bo Bob] Beck Nuff said.... Regards, Chuck(le) Chuck, since you'll still on this thread, let me point out that you totally misread my position. (At least I presume you did from some of the comments where you include two "Billy"s.) I was asking Mr. Beck some of the same questions you were (and getting the same lack of answers). I have no idea where you read anything that suggested that I was ideologically aligned with him. He's senile, Hollis. Log it out as a dead-loser and press on. TO: Chuckles All this talk of the relevance of having been involved with the military brings to mind some words from Thoreau -- "Visit the Navy Yard, and behold a marine, such a man as an American government can make, or such as it can make a man with its black arts -— a mere shadow and reminiscence of humanity, a man laid out alive and standing... The mass of men serve the state thus, not as men mainly, but as machines, with their bodies. They are the standing army, and the militia, jailers, constables, posse comitatus, etc. In most cases there is no free exercise whatever of the judgment or of the moral sense; but they put themselves on a level with wood and earth and stones; and wooden men can perhaps be manufactured that will serve the purpose as well. Such command no more respect than men of straw or a lump of dirt. They have the same sort of worth only as horses and dogs. Yet such as these even are commonly esteemed good citizens." Regards, Posted by: Roy W. Wright at February 15, 2006 12:02 AMTO: Roy W. Wright Yeah.... ...and such me keep you free. Regards, Chuck(le) Oops...should read "...and such MEN....". Posted by: Chuck Pelto at February 15, 2006 05:02 PMTO: Billy Hollis "...since you'll still on this thread, let me point out that you totally misread my position. I was asking Mr. Beck some of the same questions you were (and getting the same lack of answers)...." -- Billy Hollis My apologies. Regards, Chuck(le) Posted by: Chuck Pelto at February 15, 2006 05:04 PMTO: Billy Beck "He's senile..." -- Billy [Bo Bob] Beck But at least it's a legit excuse. What's yours? Regards, Chuck(le) Hmm. As euphemisms go, "rough men" is an unusually honest name for thieves and murderers. Posted by: Roy W. Wright at February 15, 2006 10:54 PMTO: Roy W. Wright "Hmm. As euphemisms go, "rough men" is an unusually honest name for thieves and murderers." -- Roy W. Wright You can insult them all with impunity, compadre. Just because of their efforts. That means, according to Billy [Bo Bob] Beck, members of HIS family as well. TO: Billy Beck Roy's insulting your [I suppose] father. Regards, Chuck(le) Posted by: Chuck Pelto at February 16, 2006 05:51 AM |
MDS - Give Until It Hurts Terror War Scorecard Watching America 50 Things American Cancer Ablation Center Buy VodkaPundit Stuff
"He’s always mentioning food and drink I have never heard of, yet I am still compelled to read."
Ann Althouse
Across the Atlantic
American Realpolitik
Albion's Seedlings
Justene Adamec
The Argument Clinic
Todd A
Moe Freedman
Allah Is In the House
Body in Mind
Ben Domenech
Duck Season
Banana Counting Monkey
Ted Barlow
Eric Alterman
|
