I say "live and let live" allot. I let a harmless fool remain a fool if he/she so chooses.

I say when people are foolish, violent, and create a Agni blaze in hell on Earth, setting the course of the world on fire, we have a duty to douse water on those killing fools!

Our town is having the annual Firemen Carnival, by the way.

I suggest not to shake the politicians hand. When ya; eat french fries potatoes cooked in peanut oil, your hands will smell like whore's perfume.

You like ketchup and vinegar?

You politicians wash hands in red ketchup?

You want a tin-can of &- up with lard fries?

You shut up. okay. burp some seven up on the keyboard.

You wear mittens when you type on cold August mornings?

You march the world front and center to fiery hell holes.

You think I need a tropical drink on a pink sandy beach?

I need to go get tangled up in some green seaweed and let me live and let live, or something like that. O, yea, "live and let live?" okay. shut up? yes. O, Hanlon and Pollack 'tour' should too. yes!

"live and let live."

I say "live and let live" allot. I let a harmless fool remain a fool if he/she so chooses.

It is a good rule of thumb. America hasn't lived by it since the end of WWII but we always had plausible deniability because the CIA did most of the dirty work. That all changed under Bush II. Thanks to that moron and all the neocon policy fools we have created a lucrative industry of America hating jihadis and takfiris. It won't go away just because we changed our tune. Now there is money in it. Ask any expert on the IRA. They helped create the very monster they pretended was there for political purposes. Now we must deal with it but it isn't being dealt with in the proper manner.

What about the Franklin stove and the lightning rod and all the other useful and lifesaving inventions Franklin refused to patent? Huh, smart guy? Huh? Do you?

I first note the play on my name as if that is supposed to bolster (bluster?) your argument, such that it is, in some way or the other.

I also note that old Ben and patents has nothing to do with the question; I asked if your clone supported private ownership of the press, and gave Ben Franklin as an example.

I also note that you do not have the foggiest idea of the Rothbardian stance on patent laws or you would not have tried that lame gambit.

Since you intervened on behalf of your alter ego, please answer the question. was Ben Franklin entitled to privately own his printing press and other ventures? A simple question really.

MIKE ALLEN IS A MONUMENTAL PUTZ --

(WHICH IS NOT TO SAY THAT HUGH HEWITT ISN'T,TOO).

I'm sorry, but Mike Allen is a bow-tied queen and his politics show beneath his knickers (where Hugh "man tits" Hewitt is right now.

Forgive my political incorrectness, but these bozos (like Adam Nagourney of the NY Times) skewer national political reporting and they should be called on their sexual and political stances.

We all know that Matt Drudge is an evil, right-wing homo (who supports hypocritical, right-wing homosexual homophobes like Senators Lindsey Graham and Mitch McConnell and Larry Craig and Representatives David Dreier -- and the late, unlamented Mark Foley) and yet no one calls him on it?

Since you intervened on behalf of your alter ego, please answer the question. was Ben Franklin entitled to privately own his printing press and other ventures? A simple question really.

-- bucky1

The cabal owns everything and Glenn tells us what to say, what to print and who to vote for! Even Kos takes orders from Glenn now and we all get checks from George Soros! Muhahahahaha!

ca·bal –noun 1. a small group of secret plotters, as against a government or person in authority.

2. the plots and schemes of such a group; intrigue.

3. a clique, as in artistic, literary, or theatrical circles.

–verb (used without object) 4. to form a cabal; intrigue; conspire; plot.

[Origin: 1610–20, for an earlier sense; earlier cabbal < ML cabbala. See cabala]

—Related forms

ca·bal·ler, noun

—Synonyms 1. junta, faction, band, league, ring. 2. See conspiracy.

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)

Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006.

American Heritage Dictionary - Cite This Source ca·bal (kə-bāl', -bäl') Pronunciation Key

n.

A conspiratorial group of plotters or intriguers: "Espionage is quite precisely it—a cabal of powerful men, working secretly" (Frank Conroy).

A secret scheme or plot.

intr.v. ca·balled, ca·bal·ling, ca·bals

To form a cabal; conspire.

[French cabale, from Medieval Latin cabala; see kabbalah.]

1616, from Fr. cabal "intrigue, society," originally "mystical interpretation of the Old Testament," from M.L. cabbala (see cabbala). Popularized in Eng. 1673 as an acronym for five intriguing ministers of Charles II (Clifford, Arlington, Buckingham, Ashley, and Lauderdale).

noun

1. a clique (often secret) that seeks power usually through intrigue

2. a plot to carry out some harmful or illegal act (especially a political plot) [syn: conspiracy]

verb

1. engage in plotting or enter into a conspiracy, swear together; "They conspired to overthrow the government" [syn: conspire]

Kabbalah, noun, A body of mystical teachings of rabbinical origin, often based on an esoteric interpretation of the Hebrew Scriptures.

A secret doctrine resembling these teachings.

[Medieval Latin cabala, from Hebrew qabbālâ, received doctrine, tradition, from qibbēl, to receive; see qbl in Semitic roots.]

kab'ba·lism n., kab'ba·list n.

noun

1. an esoteric or occult matter resembling the Kabbalah that is traditionally secret [syn: cabala]

2. an esoteric theosophy of rabbinical origin based on the Hebrew scriptures and developed between the 7th and 18th centuries

Can we please, just for one, friggin', god-d*** day, stop trying to pull this entire thing here into your turdish, self-obsessive, and completely non-germane to the topic pro- and anti-libertarian debate???

Can we please, just for one, friggin', god-d*** day, stop trying to pull this entire thing here into your turdish, self-obsessive, and completely non-germane to the topic pro- and anti-libertarian debate???

Glenn's post has been up since approximately 6:30pm EST yesterday and was posted nearly 8-hours later than his roughly normal schedule of between 10:00am and 11:00am EST due to his being at YKos and whatnot. And we might not see anything new today due to the normal weekend schedule where Salon.com material tends to slow to a crawl.

With that in mind, what is so bad about having a little fun with the always hilarious Libertarian trolls that populate Glenn's LTE section here on Salon's part of the blog universe?

If their website allowed it, these OT discussions would be segregated in their own sub-thread and could easily be ignored. But since that isn't the case, all one needs to do is simply scroll down and ignore them.

Lastly, I'm not seeing a slew of new letters discussing the issue(s) Glenn brought up. So what's the problem with making use of the common meeting ground to go a little OT and rant and rave a bit?

Basically, why so freaking rigid and hardcore about the whole silly mess?