War on humanity

[Jeffrey C. Dege]

On Sun, 02 May 2004 23:08:21 GMT, R. Steve Walz <rstevew@armory.com> wrote:

Jeffrey C. Dege wrote:

It is tempting
to believe that social evils arise from the activities of evil men
and that if only good men (like ourselves, naturally) wielded power,
all would be well.
-----------------------
All social ills can be traced to unfairness,

I had intended to comment on the rest of your blather, but this was
sufficiently ignorant that it stands by itself.

- Milton Friedman's introduction to F. A. Hayek's "The Road to Serfdom"
You actually quote the guy who is most widely recognized as an
inept posturing right-wing asshole??

Both Friedman and Hayek won Nobel Prizes in economics.

Why should I listen to you, rather than them?

--
[Liberty] is a modest and even humble creed, based on a low opinion of
men's wisdom and capacities and aware that, withing the range for which
we can plan, even the best society will not satisfy all our desires.
It is as remote from perfectionism as it is from the hurry and impatience
of the passionate reformer, whose indignation about particular evils
so often blinds him to the harm and injustice that the realization of
his plans is likely to produce. Ambition, impatience, and hurry are
often admirable in individuals; but they are pernicious if they guide
the power of coercion and if improvement depends on those who, when
authority is conferred on them, assume that in their authority lies
superior wisdom and thus the right to impose their beliefs on others.
I hope our generation may have learned that it has been perfectionism of
one kind or another that has often destroyed whatever degree of decency
societies have achieved. With more limited objectives, more patience,
and more humility, we may in fact advance further and faster than we have
done while under the guidance of "a proud and most presumptive confidence
in the transcendent wisdom of this age, and in its discernment."
- F.A. Hayek, "The Constitution of Liberty"

 

[KR Williams]

In article <40958496.3866@armory.com>, rstevew@armory.com says...

KR Williams wrote:

In article <409490BE.7782@armory.com>, rstevew@armory.com says...
KR Williams wrote:

In article <40944063.1BD3@armory.com>, rstevew@armory.com says...
Jan Panteltje wrote:

On a sunny day (Sat, 01 May 2004 21:55:07 GMT) it happened "R. Steve Walz"
rstevew@armory.com> wrote in <40941D7A.3AE0@armory.com>:


To even understand my response, you need to know my situation:

I'm a confirmed, died-in-the wool Communist.

But do you have a picture of Lenin on the wall?
Or is it Mao?
----------------
Do you actually imagine this sort of comment makes you look bright?

Neither, I'm not a Marxist or Maoist.

I'm a Communist.

I think we all understand that you're a communist (note the small
"c")

Mao wasn't, and Lenin didn't get to.

Neither Soviet Russia or Red China were communist.

...but they're fantastic examples of why communism cannot work.
-------------
Since those didn't implement any "communism", that's nothing but
a shitty little lie the Rich told the US people in the 1930's
when they were getting too Wobbly and scared them.

They sure thought they were trying to, which shows that communism
is perverse and will always be perverted. You're no different.

There is no such thing as altruism on a grand scale.
--------------
Nor is any such required, only obedience to the Law is required.

Now you're back to Mao and Stalin. You will obey or die! That's
"communism" as it will always be.
-------------------
Nonsense, that's as much Genghis Khan and Machiavelli, it has no
political persuasion, it is simply what all governments must do,
unflichingly enforce their laws.

No, that's Walz. ...and you *know* it. You might as well admit
that even you admit here that you'll have to "sacrifice" those
who don't agree with you. Your record is googled.

It must be totalitarian or it will die.
---------------------
There's no such thing as "totalitarian", total control being
impossible and solely in the eye of the beholder. Criminals
always call the govt totalitarian. It's a meaningless non-label
that simply means that somebody doesn't like a law or system.

Oh, my. We are on a bender tonight! "I WILL KILL YOU IF YOU
DON'T CONFORM", certainly sounds "total" to me! In case you're
wondering, the quotes are essential Walz.

There is no room for the individual in communism, which
makes it counter to the human species.
------------------------
That's the lie you were taught alright, congrats, you have
successfully regurgitated your programming. You can sit down
now.

Nonsense. It's blatantly obvious to anyone who accepts that
humans are primarily animals. Social ones, but animals.
Communism doesn't work for the Lions either (cats, bit sociable
cats). Even they have their pride, which you'd even strip. ;-)

If by the "individual" you mean thievery, then sure, it is
illegal, but it's very nearly JUST *AS* illegal here now anyway
as it would be in My System!! The only changes I propose are
those which further newly define more unfairnesses as theft
and fraud. We're constantly defining ever more such things in
that direction anyway, so I'm going in the same direction society
has been going for 500 years!!

You like the word "thief", and use the equally horrendous term
"fair". Since the great Walz, is the grand-pubah of both terms,
I belive they're the same. Only you have the power to determine
what's "fair" and what's "stolen". That is, you're the next
Stalin wannabe. You're some piece of work, Walz. Though nothing
is new here.

All law, now, and ever, is about fairness. The laws even now
are about fairness, just not nearly enough of it, because the
rich have distorted them.

"Fairness" as defined by RSW. Mao and Stalin knew everything
about "fairness" too. "Fair" is used to excuse all sorts of
mayhem.
-----------------------------------
You leave out the FACT that it is used to justify absolutely
EVERYTHING, even when it is a lie. However, that doesn't
devalue the Just uses of it to justify enforcing laws that
protect us.

You certainly use "fair" to justify your version of Stalinism.
That's for sure. ..as did Stalin, Pol Pot, and Castro. As I
said, you're in good company!

We don't need to make anyone generous, we simply need to
severely punish anyone who has stolen from the rest of us!!!

Translation: I will kill everyone who disagrees with me or has
one more serving of rice than what's "fair". No thanks Steve, I
don't like your use of the word "fair" either.
------------------------------
No. That was only your MIS-translation.

No, That's what you have *SAID*. You'd better try to watch your
tongue. With your mouth even the Russian revolution would have
failed.

*MY* point was that NO government bothers to get the approval of
criminals before making laws against their thievery, and that
the actions of the Majrity are justified BECAUSE they are the
Majority!

No, you *DEFINE* your terms to change black into white. You *do*
advocate *killing* those who don't like your vision. If you
weren't so pitiful, you'd be dangerous. As it is, your mayhem is
limited to the Usenet.

A commune
*may* work with a hundred (thought even here there are more
failures than successes), but not with a hundred million.
Keith
---------------
No one needs a commune of any sort as a form of government. Communes
are families, not governments. The government is All the People.
When the People decide that wealth is crime, they will ban it!!

When pigs fly.
-----------------
Now you're being ridiculous just because you ran out of ideas.

Nope, assessing your chances of living a normal life. ...or at
least one you'd be comfortable living.

And there is absolutely zero reason to require altruism from anyone.
That is what majority power and guns and torture are for, both in
My Communism, and in every government that has ever existed.

Yes, steve, we've seen how well that works out, haven't we.
Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Castro. The people prospered, alright.
Each got their "fair" rewards.
-----------------------------------
That's selectively disingenuous.
ALSO TRUE in every government that has ever existed.

....because *YOU* define fair, in your own little corner of your
mind. Of course no one can come close to that horror!

Our laws in the USA are NOT defended by requiring altrism, so neither
would they be in MY Society! In the end it is guns that defend laws,
because laws are at the point where no one wants to hear your shit
anymore, just to stop your criminality!!

Oh, now you want to kill me? I'm a criminal because your minds
is hopelessly twisted. How nice!

Mine is merely the best possible one, and the one that will finally
succeed all others. And it will succeed not by persuading more than
a majority, the dissenting minority will simply be terrified to
disobey, as usual!

Yes, Mao, Stalin, Castro, Pol Pot, and Walz. Such a nice group
of "fair"-minded people.
Keith
-------------------
AND the founding fathers, and the Congress, and all modern govts!

Sorry Steve, you're not even close sniffing any of the above's
shorts. You'/re a sick little man drooling on his keyboard.
That is assuming that you are a man.

More of your selective disingenuity. Can you possibly argue any
more pitifully or dishonestly??? I think NOT!

I am arguing with Steven the great killer of those who disagree

with his mind full of dark twisty passages, all the same.
....though I haven't a clue why. Though tomorrow starts another
week, so I'll have some paying work to keep me busy.

--
Keith

 

[R. Steve Walz]

Jeffrey C. Dege wrote:

On Sun, 02 May 2004 22:12:33 GMT, R. Steve Walz <rstevew@armory.com> wrote:

The right of property has to meet the needs of the vast Majority for
EQUAL property, or it will fail!

Not only is there not a need for equal property, there's a fundamental
need for unequal property in order for an economy to function.
-----------------

Nope, that's unfairness and it's inherently dishonest and criminally
abusive of others who do work we all benefit from. It amounts to
enslaving others to authorize them to do work we all need done, and
would have to otherwise do ourselves, without paying them equally as
ourselves!

But beyond that, equality of outcome is only possible in a society in
which all activity is controlled by the state.
---------------------

All states do that, every purchase is regulated in the USA, it is
just regulated differently. Thefts of the profit from the whole
endeavor of many workers are mysteriously permitted to people of
magical status called "owners", even if they do no work, or little
work, when in fact no person can own ANYTHING only by his own
authority, but only by the authority of the Majority. ANY possession
is possible ONLY with the defense offered by the Majority, thus the
Majority gets to regulate it anyway it sees fit, and THAT WILL
INEVITABLY CHANGE HISTORICALLY!!

Any deity worthy of a graven image can cobble up a working universe
complete with fake fossils in under a week - hey, if you're not
omnipotent, there's no real point in being a god. But to start with a
big ball of elementary particles and end up with the duckbill platypus
without constant twiddling requires a degree of subtlety and the ability
to Think Things Through: exactly the qualities I'm looking for when I'm
shopping for a Supreme Being.
- Lee DeRaud
--------------

Except that it doesn't.

-Steve
--
-Steve Walz rstevew@armory.com ftp://ftp.armory.com/pub/user/rstevew
Electronics Site!! 1000's of Files and Dirs!! With Schematics Galore!!
http://www.armory.com/~rstevew or http://www.armory.com/~rstevew/Public

 

[R. Steve Walz]

Jeffrey C. Dege wrote:

On Sun, 02 May 2004 23:08:21 GMT, R. Steve Walz <rstevew@armory.com> wrote:
Jeffrey C. Dege wrote:

It is tempting
to believe that social evils arise from the activities of evil men
and that if only good men (like ourselves, naturally) wielded power,
all would be well.
-----------------------
All social ills can be traced to unfairness, and all unfairness to
acts which must in the future be understood to be crimes. You can't
trace them to anything else without lying about human nature. All
the criminology texts of the last century and a half hold this as
Truth!

I had intended to comment on the rest of your blather, but this was
sufficiently ignorant that it stands by itself.
----------------------

In other words you can't refute it.
You simply deleted most of it so you wouldn't look as stupid.

- Milton Friedman's introduction to F. A. Hayek's "The Road to Serfdom"
You actually quote the guy who is most widely recognized as an
inept posturing right-wing asshole??

Both Friedman and Hayek won Nobel Prizes in economics.

Why should I listen to you, rather than them?
----------------------------

Can't you think for yourself?
Do you always trust rich people to tell you what the truth is????

is a modest and even humble creed, based on a low opinion of
men's wisdom and capacities
---------------

If people are that stupid, why let them be free at all?
Your assertion is self-contradictory and makes no sense!

Really! Is your best defense of rampant liberty merely that everyone
is too stupid to do any better? Is that ALL YOU HAVE??

and aware that, withing the range for which
we can plan, even the best society will not satisfy all our desires.
----------------

Irrelevant, that is an "all or none" logical fallacy.

It doesn't need to satisfy all desires AT ALL to be useful and
justified!!

It is as remote from perfectionism as it is from the hurry and impatience
of the passionate reformer, whose indignation about particular evils
so often blinds him to the harm and injustice that the realization of
his plans is likely to produce.
---------------------

Disingenuous!!!:
The Rich worry what our reforms will produce without worrying at
all what damage their thefts and abuse continue to do to others!!

Ambition, impatience, and hurry are
often admirable in individuals; but they are pernicious if they guide
the power of coercion
----------------------

Disingenuious/Dishonest once AGAIN!:
Again, the rich say: "Be careful, Boy, if you do anything to oppose
us, it might be before you understand us", meanwhile they continue
to steal like a burgular who says, "hey, don't stop me, you might
not understand exactly why I'm stealing all your stuff, but someday
you might!!!"

The criminal will attempt to put off actiion against him indefinitely,
hoping to outlast your interest or certainty!! This is the act of the
corrupt unreformable criminal on the way to the gallows asking for
a drink of water one more time.

and if improvement depends on those who, when
authority is conferred on them, assume that in their authority lies
superior wisdom and thus the right to impose their beliefs on others.
---------------------------

Authority to defend us comes from the Majority, who are using weapons
to assume power in order to defend themselves. Those who act for them
can be sure beyond a reasonable doubt that they ARE INDEED morally
and mentally superior to criminals dragged to justice!! This above
is nothing but meaningless delaying blather by the criminal once
again.

I hope our generation may have learned that it has been perfectionism of
one kind or another that has often destroyed whatever degree of decency
societies have achieved.
-------------------

Absolutely, we need not wait to be sure we are perfect in any way
before assuming power to defend ourselves from criminals!!!! In other
words, we don't have to be perfectly wise to know that we don't like
criminals and that we can and should enslave or kill them!!

See how such dishonest blather as his can be turned around??

With more limited objectives, more patience,
and more humility, we may in fact advance further and faster than we have
done while under the guidance of "a proud and most presumptive confidence
in the transcendent wisdom of this age, and in its discernment."
- F.A. Hayek, "The Constitution of Liberty"
------------------------------

The dishonesty of the criminally rich will always argue to delay
change that eliminates their permission to rob and steal. They
have always done so because justice delayed interminably for
whatever reason is their greatest ally.

They are quite simply the most cynical of criminals.

-Steve
--
-Steve Walz rstevew@armory.com ftp://ftp.armory.com/pub/user/rstevew
Electronics Site!! 1000's of Files and Dirs!! With Schematics Galore!!
http://www.armory.com/~rstevew or http://www.armory.com/~rstevew/Public

 

[R. Steve Walz]

KR Williams wrote:

In article <40958496.3866@armory.com>, rstevew@armory.com says...
KR Williams wrote:

In article <409490BE.7782@armory.com>, rstevew@armory.com says...
KR Williams wrote:

In article <40944063.1BD3@armory.com>, rstevew@armory.com says...
Jan Panteltje wrote:

On a sunny day (Sat, 01 May 2004 21:55:07 GMT) it happened "R. Steve Walz"
rstevew@armory.com> wrote in <40941D7A.3AE0@armory.com>:


To even understand my response, you need to know my situation:

I'm a confirmed, died-in-the wool Communist.

But do you have a picture of Lenin on the wall?
Or is it Mao?
----------------
Do you actually imagine this sort of comment makes you look bright?

Neither, I'm not a Marxist or Maoist.

I'm a Communist.

I think we all understand that you're a communist (note the small
"c")

Mao wasn't, and Lenin didn't get to.

Neither Soviet Russia or Red China were communist.

...but they're fantastic examples of why communism cannot work.
-------------
Since those didn't implement any "communism", that's nothing but
a shitty little lie the Rich told the US people in the 1930's
when they were getting too Wobbly and scared them.

They sure thought they were trying to, which shows that communism
is perverse and will always be perverted. You're no different.

There is no such thing as altruism on a grand scale.
--------------
Nor is any such required, only obedience to the Law is required.

Now you're back to Mao and Stalin. You will obey or die! That's
"communism" as it will always be.
-------------------
Nonsense, that's as much Genghis Khan and Machiavelli, it has no
political persuasion, it is simply what all governments must do,
unflichingly enforce their laws.

No, that's Walz. ...and you *know* it. You might as well admit
that even you admit here that you'll have to "sacrifice" those
who don't agree with you. Your record is googled.
-------------------------

It wouldn't be me, it would be the Majority.
And if they can't keep it to themselves, sure.

It must be totalitarian or it will die.
---------------------
There's no such thing as "totalitarian", total control being
impossible and solely in the eye of the beholder. Criminals
always call the govt totalitarian. It's a meaningless non-label
that simply means that somebody doesn't like a law or system.

Oh, my. We are on a bender tonight! "I WILL KILL YOU IF YOU
DON'T CONFORM", certainly sounds "total" to me! In case you're
wondering, the quotes are essential Walz.
--------------------------------

Nope. You're a liar.

There is no room for the individual in communism, which
makes it counter to the human species.
------------------------
That's the lie you were taught alright, congrats, you have
successfully regurgitated your programming. You can sit down
now.

Nonsense. It's blatantly obvious to anyone who accepts that
humans are primarily animals. Social ones, but animals.
Communism doesn't work for the Lions either (cats, bit sociable
cats). Even they have their pride, which you'd even strip. ;-)
--------------------------------

No lower animals have any govt or society of any kind, your comment
is nonsense. The "hive" allegation about communism is ridiculous,
precisely because bees are unconscious machines, and don't have or
need social laws to make them do anything.

If by the "individual" you mean thievery, then sure, it is
illegal, but it's very nearly JUST *AS* illegal here now anyway
as it would be in My System!! The only changes I propose are
those which further newly define more unfairnesses as theft
and fraud. We're constantly defining ever more such things in
that direction anyway, so I'm going in the same direction society
has been going for 500 years!!

You like the word "thief", and use the equally horrendous term
"fair".

Since the great Walz, is the grand-pubah of both terms,
I belive they're the same.
-------------------

What? You think "fair"="thief"? Totally irrational.

Only you have the power to determine
what's "fair" and what's "stolen".
-------------

As does everyone else with their political opinion.
Nothing new.

That is, you're the next
Stalin wannabe. You're some piece of work, Walz. Though nothing
is new here.
-------------------------

Sure it is.
So when anyone else asserts an affirmative political belief system,
then you can just call them another Stalin-wannabe.

A good way to try to prevent change and advances toward social
justice, d'ya think??

You're merely being disingenuous and dishonest!!

All law, now, and ever, is about fairness. The laws even now
are about fairness, just not nearly enough of it, because the
rich have distorted them.

"Fairness" as defined by RSW. Mao and Stalin knew everything
about "fairness" too. "Fair" is used to excuse all sorts of
mayhem.
-----------------------------------
You leave out the FACT that it is used to justify absolutely
EVERYTHING, even when it is a lie. However, that doesn't
devalue the Just uses of it to justify enforcing laws that
protect us.

You certainly use "fair" to justify your version of Stalinism.
--------------------

I have no such version of Stalinism.
And fair is used by every political systemn to justify itself.

That's for sure. ..as did Stalin, Pol Pot, and Castro. As I
said, you're in good company!
----------------------

And you're a liar with a VERY limited and brainwashed regurgitory
of responses.

We don't need to make anyone generous, we simply need to
severely punish anyone who has stolen from the rest of us!!!

Translation: I will kill everyone who disagrees with me or has
one more serving of rice than what's "fair". No thanks Steve, I
don't like your use of the word "fair" either.
------------------------------
No. That was only your MIS-translation.

No, That's what you have *SAID*. You'd better try to watch your
tongue. With your mouth even the Russian revolution would have
failed.
------------------------------------

No one's interested in the Russian Revolution.

My System will be the last human system, and it will happen
democratically by Majority Will.

*MY* point was that NO government bothers to get the approval of
criminals before making laws against their thievery, and that
the actions of the Majrity are justified BECAUSE they are the
Majority!

No, you *DEFINE* your terms to change black into white.
--------------

No, I report the REAL good and evil as people kmnow it, and tell
why it is evil and why humans will finally reject it.

You *do* advocate *killing* those who don't like your vision.
----------------

This is true of all political visions, else they are not political!

All power threatens death to its opponents, that's why cops carry
guns. It has nothing whatsoever to do with me particularly.

If you weren't so pitiful, you'd be dangerous.
-------------------

If you weren't so lame you might be effective, but then you'd
have to believe differently for that to be true.

As it is, your mayhem is limited to the Usenet.
-----------------------

Gee, how many have I killed today!?

A commune
*may* work with a hundred (thought even here there are more
failures than successes), but not with a hundred million.
Keith
---------------
No one needs a commune of any sort as a form of government. Communes
are families, not governments. The government is All the People.
When the People decide that wealth is crime, they will ban it!!

When pigs fly.
-----------------
Now you're being ridiculous just because you ran out of ideas.

Nope, assessing your chances of living a normal life. ...or at
least one you'd be comfortable living.
-----------------------------------

You're entirely and completely unable.

And there is absolutely zero reason to require altruism from anyone.
That is what majority power and guns and torture are for, both in
My Communism, and in every government that has ever existed.

Yes, steve, we've seen how well that works out, haven't we.
Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Castro. The people prospered, alright.
Each got their "fair" rewards.
-----------------------------------
That's selectively disingenuous.
ALSO TRUE in every government that has ever existed.

...because *YOU* define fair, in your own little corner of your
mind.
--------------------

Everyone who has ever been evicted knows MY definition of "fair"!!
Everyone who is underpaid knows MY definition for "fair"!!
Everyone who is brutalized knows MY definition of "fair"!!

Of course no one can come close to that horror!
-------------------------------

Nonsense, every govt that has ever existed has threatened all its
enemies with death, that IS what govts DO, that is their JOB!

When we finally have the RIGHT one, IT WILL TOO!

Our laws in the USA are NOT defended by requiring altrism, so neither
would they be in MY Society! In the end it is guns that defend laws,
because laws are at the point where no one wants to hear your shit
anymore, just to stop your criminality!!

Oh, now you want to kill me? I'm a criminal because your minds
is hopelessly twisted. How nice!
--------------------------------------

The "you" I was using was the general plural "you", but you can
take it personally if you need to.

Mine is merely the best possible one, and the one that will finally
succeed all others. And it will succeed not by persuading more than
a majority, the dissenting minority will simply be terrified to
disobey, as usual!

Yes, Mao, Stalin, Castro, Pol Pot, and Walz. Such a nice group
of "fair"-minded people.
Keith
-------------------
AND the founding fathers, and the Congress, and all modern govts!

Sorry Steve, you're not even close sniffing any of the above's
shorts. You'/re a sick little man drooling on his keyboard.
That is assuming that you are a man.
---------------------

You're under the delusion that this is some 40's WW-II movie.

You're unable to engage in reasoned discussion or argument, and now
you've backtracked yourself into your gradeschool years.

More of your selective disingenuity. Can you possibly argue any
more pitifully or dishonestly??? I think NOT!

I am arguing with Steven the great killer of those who disagree
with his mind full of dark twisty passages, all the same.
------------------------

Gee, how many have I killed today?

...though I haven't a clue why. Though tomorrow starts another
week, so I'll have some paying work to keep me busy.
Keith
--------------------------

Grow a mind before you come back here.

-Steve
--
-Steve Walz rstevew@armory.com ftp://ftp.armory.com/pub/user/rstevew
Electronics Site!! 1000's of Files and Dirs!! With Schematics Galore!!
http://www.armory.com/~rstevew or http://www.armory.com/~rstevew/Public

 

[Jeffrey C. Dege]

On Mon, 03 May 2004 02:35:10 GMT, R. Steve Walz <rstevew@armory.com> wrote:

Jeffrey C. Dege wrote:

On Sun, 02 May 2004 22:12:33 GMT, R. Steve Walz <rstevew@armory.com> wrote:

The right of property has to meet the needs of the vast Majority for
EQUAL property, or it will fail!

Not only is there not a need for equal property, there's a fundamental
need for unequal property in order for an economy to function.
-----------------
Nope, that's unfairness and it's inherently dishonest and criminally
abusive of others who do work we all benefit from. It amounts to
enslaving others to authorize them to do work we all need done, and
would have to otherwise do ourselves, without paying them equally as
ourselves!

You're demanding a hell of a lot more than equal pay.

You want equal outcome, despite differences in ability, effort, and pure
dumb luck.

But beyond that, equality of outcome is only possible in a society in
which all activity is controlled by the state.
---------------------
All states do that,

No states do that - and the ones that try end up killing millions.

--
The sacred rights of mankind are not to be rummaged for among old
parchments or musty records. They are written as with a sunbeam in the
whole volume of human nature by the hand of Divinity itself, and can
never be erased or obscured by mortal power.
- Alexander Hamilton

 

[OtherPeoplesShoes]

On Sat, 01 May 2004 21:55:07 GMT, "R. Steve Walz" <rstevew@armory.com>
wrote:

Hi Steve

When confronted with a democratic power that you will never ever
beat or destroy, the only sensible thing to do is to JOIN them
SINCERELY, and work WITHIN the system by VERBAL PERSUASION!!!

Was it right for Washington and Jefferson to start the revolution of
1776 or should they have worked within the system?

Rgds OPS

 

[Soeren]

Hi Chuck,

Soeren, you are really naive if you think that this war's
continuation or cessation hinges on anyone here's sexual desires, or
feelings.

Oh my, when a subject is so close to peoples pride (or whatever it might
be) they apparently loose their ability to spot a smiley ?

The european people, and their various news media, have been so
thoroughly anti american for so long that they have lost all
credibility over here.

Personally I am *not* anti american or anti this or that, just anti
people getting killed over controversies which should be handled in more
intelligent ways.


--
Regards,
Soeren

* If it puzzles you dear... Reverse engineer *

 

[Soeren]

"R. Steve Walz" <rstevew@armory.com> wrote in
news:40958DD9.76A@armory.com:

For the rest I only see a lot of rhetoric really.
Why want to kill anyone who does not agree with the little system
you envision?
---------------------
I don't, unless they wish to engage in criminality.

Who, in your visions of this "perfect" system, descides what is criminal
and what is not ?

Actually, what you are rambling about in this thread, is a far cry from
(true) communism, so let us call it by the real name... Dictatorship.

And, paradoxically that leads some to be criminal and others to have
to kill or control them. Controlling someone being boring, they have
the right to simply eliminate them.

What gives one group the rights to define laws for the other group (and
kill them if they don't agree) ?

And, even more interesting, where lies the difference from the system as
it is today ?

As far as I read it, you are only pissed off by not being one of "the
Rich", which seems to be your term for whoever is forming any laws.

and Fairness isn't some "ideology".

Fairness to those who descides the laws and rules of your "perfect
society" I assume.
I bet anybody else will call it ideology (and will have trouble seeing
the fairness).

Nope, you'd have to quite intently work to fuck up someone else's
good time by violating laws in a society that has made it almost
impossible for you to even do so.

Then, by your own definition, criminals are hard working individuals

The opposition principle you pretend to present here only works with
Xtian/Islamic "phony evil", whose oppression DESERVES to be opposed.

You do sound very religious in your beliefs !

Keeping criminals in jail till they die is sufficient, but overly
expensive. Killing them is only a waste if they can't be medically,
chemically or electrically hobbled and enslaved benignly.

Now you even sound rather Islamic

I like to say the Truth without abrading its edges.

The Truth as you see it... Do you and you alone have The Truth(tm) ?

And those who don't like it have their guilt for their crimes
chiding them.

Your rhetorics are really showing how deep and bright your thoughts are
on this subject.

Most of that would be RESCUE of the weak, and My System does that.

Your kind of "rescue" might not be what they want.

My System assails only inequitable criminals, cruel and vicious.

Which is anybody who do not agree with you I guess ?

The people who are no longer enslaved to pay monthly tribute
to the rich and no longer have less than half their actual
purchasing power will smile!!

Yes !
They will smile, if not laugh, at the silly system which forces them to
drive down dirt roads on their way to a barber, when eg. they had an
accident with a chainsaw, since roads, hospitals etc. etc. will be a
thing of the past.


--
Regards,
Soeren

* If it puzzles you dear... Reverse engineer *

 

[Saint]

I urge you to stop playing Doom for a while, and go read a book. It's
also of importance to open your window and look outside to see how the
real world is going.

R. Steve Walz wrote:

Saint wrote:

R. Steve Walz wrote:


That isn't why or how it has proven itself to be biased.
The BBC simply tells people what they want to hear, it's a
JUST A BUSINESS, it's NOT some magical truth-agency!

Same goes for your "unbiased" agencies. Difference is: they tell what
the government wants people to hear.

--------------
I have no "agencies", I listen to a bunch of people. What the fuck
is your problem, can't you figure out that it is a mix of Al Qaeda
and Saddam's old death-machine that is resisting so hard in Iraq???
Those people should die, simple as that! We SHOULD be massacring
ANY demonstrators, and blowing the shit out of ANY neighborhood
we are attacked in, and we should go house to house and give them
one chance to turn over ALL weapons of ANY kind or execute them
when found with one later! We should be SHOOTING looters of American
bodies, even kids, teach them a little terror.We should make them
carry our ID cards or shoot every fucking one of them till we find
all the resistors and everynbody who wants to live goes back to
work and shuts the fuck up, like we did with the Japanese back when
we had a SPINE!!!



Take your whining little third world political axe someplace
else, you shit-minded little pussy. The middle east is a
shit-pile of the world's crap that has been swept into that
corner, and we're finally getting around to cleaning it out
as the last phase of spring cleaning after the long dark
winter called the Dark Ages.

If you are up to it. But your hands are not clean enough for the job.

----------------------
I'll agree, but they fucked up and attacked us. They lose the right
to beg for their lives.



Hiroshima, Vietnam, and all sort of colonization power exercised in the
past century returned the world well back to the dark ages.

-------------------------
Japan is pretty well off, thanks.
Vietnam was a mistake as to which side we backed.
We SHOULD have been shooting the French and later the rich families
in the South.



Islam is a piece of stinking shit that has to be eliminated from
the earth, a little now, a lot more later, along with Fundy
Xtianity of all sorts, but Islam's worse and most violently
vicious, so it has to be first.

That would probably suggest that you are jew. No wonder, the
world for you is jews jews jews and then gentiles.

----------------
Why you're nothing but another insane third world anti-Zionist
paranoid!!

Nope, I'm not a jew, I'm a hedonist, I'd like to see ALL Abrahamic
religion thrown in a big pit and set on fire because it's looney
and antisexual!! I'll settle for Islam first, then Catholicism and
all the fucking Baptists, THEN I MIGHT worry about the Jews if they
haven't stopped circumcising their kids involuntarily, other than
that the Reform Jews are nearly harmless. Conservative Jews, sure,
burn 'em. Same as fucking Catholics.



The whole middle east is nothing but a hostage situation and
we're just the swat team. If they release their poor impoverished
and brainwashed hostages we will take them away in cuffs, else
we'll be happy to kill them. No negotation with terorists or
hostage takers.

You're not up to the argument. It's not very hard to come up with
something close to your mouthshit and unclaimed trash, and thirst for
blood. But why type more than what can fit into your bumhead.

-------------------------
Eat shit and die, puke, you can't cuss as well as I can, so don't
try, you don't even mean it enough to use excalamation points!!



The world's now to the point where it is time to demand that
nothing be permitted unless it is done through channels under
the rule of law, and the UN ain't the law. They're a debate
club and mostly represent little petty dicatorships.


dictatorship? hahahaha. What you say is a typical definition of
dictatorship. Again you parrot what you don't understand.

-----------------
The dictatorship of Good is called the Good and the Right.
The dictatorship of Evil is called the Evil and the Wrong!
Both are dictatorships, that's just the Truth!

We are merely in a transition period between them, which is
why it is useful for genuine Good to pretend, for now, that
tolerance of both is a good thing, because it undermines the
sway of abject Evil.



If the Taliban, Al Qaeda, Palestinians or whoever the fuck they
think they are want to bomb people instead of just competing
for votes, then we'll hunt all of them down and kill them ALL
like the rabid dogs they are!!

-Steve

They won't do any more good than americans competing for votes and
coming up with George Bush, whom under his command and support America
and Israel launched attacks and bombs in which the iraqi and palestinean
civilians casualties greatly outperforms those killed under all sorts of
suicide bombing attacks.

-----------------------
It'll be a long time before we get this stuff right, but we still
all got to vote and then go home peacably and watch it on the news.
That's worth killing most of the people on earth to keep and to
propagate!! Insane religious maniacs who think they'll go to heaven
if they oppose secular law must be hunted down and killed on OUR
timetable, not theirs, to make the world safe for the peaceful.
Nobody has to be an angel to be a shit-fucking hell of a lot better
than the fucking Muslims, just like I don't have to be perfect to
be smarter than you are, you silly little prick!



Your government is successfully misleading you to believe that "anti-US
government" or "anti-US policies" is necessarily "anti-American".

-----------------------------
Americans at large don't even believe such crap, where do YOU get it??
Don't believe commercials during election year or anytime, they are
aimed ONLY at the tiny minority of weak-minded to tie-break our
49%-49% elections.



Which
in turn turns you to be one of their most favourite pro-government
parrots. Americans have built very good human values that would rather
be spread to the world, if only the governments believed in anything
else other than brutal force, and divide and conquer approaches.
you are led into believing that the anti-US attitude in the middle east
is due to jealousy and hate of freedom, rather than an unclean past in
the region by America and its allies for the past century.

---------------
I'm not a fucking "'Merkin".
I'd like finally to destroy the USA and build a Communist *WORLD*!!!!
I just know who I want to kill and who's available to do it.

-Steve

 

[KR Williams]

In article <4095C0FA.72F7@armory.com>, rstevew@armory.com says...

KR Williams wrote:

In article <40958496.3866@armory.com>, rstevew@armory.com says...
KR Williams wrote:

In article <409490BE.7782@armory.com>, rstevew@armory.com says...
KR Williams wrote:

In article <40944063.1BD3@armory.com>, rstevew@armory.com says...
Jan Panteltje wrote:

On a sunny day (Sat, 01 May 2004 21:55:07 GMT) it happened "R. Steve Walz"
rstevew@armory.com> wrote in <40941D7A.3AE0@armory.com>:


To even understand my response, you need to know my situation:

I'm a confirmed, died-in-the wool Communist.

But do you have a picture of Lenin on the wall?
Or is it Mao?
----------------
Do you actually imagine this sort of comment makes you look bright?

Neither, I'm not a Marxist or Maoist.

I'm a Communist.

I think we all understand that you're a communist (note the small
"c")

Mao wasn't, and Lenin didn't get to.

Neither Soviet Russia or Red China were communist.

...but they're fantastic examples of why communism cannot work.
-------------
Since those didn't implement any "communism", that's nothing but
a shitty little lie the Rich told the US people in the 1930's
when they were getting too Wobbly and scared them.

They sure thought they were trying to, which shows that communism
is perverse and will always be perverted. You're no different.

There is no such thing as altruism on a grand scale.
--------------
Nor is any such required, only obedience to the Law is required.

Now you're back to Mao and Stalin. You will obey or die! That's
"communism" as it will always be.
-------------------
Nonsense, that's as much Genghis Khan and Machiavelli, it has no
political persuasion, it is simply what all governments must do,
unflichingly enforce their laws.

No, that's Walz. ...and you *know* it. You might as well admit
that even you admit here that you'll have to "sacrifice" those
who don't agree with you. Your record is googled.
-------------------------
It wouldn't be me, it would be the Majority.
And if they can't keep it to themselves, sure.

Bottom line:

That's why we all laugh at you. You're the lone wolf thrown out
by mommy and can't find a female who wants the bother with a
communist dog.

--
Keith

 

[R. Steve Walz]

KR Williams wrote:

In article <4095C0FA.72F7@armory.com>, rstevew@armory.com says...
KR Williams wrote:

In article <40958496.3866@armory.com>, rstevew@armory.com says...
KR Williams wrote:

In article <409490BE.7782@armory.com>, rstevew@armory.com says...
KR Williams wrote:

In article <40944063.1BD3@armory.com>, rstevew@armory.com says...
Jan Panteltje wrote:

On a sunny day (Sat, 01 May 2004 21:55:07 GMT) it happened "R. Steve Walz"
rstevew@armory.com> wrote in <40941D7A.3AE0@armory.com>:


To even understand my response, you need to know my situation:

I'm a confirmed, died-in-the wool Communist.

But do you have a picture of Lenin on the wall?
Or is it Mao?
----------------
Do you actually imagine this sort of comment makes you look bright?

Neither, I'm not a Marxist or Maoist.

I'm a Communist.

I think we all understand that you're a communist (note the small
"c")

Mao wasn't, and Lenin didn't get to.

Neither Soviet Russia or Red China were communist.

...but they're fantastic examples of why communism cannot work.
-------------
Since those didn't implement any "communism", that's nothing but
a shitty little lie the Rich told the US people in the 1930's
when they were getting too Wobbly and scared them.

They sure thought they were trying to, which shows that communism
is perverse and will always be perverted. You're no different.

There is no such thing as altruism on a grand scale.
--------------
Nor is any such required, only obedience to the Law is required.

Now you're back to Mao and Stalin. You will obey or die! That's
"communism" as it will always be.
-------------------
Nonsense, that's as much Genghis Khan and Machiavelli, it has no
political persuasion, it is simply what all governments must do,
unflichingly enforce their laws.

No, that's Walz. ...and you *know* it. You might as well admit
that even you admit here that you'll have to "sacrifice" those
who don't agree with you. Your record is googled.
-------------------------
It wouldn't be me, it would be the Majority.
And if they can't keep it to themselves, sure.

Bottom line:

That's why we all laugh at you. You're the lone wolf thrown out
by mommy and can't find a female who wants the bother with a
communist dog.

--
Keith
--------------------------

Haha! If you only REALLY knew!

It's amazing how many unadorned 40-50-something women want just an
intelligent lick/suck/fuck-friend who DOESN'T want to move in with
them and run their life for them!

-Steve
--
-Steve Walz rstevew@armory.com ftp://ftp.armory.com/pub/user/rstevew
Electronics Site!! 1000's of Files and Dirs!! With Schematics Galore!!
http://www.armory.com/~rstevew or http://www.armory.com/~rstevew/Public

 

[R. Steve Walz]

Jeffrey C. Dege wrote:

On Mon, 03 May 2004 02:35:10 GMT, R. Steve Walz <rstevew@armory.com> wrote:
Jeffrey C. Dege wrote:

On Sun, 02 May 2004 22:12:33 GMT, R. Steve Walz <rstevew@armory.com> wrote:

The right of property has to meet the needs of the vast Majority for
EQUAL property, or it will fail!

Not only is there not a need for equal property, there's a fundamental
need for unequal property in order for an economy to function.
-----------------
Nope, that's unfairness and it's inherently dishonest and criminally
abusive of others who do work we all benefit from. It amounts to
enslaving others to authorize them to do work we all need done, and
would have to otherwise do ourselves, without paying them equally as
ourselves!

You're demanding a hell of a lot more than equal pay.
-----------------------------

Not much, and yet, EVERYTHING!:

I'm demanding an equal division of the land of the earth, equal in
residential usage per person, the rest of resource/farm/industrial
land governed by the Majority.

And I'm demanding an end to illicitly acquired investment wealth
and any speculation to steal wealth, so that the ONLY LEGAL OR
EVEN POSSIBLE way to acquire is though productive labor requested
by the Majority.

You want equal outcome, despite differences in ability, effort, and pure
dumb luck.
------------------------

Nope, greater effort should result in greater wealth, effort is to
be measured solely by the hours spent at productive labor requested
by the Majority.

But NEITHER ability NOR certainly dumb luck should cause ANY
difference in outcome, both are unfair criteria, tantamount to
THEFT!

But beyond that, equality of outcome is only possible in a society in
which all activity is controlled by the state.
---------------------
All states do that,

No states do that - and the ones that try end up killing millions.
------------------

ALL states govern ALL exchanges, the SEC, the franchise tax board,
the civil regulation of commercial custom, price, and practice, the
currency system itself, etc.. There are countless things you cannot
do legally in exchanges.

My system is merely a change, not some really new establishment,
except OF JUSTICE!

The sacred rights of mankind are not to be rummaged for among old
parchments or musty records. They are written as with a sunbeam in the
whole volume of human nature by the hand of Divinity itself, and can
never be erased or obscured by mortal power.
- Alexander Hamilton
-------------------

And when they are established, humanity will at last flourish!!

-Steve
--
-Steve Walz rstevew@armory.com ftp://ftp.armory.com/pub/user/rstevew
Electronics Site!! 1000's of Files and Dirs!! With Schematics Galore!!
http://www.armory.com/~rstevew or http://www.armory.com/~rstevew/Public

 

[R. Steve Walz]

OtherPeoplesShoes wrote:

On Sat, 01 May 2004 21:55:07 GMT, "R. Steve Walz" <rstevew@armory.com
wrote:

Hi Steve

When confronted with a democratic power that you will never ever
beat or destroy, the only sensible thing to do is to JOIN them
SINCERELY, and work WITHIN the system by VERBAL PERSUASION!!!

Was it right for Washington and Jefferson to start the revolution of
1776 or should they have worked within the system?

Rgds OPS
--------------------------

If the British Monarchists had been a Majority and had nukes, yes.
But the colonies were virtually self-ruling, the British were
over-extended distance-wise and actually aggressors who could be
handily defeated. Simple passive resistance would have worked as
well.

-Steve
--
-Steve Walz rstevew@armory.com ftp://ftp.armory.com/pub/user/rstevew
Electronics Site!! 1000's of Files and Dirs!! With Schematics Galore!!
http://www.armory.com/~rstevew or http://www.armory.com/~rstevew/Public

 

[R. Steve Walz]

Soeren wrote:

"R. Steve Walz" <rstevew@armory.com> wrote in
news:40958DD9.76A@armory.com:

For the rest I only see a lot of rhetoric really.
Why want to kill anyone who does not agree with the little system
you envision?
---------------------
I don't, unless they wish to engage in criminality.

Who, in your visions of this "perfect" system, descides what is criminal
and what is not ?
-------------------------

The Majority does, and what it chooses finally inevitably, will
be the Established Truth for this species.

Actually, what you are rambling about in this thread, is a far cry from
(true) communism, so let us call it by the real name... Dictatorship.
-----------------------------

Of the Majority? That's called Democracy, you posturing putz!!

And, paradoxically that leads some to be criminal and others to have
to kill or control them. Controlling someone being boring, they have
the right to simply eliminate them.

What gives one group the rights to define laws for the other group (and
kill them if they don't agree) ?
------------------------------

Their greater number, as it always has been.

And, even more interesting, where lies the difference from the system as
it is today ?
-----------------------------------

In THAT respect it doesn't at any given moment, but such a system
will evolve. I merely point the obvious direction of its inevitable
evolution.

As far as I read it, you are only pissed off by not being one of "the
Rich", which seems to be your term for whoever is forming any laws.
-------------------------------------

Financially I have carefully positioned myself to be Just to others,
meaning I have about what I would have after the revolution I espouse.

and Fairness isn't some "ideology".

Fairness to those who descides the laws and rules of your "perfect
society" I assume.
---------------------------

No, Fairness is that which is built into the human species, each
individual, it is our deepest sense of right and wrong, we are a
social creature who indentifies with our fellows, and can only do
other than justice by error and social brainwashing to deviate
from it, but our Nature will out, it underlies everything we are
and everything we do, it is what we will evolve to be socially
and governmentally.

I bet anybody else will call it ideology (and will have trouble seeing
the fairness).
---------------------------------

Those who are brainwashed will, of course.

If you want to pretend that the universe has no internal values,
you can pretend that all "ideologies" are interchangable and no
one has deep-seated claim over others, but in that case you can
justify absolutely any criminality and cruelty. I assert that
there IS a basic Human Nature, and I point to what that is by
looking precisely down the road we have come and then TURNING
AROUND!! That is ALL that I do.

Nope, you'd have to quite intently work to fuck up someone else's
good time by violating laws in a society that has made it almost
impossible for you to even do so.

Then, by your own definition, criminals are hard working
individuals
-----------------------------------------

You mis-read the statement. The work you'd have to do to violate
the Fair and Good Society would be fruitless, and give you no
reward at all for your criminality.

Example: How do you steal money when purchasing power is registered
to each person in State computers as labor hours and can only be
spent by them specifically by submitting an order and waiting for
the goods??

How do you steal securities when there ARE NO SECURITIES TO STEAL!??

How do you speculate when you have no currency? How do you sell when
you must be the People's State to do so? How do you profit illicitly
when there IS NO PROVISION FOR PROFIT AT ALL, it DOESN'T EXIST!!

How do you steal when every major appliance has the name of the
owner/purchaser/orderer embossed into it with a steel punch during
its very MANUFACTURE??

How do you even rob someone?? You can't, they have nothing to give
you, you'd have to force them to ORDER you something and then be
executed for it when they catch you with the goods weeks or months
later with their name on them!!

About the only thing you could do is steal lawn furniture and get
caught and get publically whipped or executed in humiliating disgrace!

Or you could take up rape or home-invasion and be given your own
torture-execution special on TV for several successive nights!

How do you steal land when land can neither be bought or sold, only
exchanged equally for other land??

The opposition principle you pretend to present here only works with
Xtian/Islamic "phony evil", whose oppression DESERVES to be opposed.

You do sound very religious in your beliefs !
--------------------------------

So you imagine that if I oppose religion, that I am religious? Novel.

Keeping criminals in jail till they die is sufficient, but overly
expensive. Killing them is only a waste if they can't be medically,
chemically or electrically hobbled and enslaved benignly.

Now you even sound rather Islamic
--------------------------------------

They chop off hands and make beggars, I botox their legs and make
cripples who must use their hands to work legally and buy food.

I like to say the Truth without abrading its edges.

The Truth as you see it... Do you and you alone have The Truth(tm) ?
--------------------------

You can have it too if you want, it's not copyrighted, but mine
is the Real Truth, sure.

And those who don't like it have their guilt for their crimes
chiding them.

Your rhetorics are really showing how deep and bright your thoughts are
on this subject.
--------------------------------

Is that the best you can do?? You're pitiful.

Most of that would be RESCUE of the weak, and My System does that.

Your kind of "rescue" might not be what they want.
------------------------------

The vast Majority want what my system offers, no rent, fair wage,
guaranteed work, equal purchasing power per hour of work, and the
vanquishing of the rich and powerful. Why else do you think the
rich pampered engineers here are so terrified of my system!!!????

Get real!

My System assails only inequitable criminals, cruel and vicious.

Which is anybody who do not agree with you I guess ?
-----------------------------------

The Truth is the Truth, now and forever after I'm dead and gone.
That I know and believe it is irrelevant to the issues.

I merely know of it, and anyone's agreement with me is only a
coincidence.

Quit trying to attack the man, deal with IDEAS!: Thou Fool!

The people who are no longer enslaved to pay monthly tribute
to the rich and no longer have less than half their actual
purchasing power will smile!!

Yes !
They will smile, if not laugh, at the silly system which forces them to
drive down dirt roads on their way to a barber, when eg. they had an
accident with a chainsaw, since roads, hospitals etc. etc. will be a
thing of the past.
Regards,
Soeren
-----------------------------------

Nonsense, people will live where they enjoy living, and the EMS
vehicles and copters will proliferate widely, as will medical
doctors and hospitals. There will no longer be a limitation on
how many doctors we can produce as they are now to keep prices
and physician wages artificially outrageous!

When there are NO MORE POOR life will FINALLY be EMINENTLY worth
living and medicine will be the biggest of all industries, to
sustain their lives as long as possible! Medicine and medical
supplies and devices will employ more people than any other
industry!

Each rural sprawling collective or pyramid of many hundreds of
people will be surrounded by beautiful gardens and fields of food
plowed, harrowed, planted, and harvested by agro-industrial robots,
and forests full of deer harvested by the People's Army, and each
one will have its own hospital, ER, surgeons, and Air-Rescue and
Air-Evac to major MedCenters centrally located in their districts!

You ONLY PRETEND to argue with me, but you haven't been able to
EVEN BEGIN to make any sense here!

-Steve
--
-Steve Walz rstevew@armory.com ftp://ftp.armory.com/pub/user/rstevew
Electronics Site!! 1000's of Files and Dirs!! With Schematics Galore!!
http://www.armory.com/~rstevew or http://www.armory.com/~rstevew/Public

 

[R. Steve Walz]

Saint wrote:

I urge you to stop playing Doom for a while, and go read a book. It's
also of importance to open your window and look outside to see how the
real world is going.
--------------

I've NEVER played "Doom" and I've read FAR more than YOU have!
Believe it!

-Steve
--
-Steve Walz rstevew@armory.com ftp://ftp.armory.com/pub/user/rstevew
Electronics Site!! 1000's of Files and Dirs!! With Schematics Galore!!
http://www.armory.com/~rstevew or http://www.armory.com/~rstevew/Public

R. Steve Walz wrote:
Saint wrote:

R. Steve Walz wrote:


That isn't why or how it has proven itself to be biased.
The BBC simply tells people what they want to hear, it's a
JUST A BUSINESS, it's NOT some magical truth-agency!

Same goes for your "unbiased" agencies. Difference is: they tell what
the government wants people to hear.

--------------
I have no "agencies", I listen to a bunch of people. What the fuck
is your problem, can't you figure out that it is a mix of Al Qaeda
and Saddam's old death-machine that is resisting so hard in Iraq???
Those people should die, simple as that! We SHOULD be massacring
ANY demonstrators, and blowing the shit out of ANY neighborhood
we are attacked in, and we should go house to house and give them
one chance to turn over ALL weapons of ANY kind or execute them
when found with one later! We should be SHOOTING looters of American
bodies, even kids, teach them a little terror.We should make them
carry our ID cards or shoot every fucking one of them till we find
all the resistors and everynbody who wants to live goes back to
work and shuts the fuck up, like we did with the Japanese back when
we had a SPINE!!!



Take your whining little third world political axe someplace
else, you shit-minded little pussy. The middle east is a
shit-pile of the world's crap that has been swept into that
corner, and we're finally getting around to cleaning it out
as the last phase of spring cleaning after the long dark
winter called the Dark Ages.

If you are up to it. But your hands are not clean enough for the job.

----------------------
I'll agree, but they fucked up and attacked us. They lose the right
to beg for their lives.



Hiroshima, Vietnam, and all sort of colonization power exercised in the
past century returned the world well back to the dark ages.

-------------------------
Japan is pretty well off, thanks.
Vietnam was a mistake as to which side we backed.
We SHOULD have been shooting the French and later the rich families
in the South.



Islam is a piece of stinking shit that has to be eliminated from
the earth, a little now, a lot more later, along with Fundy
Xtianity of all sorts, but Islam's worse and most violently
vicious, so it has to be first.

That would probably suggest that you are jew. No wonder, the
world for you is jews jews jews and then gentiles.

----------------
Why you're nothing but another insane third world anti-Zionist
paranoid!!

Nope, I'm not a jew, I'm a hedonist, I'd like to see ALL Abrahamic
religion thrown in a big pit and set on fire because it's looney
and antisexual!! I'll settle for Islam first, then Catholicism and
all the fucking Baptists, THEN I MIGHT worry about the Jews if they
haven't stopped circumcising their kids involuntarily, other than
that the Reform Jews are nearly harmless. Conservative Jews, sure,
burn 'em. Same as fucking Catholics.



The whole middle east is nothing but a hostage situation and
we're just the swat team. If they release their poor impoverished
and brainwashed hostages we will take them away in cuffs, else
we'll be happy to kill them. No negotation with terorists or
hostage takers.

You're not up to the argument. It's not very hard to come up with
something close to your mouthshit and unclaimed trash, and thirst for
blood. But why type more than what can fit into your bumhead.

-------------------------
Eat shit and die, puke, you can't cuss as well as I can, so don't
try, you don't even mean it enough to use excalamation points!!



The world's now to the point where it is time to demand that
nothing be permitted unless it is done through channels under
the rule of law, and the UN ain't the law. They're a debate
club and mostly represent little petty dicatorships.


dictatorship? hahahaha. What you say is a typical definition of
dictatorship. Again you parrot what you don't understand.

-----------------
The dictatorship of Good is called the Good and the Right.
The dictatorship of Evil is called the Evil and the Wrong!
Both are dictatorships, that's just the Truth!

We are merely in a transition period between them, which is
why it is useful for genuine Good to pretend, for now, that
tolerance of both is a good thing, because it undermines the
sway of abject Evil.



If the Taliban, Al Qaeda, Palestinians or whoever the fuck they
think they are want to bomb people instead of just competing
for votes, then we'll hunt all of them down and kill them ALL
like the rabid dogs they are!!

-Steve

They won't do any more good than americans competing for votes and
coming up with George Bush, whom under his command and support America
and Israel launched attacks and bombs in which the iraqi and palestinean
civilians casualties greatly outperforms those killed under all sorts of
suicide bombing attacks.

-----------------------
It'll be a long time before we get this stuff right, but we still
all got to vote and then go home peacably and watch it on the news.
That's worth killing most of the people on earth to keep and to
propagate!! Insane religious maniacs who think they'll go to heaven
if they oppose secular law must be hunted down and killed on OUR
timetable, not theirs, to make the world safe for the peaceful.
Nobody has to be an angel to be a shit-fucking hell of a lot better
than the fucking Muslims, just like I don't have to be perfect to
be smarter than you are, you silly little prick!



Your government is successfully misleading you to believe that "anti-US
government" or "anti-US policies" is necessarily "anti-American".

-----------------------------
Americans at large don't even believe such crap, where do YOU get it??
Don't believe commercials during election year or anytime, they are
aimed ONLY at the tiny minority of weak-minded to tie-break our
49%-49% elections.



Which
in turn turns you to be one of their most favourite pro-government
parrots. Americans have built very good human values that would rather
be spread to the world, if only the governments believed in anything
else other than brutal force, and divide and conquer approaches.
you are led into believing that the anti-US attitude in the middle east
is due to jealousy and hate of freedom, rather than an unclean past in
the region by America and its allies for the past century.

---------------
I'm not a fucking "'Merkin".
I'd like finally to destroy the USA and build a Communist *WORLD*!!!!
I just know who I want to kill and who's available to do it.

-Steve

 

[Jeffrey C. Dege]

On Tue, 04 May 2004 02:51:30 GMT, R. Steve Walz <rstevew@armory.com> wrote:

Jeffrey C. Dege wrote:

You're demanding a hell of a lot more than equal pay.
-----------------------------
Not much, and yet, EVERYTHING!:

I'm demanding an equal division of the land of the earth, equal in
residential usage per person, the rest of resource/farm/industrial
land governed by the Majority.

How many times do you plan to do this redistribution? Because even if
you could manage such a redistribution, only weeks later the distribution
would be uneven again, because of differences in individual's desires,
ability, and chance.

--
I could climb the very highest Himalayas,
be among the greatest ever tennis players,
Win at chess, marry a princess,
or study hard and be an eminent professor.
I could be a millionaire, play the clarinet, travel everywhere,
learn to cook, catch a crook, win a war and write a book about it.
I could paint a Mona Lisa, I could be another Caesar,
compose an oratorio that was sublime,
The door's not shut on my genius, but
I just don't have the time.
- Michael Flanders and Donald Swann

 

[Jeffrey C. Dege]

On Tue, 04 May 2004 03:37:31 GMT, R. Steve Walz <rstevew@armory.com> wrote:

The Majority does, and what it chooses finally inevitably, will
be the Established Truth for this species.

And if the majority decides to sentence someone to death one day, and
then to revoke the sentence the next?

Tyranny of the majority is just as much to be denounced and resisted as
any other.

--
Is it just or reasonable, that most voices against the main end of
government should enslave the less number that would be free? More just
it is, doubtless, if it come to force, that a less number compel a
greater to retain, which can be no wrong to them, their liberty, than
that a greater number, for the pleasure of their baseness, compel a less
most injuriously to be their fellow slaves. They who seek nothing but
their own just liberty, have always the right to win it, whenever they
have the power, be the voices never so numerous that oppose it.
- John Milton

 

[R. Steve Walz]

Jeffrey C. Dege wrote:

On Tue, 04 May 2004 02:51:30 GMT, R. Steve Walz <rstevew@armory.com> wrote:
Jeffrey C. Dege wrote:

You're demanding a hell of a lot more than equal pay.
-----------------------------
Not much, and yet, EVERYTHING!:

I'm demanding an equal division of the land of the earth, equal in
residential usage per person, the rest of resource/farm/industrial
land governed by the Majority.

How many times do you plan to do this redistribution?
--------------

Once. Only residential land can be held privately, the rest of the
land is a public trust, controlled Democratically. New population
will be granted new residential property from existing property and
its aedifices. Population will be limited by licensing births.

Because even if
you could manage such a redistribution, only weeks later the distribution
would be uneven again, because of differences in individual's desires,
ability, and chance.
----------------

Land then will no longer be salable, only tradable for the same
amount of residential land and home. All other land is governed
for social use by the Local Majority.

-Steve
--
-Steve Walz rstevew@armory.com ftp://ftp.armory.com/pub/user/rstevew
Electronics Site!! 1000's of Files and Dirs!! With Schematics Galore!!
http://www.armory.com/~rstevew or http://www.armory.com/~rstevew/Public

 

[John S. Dyson]

In article <slrnc9e69e.m69.jdege@jdege.visi.com>,
jdege@jdege.visi.com (Jeffrey C. Dege) writes:

On Tue, 04 May 2004 03:37:31 GMT, R. Steve Walz <rstevew@armory.com> wrote:
The Majority does, and what it chooses finally inevitably, will
be the Established Truth for this species.

And if the majority decides to sentence someone to death one day, and
then to revoke the sentence the next?

Tyranny of the majority is just as much to be denounced and resisted as
any other.

There is too often a propaganda mistake made by the US, but perhaps

it is necessary: Democracy (in the literal sense) is tyrranical, and
should be avoided. However, certain democratic processes are useful
to help maintain freedom by helping to maintain balance. A constitution
(or an immutable body of laws) is critical to maintain 'rule of law'
instead of a kind of 'rule by fiat.' This fiat can come from a Stalin
clone or an angry mob.

It seems like the American constitutional process is a good (far from
perfect) example of balancing some of the attributes of 'democracy' with
a balanced 'rule of law.'

It probably isn't necessary that the laws all be formalized, because
the UK seems to do a reasonably good job (perhaps defective in ways
other than in the US) of maintaining a balance with 'rule of law'.
However, it does seem like certain rights aren't as clearly defined
as in the US. On the other hand, just because the Constitution states
that citizens are free, some of the freedoms can be re/mis-interpreted.

Some of the 'reinterpretations' or responsibly made 'modifications' are
quite good: clarifying rights for minorities or women. However, some
of the other modifications by attempted reinterpretation are intellectually
dishonest: (e.g. there is no specific right to privacy, and purposeful
misreading of archaic usage has given anti-gun forces some sway.)
In some cases, I prefer some of the misinterpretations, but too often
our politicians don't have the courage or the public support to
effect an actual constitutional ammendment. Because of the possiblities
of tyrrany, I MUCH prefer that we forgo the attempted 'common law' or
even 'dishonest' ammendments until they are done correctly. (Common
law isn't bad, but it is bad when the Constitution in the US is the
contract between the federal government and the people. Other places
might do it differently.)

John