Re: Quote of the Day
Steve Furlong wrote on March 28, 2003 at 17:56:41 -0500: > On Friday 28 March 2003 00:10, Major Variola (ret) wrote: > > > "Sometimes when you're in government you have to do things for the > > people > > whether they like it or not. That's what governing is all about," > > said Senate Majority Leader Joseph Bruno, R-Brunswick. > > Hitlary, Chucklehead Schumer, the now-deceased Pat "Old Drunk" Moynihan, > George Pataki, Al Sharpton, and now Joe Bruno. Tell ya, I'm damn proud > to be a New Yorker. This Joseph Bruno probably needs his ass governed. I'm thinking that instead of killing them, freedom fighters can lock them in small cells with big black men. -- Tom Veil
Re: Libertarian Party expresses "concern" over war -- but does not
Eric Cordian wrote on March 20, 2003 at 14:35:45 -0800: > Libertarians are people who think the only legitimate use of state force > is to protect them from their slaves. No libertarian will ever express support for slavery or forced servitude, except for punishment after due process for a crime committed. But of course, you didn't mean 'slavery' as in the case of a man being lashed with the master's whip, you meant "slavery" as in the case of a man who isn't making at least $18 per hour, or whatever the communists call a "living wage" now. -- Tom Veil
Re: The Register Libels Declan
Eric Cordian wrote on March 15, 2003 at 22:42:33 -0800: > Just when you think journalism can't get any stranger. > > I was watching some right wing scumbag on MSNBC today, spewing forth about > how all homeless people should be rounded up and sent to prison and mental > hospitals. His name is Michael Savage, and he is apparently what we get > now that Phil Donahue is considered too liberal to be on TV any more. > > Well, Savage, whose real name is Michael Alan Weiner, got a less than > glowing writeup in the Register for his MSNBC performance. > > http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/7/29754.html > > Midway through this well-deserved Savage-bashing, (or is that Weiner > bashing,) who should be mentioned but everyone's favorite intrepid > reporter, and in less than glowing terms. > > The Register opines about The Savage Weiner: > > Mellon liberal Declan McCullagh, now a lavishly-paid writer at CNET. > > McCullagh, like Weiner - decided that principles are for fools. > > right to keep their money, each followed the dollar trail to arrive at > their own, personal epiphany. Each advocates the gazillionaires' > "freedom" to spend their gazillions. By putting 'freedom' in quotes, it is obvious that the author, Andrew Orlowski, does not respect the basic property right of people to dispose of the wealth they have produced in a manner they see fit. Does he suppose that our only function is the production of revenue for the STATE? > that it's our freedoms that are a stake. Notice how he draws a distinction between the freedom of "ordinary" people, and that of the "gazillionaires", echoing the old "bougiouse freedom" bullshit of Karl Marx, providing the rationalization for destroying liberty and making us slaves of the STATE. Fucking communist. > I hope Andrew Orlowski gets AIDS during one of his bathhouse buttfuck sessions. -- Tom Veil
Re: Social democrats on our list
Anonymous wrote on March 8, 2003 at 01:15:10 +0100: > On Saturday 08 March 2003 01:33 am, Tim May wrote: > > > Silly person, a property does not have rights. Owners have rights. And > > these apply whether one person, 5 persons, or a group of co-owners own > > something. > > Dewey, Cheatum, and Howe, LP > 2000 Maynard Way > New York, NY > > Mr. May > > Dewey, Cheatum, and Howe represent the Mega Corporation. > > Recently the Mega Corporation (aka MegaCorp) purchased the > rights to all oxygen in the Corralitos, CA area and any such > material that may move into or be produced in that area. > > By being a resident of the Corralitos, CA area and utilizing > their property you are bound to the Terms and Condtions of > their "Breathe Through Oxygen Use Contract". This is mentally retarded. You will quickly find a property claim to all oxygen in a certain area to be utterly unenforceable if you don't want to be shot. -- Tom Veil
Re: Someone explain...Give cheese to france?
Tyler Durden wrote on March 7, 2003 at 12:46:35 -0500:
> Tom Veil wrote...
>
> "These fuckards really need to learn what private property is."
>
> ('Fuckards'. I like that. GIMMEE.)
>
> Alright. There's something I'm not getting here, so the Libertarians on the
> board are free to enlighten me.
>
> Let's take one of my famous extreme examples. Let's say a section of the New
> Jersey Turnpike gets turned over to a private company, which now owns and
> operates this section.
>
> So...now let's say I'm black. NO! Let's say I'm blond-haired and blue eyed,
> and the asshole in the squad car doesn't like that, because his wife's been
> bangin' a surfer. So...he should be able to toss me off the freeway just
> because of the way I look? (Or the way I'm dressed or the car I drive or
> whatever.)
That's not a very good way to keep customers. I wonder what the patroller's
boss, the company that operates the turnpike, would think of his actions?
If I was the company, I'd fire the guy.
Otherwise, if the company really wanted such a dickheaded policy, then yes,
it would be their right. Of course, it would also be your right to organize
a boycott, take an alternate route, or build your own spur route.
James brought up an interesting point; that if the road system had been
developed privately, your scenario would not be as big a hassle, as the
road system would more closely resemble the multiple redundant routes of
the Internet.
--
Tom Veil
Re: The burn-off of Tom Veil
Tyler Durden wrote on February 21, 2003 at 09:47:01 -0500: > >What part of my above paragraph did you not understand? > > The rancor part. Let's take your line of reasoning another step. Imagine you > get robbed at gunpoint by some masked caucasian. He steals your Ventura > watch as well as all your $$$. > > As you cry and bawl like a little bitch you see the guy take off and in the > process toss the watch to some black dude walking up the street. Will you > now yell: "Die you scumyou stole my watch!" (Well, YOU probably would.) > Why are you mad at the black dude for being tossed a freebie? Mentally retarded analogy. That black dude, along with a whole lot of other black dudes, black ho's and white liberal fuckbags voted to allow the masked caucasian to rob me at gunpoint. Perhaps all of them should be killed. The Wall Street firm you work for ought to fire you for stupidity. -- Tom Veil
Re: The burn-off of twenty million useless eaters and "minorities"
Harmon Seaver wrote on February 21, 2003 at 20:40:51 -0600: > On Fri, Feb 21, 2003 at 11:10:11PM -0000, Tom Veil wrote: > > > > If you would trade Castro for Bush, you're either a totalitarian monster, > > or simply insane. > > Bush is obviously both. He's neither. I tend to think he's a well-meaning statist idiot. This of course, doesn't excuse his crimes. If you truly see no difference between the two, I wonder if, upon getting the opportunity to do so, you would vote with a raft and be the first person ever to emigrate from the US to Castro's Cuba. > > In any case, I've added you to my blacklist. > >Interesting that you have to speak from behind a remailer. I use remailers so I can state my opinions with complete and total impunity, without fear that my words will be used against me at some point in the future. > Not that I'm even remotely opposed to remailers, I love them and use them all > the time, but I also know that when someone uses one for converstations such > as this, it's because of pure cowardice. That's your opinion. I'm sure many on this list see it as prudence. >Why don't you come out in the open so we can killfile you? If you can't killfile me, you're incompetent. I always use the same nym. > You're sounding more and more like a LEO troll. If I was a LEO, would I have called for the killing of gun-grabbing LEOs in a recent Usenet post?
Re: The burn-off of Tom Veil
Tyler Durden wrote on February 20, 2003 at 12:24:40 -0500: > As for quoting zmag (which I do), it's silly that this indicates a > necessarily leftie/pinko/commie slant. Did you read my full paragraph? Quoting zmag was not the only criteria I mentioned. > Chomsky, a frequent contributor, has described himself as basically anarchic > in his political leanings. Noam Chomsky is no true anarchist. Chomsky is a commie pinko totalitarian. Chomsky denied the Cambodian holocaust, and is on record as having praised North Vietnam as some sort of democratic worker's paradise. He has defended, rationalized, and denied acts of terror, mass-murder and slavery. > More importantly, however, is the fact that Chomsky often develops some very > strong counter-arguments to US agit-spew. So does Kevin Alfred Strom. -- Tom Veil
Re: The burn-off of twenty million useless eaters and "minorities"
Harmon Seaver wrote on February 20, 2003 at 12:55:08 -0600: > On Thu, Feb 20, 2003 at 12:13:45PM -0000, Tom Veil wrote: > > > Harmon Seaver wrote on February 19, 2003 at 19:20:19 -0600: > > > > > On Wed, Feb 19, 2003 at 11:19:11PM +0100, Anonymous wrote: > > > > > > > > After scanning hyperpoem.net, we've decided to blacklist you for your > > > > far left-wing, socialist views, the quote from Ayn Rand notwithstanding. > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Tom Veil > > > > > > > > >What the fuck are you talking about? Neither you nor anyone else has the > > > authority to ban anyone here, shitforbrains. Actually the site looks pretty > > > good, lots of anti-war, anti-dubbyascum stuff -- right on! > > > > Idiot. I didn't mention a damn thing about "banning" anybody from the list. > >blacklist, ban, baaa baaa baaa -- what's the diff? I don't have the authority to ban anybody from the list. I do have authority in who I hire, and in my recommendations to others. > > I did mention using the good ol' 1950's style blacklists used by employers > > to keep pinkos and commies off their payrolls. > > You sound exactly like one of the morons from the fifties. > > > > > No, being anti-war doesn't get you blacklisted. > > > > Bullshit like comments against "corporate globalization" and prominently > > linking to socialist "Ten-Point Justice Agendas" and sites like zmag.org > > and commiedreams.org gets you blacklisted, as it indicates that one is of > > the so-called "progressive, leftist" commie totalitarian persuasion. > > > > And you are obviously a political retard. Communism is dead, the enemy > now is fascism. Do you know the difference? There isn't much of a difference, actually. In both cases, all property is subservient to the state. > Can we say corporate welfare state??? I already told you that I'm staunchly against any and all forms of corporate welfare, as are all true capitalists. I also told you that expenditures for traditional socialist welfare programs currently dwarf all expenditures for corporate welfare. > The mega-corps *are* the problem today, it's they who put and keep the > fascists in power. The "mega-corps" are not the problem, the mega-state is the problem. Any real power big corporations have is the result of big governments giving it to them. > Quite frankly, I'd trade Castro for Bush anytime, at least we wouldn't > have all the goddam disgusting christian bullshit all the time. If you would trade Castro for Bush, you're either a totalitarian monster, or simply insane. In any case, I've added you to my blacklist. -- Tom Veil
Re: The burn-off of twenty million useless eaters and "minorities"
Tyler Durden wrote on February 17, 2003 at 20:53:14 -0500: > Tim Veil wrote... > > >Because the money that is "given" to them through these unconstitutional > >federal gravy-train programs was stolen from me, and millions of other > >taxpayers at gunpoint. > > Again, I'm not sure why this results in rancor towards those receiving such > funds. What part of my above paragraph did you not understand? > It's not like black folks are really running this show. Who "runs the show" is not at issue here. What _is_ at issue is that the money received by these welfare-suckers is money that was taken from _me_. (snipped) > Want one piece of a solution? Excellent, no-bullshit schools. You're not going to get this with government schools. Better that schools compete for students in the marketplace. (snipped) > >-- > >Tim Veil Fucking with quoted text is _not_ cool. -- Tom Veil
Re: The burn-off of twenty million useless eaters and "minorities"
Harmon Seaver wrote on February 19, 2003 at 19:20:19 -0600: > On Wed, Feb 19, 2003 at 11:19:11PM +0100, Anonymous wrote: > > > > After scanning hyperpoem.net, we've decided to blacklist you for your > > far left-wing, socialist views, the quote from Ayn Rand notwithstanding. > > > > -- > > Tom Veil > > >What the fuck are you talking about? Neither you nor anyone else has the > authority to ban anyone here, shitforbrains. Actually the site looks pretty > good, lots of anti-war, anti-dubbyascum stuff -- right on! Idiot. I didn't mention a damn thing about "banning" anybody from the list. I did mention using the good ol' 1950's style blacklists used by employers to keep pinkos and commies off their payrolls. No, being anti-war doesn't get you blacklisted. Bullshit like comments against "corporate globalization" and prominently linking to socialist "Ten-Point Justice Agendas" and sites like zmag.org and commiedreams.org gets you blacklisted, as it indicates that one is of the so-called "progressive, leftist" commie totalitarian persuasion. -- Tom Veil
Re: The burn-off of twenty million useless eaters and "minorities"
Steve Schear wrote on February 19, 2003 at 12:23: (snipped] > As was the regimen then, the class would line up before and after > activities to check attendance, then we would shower. To help the > instructor the lineup order was fixed. It so happened that the student > behind me was one of those being bussed in. I had not taken much notice of > him until the day he decided that my back looked to be good target for his > fist. His method was to punch me about every 5 seconds like clock > work. Any idea of why the fucker started up with the punching? > It started at the first line up and continued to just before > showers. (I know some of my fellow students saw him hitting me but they > pretended not to and said anything.) > > His locker was almost opposite of mine and as the class prepared to shower > he continued his ritualistic abuse. I waited until most of the others were > gone and just as he was about to land a blow I quickly turned, blocked his > punch, grabbed and twisted his arm to lock it and drew him into a side kick > to his throat. His trachea partly collapsed and he fell to the floor > choking. I calmly continued undressing and went to the shower. When I > came back some students we standing around him and an instructor was giving > him mouth to mouth. I heard he was taken to the hospital. No one asked me > about him, I never saw him again and none of the students said a word. Excellent! A shame he wasn't killed, as he deserved to be. > Several days later three of his friends tried to jump me between classes in > a relatively isolated area of the campus, one had a knife I gave them a > very painful lesson with my nanchuk. I never saw them again either, nor > was I ever questioned about them by school administrators. Afterward, I > took to walking to classes with friends, mostly other martial arts > students, but no further incidents occurred. Its a good thing this > happened back then. Today, I would have been shot Unless you shot the fucking "African-American" attackers dead first. This is why I think bullied kids should carry handguns. Preferably easily concealed ones, the smallest one with the highest caliber. "Bust a cap" in their fucking brains. > and/or arrested. Any cop who would arrest you for a clear-cut case of self-defense would need to be shot dead. -- Tom Veil
Re: The burn-off of twenty million useless eaters and "minorities"
Harmon Seaver wrote on January 31, 2003 at 11:03: > On Wed, Jan 29, 2003 at 10:59:02PM -0000, Tom Veil wrote: > > Tim May wrote on January 22, 2003 at 00:55: > > > > > I expect 20 million to die. Fortunately, 18 million of them will be the > > > usual Democrat, Commies, welfare recipients, negro activists, and > > > Socialist fellow travellers. The other two million will be the Bushies. > > > And proably most of the remaining Jews will be scourged, as payment for > > > their support of thefts, of Zionism, etc. Sounds fair to me. > > > > > > Ain't gonna be a lot of negroes and Mexicans after this war is over. > > > > 20 million sounds a bit low. Given that the current US population is around > > 281 million, we're talking about only 7 percent of the population. > > > > According to the most recent Census data, blacks currently account for > > around 12.6 percent, or 35.5 million, and Mexicans, 7.3 percent, or about > > 20.6 million. On top of that are millions of commies, socialists, Demonrats, > > and welfare addicts that don't fall into the aforementioned "minority" > > categories. > > > > Even if 20 million are liquidated, there will still be plenty of vermin > > around to replenish their numbers. > >Let's not forget all the corporate welfare bums, we need to put all those > mega-corp executives and all the farmers at the top of that list. They get far > more welfare than anyone else. Also all the military, that's just another form > of welfare bum. Cut them off too. I strongly advocate eliminating subsidies to private businesses and the military-industrial complex, just as I do direct payments to individuals. (It's true that the military consumes much, much more money than it should, but at least the Army and Navy are constitutionally legitimate.) Keep in mind that the total amount the federal sugar-daddy gives out in corporate welfare pales in comparison to annual spending for individual welfare programs, which include AFDC, WIC, socialist insecurity, medicare, medicaid, etc. Those programs currently account for just over half of all federal expenditures, and none of those programs are constitutional. -- Tom Veil
Re: The burn-off of twenty million useless eaters and "minorities"
Tyler Durden wrote on January 30, 2003 at 16:40: > Tom Veil wrote... > > >According to the most recent Census data, blacks currently account for > >around 12.6 percent, or 35.5 million, Even if 20 million are > >liquidated, there will still be plenty of vermin around to replenish > >their numbers. > > > >-- > >Tom Veil > > So what's the deal with hating black folks? I still don't get it. Of course, > there's the old "They Eat Up Welfare Money" bullshit, but aside from the > fact that Whites eat up more welfare (absolute and percentage), I don't hate black people, nor did I claim that they consumed most federal "welfare" expenditures. Keep in mind that I said that there were "millions ..of welfare addicts" that weren't Black or Mexican. > why get mad at folks if they take $$$ that are given to them? Because the money that is "given" to them through these unconstitutional federal gravy-train programs was stolen from me, and millions of other taxpayers at gunpoint. > In the case of black folks, however, this is a population that has not been > well served by the US system, despite their disproportionate contributions > (Trane, Monk, Bird, Miles anyone?). Don't bring out the tired old excuse of blacks being "oppressed by the US system". Plenty of people have received their share of shitty deals, yet they put all that behind them and managed to prosper while the black so- called "leadership" is still whining and clamoring for "mo' welfare" and affirmative-action. Talk about "reparations"? Blacks have already received plenty of "reparations". We called it the "Great Society". -- Tom Veil
Re: The practical reason the U.S. is starting a war
John Young wrote on February 16, 2003 at 00:54: > What intrigues about Tim's message was the implication that > the war on terrorism, by all sides, is fundamentally about > racism, although camouflaged by political and economic > drapery. As was, and is, imperialism and its bastard clone, > capitalism. I never read anything like that in his post. [A whole bunch of stuff read, and snipped] What the hell are you talking about? -- Tom Veil
Re: The burn-off of twenty million useless eaters and "minorities" is aQ
Tim May wrote on January 22, 2003 at 00:55: > I expect 20 million to die. Fortunately, 18 million of them will be the > usual Democrat, Commies, welfare recipients, negro activists, and > Socialist fellow travellers. The other two million will be the Bushies. > And proably most of the remaining Jews will be scourged, as payment for > their support of thefts, of Zionism, etc. Sounds fair to me. > > Ain't gonna be a lot of negroes and Mexicans after this war is over. 20 million sounds a bit low. Given that the current US population is around 281 million, we're talking about only 7 percent of the population. According to the most recent Census data, blacks currently account for around 12.6 percent, or 35.5 million, and Mexicans, 7.3 percent, or about 20.6 million. On top of that are millions of commies, socialists, Demonrats, and welfare addicts that don't fall into the aforementioned "minority" categories. Even if 20 million are liquidated, there will still be plenty of vermin around to replenish their numbers. -- Tom Veil
