Re: damn commie hypocrite leech! (was Re: why worry?)

At 08:02 PM 3/4/00 -0500, Petro wrote: > ? wrote: >>People on this list think they've proven communism wrong, but >>they've always avoided any real confrontation with it. No ones >>strives to understand if communism might have something >>valuable to say-- that's what passes for an open mind he

Re: damn commie hypocrite leech! (was Re: why worry?)

>People on this list think they've proven communism wrong, but >they've always avoided any real confrontation with it. No ones >strives to understand if communism might have something >valuable to say-- that's what passes for an open mind here. Maybe we strove to understand it before w

Re: Re: damn commie hypocrite leech! (was Re: Re: Re: why worry?)

On Thu, 2 Mar 2000, Duncan Frissell wrote: > At 12:29 PM 3/1/00 -0600, Jim Choate wrote: > > >Capitalism is not equivalent to freedom in any manner. If anything the > >pursuit of capitalist goals has driven more abuse than help by many > >orders of magnitude. > > > >There is a reason the Const

Re: Re: damn commie hypocrite leech! (was Re: Re: Re: why worry?)

At 12:29 PM 3/1/00 -0600, Jim Choate wrote: >Capitalism is not equivalent to freedom in any manner. If anything the >pursuit of capitalist goals has driven more abuse than help by many >orders of magnitude. > >There is a reason the Constitution doesn't mention business rights or >commerce in ge

Re: Re: why worry?

At 12:10 AM 3/1/00 -0500, Bill Stewart wrote: >At 11:27 PM 02/26/2000 -0500, Petro wrote: > > Theft of property *is* the initiation of force. > >Theft of property is initiation of bad behavior, but not necessarily force. >Robbery of property is initiation of force ("yer money or yer life", >

Re: damn commie hypocrite leech! (was Re: Re: Re: why worry?)

X-Loop: openpgp.net From: Sunder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > It might not even be the "standard of living" making for the disparity, but > rather the value of the dollar versus the value of the local currency. Sure, > these guys make $20 a month, but that $20 a month would buy them as much as our > $2

Re: damn commie hypocrite leech! (was Re: why worry?)

X-Loop: openpgp.net From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > But with our institution of intellectual property, it becomes possible > to keep competition at bay such that the consumer has no choice but to > either live without the product or service completely, or hand over > the money to the corporation. T

Re: damn commie hypocrite leech! (was Re: Re: Re: why worry?)

At 08:15 AM 3/1/00 -0500, Jim Choate wrote: dressed under >our present system to get it working well again. Those changes won't >happen easily because our culture is wearing the blinders of false >profits. Do you mean dotcom IPOs or false prophets? :-)

Re: Re: damn commie hypocrite leech! (was Re: Re: Re: why worry?)

On Wed, 1 Mar 2000, David Honig wrote: > At 08:15 AM 3/1/00 -0500, Jim Choate wrote: > dressed under > >our present system to get it working well again. Those changes won't > >happen easily because our culture is wearing the blinders of false > >profits. > > Do you mean dotcom IPOs or false pr

Re: Re: damn commie hypocrite leech! (was Re: Re: Re: why worry?)

On Wed, 1 Mar 2000, Sunder wrote: > Amen brother! Sing it again! Ain't nothing sweeter than freedom. And that's > as capitalist as you can get. Capitalism is not equivalent to freedom in any manner. If anything the pursuit of capitalist goals has driven more abuse than help by many orders o

Re: Re: damn commie hypocrite leech! (was Re: Re: Re: why worry?)

Missouri FreeNet Administration wrote: > > :Erm, what, Russia is not good enough an example for you? > > No, it is definitely not. the USSR (not "Russia" BTW) was no more a > genuine communist state than the US is a genuine capitalist state. > :If you agree (and I > :don't speak for you) that

Re: damn commie hypocrite leech! (was Re: Re: Re: why worry?)

On Wed, 1 Mar 2000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > On Wed, 1 Mar 2000, Sunder wrote: > > > So then, what's the answer? Capitalism or Crapunism under anarchy? :) > > Dunno .. but I sort of suspect that if we could pull off a true anarchy > that it wouldn't matter much. > > Individuals could clump

Re: Re: damn commie hypocrite leech! (was Re: Re: Re: why worry?)

Amen brother! Sing it again! Ain't nothing sweeter than freedom. And that's as capitalist as you can get. Now if only Uncle Sam would stop fucking it over with bullshit anti-gun, anti-speech, insane taxes, and pro-bureocractic regulation bullshit laws! Curtis Fockler wrote: > > Come on out

Re: damn commie hypocrite leech! (was Re: Re: Re: why worry?)

On Wed, 1 Mar 2000, Sunder wrote: > So then, what's the answer? Capitalism or Crapunism under anarchy? :) Dunno .. but I sort of suspect that if we could pull off a true anarchy that it wouldn't matter much. Individuals could clump together and institute whatever sort of socio-economic system

Re: damn commie hypocrite leech! (was Re: Re: Re: why worry?)

On Wed, 1 Mar 2000, Curtis Fockler wrote: > People and the right, yeah, I think the USA is good enough for me. Yeah we > have Waco, Ruby ridge and all the crap. But we are able to have all the crap > and play a role in it if we want. > > Try that somewhere else in the world and see what happ

Re: damn commie hypocrite leech! (was Re: Re: Re: why worry?)

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > Not a problem. You get them an emergency, you feed them FUD and scare them, > > and they'll bend over in every direction you ask. Hell, just scream terrorist > > and they'll happily put up with all sorts of nonsense to take a plane ride. > > Wow. You're good at t

Re: Re: damn commie hypocrite leech! (was Re: Re: Re: why worry?)

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > Most Americans are so dependent, so hopelessly inurred with the current > > lifestyle that they wouldn't recognize communism if it bit them in the ass. > > Agreed. That is precisely my point -- and yet they condemn it with all > of the passion that the state says

Re: Re: damn commie hypocrite leech! (was Re: Re: Re: why worry?)

On Wed, 1 Mar 2000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Any government needs appropriate leadership, especially in its > infancy.. and those leaders need to be dedicated to that government > deep in their bones. What do you mean by leadership? An elite? That is a historical falacy based in the belief

Re: damn commie hypocrite leech! (was Re: Re: Re: why worry?)

orry >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >To: Jim Burnes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >CC: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: Re: damn commie hypocrite leech! (was Re: Re: Re: why worry?) >Date: Tue, 29 Feb 2000 23:20:35 -0500 (EST) > > > > > -- > > F

Re: Re: damn commie hypocrite leech! (was Re: Re: Re: why worry?)

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Any government needs appropriate leadership, that is an assumption, as yet unproven. I agree that it DOES sound good, but it is still an assumption. since the rest of your argument rests on it, you should give it a little more support. > especially in its > infancy.

Re: Re: damn commie hypocrite leech! (was Re: Re: Re: why worry?)

On Tue, 29 Feb 2000, Sunder wrote: :Missouri FreeNet Administration wrote: :> :> (J.A. Terranson donned his extra heavy asbestos underwear, then appended :> his thoughts thusly...) :> :> (1) I would argue that there has yet to *be* an actual *Communist* state :> by which we could gauge the Com

Re: damn commie hypocrite leech! (was Re: Re: Re: why worry?)

On Tue, 29 Feb 2000, Tom Vogt wrote: > Missouri FreeNet Administration wrote: > > (1) I would argue that there has yet to *be* an actual *Communist* state > > by which we could gauge the Communist existense. > > now, I've heard THAT argument until I grew sick of it. > > say, isn't the fact tha

Re: damn commie hypocrite leech! (was Re: Re: Re: why worry?)

On Mon, 28 Feb 2000, Missouri FreeNet Administration wrote: > :Well, OK...thats a null statement. Most people have no idea what conditions > :are in other nations. Why should they care? (unless they dont like where > :they are living and want to move). > > (1) I would argue that there has yet

Re: why worry?

>>PS: concluding that someone needs to die because their unorthodox ideas >>cause the theft of your property is the sign of an emotionally unbalanced >>person. Libertarians don't have the right to initiate force against me, >>fuckface. At 11:27 PM 02/26/2000 -0500, Petro wrote: > Theft of prope

Re: damn commie hypocrite leech! (was Re: Re: Re: why worry?)

On Mon, 28 Feb 2000, Sunder wrote: > That just proves that Joe Average is entertaining you, but believes otherwise. > Or is entertaining the mob. That could very well be the case. > Not a problem. You get them an emergency, you feed them FUD and scare them, > and they'll bend over in every

Re: damn commie hypocrite leech! (was Re: Re: Re: why worry?)

Sorry for the delay in response -- my provider has had some problems as of late. On Mon, 28 Feb 2000, Jim Burnes wrote: > Well, OK...thats a null statement. Most people have no idea what conditions > are in other nations. Why should they care? (unless they dont like where > they are living a

Re: Re: damn commie hypocrite leech! (was Re: Re: Re: why worry?)

Missouri FreeNet Administration wrote: > > (J.A. Terranson donned his extra heavy asbestos underwear, then appended > his thoughts thusly...) > > (1) I would argue that there has yet to *be* an actual *Communist* state > by which we could gauge the Communist existense. Erm, what, Russia is not

Re: damn commie hypocrite leech! (was Re: Re: Re: why worry?)

Missouri FreeNet Administration wrote: > (1) I would argue that there has yet to *be* an actual *Communist* state > by which we could gauge the Communist existense. now, I've heard THAT argument until I grew sick of it. say, isn't the fact that there hasn't been a communist state despite severa

Re: damn commie hypocrite leech! (was Re: Re: Re: why worry?)

(J.A. Terranson donned his extra heavy asbestos underwear, then appended his thoughts thusly...) On Mon, 28 Feb 2000, Jim Burnes wrote: :[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: :> :> Irrelevent. No one is arguing that existence under communist rule is :> a holiday -- or even better than existence in the U.S.

Re: Damn french ;-) (Re: damn commie hypocrite leech! (was Re: Re: Re: why worry?))

To correct myself: My Canon does 5 fps. >The Nikon D-1, which came out last October, can do 4.5 photos/second. This >is comparable to all but the speediest analog cameras. My analog Canon can >only do 8 photos/sec.

Re: Damn french ;-) (Re: damn commie hypocrite leech! (was Re: Re: Re: why worry?))

At 15:45 2/28/2000 -1000, Reese wrote: >Here's one place where I'll agree with you wholeheartedly, Declan; digital >cameras suck because they are in their infancy. You might want to read my article on this: http://www.wired.com/news/print/0,1294,33244,00.html >there is imposed time delay w

Re: Damn french ;-) (Re: damn commie hypocrite leech! (was Re: Re: Re: why worry?))

Yesterday for breakfast I stopped by Au Bon Pain on the northeast corner of Anguilla -- no, not the US chain, but a bakery run by some, well, surly French expats. On a more topical note, I will put photos from the fc00 conf and some other cypherpunkly events when I get them developed later th

Re: damn commie hypocrite leech! (was Re: Re: Re: why worry?)

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > The problem is the herd mentality. When I get Joe Average alone, sit down > and reason with him I find that most times we share a good deal of > insights and we both go away from the discussion better off .. its when > you get people in a group that things go astray

Re: damn commie hypocrite leech! (was Re: Re: Re: why worry?)

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > Irrelevent. No one is arguing that existence under communist rule is > a holiday -- or even better than existence in the U.S. The statement is > simply that the average american knows dick about the conditions that > exist in other nations, and as an aside, is oblivi

Re: damn commie hypocrite leech! (was Re: Re: Re: why worry?)

Aaron wrote: > > On Fri, 25 Feb 2000 08:01:50 -0400, Anonymous Sender wrote: > > >Without any real knowledge, with only the warm feeling of being right and > >knowing that all sheep around will instantly confirm it, americans > >denounce communism, and it feels so good. Orgasmic. > > People on

Re: Re: why worry?

-- At 11:05 PM 2/26/00 -0500, Petro wrote: > There is really one one portion of the economy where there > are fewer and fewer people in control--the "traditional" media, TV, > Newspaper, Radio, and Magazine. > > Of course, the Facists Comminications Commission, in a rather > startlin

Re: damn commie hypocrite leech! (was Re: why worry?)

At 04:41 PM 2/26/00 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >On Sat, 26 Feb 2000, Xenophon wrote: > >> Bowing to the majority rule of democracy is not something we should >> have to do in a republic. 51% should not be able to successfully >> implement a campaign of theft. > >Of course, but far more than

Re: damn commie hypocrite leech! (was Re: why worry?)

At 10:15 AM 2/26/00 -0500, Aaron wrote: > Capitalism digs its grave because >ultimately it's exploitive to the workers. Then why don't they quit? What your type fails to realize is that, despite the poor (by american standards) conditions others may live in (whether foraging, farming, fact

Thanks from the IBUC Bearer Boat (was Re: Damn french ;-) (Re:damn commie hypocrite leech! (was Re: Re: Re: why worry?)))

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 At 9:10 PM -0400 on 2/26/00, R. A. Hettinga postscripted on cypherpunks, vamping on his famous french lefty-philosophy kvetch there a little while back: > [Who's had enough of things *french* for a while, especially heavy > low-bridgedeck *french*

Re: Damn french ;-) (Re: damn commie hypocrite leech! (was Re:Re: Re: why worry?))

At 9:03 PM -0600 on 2/26/00, Aaron wrote: > I'm not French. No, but you're definitely petit... Cheers, RAH - R. A. Hettinga The Internet Bearer Underwriting Corporation 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA "... however it may deserve respect for its

Re: why worry?

>PS: concluding that someone needs to die because their unorthodox ideas >cause the theft of your property is the sign of an emotionally unbalanced >person. Libertarians don't have the right to initiate force against me, >fuckface. Theft of property *is* the initiation of force. You th

Re: Re: why worry?

>On Wed, 16 Feb 2000 19:25:57 -0500, William H. Geiger III wrote: > >>It is very simple, libertarians don't care *who* owns what. If the small >>farmer can't compete in the open market, the so be it. I woun't shed one >>more tear than I would over the demise of the buggy whip industry. > >If an e

Re: Re: why worry?

>>In South Vietnam, our client regime > >The US of A did _not_ have a "client regime" in S. Vietnam. You are a complete fucking imbecile. There were several "regimes" in S. Vietnam that served at the whim of the US State department. > >I think I've made my point. Th

Re: damn commie hypocrite leech! (was Re: Re: Re: why worry?)

"Any man who would trade a portion of his liberty for security deserves neither." Benjamin Franklin

Re: Damn french ;-) (Re: damn commie hypocrite leech! (was Re: Re: Re: why worry?))

On Sat, 26 Feb 2000 21:10:18 -0400, R. A. Hettinga wrote: >Um, that's "petit bourgeois", to you, sir. Of course, since you probably >heard it second-hand in a Texas graduate-student drawl, you're excused. > >Socialism is *french*, remember? I'm not French.

Re: Damn french ;-) (Re: damn commie hypocrite leech! (was Re: Re: Re: why worry?))

Okay, Robert, who wore a thong monokini at FC00? Who's got implants since FC99, unable to face the naked ridicule at 00? Were infections running wild as predicted? Who died? Where'd you stash the carcass, sewing a pickled corpse in a donkey's stomach, head out the navel, aint novel, well, not

Damn french ;-) (Re: damn commie hypocrite leech! (was Re: CDR:Re: Re: why worry?))

At 10:06 PM -0600 on 2/24/00, Aaron wrote: > petty-bourgeois wanna-be Um, that's "petit bourgeois", to you, sir. Of course, since you probably heard it second-hand in a Texas graduate-student drawl, you're excused. Socialism is *french*, remember? ;-). Cheers, RAH [Who's had enough of thing

Re: damn commie hypocrite leech! (was Re: Re: Re: why worry?)

On Sat, 26 Feb 2000, Xenophon wrote: > Bowing to the majority rule of democracy is not something we should > have to do in a republic. 51% should not be able to successfully > implement a campaign of theft. Of course, but far more than 51% of the American people in every state of the union, sup

Re: damn commie hypocrite leech! (was Re: Re: Re: why worry?)

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >Come now. It is not theft if you agree to give the money away, which you >implicitly do by living in America and being an American citizen. Or, like >>me, accept your fringe status, bow to the majority rule of democracy If someone holds a gun to your head and deman

Re: damn commie hypocrite leech! (was Re: Re: Re: why worry?)

On Sat, 26 Feb 2000, Xenophon wrote: > > It is _precisely_ because of this ignorance that makes Anonymous' point so > > relevent. > > For every American mouth-breather who calls all Democrats commie bastards, there is > another who laments 'American ignorance'. Both are trite. You're probably

Re: damn commie hypocrite leech! (was Re: Re: Re: why worry?)

On Sat, 26 Feb 2000, Sunder wrote: > Irrelevan my ass. I'm offended that you would assume such a thing about > anyone. I won't let you escape this arguement by stating "But I said the > Average American and you're not average." The average American isnt' > knowledgeable about cyphers, or the

Re: damn commie hypocrite leech! (was Re: Re: Re: why worry?)

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > The statement is simply that the average american knows dick about the conditions > that exist in other nations.. > Americans condemn Communism usually without even having read the Communist > Manifesto; > > Americans condemn Communism without knowing shit about Ma

Re: damn commie hypocrite leech! (was Re: Re: Re: why worry?)

On Sat, 26 Feb 2000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > Oh puhleeze. Research before you speak. I was born in a satelite of Red > > Russia. It was a commie state. I remember it all too well. Joe Sixpack might > > not give a shit about how much it sucks elsewhere. I do, I was there. > > Irrelev

Re: damn commie hypocrite leech! (was Re: Re: Re: why worry?)

On Fri, 25 Feb 2000 15:48:11 -0500, Sunder wrote: >FYI: corporations don't own my ass. I'd say the reverse is true though. Ever >hear of stock? When you buy it, you own a piece of their asses. Yeah, and you're Ted Turner? Don't equate yourself to the bourgeoisie. You only make me laugh at s

Re: damn commie hypocrite leech! (was Re: Re: Re: why worry?)

On Sat, 26 Feb 2000, Aaron wrote: > On Fri, 25 Feb 2000 08:01:50 -0400, Anonymous Sender wrote: > > >Without any real knowledge, with only the warm feeling of being right and > >knowing that all sheep around will instantly confirm it, americans > >denounce communism, and it feels so good. Orga

Re: damn commie hypocrite leech! (was Re: Re: Re: why worry?)

On Sat, 26 Feb 2000, Aaron wrote: > On Fri, 25 Feb 2000 15:48:11 -0500, Sunder wrote: > > >FYI: corporations don't own my ass. I'd say the reverse is true though. Ever > >hear of stock? When you buy it, you own a piece of their asses. > > Yeah, and you're Ted Turner? Don't equate yourself

Re: damn commie hypocrite leech! (was Re: Re: Re: why worry?)

On Fri, 25 Feb 2000, Sunder wrote: > Anonymous Sender wrote: > > It's amusing how the brainwashing shows its ugly face when the appropriate > > stimulus is applied. For most US subjects it is the "communism" thingie. > > Oh puhleeze. Research before you speak. I was born in a satelite of Red

Re: damn commie hypocrite leech! (was Re: Re: Re: why worry?)

On Fri, 25 Feb 2000 08:01:50 -0400, Anonymous Sender wrote: >Without any real knowledge, with only the warm feeling of being right and >knowing that all sheep around will instantly confirm it, americans >denounce communism, and it feels so good. Orgasmic. People on this list think they've prove

Re: damn commie hypocrite leech! (was Re: Re: Re: why worry?)

>I hate communist political systems with almost the same passion that I Q.E.D.

Re: damn commie hypocrite leech! (was Re: Re: Re: why worry?)

Aaron wrote: Blah, blah, blah, keep repeating your party line commie mantra. Otherwise, how else would you, yourself believe it. Obviously, if you didn't give a shit about my property, you wouldn't bother making such a big deal about it. You just go ahead and believe your bullshit all you lik

Re: damn commie hypocrite leech! (was Re: Re: Re: why worry?)

Anonymous Sender wrote: > > >You're a commie, that's enough of a threat to everyone's property. > > It's amusing how the brainwashing shows its ugly face when the appropriate > stimulus is applied. For most US subjects it is the "communism" thingie. Oh puhleeze. Research before you speak. I

Re: damn commie hypocrite leech! (was Re: Re: Re: why worry?)

Anonymous Sender wrote: > >You're a commie, that's enough of a threat to everyone's property. > It's amusing how the brainwashing shows its ugly face when the appropriate > stimulus is applied. For most US subjects it is the "communism" thingie. Speak for yourself, Brainwashing my left a

Re: damn commie hypocrite leech! (was Re: Re: Re: why worry?)

On Fri, 25 Feb 2000, Anonymous Sender wrote: > Without any real knowledge, with only the warm feeling of being right and > knowing that all sheep around will instantly confirm it, americans > denounce communism, and it feels so good. Orgasmic. Indeed. I have often wondered about that. During th

Re: damn commie hypocrite leech! (was Re: Re: Re: why worry?)

At Thu, 24 Feb 2000 22:06:57 -0600, "Aaron" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >On Wed, 23 Feb 2000 13:27:13 -0500, Sunder wrote: > >>Aaron wrote: >>> >>> On Fri, 18 Feb 2000 12:58:25 -0500, Sunder wrote: >>> >>> >> PS: concluding that someone needs to die because their unorthodox >ideas >>> >>

Re: damn commie hypocrite leech! (was Re: Re: Re: why worry?)

>You're a commie, that's enough of a threat to everyone's property. It's amusing how the brainwashing shows its ugly face when the appropriate stimulus is applied. For most US subjects it is the "communism" thingie. Without any real knowledge, with only the warm feeling of being right and knowi

Re: damn commie hypocrite leech! (was Re: Re: Re: why worry?)

On Wed, 23 Feb 2000 13:27:13 -0500, Sunder wrote: >Aaron wrote: >> >> On Fri, 18 Feb 2000 12:58:25 -0500, Sunder wrote: >> >> >> PS: concluding that someone needs to die because their unorthodox ideas >> >> cause the theft of your property is the sign of an emotionally unbalanced >> >> person.

damn commie hypocrite leech! (was Re: Re: Re: why worry?)

Aaron wrote: > > On Fri, 18 Feb 2000 12:58:25 -0500, Sunder wrote: > > >> PS: concluding that someone needs to die because their unorthodox ideas > >> cause the theft of your property is the sign of an emotionally unbalanced > >> person. Libertarians don't have the right to initiate force agai

RE: why worry?

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 > It's silly to rant about corporations. Anything bad that they can > do, governments do more often and with a bigger body count. If > you snip the > weed at its roots, the leaves will wither away. > Interestinglly enough, the wall st

Re: why worry?

Some days ago, Harmon Seaver wrote: > >Megacorp are every bit as evil as governments are. The destruction > >of the state and multinational corps go hand-in-hand. In fact, they > >probably are even more evil -- and certainly more efficient in their evil. And Duncan Frissell replied: > Governme

Re: Re: Re: why worry?

On Fri, 18 Feb 2000 12:58:25 -0500, Sunder wrote: >> PS: concluding that someone needs to die because their unorthodox ideas >> cause the theft of your property is the sign of an emotionally unbalanced >> person. Libertarians don't have the right to initiate force against me, >> fuckface. > >Oh

Re: Re: Re: why worry?

Aaron wrote: > > On Thu, 17 Feb 2000 16:59:40 -0500, Sunder wrote: > > >Dude, maybe you need a brain transplant. That ol'e time Mc Donalds commie > >philosophy crack pipe you've been sucking hard on has killed every last > >neuron that provided you with what little judgement you had. > > > >Fu

Re: Re: Re: why worry?

At 11:47 AM 2/17/00 +, you wrote: >At 02:19 AM 17/02/00 , Reese wrote: >> >In South Vietnam, our client regime >> >>The US of A did _not_ have a "client regime" in S. Vietnam. >> >>Vietnam was split into N. and S. and the FRENCH were to look after S. >>Vietnam at the end of WWII - we had a si

Re: Re: Re: why worry?

On Thu, 17 Feb 2000 16:59:40 -0500, Sunder wrote: >Dude, maybe you need a brain transplant. That ol'e time Mc Donalds commie >philosophy crack pipe you've been sucking hard on has killed every last >neuron that provided you with what little judgement you had. > >Funny how the commie goes off

Re: Re: Re: why worry?

Aaron wrote: > > On Wed, 16 Feb 2000 21:42:38 -0500, Tim May wrote: > > > > >Aaron and Harmon and the other simp-wimps seem to be mighty inclined to > >letting government steal property to do what they think is "good." > > > >Such people, who steal my property, need killing. Millions in America

Re: why worry?

"William H. Geiger III" wrote: > It is very simple, libertarians don't care *who* owns what. If the small > farmer can't compete in the open market, the so be it. I woun't shed one > more tear than I would over the demise of the buggy whip industry. > The problem is that it's not an op

Re: Re: Re: why worry?

Aaron wrote: > > I keep telling you suckers that I'm a communist, not a socialist. Get a clue. Marx said they're the same thing. -FreeTotoMonger

Re: Re: why worry?

At 02:19 AM 17/02/00 , Reese wrote: > >In South Vietnam, our client regime > >The US of A did _not_ have a "client regime" in S. Vietnam. > >Vietnam was split into N. and S. and the FRENCH were to look after S. >Vietnam at the end of WWII - we had a similar setup in KOREA. Outside of >some colle

Re: Re: why worry?

In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, on 02/17/00 at 01:01 AM, Steve Schear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: >At 07:25 PM 2/16/00 -0500, William H. Geiger III wrote: >>What signifies you as a socialist is that you see no problem with having >>the government *steal* my property to "fix" whatever problem is bothe

Re: Re: Re: why worry?

At 22:03 2/16/2000 -0800, Aaron wrote to Tim: >Dude, maybe I need a restraining order placed on you. Oh, no. -Declan

Re: Re: why worry?

On Wed, 16 Feb 2000, Aaron wrote: > On Wed, 16 Feb 2000 21:21:10 -0600 (CST), Jim Choate wrote: > >On Wed, 16 Feb 2000, Reese wrote: > > > >> Then you have a very limited view of the world, corporations, and the > >> distinctions between the various forms of gov't. > > > >Just take a look at t

Re: Re: Re: why worry?

On Wed, 16 Feb 2000 21:42:38 -0500, Tim May wrote: > >Aaron and Harmon and the other simp-wimps seem to be mighty inclined to >letting government steal property to do what they think is "good." > >Such people, who steal my property, need killing. Millions in America need >killing. > Dude, maybe

Re: Re: why worry?

On Wed, 16 Feb 2000 21:21:10 -0600 (CST), Jim Choate wrote: > >On Wed, 16 Feb 2000, Reese wrote: > >> At 03:37 PM 2/16/00 -0800, in response to someone whose comments I snipped >> out, Aaron wrote: >> >> >In the world as I perceive it, socialists control very little; corporations >> >control m

Re: Re: why worry?

On Wed, 16 Feb 2000 18:04:30 -0500, David Honig wrote: > >Actually, Tim is called a Nazi because that is how statists >react when exposed, unapologeticly, to ideas so different from their own. > Mental masturbation. Way to go.

Re: Re: Re: why worry?

On Wed, 16 Feb 2000 19:25:57 -0500, William H. Geiger III wrote: >It is very simple, libertarians don't care *who* owns what. If the small >farmer can't compete in the open market, the so be it. I woun't shed one >more tear than I would over the demise of the buggy whip industry. If an economy

Re: why worry?

At 10:24 PM 2/16/00 -0500, Tim May wrote: >At 6:40 PM -0800 2/16/00, Reese wrote: > >>Have you seen the source, for this proggie? I haven't, and I don't trust > > >What the fuck is a "proggie"? > >Something that runs on a "puter"? > >My bad. > >Lates, > >--Tim May, who is not suprised to learn t

Re: Re: why worry?

Tim May wrote: >Millions in America need killing. This is taken out of the property is theft context, still it rings true as if eternal oracle. Some want more customers, some want fewer social leeches, some want more slaves for their life style, some want fewer vote thieves and more dead elect

Re: why worry?

At 6:40 PM -0800 2/16/00, Reese wrote: >Have you seen the source, for this proggie? I haven't, and I don't trust What the fuck is a "proggie"? Something that runs on a "puter"? My bad. Lates, --Tim May, who is not suprised to learn that "Reese" is a fucking GenX illiterate print pack"C*"

Re: Re: why worry?

On Wed, 16 Feb 2000, Reese wrote: > At 03:37 PM 2/16/00 -0800, in response to someone whose comments I snipped > out, Aaron wrote: > > >In the world as I perceive it, socialists control very little; corporations > >control most. > > Then you have a very limited view of the world, corporation

Re: Re: why worry?

At 4:25 PM -0800 2/16/00, William H. Geiger III wrote: >In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, on 02/16/00 > at 05:37 PM, "Aaron" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > >>Libertarians think socialists are taking over the world, but they'll wake >>up to a world owned totally by corporations. I still can't figure out >>

Re: why worry?

At 04:28 PM 2/16/00 -0500, Steve Schear wrote: > >> Has anyone heard Bruce Coburn's song "If I Had A Rocket Launcher" ? >>I can upload the mp3 file somewhere if anyone wants it. It's rather >>uplifting. 8-) > >If you're in a giving mood why not join the community at Napster.com where

Re: Re: why worry?

In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, on 02/16/00 at 05:37 PM, "Aaron" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: >Libertarians think socialists are taking over the world, but they'll wake >up to a world owned totally by corporations. I still can't figure out >what's libertarian about that. It is very simple, libertari

Re: why worry?

At 02:09 PM 2/16/00 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >Tim is constantly being called a Nazi. The only apparent reason for >this is that Tim frequently uses racial and ethnic slurs in his points Actually, Tim is called a Nazi because that is how statists react when exposed, unapologeticly, to i

Re: why worry?

Anonymous remailer wrote: > OTOH, your message with its whining about how US multinational > corporations are enslaving workers in banana republics clearly > implied a call for government to fix the problem. I think you need to learn how to read, oh dyslexic one. What is causing the pr

Re: why worry?

> Has anyone heard Bruce Coburn's song "If I Had A Rocket Launcher" ? >I can upload the mp3 file somewhere if anyone wants it. It's rather >uplifting. 8-) If you're in a giving mood why not join the community at Napster.com where thousands of music buffs are sharing their MP3 librar

Re: Re: why worry?

On 16 Feb 2000 19:09:20 -, Anonymous remailer wrote: >The LP (and -- from what I've read over the years -- Tim) favor no taxes >and indeed no laws that do not have to do with prohibiting one person >from causing specific harm to another. So if libertarianism as envisioned >by the LP were ac

Re: why worry?

Harmon Seaver wrote: > >Shit -- that's not the half of it. US corps (okay, multinationals) >essentially enslave workers in places like > Guatemala, Saipan, etc. The factory sites look exactly like concentration camps. Try >any subversive organization and you're > dead meat. You work f

Re: why worry?

Harmon Seaver writes: [snip] >Fascism is the melding of evil governments and evil corporations. The > US government today is clearly fascist. Tim, with his preference of fascist > regimes over anything even smacking of social justice, coupled with his > racism and anti-semeticism, is clea

Re: Re: why worry?

On Tue, 15 Feb 2000 18:03:29 -1000, Reese wrote: >I gotta call bullshit. Your "everyone knows" is about as convincing as >"everyone knows you'll go blind if you keep playing with "it"." > >Precisely what steps has the US gov't taken to actively repress all the >worlds "third world" countries?

Re: why worry?

At 10:52 AM 2/16/00 -0500, Harmon Seaver wrote: >The peasantry of Latin America has been driven into the >cities by the "anti-guerilla" actions of the local military (which wouldn't >be possible without US support), have had their ancestral lands stolen by the >large corporate agri-business, tim

Re: why worry?

I am extremely cognizant on the similarities/differences of fascism & communism. And the differences between Nazism and generic fascism. Adolph Hitler stated, for instance: "Those of you who think of National Socialism as a political movement know nothing about it. National Socialism is a

  1   2   >