Sunday, September 11, 2005

Osama we are all still here and you are in a cave or pushing up Opium Poppies

It is four years later and the American family is still united in our oposition to Jihadist nuts. Our lives have changed over that time. Some of us bear horrible memories caused by your twisted peverse religious views of heaven as a brothel. Yet I will proclaim it loud and clear for you jihadis and far left Communazis. I am an American freedom is my birth right and I live it each and every day. You and your Jihadi and Commie allies will never make me submit or change my ways. You have picked a fight with the wrong people.

I want to differentiate between patriotic liberals like B and whatever Justin Morris calls himself at any given moment from 167 and other anti American far left insane nuts. It is okay to disagree with the Iraq war or administation policies. This is our right as Americans.

However the second one goes into insane Chomskyite or Zinn delusions about America as the sole force of evil in the world you have left the American Family. Thus when idiots talk of Jooooish cabals or zionist media or insane consipracies you have left the American family. 167 is not American and at last glance had more in common with
earthworms then with humans.

B and I agree on social policies more then many of you would acknowledge . However on the war on Terror and Iraq we differ but seek different routes to the same goal.
I also will never allow myself to stand near a Commie , David Duke or any other people that do not share my heritage. The key point is that B and I disagree on the specific route to a safer country but it is a common desire.

I no longer see Liberalism as a credible ideology. John Kerry is a portrait of what is wrong with the Democrats. He talks like Sgt. York but did little or nothing in Vietnam and spent 33 years embelishing his record. He then goes to meet with the VC in Paris while still in the Naval Reserve an act that should have put him in Leavenworth. He forms a Communist organization and his cofounder Al Hubbard is a fake Vietnam Veteran who was a Communist but never was in Vietnam or flew a plane he loaded them. His injuries were from playing basketball in Hoboken. Kerry worked with the man every day and never knew he was a Commie or a fraud. Kerry holds the thoroughly discredited Wintersoldier hearings replette with fake testimony. Then Kerry runs to be Daniel Ortega's personal PR man in DC. He also signs on to the wacky
nuclear freeze movement. Sadly nobody even questions him on these things. Senator when did you know Al Hubbard was a Commie who never was in Vietnam. Then you have Senator Harkin who is the same nutty story. Has there ever been a Communist that John Conyers or Charles Rangel cried about 1/10 as much as they cry about Bush. Decent liberals do not collaberate with Communists or fellow travelers. They know the history and blood on the hands of the far left.


BigBubba said...

John Kerry should spend more time in Massachusetts entertaining the locals like Ted Kennedy does with his Hip Flask Museum.

Anonymous said...

I still believe in liberalism. Just not the modern "progressive" kind. I like the old fashioned Isaiah Berlin kind. A kind actually founded upon "reason" and "careful thought", not the emotion laden secular religion of 60's era flower children.


Always On Watch said...

I just love this title and the first paragraph!

Justin said...

Beak Said:"I want to differentiate between patriotic liberals like B and whatever Justin Morris calls himself at any given moment"

Beak just so you will know and not have to wonder. At any given moment I call myself an American. I dont go looking for little cliche names to fit in ie: liberal,conservative,moderate or any other name out there.

Each has their story and as long as this country has freedom of speech protected by the Constitution they all have the right to express their thoughts no matter if you or I dont like what they say.

That is the American way.

Always On Watch said...

Seems to me that the flower children have taken over liberalism. Brain damage?

And as BB said, let's not forget Tk and his Hip Flask Museum. More brain damage?

It's getting harder and harder to find liberals with integrity.

B said...

First and foremost I would like to say God Bless America. Today is a day in which almost everyone in our country can remember where we were and what we were doing on that fateful day four years ago. It was a time in which the left and the right came together for a brief moment and we all were just Americans. I pose a challenge for everyone on this site. Lets stop the name calling (which I myself have been guilty of). Let's center our debates on policy and the direction of our country, not baseless accusations, flawed adjectives and generalizations. You can generalize anything and anyone to make it or them look bad.

Warren, I want to apologize for our heated debate. I felt like you were attacking me and attempted to get under your skin and said some pretty harsh things. I am offering you the perverbial olive branch. I can admit when I lost my head, hopefully you can too. I apologize to you.

Beaks, you know I enjoy our debates, they ensure that we can attempt to bridge the gap of our differences. I think you have been generalizing a little to much though and lumping too large of a population into what you call "commies" or "liberals." First you should define these words so we can determine who we are talking about. I'm guessing when we argue about liberalism we are talking about different things which makes our argument pointless.

To everyone else on this site who thinks there are no liberals with integrity. I think that if you have no actual contact with people (liberals especially) and only talk to them on the internet you may get the impression that liberals are crazy. Just like I do almost every single time I talk to a "conservative" online. I consider most of them crazy nut cases (except for this site of course;)). Fortunately for me one of my best friends identifies himself, much like Beaks, as a moderate conservative. We often have debates and can see where the other person comes from. He is a great person and our debates are never personal. You cannot make generalizations about a class of people based on the internet, it's flat out impossible to do. So lets get rid of the hatred that we have for each other and which is so easy to do on this anonymous medium called the internet. Lets be curteous to each other and hopefully help make this country the America it can be.

God bless you all.

beakerkin said...


First of all I want to correct a misperception on your part you nor Rob was ever considered an enemy at any time by me. This blog has never practiced censorship of any kind unlike your infamous friend, You should have read enough post where there is 100% personal attacks and I leave them standing. Whatever you are I consider you a Patriot but your judgement has been slightly off.

While you hyperventilated about Mr Beamish and Jasons alegedly anti Muslim post you say zero about the anti semitic and American blatherings of 167 whose site you do post on.

Lets see he compared Bush to Hitler and you said 0 . He regularly talks about Joooish cabals and Israel instigating the war in Iraq and you say 0. He even uses a term that David Duke uses Zionist media and you say zero. Justin I may not agree with you but I always respected your integrity but you have come up short.


I live in NYC and have daily contact with liberals and Comunists and know the difference.
If you look in the Disgruntled Chemists archives you will see 167 actualy use the line true Communism has never been tried yet.
I have twenty plus years of experience with the real article in NYC in Union Square. I know the lingo and the arguments better then the real commies.

Here is my problem with patriotic liberals. Making common alliances with groups like Code Pink ,Answer and United foor Peace and Justice discredits liberals.

Patriotic liberals want a safer country and so do the rest of us.
However the above groups want to overthrow Capatalism and are more concerned with aiding and abeting Jihadist with whom they share many beliefs mainly totalkitarianism.

B said...

First you never defined what a "liberal" is. Secondly, if you actually believe that liberals like me want to "overthrow capitalism" and want to "aid and abet jihadist," then you are sadly mistaken and we will never come to an understanding. Generalizing and stereotyping is what is wrong with America because you take a small segment of the population and cast a huge shadow on everyone near them. Considering the religious right have much more in common with radical muslums than the left will ever have, it is such a farce and a sham that you say the left aids and abets terrorism. Both the right and radical muslums want a religious state governed by the word of god, interpreted however you feel at the time.

beakerkin said...


Point of order I have never compared or claimed that you or partiotic liberals want to overthrow Capitalism. I do live in NYC and there are real Communists galore around my home on 14th street. I do know the profound differences between liberals and Communists. However liberals do themselves untold damage when allowing Communists into their ranks. Remember the old adage the enemy of my enemy is not my friend.

Respectfuly you are wrong about religious CHRISTIAN conservatives.
Communists and Jihadists both want to rule the world. Communists and Jihadists divide the world into spheres and classes. Communists and Jihadist stifle freedom of expression. Communists and Jihadists practice moral relatism thus shooting school kids in the back and starving peasants for their own good is morally sanctioned. Communists and Jihadist do not respect private property a jihadist may steal from an unbeliever in practice. Communism has always been theft with good PR in reality. Truth is whatever the party tells you or whatever the mullahs say.

The failure of Progressives is that by sanitizing Jihadists they are aligning with a group that has only marginaly a better record on human rights then there own disaster.

Yet liberals never challenge a Communist if and when they do they become Rudy Republicans.

Justin said...

I am afraid it is you that has come up short on integrety my friend you accuse me of posting on a site I have not even visited in months let alone posted on. Since I dont know who 167 is I am only assuming you are talking about the recidivist. The only site outside of these two posts on yours is ours.

You seem to want to use my name to suit some purpose you have but lets get the records straight. I still read your site because you do have plenty to say I agree with but when you start getting to the personal then you best be able to take the personal. We have had our differences in the past but I respected your integrity. But in this one you have been weighed in the balance and found wanting.

beakerkin said...

You are still my friend and as such friends do disagree. You mentioned censorship on this blog and it has never happened except for commercial spam. I leave 100% personal attacks and laugh at them . I do wish they would be more creative.

I am sorry you feel the way you do . Howver I do not use the Communist or anti semite label lightly. Do note that I do not use them on Rob.

When a person talks of Jooooish cabals instigating the Iraq War or that Israel had anything to do with it this is anti semitism. This is not my assesment but that of such great conservatives as Howard Dean and Susan Estrich.

Now you may disagree but the case is quite clear. People who are non Jews have said the same thing.

Lastly as we are friends feel free to contribute. I still respect your opinion even when we do not agree. However as far as censorship goes this blog does not and will not ever censor anyone unlike others. Friends agree to disagree at time no harm done.

Anonymous said...

Okay, B...Uncle.

How about if I restrict my definition of progressive liberals to those flower children of the '60's generation who adopted the idea's of Herbert Marcuse's 1955 classic "Eros and Civilization" and the writings of the Frankfort School and used them as the basis for constructing the new/progressive Democratic Party using the principles they (the SDS) led by the likes of Tom Hayden and there-after delineated in the Port Huron Statement to over-rule the consciences of people and thereby assert and justify the use of positive liberty in opposition to the ideals of classical liberalsim and negative liberty. Are we clear now who I'm talking about?

Now, when you talk about conservatives, just WHO are you talking about?


Warren said...

"I can admit when I lost my head, hopefully you can too. I apologize to you."

I do not make empty apologies. Yes, I apologize, I said things I shouldn't have.

B, you have asked Beakerkin to define the term, liberal.

Since you define yourself as liberal, I ask you for a definition of what is (a) liberal.


B said...

I define myself as liberal, and as such, this is what I believe in.

I am pro choice with some limitations on late term abortions provided there are exceptions for the life and health of the mother.

I am pro gay rights. I see no reason why they should get discriminated against. I think they should be able to enter into a civil union which gives them the exact same rights as heterosexual unions. Whether this is called civil unions or marriage is inconsequential.

I think there should be universal health care, but not the kind Hillary Clinton wants, I want the kind the Gephardt suggests which is to grant huge tax breaks for individuals health costs. This way you do not have the government acting as a middleman bringing costs up. This encourages competition which brings costs to consumers down. We, as taxpayers, will pay the costs somewhere anyway, might as well make it as economical and cost efficient as possible.

I am for necessary social services because when a person works 60 hours a week and cannot afford to pay all their basic living expenses, people need help. It is much more cost effective to give help when its needed rather than give help too late when the tax payer is going to have to pay for the costs anyway.

I am for public schools, our teachers need to be paid more, which would encourage more teachers competing for the jobs, which would bring in better teachers. Teaching is a thankless job.

I am against religion being in politics. I think that it is unamerican to impose ones morals on another. I respect the morals that people have learned from their religion, but they should not impose it on others.

I am against the death penalty. First and foremost because hundreds of innocent people have been found on death row. There is evidence that some innocent men have been put to death. Secondly I am against the death penalty because it has been proven that it does not work as a deterrent. Thirdly because in a "civilized" state where the justice system is supposed to work without human emotion, we should not act like an Iran or Pakistan and put people to death.

I am for longer sentences for violent crime. I think that rapists, murderers and violent criminals spend too little time in jail. That being said, I think that drug crimes need to serve less time. I think for those crimes we need to focus on rehab, not on punishment.

I am for sex education at early ages. kids are not stupid, but they are ignorant. Condoms need to be passed out in schools. It does not encourage kids to have sex, kids are already having sex (we all know what it was like to be in highschool, we wanted to have sex with any girl that would let us). We need to prevent as many pregnancies as possible and the only way to do that is education and contraception.

I am for reasonable limits on business. I don't think monopolies are acceptable and I believe in strong truth in advertising laws. I think it is sad that in our country we have CEO's making 500X what the average employee makes (who can hardly feed their kids).

I am for strong oversite of Congress. I think they are very corrupt (both sides). Look at my dad's neighbor, Duke Cunningham. He is a shameful congressperson and a shameful human being. He should be in jail (and may be pretty soon). Their tax information and income information should be public information because we need to know who is paying them while they are in office. I don't want quid pro quo's in our government.

I think cronyism is wrong and the best and most qualified person should get the job.

I am for public accountability which means public officials should answer questions when asked. They only way for this is almost a total transparent government. The only things that should be kept secret are things strongly associated with national security. The only way to actually live in a democracy is for the public to know what our government is doing.

And with that, I think you should support me for President of the United States...just kidding.

I think that should give everyone a good idea of where I stand.

Anonymous said...


To generalize further (I know you don't like to do this), do you believe that the FEDERAL government of the USA should adopt the principle's of Positve Liberty over it's founding principle's of Negative Liberty? For one concept prevents the FEDERAL government from interfering and coercing citizens and states to accept its' values and do its' will, while the other encourages the FEDERAL government to do so. One severely limits the powers of the FEDERAL government whilst the other removes ALL Limits to its' power. In other words, do you believe that there is or are "unique values" that ALL Americans should be FORCED to embrace, whether they want to or not, and if so, WHAT are those values? Must ALL American's accept a woman's "right to choose" (even if she's only 12 and not quite a woman)? Must ALL American's accept and give equal rights to gays? Must ALL Americans value the teaching profession and have to pay their teachers more? And must ALL Americans exclude religion from politics, even at the "community" level (ie- Amish)? Or are they entitled to what the Declaration of Independence called certain inalienable rights. They are inalienable because they "exist" as thoughts in one's head. Freedom of conscience. Freedom to "value" as one see's fit. Freedom to make one's own life in liberty so that he may pursue happiness. Or do you think the FEDERAL government should force THEIR idea of a good life and what constitutes liberty and a set definition of happiness on ALL Americans?

I believe that the ONE value that reigns supreme is that EVERY individual should be given a un-alienated mind that leaves him free to choose, completely free of ANY FEDERAL coersion, from a variety of different and sometimes opposing "common/public" values. In other words, the States have the potential for creating 50 unique cultures. I simply demand the right to chose from among them. For one choice, one huge FEDERAL system of creating positive liberty, is NOT liberty. I believe that free will requires that an option be available. To vote with one's feet. And your use of government as a one size fits all solution to the world's problem creates unnecessary chaos and an exponential multiplication of "acceptable values" that lead to having NO VALUES.

For to value means to choose or believe that one thing is better than another thing. It also means that some things are worse and universal tolerance of all things leads to having NO VALUES.


B said...


I've been reading up on exactly what you mean by "positive liberty" and "negative liberty" and, as I'm sure you are well aware of, are highly philisophical ideas and are highly abstract in the every day sense.

"Negative liberty is the absence of obstacles, barriers or constraints. One has negative liberty to the extent that actions are available to one in this negative sense. Positive liberty is the possibility of acting - or the fact of acting - in such a way as to take control of one's life and realize one's fundamental purposes. While negative liberty is usually attributed to individual agents, positive liberty is sometimes attributed to collectivities, or to individuals considered primarily as members of given collectivities."

We can debate philosophy until the cows come home, but that will not do us any good. I am not going to debate you on philosophy because you are MUCH MUCH MUCH more versed in it than I am. I don't know what you are talking about half the time because it is highly theoretical and abstract and I'm sure it takes a lot of studying up in philosophy to understand.

So to answer your question, neither. I don't think the federal government should "adopt" any abstract philosophical principal without any concrete examples of what you mean, in the every day sense of the idea. We have a difficult enough time diciphering what our own abstract philosophical principla is...aka the Constitution.

In regards to what power the federal government has, well, that power lies in the Constitution. The federal government can do anything that the constitution allows them to do. Any power not reserved for the federal government nor prohibited by the constitution is given to the states.

Anonymous said...

And so the individual himself has NO POWER to live his OWN life. Only the government and states have POWER to "make" lives. Gee, how nice of you to leave me "POWERless". Especially since the Civil War made the 9th and 10th amendments "moot" and the states no longer have any real POWER. Their armies (POWERs) were "absorbed" by the FEDERAL government after the Civil War. Yes, that did leave state and national Guard units, but at times, place them under FEDERAL command. And "state" guards, who has or needs them anymore?

Did you ever wonder "why" there was opposition to a "Bill of Rights" being made a part of the Constitution? They didn't want to have to list EVERY right/POWER an individual had, because once they started listing them, the government WOULD claim that if they WEREN'T listed there, they weren't individual citizen's rights. And once the feds blew off the 9th and 10th during and after the Civil War, they turned into a POWER hungry and eating machine. Do you think the 10th amendment was an "afterthought", or "fore-sight" into what might happen? Do you think the Colonies were shopping for a new "king" when they signed the Constitution?

What does "POWER to the People" mean to you? You should start chanting "POWER to the Collective". For that is what you do. Let the government do it, here's the POWER.

The government's POWER does NOT belong to them. It's what WE grant Them, and what WE can take away. It's NOT the other way around.

If a community needs something done, let them HIRE local private citizens to do it. Aren't FEDERAL civil servants simply normal citizens that have been selected to exercise certain GIVEN POWERs? Or do they have some kind of "gold" in their physical and mental constitution that makes THEM infallible? The ONLY application of FEDERAL government that shouldn't be "privatized" is the exercise of FORCE against people, and mediating inter-state and foreign commerce and relations, and of course performing executive and adminstrative oversight of same.

Example's...early corporations formed by the citizens of the city of Philadelphia in the 1700's for building bridges, lighthouses, libraries, fire departments, hospitals, et al ad nauseum.

The USACE should NOT be building levee's, they should be regulating the inter-relations between them (Mississippi's and Louisiana's) and requiring the STATES to design and build and maintain effective systems. And if they are building and designing levee's FOR or INSTEAD of the states, why shouldn't THEY be liable for damages? Oh, that's right, they are the feds. The feds can't be sued for damages unless they want to be sued for damages. The same holds true for FEMA. The same holds for ALL government agencies.

So why is the federal government being blamed for Katrina? And why does it seem the governor and mayor are absolved from or less culpable and responsibile? And the people, why are they the innocent "victims". Why? Because YOU made the individual citizen's "POWER-less". You took away their POWERs and responsibilities. You gave them to "the collective". The federal government. Not the Louisiana government. Not the New Orleans government. You gave it to people 1,000 miles AWAY from feeling the EFFECTS of any problem. Now go stand in a corner, and be ashamed of yourself. They couldn't AND shouldn't have been given the job. For what "good" does it do to have "help" and responsibility for providing "help" and "relief" located in Washington DC, thousands and thousands of miles away from where it is needed?


Anonymous said...


Is the principle of "separation" and or "limitation" and "distribution" of POWERs too abstract for you?


Anonymous said...

If so, why do you, as a citizen, feel qualified to govern?


B said...

So FJ, should there be no federal government? No rule of law between states? Does the constitution not mean anything? What about the commerce clause? Should there not be a president?

The states have plenty of power, and the power that was "left" to them was the "police power" meaning police, sheriffs, fire departments, etc., not the national guards. Do you think each state should have their own army and there shouldn't be a federal one?

You make many staw man arguments saying people don't have choices, besides that the "party" who wants to take away choices are the republicans.

The federal government is (partially) to blame for Katrina because in national catastrophe's, ones in which a greater than any one state to be able to deal with, they need to be in charge to coordinate between the state, local, and federal government. They are the only agency with the resources to be able to deal with disasters that affect large areas.

What if a WMD were to explode? Do local governments know what to do? No, they are concerned with running the every day goings and comings of their constitutents. The state government has a larger ability to take control of these disasters, but when it affects more than one state or the state cannot effectively control the damage and the federal government can, the federal government has a duty to protect Americans.

Now FJ, let me ask you a question, what are you thoughts on Brown v. Board of Education? Was it correctly decided or does it give too much power to the federal government?

Anonymous said...

I never said NO federal government, they DO have an important, but LIMITED role to play. I said...

"The ONLY application of FEDERAL government that shouldn't be "privatized" is the exercise of FORCE against people, and mediating inter-state and foreign commerce and relations, and of course performing executive and adminstrative oversight of same."

I also said..

"I believe that the ONE value that reigns supreme is that EVERY individual should be given a un-alienated mind that leaves him free to choose, completely free of ANY FEDERAL coersion"

And so, I don't believe in public ALL (BvB). It's simply a vehicle for the government to use to brainwash children. But saying that, all three of my kids went to public school. I figured they'd have to face the attempts to brainwash them fairly early, I couldn't "isolate" them. I had to depend on the values they learned at home BEFORE they even showed up in school, Day 1, and then every evenning at home with us.

And yet YOU want the feds to send kids to pre-schools for Head-Start programs who's value completely disappears by the third or fourth grade.

Do you HAVE any kids? Have you raised ANY kids?

Are there not state governments that cover the same large areas that the federal government covers? The feds can "coordinate" inter-state relief. No problem.

And the party that wants to take away People POWER is the DNC.

If I pass-wind, does the federal government have to know? WMD's imply a war is going. Using FORCE against our enemies is their "specialty". Coping with disasters is and never should be theirs. And yes, I do believe in STATE armies. Up until the WWI, that's how things worked. But you Demies changed all that. Wilson, Roosevelt, Truman, Kennedy, Johnson... WAR Presidents, ALL.


Anonymous said...


Do you see the difference between your approach and mine? You want to feds to control all the "details" of every policy uniformly on a national basis. I give powers and set limits to the feds, and leave the details to the people, who can farm them off on their local and state governments if they want to. You create a federal bureaucracy of millions of civil servants. Mine would be 1/10th the size at most. Of course, my "state" governments would get more responsibiities. And my "local" governments would get even more. But then, most of the responsibilities and powers for controlling my life would be mine. I wouldn't simply be a "number" then, 1 vote out of 100,000,000 million cast. I'd actually have a greater voice in the decisions that affect me made 1 in 7,000,000 at the state level. 1 in 150,000 at the county level. My power grows and grows with each step closer. Till I end up with 1 in 5 at my family level, along with "executive" authority. ;-)


B said...


I totally understand the differences between you and I. It seems with your approach, leaves the ability for people to discriminate, to segregate, and to hate, with full discretion. If there are no public schools is it OK for a private school to allow only white students in? With your approach, that seems perfectly reasonable. That is not OK with me. It is not OK with most people.

What about if we privitize everything aspect of our life and there is 5% of people who cannot find a job for whatever reason, should we allow them to starve? Should we force them to not go to school if they cannot afford it? Should we allow people to die from completely preventable deaths.

What about roads, who should pay for roads? What about public areas? Should there be no public areas? Should they be run by private corporation who can control who comes and goes? This seems to be what you are advocating.

Without the BASIC protections of the due process clause we allow our country to be run by huge corporations whose only goal is to maximize profits. To create a tiered level of society in which there is an upper class and a lower class. In the end the only conclusion is revolusion. That is why we need government to ensure a healthy middle class. Democracy cannot survive without the middle class.

I think you completely exagerate how much control me, liberals, or democrats, believe that the federal government should have. You are making arguments that both you and I agree with but frame it in a way that looks like I disagree with you. I don't want the federal government to know the details of my life anymore than you do, to think otherwise is ridiculous.

Anonymous said...

Yes, some people could discriminate. Some people in the past actually had... gasp... slaves. But we don't have any slaves anymore. Now EVERYONE could vote with their FEET. No underground railroad. You don't like it, you leave.

And chances are, you'll go where you DO like it. And then you'll live however you choose to live. Only you couldn't HAVE slaves. Remember that thing about freedom of conscience? You could set up and live in Marxtown in the state of Gaytopia and nobody would bother you unless you came to visit me in Amish country. Then you'd have to get up a five am, work all day, and go to bed (alone) at sunset.

Did you ever hear of Fourierism (sic) and the Phalanx colony? They were a nineteenth century experiment in PURE socialism. In the middle of America. Nobody bothered them. Imagine that. It failed (of course). Nobody wanted to do the dirty work. They set up a factory version in France. It failed too. Imagine that.

Try living in FREEDOM for a change. Nobody says you can't join a commune and make sweet sweet love all day long, even TODAY. But what you want, is for me to support you. I've already raised three kids, I don't need to raise any more.

And what do you care how much "profit" I make either. Are you jealous/envious? My customers "profit" from the goods I sell them, at the prices I set for them. If they didn't, they wouldn't BUY them. Profit is a "good". Read Plato's "Hipparchus" (aka The Profiteer).

And who'd pay for the roads? Counties and States. Interstate connections coordinated by the feds (ie Route 66). How many roads would there be? As many as were needed. As many as were wanted. And NYC residents wouldn't be paying for unnecessary roads in the sticks of Mississippi.

And please tell me just how does the federal government today doesn't "leave the ability for people to discriminate, to segregate, and to hate, with full discretion." You don't think the feds "discriminate"? Oh they don't, they give "preferences". You don't think the feds "segregate"? How many blacks vote Republican? You don't think the DNC keeps the "scare factor" working on blacks 24/7? You don't think the feds hate? What's with this war in Iraq? Do you love Bush? You don't think the feds have FULL discretion? How have you limited any of their POWERS? What is YOUR power over the feds? 1 vote in 100,000,000. You are a sickly little bug in their eyes.

Time to metamorphasize back into a human being, Kalfka.


ps - It's the people's job to make sure corporations DON'T take over America. But what taxes do they pay? What limits and priveledges do the feds give THEM in EVERY spending bill, Republican OR Democrat. They're fleecing us. But you want to give them even MORE powers, so Haliburton and Genentech can clone cyborgs and conquer the world. Do yourself a favor. Stop writing the feds a blank and/or ever increasing check every quarter.


Anonymous said...

ps - People starving? What did people do BEFORE the twentieth century? What does the church do? read Marvin Olasky's "The Tragedy of American Compassion". and find out. Instead of having thousands of poor inner city blacks sitting in the dome, there only would have been 1/10th as many. But you've turned the "dole" for "emergencies" into a lifestyle. Me, I make the "able bodied" chop wood for their room and board. Aren't I a meany!


Anonymous said...

pps - And I don't HAVE to let WALMART build their SUPERSTORE next to the local hardware store and bagel shop in town. I can create community that DOESN'T want a WALMART and wants to keep all it's money invested in the LOCAL community. The WTO will HATE me.


Anonymous said...

pps - And "public areas, PLEASE, don't get me started. The feds wouldn't HAVE any land. The community would have it. Yes, a hotel might actually go up in Yosemite as a result. But if they over-developed Yosemite, why would anybody go there?


B said...

What is the natural end to strait capitalism...monopolies. Is that good for a market economy? No it is not. Who would regulate it to make sure there is no monopoly? Nobody. You sound like Wallstreet (the movie, not the street) "Greed is good."

You speak of community, but who is community? It is a group of people who divise rules to live by. Then they may want to enter into agreements with another community to become more efficient, then it gets larger and larger until it becomes exactly what we have know.

FJ, your ideal can never work. It is an impossible dream. Nice in theory, but will never ever work. We need to figure out the best practical theory there is and we are pretty close, we still have lots of work to do, but we're close. America is is too large for your utopia to ever work.

What it seems to me is that you dislike the way the system is. Well, bummer. It looks like you would like to live in a time back where time stood still. It cannot work.

The whole time I'm reading your ideal world I keep thinking to myself that it is awfully close to communism except for yours there is personal ownership. Small little communes with self government.

How is NY, Chicago, Los Angeles, supposed to be like your ideal? They can't.

FJ, you sound like an extremely smart man, well versed in philosphy. I bet you could go toe to toe with the greats. The problem is philosophy can never get the job done. Name some real solutions and not abstract ones and we may be in business.

Anonymous said...


Much as I'd like to comply, I'm afraid it's not possible. I like to anticipate the shape and curves of the line and its' limits before I draw it on the paper. I don't believe beautiful lines can be draw by randomly applying points to a canvas and then connecting them.


Anonymous said...

I am a communist of a different sort. You are a unitarian communist. I am more of a person who believes in "co-mm-unities". You seek diversity within one community. I seek unity in a diversity of communities. A distinction WITH a difference. Outcome.


Anonymous said...

Some Fairy Tales for b (Hesiod, Works and Days)

Muses of Pieria who give glory through song, come hither, tell of Zeus your father and chant his praise. Through him mortal men are famed or un-famed, sung or unsung alike, as great Zeus wills. For easily he makes strong, and easily he brings the strong man low; easily he humbles the proud and raises the obscure, and easily he straightens the crooked and blasts the proud, -- Zeus who thunders aloft and has his dwelling most high.

Attend thou with eye and ear, and make judgements straight with righteousness. And I, Perses, would tell of true things.

So, after all, there was not one kind of Strife alone, but all over the earth there are two. As for the one, a man would praise her when he came to understand her; but the other is blameworthy: and they are wholly different in nature. For one fosters evil war and battle, being cruel: her no man loves; but perforce, through the will of the deathless gods, men pay harsh Strife her honour due. But the other is the elder daughter of dark Night, and the son of Cronos who sits above and dwells in the aether, set her in the roots of the earth: and she is far kinder to men. She stirs up even the shiftless to toil; for a man grows eager to work when he considers his neighbour, a rich man who hastens to plough and plant and put his house in good order; and neighbour vies with is neighbour as he hurries after wealth. This Strife is wholesome for men. And potter is angry with potter, and craftsman with craftsman, and beggar is jealous of beggar, and minstrel of minstrel.

Perses, lay up these things in your heart, and do not let that Strife who delights in mischief hold your heart back from work, while you peep and peer and listen to the wrangles of the court-house. Little concern has he with quarrels and courts who has not a year's victuals laid up betimes, even that which the earth bears, Demeter's grain. When you have got plenty of that, you can raise disputes and strive to get another's goods. But you shall have no second chance to deal so again: nay, let us settle our dispute here with true judgement divided our inheritance, but you seized the greater share and carried it off, greatly swelling the glory of our bribe-swallowing lords who love to judge such a cause as this. Fools! They know not how much more the half is than the whole, nor what great advantage there is in mallow and asphodel.

For the gods keep hidden from men the means of life. Else you would easily do work enough in a day to supply you for a full year even without working; soon would you put away your rudder over the smoke, and the fields worked by ox and sturdy mule would run to waste. But Zeus in the anger of his heart hid it, because Prometheus the crafty deceived him; therefore he planned sorrow and mischief against men. He hid fire; but that the noble son of Iapetus stole again for men from Zeus the counsellor in a hollow fennel-stalk, so that Zeus who delights in thunder did not see it. But afterwards Zeus who gathers the clouds said to him in anger:

`Son of Iapetus, surpassing all in cunning, you are glad that you have outwitted me and stolen fire -- a great plague to you yourself and to men that shall be. But I will give men as the price for fire an evil thing in which they may all be glad of heart while they embrace their own destruction.'

So said the father of men and gods, and laughed aloud. And he bade famous Hephaestus make haste and mix earth with water and to put in it the voice and strength of human kind, and fashion a sweet, lovely maiden-shape, like to the immortal goddesses in face; and Athene to teach her needlework and the weaving of the varied web; and golden Aphrodite to shed grace upon her head and cruel longing and cares that weary the limbs. And he charged Hermes the guide, the Slayer of Argus, to put in her a shameless mind and a deceitful nature.

So he ordered. And they obeyed the lord Zeus the son of Cronos. Forthwith the famous Lame God moulded clay in the likeness of a modest maid, as the son of Cronos purposed. And the goddess bright-eyed Athene girded and clothed her, and the divine Graces and queenly Persuasion put necklaces of gold upon her, and the rich-haired Hours crowned her head with spring flowers. And Pallas Athene bedecked her form with all manners of finery. Also the Guide, the Slayer of Argus, contrived within her lies and crafty words and a deceitful nature at the will of loud thundering Zeus, and the Herald of the gods put speech in her. And he called this woman Pandora (2), because all they who dwelt on Olympus gave each a gift, a plague to men who eat bread.

But when he had finished the sheer, hopeless snare, the Father sent glorious Argus-Slayer, the swift messenger of the gods, to take it to Epimetheus as a gift. And Epimetheus did not think on what Prometheus had said to him, bidding him never take a gift of Olympian Zeus, but to send it back for fear it might prove to be something harmful to men. But he took the gift, and afterwards, when the evil thing was already his, he understood.

For ere this the tribes of men lived on earth remote and free from ills and hard toil and heavy sickness which bring the Fates upon men; for in misery men grow old quickly. But the woman took off the great lid of the jar with her hands and scattered all these and her thought caused sorrow and mischief to men. Only Hope remained there in an unbreakable home within under the rim of the great jar, and did not fly out at the door; for ere that, the lid of the jar stopped her, by the will of Aegis-holding Zeus who gathers the clouds. But the rest, countless plagues, wander amongst men; for earth is full of evils and the sea is full. Of themselves diseases come upon men continually by day and by night, bringing mischief to mortals silently; for wise Zeus took away speech from them. So is there no way to escape the will of Zeus.


B said...


I truly respect your mind, you sound like a brilliant person. However, I think that your arguments are much too theoretical and philisophical for any real outcome. In any case, I think we debated this topic as much as we can. I enjoyed it!

Anonymous said...


Me too, thanks for your time.


Mr. Beamish the Instablepundit said...

In the weeks following September 11th, 2001, I told my formerly liberal girlfriend to just "watch" what the Democrats do when it comes to actually acting on all that "America is United" talk, and prepared to be disgusted.

The Democrats went into full speed obstructionist-leftist mode, and poisoned all discussion with their perennial embrace of America's enemies.

Needless to say, she's a solid Republican now.

Funny what paying attention to domestic politics will do for GOP membership rolls. The Democrats haven't changed their divisive tune since 1836, so it's pretty easy to predict that when one opens their mouth, certifiable jackassery will issue forth.

Steve Westphal said...

This is pretty good stuff. You can contribute articles and info at my site about free drug rehab center