Letters to the Editor
bucky1
Published Letters: 1714
-
Little Wanker Moron --- yet again (he loves Dr. Mengele for some reason)
[Read the article: The Republican Party is the party of Bush]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]LWM writes "Excuse me" and I see no reason to do so. We are up to almost a week of this vile, slanderous, profane, crap by an idiot by the handle of LWM.
... You want some anti-war or pacifist street cred, join the Green party. Nobody here is as stupid as you seem to think.
What is a reasoning person to make of this statement? Does the fool think I care about "street-cred", or does he think I do not know many in the Democratic party are every bit as war loving as the current administration. (just different enemies) The sentence makes it difficult to discern his state of mind.
... There are damn few pacifists. Being "anti-war" does not make you a pacifist. You are the fellow who wanted to own what ever weapons systems the government owns. You are anti-statist anti-militarists. You are not pacifists or opposed to the use of force, just opposed to the state's use of force, regardless of what your fakakta libertarian bullshit professes. ...
Still no clue as to what he means, but it looks like he has declared a "fakakta" on me. Does that mean he realizes he is all mixed up, can not spell it, or it was lost in translation?
(note:fakakta: Yiddish for crazy, all mixed up)
LWM: ... If you are really opposed to violence and war, join the Green Party or the Peace and Freedom party. ...
I do not join parties, I am more interested in truth and justice. I can see that one such as you has a deep, deep need to belong to some group --- after all, this comment section is all you do. :-)
(even the resident poet wondered if you ever sleep)
-
@William Timberman (re:Before the thread passes into history)
[Read the article: The Republican Party is the party of Bush]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]William writes:
I do agree with L.W.M. that it's a neat trick to claim Jefferson as the paterfamilias of these so-called libertarians and anarcho-capitalists, rather like the one that LDS geneologists pull on their unsuspecting ancestors. It's vile, as vile as claiming that Stalin was my ancestor.
Bucky1 seems to believe it, though, and has marshalled his arguments. The problem, as I said on an earlier thread, is that his arguments lack respect not only for the history of ideas, but also for the history of blood and suffering. Would he blame the Homestead strike or Harry Bennett on the government? It would seem so, yes. Would he deny that Wal*Mart was as great a threat to liberty as the FDA? I suspect he would. Can he smell the stench which, when the wind is just right, reaches us from Paul Craig Roberts? Apparently not.
These are the weaknesses in his argument. Not rhetorical weaknesses to be sure, but weaknesses nevertheless. The have the quality of being assembled for an unstated purpose, and hammered together out of the sight of real events. I don't think that they'll carry the day, here or elsewhere, regardless of L.W.M.'s supposed personal faults.
What fabulous use of language that first paragraph is. I do applaud your skill. You allow your reader to believe that somehow you know that "these so-called libertarians" either do not really honor Jefferson, or more likely; Jefferson was not all that great. I take it that Thomas Jefferson is vile, as vile as Stalin to you; at least that is what I am thinking now from your words. Please correct any misreading on my part; I always want clarification from those who write as well (and calmly) as yourself.
I see absolutely no disregard for history or fact. Perhaps you could shed some light on this mysterious assertion of yours. I read H. Zinn's history all the time (and I have been known to talk others into reading it), and I see no contradictions at all. Can you be specific? I know that is hard; seems no one here can pick an example and talk it through.
You claim weakness in my argument; and I am sure you will share some with me. In fact, it would be enjoyable to explore these weaknesses (as you see them) in a little more depth than the typical "sound-bite" talk that passes for debate on this comment section of Glenn's blog.
However, you did ask about Walmart. I see no problem, until they break government laws to play a crooked game. They have certainly done that; e.g.,they have bribed local officials to abuse zoning ordinances. I would prefer no zoning ordinances, but until that happens I want all to be law abiding. What did you expect me to say?
I am also a tad unclear about what you think may or may not "carry the day". I certainly am no great debater. The idea of freedom will win out, or not, according to the persuasion from those better and younger than I. The only reason that I have written more than the post or two a week as I did on the old blog, is because of the attacks on me. But hey, I have a little time this summer.
If you think besting "bucky1" will prove that the Democratic Party believes in freedom like libertarians do; you will awaken someday to find it just is not so.