On legacy php5 environment...
imc indymedia

Los Angeles Indymedia : Activist News

white themeblack themered themetheme help
About Us Contact Us Calendar Publish RSS
Features
latest news
best of news
syndication
commentary


KILLRADIO

VozMob

ABCF LA

A-Infos Radio

Indymedia On Air

Dope-X-Resistance-LA List

LAAMN List




IMC Network:

Original Cities

www.indymedia.org africa: ambazonia canarias estrecho / madiaq kenya nigeria south africa canada: hamilton london, ontario maritimes montreal ontario ottawa quebec thunder bay vancouver victoria windsor winnipeg east asia: burma jakarta japan korea manila qc europe: abruzzo alacant andorra antwerpen armenia athens austria barcelona belarus belgium belgrade bristol brussels bulgaria calabria croatia cyprus emilia-romagna estrecho / madiaq euskal herria galiza germany grenoble hungary ireland istanbul italy la plana liege liguria lille linksunten lombardia london madrid malta marseille nantes napoli netherlands nice northern england norway oost-vlaanderen paris/Île-de-france patras piemonte poland portugal roma romania russia saint-petersburg scotland sverige switzerland thessaloniki torun toscana toulouse ukraine united kingdom valencia latin america: argentina bolivia chiapas chile chile sur cmi brasil colombia ecuador mexico peru puerto rico qollasuyu rosario santiago tijuana uruguay valparaiso venezuela venezuela oceania: adelaide aotearoa brisbane burma darwin jakarta manila melbourne perth qc sydney south asia: india mumbai united states: arizona arkansas asheville atlanta austin baltimore big muddy binghamton boston buffalo charlottesville chicago cleveland colorado columbus dc hawaii houston hudson mohawk kansas city la madison maine miami michigan milwaukee minneapolis/st. paul new hampshire new jersey new mexico new orleans north carolina north texas nyc oklahoma philadelphia pittsburgh portland richmond rochester rogue valley saint louis san diego san francisco san francisco bay area santa barbara santa cruz, ca sarasota seattle tampa bay tennessee urbana-champaign vermont western mass worcester west asia: armenia beirut israel palestine process: fbi/legal updates mailing lists process & imc docs tech volunteer projects: print radio satellite tv video regions: oceania united states topics: biotech

Surviving Cities

www.indymedia.org africa: canada: quebec east asia: japan europe: athens barcelona belgium bristol brussels cyprus germany grenoble ireland istanbul lille linksunten nantes netherlands norway portugal united kingdom latin america: argentina cmi brasil rosario oceania: aotearoa united states: austin big muddy binghamton boston chicago columbus la michigan nyc portland rochester saint louis san diego san francisco bay area santa cruz, ca tennessee urbana-champaign worcester west asia: palestine process: fbi/legal updates process & imc docs projects: radio satellite tv
printable version - js reader version - view hidden posts - tags and related articles


View article without comments

Why are White Supremacists flocking to "Libertarianism"?

by Annetta I. Birlari Sunday, Jul. 20, 2003 at 1:33 PM

"If George Washington and Thomas Jefferson, et al., were to claw their way out of their graves, the first thing they'd do is start another revolution." -- from a "White Nationalist"

Why are White Supremacists flocking to "Libertarianism"?
Annetta I. Birlari

The items that follow are horrific to most human beings, but are presented here to increase awareness to a growing problem within the diverse community of libertarians. White Supremacists see a harmonic convergence between many of their ideals and the mantra of "individuality trumps community" by many free-market-libertarians.

--------------------------
from "You Might Be an Anti-Semite If..."
by "Newz" Numberman
http://www.vanguardnewsnetwork.com/vnn/showEssay.asp?essayID=1266

White nationalists are not "haters," "evil," "monsters," or "fringe lunatics." The only difference between a White nationalist and a white republican, or a white democrat, or a white libertarian, or a white socialist, etc., etc., is that we White nationalists are not afraid to choose politically incorrect SELF-DEFENSE over capitulation: we choose to FIGHT!

And we do so knowing that in spite of the odds, and in spite of the demonizing, and all the rest of what is pawned off as political culture, our Cause is only viewed so pejoratively because those whom we resist, the ZIONIST usurpers, control every avenue of mass communication, exercise predominant influence at all levels of government (but especially the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT) and use said influence to frame every conceivable issue in such a way that the debate is over before it even begins.

In the name of the Creator, read the writings of the AMERICAN FOUNDERS. Employ your own senses of logic, proportionality and Reason. Is what we White nationalists advocate really so outrageous? or farfetched? or outlandish? Are we truly the only ones capable of perceiving the historical trajectory of the once great and proud American nation? Hackneyed though it is to say, the Emperor has no clothes, and it is about goddamned time we stood up and said it.

White nationalists, like it or not, represent the founding spirit of the United States. We are the real conservatives. If GEORGE WASHINGTON and THOMAS JEFFERSON, et al., were to claw their way out of their graves, the first thing they'd do is start another REVOLUTION. But they're not here anymore; so it's up to us. Why is it that clean, safe White neighborhoods, schools, culture etc., are held out to be the socio-political equivalent of Satanism? Why does every law seem to be geared with our demise in mind? Why are we systematically DENIED EVERY RIGHT AND PRIVILEGE and privilege that defines a free people, rights and privileges that we had in this country not all that long ago, rights and privileges that all other peoples of humanity either possess or unabashedly pursue? If you've never thought about such things, maybe itz about time you did.
--------------------------

Sadly, some libertarians themselves speak of the "multi-culturalism" is sharply negative terms, thereby enticing further those seduced by hatred.

--------------------------
from "A Libertarian Looks at Columbus Day"
by Alan Turin, LewRockwell.com
http://www.lewrockwell.com/turin/turin20.html

...MULTICULTURAL complaints that European civilization is judgmental, linear, exclusionary and prejudiced contra American aboriginals being non-judgmental, non-linear, inclusive and free of prejudice is incoherent enough to fit into todayâ??s academy.

...MULTICULTURALISM: the art of being wrong, all the time, in everything.


from "Libertarianism wins widespread praise in 1997"
by National LP Headquarters, January 23, 1998

"Big government/welfare-state liberals and statist/religious-right conservatives mirror each other in supporting the use of government to ensure their own vision of a good society, whether that means demanding adherence to 'traditional' values or mandating MULTICULTURAL political correctness. Libertarianism offers a third ALTERNATIVE, and one that is more in keeping with the vision of the future that free men and women have always aspired to."-- Stephen H. Miller
--------------------------

The end result of this fatal attraction has already been felt in local politics. So please do be careful - not all libertarians have noble intentions.

--------------------------
from "Ex-official drops out of Aryan group"
by Associated Press, July 18, 2003
http://www.nj.com/news/ledger/jersey/index.ssf?/base/news-4/1058508677215580.xml

A former Hopewell Borough councilman who resigned last week after his membership in a national WHITE SUPREMACIST group became public has now quit the group.

Marc Moran, 43, said he would no longer be associated with the National Alliance, a West Virginia group that promotes SEGREGATIONIST living and ARYAN values. Moran was appointed to fill a vacant council seat on July 3, but the lifelong Hopewell resident served for less than two weeks before resigning on Saturday.

Moran, who denies being a racist or an anti-Semite, said he joined the National Alliance because he agreed with its views on illegal immigration and CIVIL LIBERTIES. However, he now only has harsh words for the organization and says he is ashamed he did not fully investigate the group.

"I took my membership card and I put it in an envelope and I mailed it back to them. I'm done," Moran said. "The things (about the group) I disagree with far outweigh the things I do agree with."

Moran had written several essays -- many of which DENOUNCED CULTUTRAL DIVERSITY and immigration -- that that were posted on the Internet. The most recent essay was posted in December 2002.
Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


Good thinking from Vermont

by reader Monday, Jul. 21, 2003 at 8:35 AM

Re: Why are White Supremacists flocking to
by Ethan Mitchell
20 Jul 2003

American Libertarianism has its intellectual roots largely in the social Darwinists and industrial apologists of the late 19th century. A staple feature of this writing is "edging up to" the idea that some undesirable element of the population should be rounded up and killed. Andy Adams, for example, in "The Inhumanity of Socialism," essentially says that it would be great if we could euthanize everyone on welfare, but, well, let's talk about that later.

It is slightly unfair to say that this was a white supremacist position. Clearly, however, it overlapped with the aims of white supremacists, and the literature of social Darwinism fed largely into Nationalist and Racialist propaganda of the early 20th century (e.g. the Klan and the Nazis).

Since the 1940s, there are no important political parties who will risk advocating genocide. But we have seen a return to Andy Adams "well, let's talk about that later." A good deal of Libertarian literature openly advocates for an aristocracy of property owners (e.g.http://www.mises.org/journals/jls/11_2/11_2_3.pdf) And most libertarian discussions of poverty end by saying that if people are too shiftless to work, that's their own problem. (This from a party who's national platform includes not only abolishing welfare but also privatizing the air, so we're not talking about much of a safety net.)

Certainly many libertarians honestly believe that in unfettered corporate capitalism, there would be no poverty. Many others believe that their would be an impoverished class, and that they should go die quietly, but do not attach a racial value to that scenario.

But...understandably...many libertarians also associate poverty with color. Mexicans would seem to be the major target right now. And for some, undoubtedly, the notion of an aristocracy that lets the peasants die is much more appealing when the aristocracy is white and the peasants are brown.

Now. Perhaps those sentiments represent only a small minority of the LP, particularly here in Vermont. I do not claim otherwise. If the VLP has any political sense, though, it must realize that it is steering close to fascism, and it must find a way to truly disassociate itself from the Andy Adams of the world.
Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


Libertarian masturbation

by alex Monday, Jul. 21, 2003 at 11:23 AM

alex

If capitalism were crushed and corporations stripped of the rights which should be reserved only for humans, I'd be more sympathetic to Libertarianism. As it stands currently, though, our rights are being compromised as much by big business as government. Monsanto certainly believes we have a right to know about the food we eat or even the right to save seed if we grow our own. Water supplies the world over are being privatized, thereby preventing the poorest from having access to what has been established as a basic human right. Labor organizers are killed throughout the world, apparently preventing workers from exercising their right to organize.

Libertarian masturbation might seem sexy to you but I find it more pathetic and disgusting. Heaven knows, I wouldn't stop you from enjoying yourself, though. Wank away.
Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


As always I would point out the simple fact...

by Diogenes Monday, Jul. 21, 2003 at 7:32 PM

...that Libertarianism is not a monolithic viewpoint.

All of the articles cited above have one common logical fallacy:

They treat the beliefs and actions of some as though they represented the viewpoint of many or all. And that is simply not true. The Lunatic Fringe infests every movement in some form.

Further you run into the usual fallacy of equating the Crony Capitalism of the United States with Free Market Capitalism. The two are to each other as the Mob is to Elliot Ness.

No one is a bigger opponent of the false assignment of Personhood to a business entity than I. I have made repeated posts establishing my opposition yet I am a Libertarian.

In a truly Free Society you have the right to be wrong as long as you do not act so as to injure another. Thus you have the right to be a racist, which I personally believe to be not only wrong but insane, but you do not have the right to act on that belief so as to injure another. In a Free Society you can think and say any damn thing you want, but you are not free to act upon it.

A belief in the worth and dignity of the individual does not make of one a Social Darwinist.

Because someone who preaches hate claims to be a something does not make all members of that group of like mind.

The True Roots of modern Libertarianism can be found in the writings of Thomas Jefferson, Patrick Henry, John Stuart Mill, John Locke, and others who have championed the worth and dignity of the free individual.

And such is not a selfish self centered view it is rather an expansive view that desires, and defends freedom for all.

"I swear before the Altar of Almighty God Eternal Enmity towards all forms of tyranny over the mind of man."
----- Thomas Jefferson
Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


You haven't thought this through...

by libertarians are selfish and spiteful Monday, Jul. 21, 2003 at 10:59 PM

Should a car owner have the right to drive while intoxicated?

Should a gun owner have the right to fire his weapon in public if no one is injured?

Should a smoker have the right to puff a cigarette in crowded bar?

Should a 14 year-old have the right to be a prostitute?

Should a citizen have a right to clean water without first having to sue corporations in order to maintain that right?
Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


I have thought it through which is why I am a Libertarian.

by Diogenes Tuesday, Jul. 22, 2003 at 7:02 AM

I that basically all of your questions are answered in my first post simply by applying the basic principle sensibly. One of the problems you get into in discussing a governmental form is that we all share a common history of Government behaving in a manner which would earn an individual the title of fool.

However let’s examine your points one by one and see what we might make of them.

“Should a car owner have the right to drive while intoxicated? “

No one has the right to put other people’s lives at risk. When you drive under the influence of an intoxicant you are by definition intoxicated, thus operating at an impaired level, thus making you a dangerous driver. You have the right to drink yourself sick but you do not have the right, in a free society, to injure another or threaten injury to another. When you drive intoxicated you are threatening injury to another by your individual irresponsibility. Twenty Lashes in the Public Square would I think not be too extreme (just joking - lighten up).

“Should a gun owner have the right to fire his weapon in public if no one is injured?”

Insufficient Data. Is this a Shooting Meet? What are the exact Circumstances? As a general rule commonsense would say no. Again, putting other people at risk of death or injury, you cannot, even in a truly free Society, put other people at risk by your actions. If it was an inappropriate location, say a crowded Mall, a thorough drubbing might be in order. However, the assumption implicit in your question is that people behave irresponsibly when left free to do so. That is only true for a very small minority of “idjits”. The rest of us have the right, in maintaining a free, but orderly, society to restrain such morons and “show them the error of their ways”. That’s why we have all those morons in the “cute” County Provided “Work Clothes” picking up trash - they were not able to behave as responsible adults.

“Should a smoker have the right to puff a cigarette in crowded bar?”

Free association means you can come or go as you choose. To be in a Bar is a VOLUNTARY act. No one is forcing you to be there. No one forced you to go there, and no one is forcing you to stay. If you don’t like patronizing a Bar that allows Smoking then don’t. Go to one that does not allow Smoking. If you insist upon Patronizing a Bar that allows Smoking then by remaining you have given your implicit consent.

“Should a 14 year-old have the right to be a prostitute?”

Somewhat tougher as it touches upon 2 very sensitive issues: Children, and Sex. Both are hot button subjects. It is as much a Moral Question as it is a Legal Question. On the Moral Portion I, as an individual, find the prospect abhorrent and would oppose it. To prevent such is why we have shelters for children and laws to prevent their exploitation. On the Philosophic level comes the question: At what point is an individual old enough, and mature enough, to make their own mistakes? A minor child does not traditionally have the same rights as an adult because the presumption is that they must be, protected, and educated, until they are “of age” where they are allowed to destroy their own life with stupid choices. The short answer is: NO. At 14 a person is approaching young adulthood but is not there yet. Although, frankly I have met a few 14 year olds who were more mature than “presumed” adults many years their senior.

“Should a citizen have a right to clean water without first having to sue corporations in order to maintain that right?”

Let us turn this around and put it in the proper perspective. Does a Corporation have the right to endanger, and harm, other people by dumping toxic waste into a public water supply, or a flowing river? The answer then becomes easy: NO, HELL NO, NO FREAKING WAY, NEVER, UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES.
This again goes back to a fundamental principle, read John Stuart Mill’s “On Liberty” (it is available on the Web as a FREE Download - Gutenberg has if memory serves), no individual, or group, has the right to endanger other’s enjoyment of life, liberty, or property. You can argue against this polluters actions from multiple angles, it endangers life, it infringes upon liberty, and it violates the rights of people downstream to the enjoyment of their property.
The solution I have long held to is to:

A. Punish them financially to such a degree as to drive them out of business. Suits are a way to do that.

And very importantly:

B. Hold the culprits PERSONALLY liable both financially and with a SUBSTANTIAL Jail term.

Always it comes down to an individual decision. Someone decided that toxic waste should be flushed into the local waters. The person who made that decision, and all the people who executed the order, should be held to account in the strongest reasonable means. Taking all of their ill gotten gains and throwing them in the Calaboose seems perfectly reasonable to me. (I also favor putting them to hard labor - either by doing clean up or “making little ones out of big ones”.)

A free society is not a free-for-all. It means that as long as your actions do not infringe upon on another you are free to follow your own wishes. No one has the right to force you to expend your labor for their benefit without consent. No one has the right to endanger another without a mitigating cause. No one has the right to take from you that which you have earned through your own labors by force.
Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


Your thoughts are shallow and self-centered

by libertarians say lawsuits are the answer Tuesday, Jul. 22, 2003 at 8:26 AM

Taking the first three response in unison:

1. "You have the right to drink yourself sick but you do not have the right, in a free society, to injure another or threaten injury to another."
2. "You cannot, even in a truly free Society, put other people at risk by your actions."
3. "If you don’t like patronizing a Bar that allows Smoking then don’t"

Okay, so how would a Libertarian "police" drunk driving or any other risky behavior?
...only after the fact (injury and/or death has occured)?
If there are no drivers licenses, does that mean drunk drivers never lose their driving priviledges?
And how would Libertarians define inhebriation and at what age would it be legal to drink?

If second hand-smoke is even more deadly to others than to the smoker, you have put others at risk by your actions. And if there are no other local alternatives (library, speciality restaurant, theater), you infringed on the health and civil rights of non-smokers moreso than in the opposite scenario.

4. "At what point is an individual old enough, and mature enough, to make their own mistakes?"

So how would a Libertarian society set an age requirement, or would they, and what mght that likely be?
What would happen to a town wherein the majority decides age requirements for any activity is unecessary?
Would the state step in to require a minimum age?

5. The solution (for polluters) I have long held to is to "Punish them financially to such a degree as to drive them out of business" and hold the culprits "PERSONALLY liable both financially and with a SUBSTANTIAL Jail term"

So you admit there will be no regulation, no law to prevent environmental catastrophes, just ways to compensate the dead and dying after the fact.

So what is to prevent corporations from outspending the average citizen in litigation?
How is the little guy going to even know which corporation to sue without very expensive and time consuming tests?
Will he have the full access and the willing compliance of Corporate America to search through their records?
Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


I wrote this yesterday but did not get it posted because the...

by Diogenes Wednesday, Jul. 23, 2003 at 8:24 AM

...Site's Server was having a nervous breakdown. (Possibly the Bull Shit Detector overloaded?)

I was going to make this a short response but the more I got into the falsities of your argument the more it grew. So, off to the "Wood Shed":

“Okay, so how would a Libertarian "police" drunk driving or any other risky behavior? “

The same way we do now. No one is talking of the abolition of Government just the restraint of government from infringing on individual’s freedom.

“If there are no drivers licenses, does that mean drunk drivers never lose their driving privileges?
And how would Libertarians define inebriation and at what age would it be legal to drink?”

This is simply silly. You have taken your point to absurdity. No one is talking of letting irresponsible people have free reign to commit mayhem on the Roads.
Legal Drinking Age is a silly bugaboo. Show me a Teenager who wants Booze who is incapable of figuring out a way to get it. I started going to “Keggers” when I was 15 as have many others. Your point is moot.

“ "At what point is an individual old enough, and mature enough, to make their own mistakes?" “

We have laws and customs to determine adulthood. 16 to Drive, 18 to Smoke or Sign a Contract, 21 to Drink (In most States).
Maturity is a state of mind and a behavior, not an age. Age restrictions are to some degree arbitrary barriers since they all they are is workable general rules. No one is seriously talking of eliminating all such rules (except maybe the Anarchists).

“If second hand-smoke is even more deadly to others than to the smoker, you have put others at risk by your actions. And if there are no other local alternatives (library, specialty restaurant, theater), you infringed on the health and civil rights of non-smokers moreso than in the opposite scenario. “

A. Most of the Second Hand Smoke Studies that were not hedged and cooked to support the anti-smoking case prove no such link. Second Hand Smoke is probably not particularly conducive to good health but it has been grossly over-hyped by people who have a personal position against Smoking to support their intrusion into other people’s lives. It is nothing more than a bunch of busybodies trying to enforce their preferences on others. Those that claim to show a strong “deadly” link have largely been shown to be what they are: Junk Science used to sell a personal preference, i.e., a ban on Smoking.

References on the Second Hand Smoke Misinformation (and disinformation):

A Collection of Solid Articles: http://www.forces.org/evidence/evid/second.htm

And Another: http://www.geocities.com/shelioness/millerltr.html

JunkScience.com: http://www.junkscience.com/mar00/shscience.htm

B. You still do not have to Patronize Establishments that allow Smoking. The choice is entirely yours and yours alone. You have attempted to avoid this truth. If you do not want to be in a Smoky Environment go somewhere where the management does not allow it. Not everything you disapprove of needs to made “against the law”. This is simply petty tyranny masquerading as “do gooding”. It is bogus Bull Shit. It is nothing more than busybodies forcing their preferences on other people and using Junk Science as a Fig Leaf to justify it.

“So you admit there will be no regulation, no law to prevent environmental catastrophes, just ways to compensate the dead and dying after the fact. “

Not at all. Current Environmental agencies are, and over time tend towards, toadies to the industries they are supposed to regulate. The fines and punishments imposed are purely arbitrary and dependent upon who has been paid off. Generally it is no more than a “slap on the wrist” and bury it under the Carpet.

With Penalties severe enough, and the rewards for a successful suit high enough, you would have a rabid dog pack of Trial Lawyers busy drumming up business to put the malefactors out of business. This being the case Companies would avoid polluting, at least openly, if only out of self preservation. That is the only stick a Regulatory Body has in any event - the threat of punishment for non compliance. By passing strict liability laws you make every person in the vicinity an active participant in the enforcement process - and it gives them a viable weapon with which to fight back. Please demonstrate how any Federal Environmental Agency has been effective beyond the hype in their Press Releases? Most of the effective action against polluters has been taken by private groups suing the shit out of polluters, or to force the Government to enforce it’s own laws. Your argument has no merit.

“So what is to prevent corporations from outspending the average citizen in litigation?”

What is to prevent the local DA, other than corruption, from filing suit? What is to prevent the Sierra Club, NRDC, Nature Conservancy, et. al., from banding together to go after polluters?

“Will he have the full access and the willing compliance of Corporate America to search through their records?

Have you ever heard of a Subpoena? A Discovery Motion?

Please cite any criminal who has voluntarily coughed up incriminating records other than under force?

Your arguments are without merit and consist mainly of twisting the Libertarian Position into impossible, and unlikely scenarios.

You have no case.

Tilt

Play Again?
Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


abolitionists birds

by flight Thursday, Jul. 24, 2003 at 4:08 AM

"Why are White Supremacists flocking to "Libertarianism"?"

I haven't seen much of anyone "flocking" to Libertarianism. It's a weak political party for intellectually inferior individuals.

"No one is talking of the abolition of Government just the restraint of government from infringing on individual’s freedom."

This is why the collective at LA-IMC would regard you and those like you as "liberal assholes". That statement flies directly in the face of the dreams and aspirations of the collective. That you haven't grasped that is further evidence of your stupidity.
Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


Hi frescaw a turd by any...

by Diogenes Thursday, Jul. 24, 2003 at 5:54 AM

...other name still smells the same.

Still pissed off over your last ass kicking? ROFL!!!!!!!!

Adjust.

BUSH LIED AND THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE DIED.
Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


^

by Aerosmith Thursday, Jul. 24, 2003 at 6:00 AM

Dream On!!
Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


For what it's worth

by fresca Thursday, Jul. 24, 2003 at 6:05 AM

DIOsingenuous, not that it matters to an old paranoid crackpot like yourself, but this is the first post I've made on this particular thread, under ANY name (although I RARELY use another handle).

And maybe I am a little upset over the last asskickin' I got. It was Sunday. My baseball team got our heads handed to us. Bad pitching and very questionable defense. But what can you do?

By the way, the irony of all this is that, having read the thread, I'm on your side (that must kill you huh?) and find it interesting that you've been arguing with our resident anti-libertarian Sheepdog as he uses a different handle, thinking it was me the whole time.

Anyway, time to hit the mound and work on my knuckle-curve.
Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


fresca, you're REALLY not too bright

by Sheepdog Thursday, Jul. 24, 2003 at 10:10 AM

I'm everywhere and nowhere. Flaming paranoiac witless mossad
stooge. Squealing my nick again in spastic reaction.
Nice to see you making an ass out of yourself...again.
For the sane, however, I agree in principle with Diogenes on many issues with the exception of taxation.
But I'm sure he'll come around. He’s a good man with qualities of
analysis and compassion he may mistakenly assume other’s possess.
Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


Sheepdog

by just wondering Thursday, Jul. 24, 2003 at 10:15 AM

"He’s a good man with qualities of analysis and compassion he may mistakenly assume other’s possess."

If he "assume(s) other's possess" something, and he may do so mistakenly, wouldn't that mean his analysis is off?
Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


Well, just wondering

by Sheepdog Thursday, Jul. 24, 2003 at 10:30 AM

If he's pissed at getting tax raped, I understand.
You notice that he uses the nick Diogenes, not God.
For the most part, I agree with him.
Also thanks for the english usage correction; as you may notice, I don't use the nick of English Instructor.
Be glad I at least use spell check.
Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


Sheepdog

by really? you think? Thursday, Jul. 24, 2003 at 10:47 AM

We're all pissed at getting tax raped. All those damn entitlement programs for the hammock ridden welfare "the world owes me a living" scum. What else is new?

And for the most part, except for both of you being anti-Bush et.al., your political philosophies are quite different. His viewpoints are definately at odds with the collective at LA-IMC. Big time at odds.
Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


entitlements

by Sheepdog Thursday, Jul. 24, 2003 at 10:54 AM

You want to talk entitlements?
Look at the agribusiness or defense contractors.
Or the S&L bailouts
Or the general bailouts of the corporations that spend
themselves into finical ruin.
Supporting the poor or the children of the poor, I know
is evil in your eyes...
Or the old or the sick...
Nice going.
Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


SD

by no thanx Thursday, Jul. 24, 2003 at 11:00 AM

"Supporting the poor or the children of the poor, I know
is evil in your eyes... "

No reason to discuss anything with someone who would presume to know what I do and don't believe or support. Don't have time to dismiss all the things *you* mistakenly believe are my positions. Find another who'll play your game along with your rules if you wish.
Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


so fuck off

by Sheepdog Thursday, Jul. 24, 2003 at 11:04 AM

Take your tiny balls and go home. I think I know where you stand:
"All those damn entitlement programs for the
hammock ridden welfare "the world owes me a living" scum"
So fuck off, Mr. proper.
Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


I think I know where you stand

by mr. proper Thursday, Jul. 24, 2003 at 11:06 AM

That's what you get for *thinking* you know rather than asking.
Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


One more round (I've got lots)

by Sheepdog Thursday, Jul. 24, 2003 at 11:14 AM

Don't need to read your mind[?] I can read your lack of
rebutal together with your typed opinion.
Wouldn't want to know what you're thinking. I'd need to
wash of the arrogance.
Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


Sheepdog

by ok Thursday, Jul. 24, 2003 at 11:18 AM

The problem is you assign things to others without any evidence, just as you did with me. You took one statement I made and ran with it in directions you believed are my opinions rather than asking. Don't hand me this "arrogance" crap! It's arrogant to assign beliefs to someone just because you think it fits. Just ask next time. You might learn a thing or two. Might.
Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


poor and weak IMO (not too damn humble either)

by Sheepdog Thursday, Jul. 24, 2003 at 11:22 AM

And you just let it slip about the 'scum' you despise.
Do me a favor.
Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


Whoa there sheepdog

by fresca Thursday, Jul. 24, 2003 at 11:34 AM

I didn't mean to get you so upset when I called you out on your argument with diosingenuous.

Maybe you should grow a pair and actually use your normal handle when arguing with the great dio.

Or would that throw a wrench into the ranks?

Oh well, take a moment to collect yorself, have a cup of coffee and settle down.

I hate to see you so upset.
Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


it's the witless mossad stooge

by Sheepdog Thursday, Jul. 24, 2003 at 11:47 AM

clueless as ever I see. If you do have any balls (which I doubt) they don't substitute for brains.
Geez, look out the window. I'm everywhere.
When ever you see a comment you don't like, it's me.
In fact, I have a thermalgraphic of your worksite and
my operatives or now on the way to deal with you.
They do it out of love for me. Drive carefully now.
Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


dog

by fresca Thursday, Jul. 24, 2003 at 11:49 AM

What the hell are you going on about?

Spit it out.
Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


hmmmm

by could be Sheepdog Thursday, Jul. 24, 2003 at 11:54 AM

'Oh well, take a moment to collect yorself, have a cup of coffee and settle down.

I hate to see you so upset.'
Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


SD

by you betcha Thursday, Jul. 24, 2003 at 11:59 AM

I despise people who believe the world owes them a living. But to automatically attach that I am in favor of corporate welfare is a stretch, unless of course, you've already predetermined what someone believes before you even ask them. Comprehendo?
Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


ok, that makes some sense

by Sheepdog Thursday, Jul. 24, 2003 at 12:11 PM

I just get tired of the finger being pointed at the marginalized, for whatever reasons, as being the sole
drag on our collective production. In fact, I believe that
the major recipients of socialism are the big boys who design policies.
I can't help but remember the saying, 'if but for the grace of God there go I'
When a government has cancer, it makes little sense to worry about the sprained wrist. It makes even less sense to blame the condition on the ones who have fallen through the cracks.
Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


SD

by then again Thursday, Jul. 24, 2003 at 12:15 PM

I didn't say I wasn't in favor of corporate welfare either. But, you never asked, which is the whole point. Start asking.
Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


I'm a bad dog, I don't obey orders.

by Sheepdog Thursday, Jul. 24, 2003 at 12:21 PM

But for the sake of dialogue, what questions am I to ask?
Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


© 2000-2018 Los Angeles Independent Media Center. Unless otherwise stated by the author, all content is free for non-commercial reuse, reprint, and rebroadcast, on the net and elsewhere. Opinions are those of the contributors and are not necessarily endorsed by the Los Angeles Independent Media Center. Running sf-active v0.9.4 Disclaimer | Privacy