Oh, for an honest Libertarian who would say "Yes, in Libertopia we'd have rampant quackery, organ-seizure, baby-selling, slavery in all but name - BUT THAT'S FREEDOM!"

Seth Finkelstein

Cheers.

Yesterday I watched a dog shake the living life out of a groundhog. Fur, blood, and fecal matter few everywhere!

I did not think of pleasantries. And gentle Arne can shake the 'ole groundhog out of me. Thanks, Arne, It is the way you say your truth that I appreciate.

To Arne: *He prayeth best who loveth best

All things both great and small;

For the dear God (naturally) who loveth us,

Did make and loveth all.

The Mariner, whose eye is bright.

Whose beard with age is hoar,

...He went like one that hath been stunned,

And is of sense forlorn:

A sadder and a wiser man,

The Last line- He rose the morrow morn.

___

Cheers,

Arthur Vinton L. James 3rd.

pew! heh.

Bemused, Bothered and Bemildred?

Svensker:

The thing that always amuses me (wrong verb, but

I'm thinking more bemildewed at this point.

Translation: Because I'm liberal and therefore morally superior.

Jealous much? Can't be easy, being on the wrong side on everything.

At least shooter is just neurotic. Bucky1 is borderline psychotic.

There is nothing anarchistic about capitalism. It's just marketing the same old capitalist crap in a new bottle.

ANARCHO-HUCKSTERS

"From each according to their gullibility, to each, according to his greed."

Capitalists are always eager to put glossy packaging on tired old products in order to put one over on the purchasing public. In this way, they hope to rekindle demand for what is actually the same product they have been providing people in the past.

This is the rationale behind what can only be called "anarcho" chic; that is, the usurpation and appropriation of anarchist forms without anarchist substance, in an effort to create the illusion that somehow, magically, capitalism is about freedom, liberty, and anarchy!

The following terms are generally used by these laissez-faire capitalists to describe themselves:

"anarcho" capitalist

libertarian

libertarian capitalist

anarch

"anarchist"

While we (actual anarchists, e.g., those who oppose rulers) can't claim possession of any term, we have an obligation to point out the glaring inconsistencies in the laissez-faire capitalist use of anarchistic terminology. They use the term "anarchist", but at the expense of their credibility - -why? Because their self-definition doesn't hold up to even the most rudimentary questioning.

"Anarcho" capitalists are, in fact, simply capitalists who object to the State cutting into their own profits by way of regulations and taxation. That is their sole gripe with the State. They see the bureaucrat as the nefarious boogeyman in their lives, motivated solely to enmesh the world in red tape --simply out of maliciousness alone.

"Anarcho" capitalists do not object to private property, to class distinctions, social stratification, concentrated wealth, and other bourgeois trappings in society. Their idea of a utopia is a world of unaccountable, unfettered corporate power where literally everything is up for sale and is negotiable...

http://a4a.mahost.org/huckster.html

These opinions which you claim have no traction are -- unfortunately, in some ways -- about to be given a whole new opportunity to explain what to the right is inexplicable. Are we ready for that? -- William Timberman

If I understand you correctly, I think you're right, that the situation will heave under our feet, and pretty much whatever is Known will be overturned. Whatever is keeping the Palace busy now soon enough will not be so all fired important. For example: whether or not Dick Cheney is part of the Executive Branch. This is the sort of thing that consumes the courtiers. They love it. But there will come a time when it won't much matter.

My point, which I don't always make with clarity or brevity, is that once that time comes, there may not be (quite likely there won't be) a Republic within which to make the appropriate adjustments. There may be the empty forms of one, but nothing functional, and the slide into Autocracy we've been on will be complete.

We have a window, between 2006 and 2008 to begin to set things right, and -- unfortunately -- a majority of our representatives aren't interested.

Oops. That's not what the voters had in mind, but then, the Voters weren't supposed to have much say in these things anyway. Remember Karl had "The Math" which showed a comfortable R majority in both houses? Of course. Apparently the outpouring of rage and disgust from the Voters overwhelmed Karl and his DoJ and elections commissions minions' ability to jigger the totals.

Oops.

But not to worry. Nothing all that upsetting is happening anyway. Karl breathes easy.

Heh. As they say.

That the same shooter who's so unconcerned with the respect due to the detainee's faith, is the one who thinks the reason we need to be battling Muslims in the first place is because they want to force us to adapt their faith and pray facing Mecca.

So what's apparently worth killing over nevertheless isn't even worthy of complaint when the roles are reversed.

Typical.

I see you hide behind others to slime people. Grownups can not talk here for slime balls like you poisoning the well. I am sure that William can take care of himself; and we all know that your only function here is to make personal attacks. You do not need to prove that each day.

-- bucky1

Not just a little hyperbolic and dramatic, eh, Buck?

I'm not hiding. I'm right here, just as I was when I interjected a comment into your dishonest comment to William.

As much as you seem to like to think so, you don't speak for "we all" or what "we all know".

Dear Svensker,

Don't go near the 5- leaf poison oak vine.

Do you still remember how to do the itchy jigger dance?

If you keep niggling here (no ever leave, I hope!) @ the Salon,

Can you be available for a date @ www.dancegiggerhopscotchwithme? May-huh or 'a maybee? heh.

the NY Times has just been held starkly and harshly accountable for it's extremely biased op-ed piece.
- - FMHilton - - Wednesday, June 27, 2007 03:04 AM

Some people don't know what "op-ed" means.

It means the page opposite the editorial page and in this case (as in many cases) it also means opposite the NY Times editorial opinion.

The most recent NY Times editorial on Gitmo concluded,

The Guantánamo camp was created on a myth -- that the American judicial system could not handle prisoners of ''the war against terror.'' It was built on a lie -- that the hundreds of detainees at Gitmo are all dangerous terrorists. And it was organized around a fiction -- that Mr. Bush had the power to create this rogue system in the first place.

It is time to get rid of it.

- - N Y Times editorial, June 6, 2007

The "op-ed" page seems like an old American tradition now, but it's not. It became popular in American newspapers in the 1970s.