Hey kneel, go to the NS NG
SunnyJim
nkennedy
Just another example of this "libratarian's " sense of freedom.
He tried ducking me by posting exclusively to bc-politics, then after I
found him he is trying to say that I have no right to post to a ng
outside the province where I reside.
This cheap bit of rat vomit just will not face it. I will continue
to ask him:
How can you take on a libertarian label and cheer the government's
strong arm approach to citizen dissent?
Why is it that you and EVERY other self styled libertarian were gung
ho after the Liberals when the election was on, Peppergate was a crime
according to you guys.
Now that you can't see any immediate advantage for Stockwell in
decrying the Liberals in Quebec, you support them against the citizens?
There are 2 , well no 3 choices:
(1) You (pl) are a hypocrite
(2) You are extremely stupid
(3) (1) AND (2)
Neil K
John Dillinger
wrote:
>"and do your whining there. We have enough NDP idiots in BC"->scummyjim
>
> Just another example of this "libratarian's " sense of freedom.
>He tried ducking me by posting exclusively to bc-politics, then after I
>found him he is trying to say that I have no right to post to a ng
>outside the province where I reside.
> This cheap bit of rat vomit just will not face it. I will continue
>to ask him:
> How can you take on a libertarian label and cheer the government's
>strong arm approach to citizen dissent?
You can't.
> Why is it that you and EVERY other self styled libertarian were gung
>ho after the Liberals when the election was on, Peppergate was a crime
>according to you guys.
> Now that you can't see any immediate advantage for Stockwell in
>decrying the Liberals in Quebec, you support them against the citizens?
What are you talking about?
I've seen very few libertarians in this newsgroup, although a few
claim to be, have claimed to be, or accused of being libertarian. If
you want to know what libertarians really think, I'll pass along a few
websites.
JD
nkennedy
claim to be, have claimed to be,..."->John Dillinger
A few John? There a nest of them here claiming to be libertarian
and Rand supporters. These are completely unaware of the hate that Ayn
Rand held for libertarians.
The people here who do think the libertarian label is cool are
either blue law fundamental religious nuts or facists who will descide
who is entitled to free expression.
Witness the lack of protest here about the trampling of basic freedom
in Quebec.
None, not ONE person posting here as a libertarian opposes the police
action by the Canadian government.
And they REFUSE to talk about it.
Get that John, not ONE who calls himself libertarian will step up.
Neil K
SunnyJim
To be a libertarian for some is the crime. Those who attack
libertarians do so because... I forgot. Oh yeah, for not wanting a
state to tell them what to do, how to live, where to live etc. Trying
to organize libertarians is tougher than herding cats. And that is why
libertarians will never assume 'power.' They don't want to have that
much power and the majority want the state to dictate to them.
>
>JD
nkennedy
libertarians do so because... I forgot. Oh yeah, for not wanting a
state to tell them what to do, how to live, where to live etc. Trying
to organize libertarians is tougher than herding cats. And that is why
libertarians will never assume 'power.' They don't want to have that
much power and the majority want the state to dictate to
So you just posted a lump of incoherent gibberish; so what? you already
got a typo today!!!
Yeah scummy recognizes that "crowd" is not spelled "crown" AND he
posted the typo. So instead of finding fault with the rat vomit he cites
above, give him credit, if it ducks like rat vomit and ducks again and
again like rat vomit it IS rat vomit AKA scummyjim
Neil K
John Dillinger
wrote:
>"...I've seen very few libertarians in this newsgroup, although a few
>claim to be, have claimed to be,..."->John Dillinger
>
> A few John? There a nest of them here claiming to be libertarian
>and Rand supporters. These are completely unaware of the hate that Ayn
>Rand held for libertarians.
Yep, and a lot of them love Rand. Not sure what the appeal is. There
are many more thoughtful writers than Rand, many of which she
"borrowed" from.
> The people here who do think the libertarian label is cool are
>either blue law fundamental religious nuts or facists who will descide
>who is entitled to free expression.
Given your description, they don't sound very libertarian. Tolerance
is an important part of the libertarian philosophy (but, hey, we are
human).
> Witness the lack of protest here about the trampling of basic freedom
>in Quebec.
Such as the Language Law? Or do you mean the protesters in Quebec
city?
> None, not ONE person posting here as a libertarian opposes the police
>action by the Canadian government.
Such as?
> And they REFUSE to talk about it.
>Get that John, not ONE who calls himself libertarian will step up.
I've called myself libertarian since 1981. Go ahead, ask.
JD
John Dillinger
[clip...clip...snap..snap]
>To be a libertarian for some is the crime.
Its hard to change one's world view from a few posts on the internet.
I've witnessed may people come around over time, and some that you
think are on your side never do come around. That's just the way it
is.
> Those who attack
>libertarians do so because... I forgot. Oh yeah, for not wanting a
>state to tell them what to do, how to live, where to live etc.
We're indoctrinated from a very young age to believe these things,
they're deeply ingrained and reinforced by educational institutions,
mass media, and social pressures.
> Trying
>to organize libertarians is tougher than herding cats.
Yes. Libertarians are all independently minded, we all want freedom
for everyone, but each of us wants to run the show whenever we get
together to achieve any goal. We are crappy team players (I'm sure
Ken will have something to say about this, so I'll just let him say
it, and prove my point).
> And that is why
>libertarians will never assume 'power.' They don't want to have that
>much power and the majority want the state to dictate to them.
That's part of it. The reason we haven't made much inroads through
direct politics I gave above. We actually have to be willing to "play
the game", and the game goes against what we as libertarians believe
and what we are as libertarians. Libertarianism (or whatever it may
eventually be called) will only win when enough people have accepted
the libertarian philosophy. Its more a question of persuasion and
education than winning elections.
That's my view, anyway.
JD
nkennedy
Dillinger
To me it makes no difference, to stamp on anyone's basic freedom is
vile.
Does a French Majority in Quebec have a right to deny expression in
another language? Certainly not.
Does the federal government have the right to deny it citizens
peaceful dissent regarding global economic structures. Certainly not.
Do we have the right to say to someone "you can't say there were less
than 6 million jews executed". Certainly not.
I'm not a libertarian, but I'm closer to that creed than the
pretenders here.
Names like Deloney, Britton, Sheldon Scott, then the masked crud
Smokin', sunnyjim. there are dozens of them.
Although since the trade meeting in Quebec has come into view, many
of them put their badges in their pocket.
As a libertarian, where are you on the topics I broach
Regards
Neil K
Neil
Right Said Jim
have to pay for all the wonderful social programs...
John Dillinger
wrote:
>"I've called myself libertarian since 1981. Go ahead, ask"John
>Dillinger
>
> To me it makes no difference, to stamp on anyone's basic freedom is
>vile.
> Does a French Majority in Quebec have a right to deny expression in
>another language? Certainly not.
Exactly.
> Does the federal government have the right to deny it citizens
>peaceful dissent regarding global economic structures. Certainly not.
Certainly, so long as they are at the same time respectful of the
rights of others, they're should be free to protest.
> Do we have the right to say to someone "you can't say there were less
>than 6 million jews executed". Certainly not.
Right. You have to think for yourself.
> I'm not a libertarian, but I'm closer to that creed than the
>pretenders here.
That could be. I've run into many calling themselves libertarian who
support such things as closed immigration, putting the rights of one
group over another, and even supporting the war on drugs. I guess
they feel if they support part of the philosophy, they must be
"libertarian" and feel free to call themselves such (which, of course,
they are free to do).
> Names like Deloney, Britton, Sheldon Scott, then the masked crud
>Smokin', sunnyjim. there are dozens of them.
Well, the only one I know (personally, btw) is "Smokin" Ken Wiebe.
He has a good command of the libertarian philosophy (he had a good
teacher), when it suits his purpose. OTOH, he's
rather...um....intolerant of differing points of view. He also thinks
that I, and many others in the libertarian movement, are liars,
thieves, backstabbers, etc...etc, though that has nothing to do with
his libertarianism.
The libertarian movement is made of a wide range of individuals, each
with their own personalities, same as with any other movement. You
can't judge them all by one or a few. But we're often not a very well
loved bunch because if you take only part of the message, you can get
a very wrong impression of what we're about. Like I said, if you want
a clearer picture of libertarianism, I can post some links.
> Although since the trade meeting in Quebec has come into view, many
>of them put their badges in their pocket.
> As a libertarian, where are you on the topics I broach
So long as they respect the rights of others, they should be as free
to gather as any other group of individuals. No harm in that, and
lots of benefits.
JD
Alan Baker
nkennedy <nken...@seascape.ns.ca> wrote:
>"I've called myself libertarian since 1981. Go ahead, ask"John
>Dillinger
>
> To me it makes no difference, to stamp on anyone's basic freedom is
>vile.
> Does a French Majority in Quebec have a right to deny expression in
>another language? Certainly not.
> Does the federal government have the right to deny it citizens
>peaceful dissent regarding global economic structures. Certainly not.
And how is anyone being denied "peaceful dissent"? Canada has bent over
backwards in allowing dissent; allowing -- among other things -- one
Jose Bove of France (who apparently trashed a McDonald's restaurant in
"non-violent" -- according to him -- expression of his disapproval of
them) into Canada. This "dissenter" then went on the record saying that
destruction of property is not violent providing that you are protesting
Free Trade.
> Do we have the right to say to someone "you can't say there were less
>than 6 million jews executed". Certainly not.
We certainly do have the right to say it. Look up freedom of speech.
> I'm not a libertarian, but I'm closer to that creed than the
>pretenders here.
> Names like Deloney, Britton, Sheldon Scott, then the masked crud
>Smokin', sunnyjim. there are dozens of them.
> Although since the trade meeting in Quebec has come into view, many
>of them put their badges in their pocket.
> As a libertarian, where are you on the topics I broach
>
> Regards
> Neil K
> Neil
--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
"If you raise the ceiling four feet, move the fireplace from that wall to that
wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect if you sit in the
bottom of that cupboard."
nkennedy
backwards in allowing dissent; allowing -- among other things -- one
Jose Bove of France (who apparently trashed a McDonald's restaurant in
"non-violent" -- according to him -- expression of his disapproval of
them) into Canada. This "dissenter" then went on the record saying that
destruction of property is not violent providing that you are protesting
As usual Baker doesn't have the balls to declare weather or not he
considers himself libertarian or is a Rand follower.
He will feebly try to "chuck some shit" but because of his lack of
courage his point remains "sommet a tete".
But the point is clear Baker blindly backs authority in Quebec.
I will ask him. What was your stand during the APEC protests.
Were you for or again' the protesters? Why?
Neil K
John Dillinger
wrote:
[...clip]
>And how is anyone being denied "peaceful dissent"? Canada has bent over
>backwards in allowing dissent; allowing -- among other things -- one
>Jose Bove of France (who apparently trashed a McDonald's restaurant in
>"non-violent" -- according to him -- expression of his disapproval of
>them) into Canada. This "dissenter" then went on the record saying that
>destruction of property is not violent providing that you are protesting
>Free Trade.
This would be an example of "not respecting the rights of others" when
people damage the property of others. I suppose the police could wack
Mr. Bove over the head with a night stick and claim this isn't
violence so long as Mr. Bove was protesting free trade in a public
place.
>> Do we have the right to say to someone "you can't say there were less
>>than 6 million jews executed". Certainly not.
>
>We certainly do have the right to say it. Look up freedom of speech.
We do have the right. The Canadian government, however, doesn't
recognize that right. We don't live in a free country.
JD
John Dillinger
wrote:
>I will ask him. What was your stand during the APEC protests.
>Were you for or again' the protesters? Why?
Neil, that's a very different question than where or not you believe
they have a right to protest. I believe they do have the right to
peaceful protest, but that doesn't mean that I'm for the protesters
(I'm not). This is kind of a loaded question, I'm sure this other
poster isn't "for" the protesters either. What you should ask is do
you believe they have the right to a peaceful demonstration.
IMO, people have the right to protest whatever they want, no matter
how anyone else feels about the issue they're protesting, if they
respect those around them.
JD
SunnyJim
<hagb...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Thu, 19 Apr 2001 20:55:38 GMT, su...@wiggly.com (SunnyJim) wrote:
>
>[clip...clip...snap..snap]
>
>>To be a libertarian for some is the crime.
>
>Its hard to change one's world view from a few posts on the internet.
>I've witnessed may people come around over time, and some that you
>think are on your side never do come around. That's just the way it
>is.
We can always hope.
>
>> Those who attack
>>libertarians do so because... I forgot. Oh yeah, for not wanting a
>>state to tell them what to do, how to live, where to live etc.
>
>We're indoctrinated from a very young age to believe these things,
>they're deeply ingrained and reinforced by educational institutions,
>mass media, and social pressures.
My father would go apoplectic if I said libertarian. But then he was
brought up to King, god and country. All of which I have fewer or
greater problems with agreeing with.
>
>> Trying
>>to organize libertarians is tougher than herding cats.
>
>Yes. Libertarians are all independently minded, we all want freedom
>for everyone, but each of us wants to run the show whenever we get
>together to achieve any goal. We are crappy team players (I'm sure
>Ken will have something to say about this, so I'll just let him say
>it, and prove my point).
I was a pretty good team player when I played team sports. I do not
now and concentrate on more individual efforts, some of which are
enjoyed more in the company of others, like mountain biking, surfing,
running, climbing, etc.
>
>> And that is why
>>libertarians will never assume 'power.' They don't want to have that
>>much power and the majority want the state to dictate to them.
>
>That's part of it. The reason we haven't made much inroads through
>direct politics I gave above. We actually have to be willing to "play
>the game", and the game goes against what we as libertarians believe
>and what we are as libertarians. Libertarianism (or whatever it may
>eventually be called) will only win when enough people have accepted
>the libertarian philosophy. Its more a question of persuasion and
>education than winning elections.
Persuason is difficult when the majority hate to have to think or act
individually. You know, the escape from freedom, Erich Fromm?
I am still working on the BC MP thing. I really really really want to
get rid of the BC NDP and see the Liberals as the best tool for the
job. But the Liberals are still interventionist. What is objectionable
in the BC MP is much much less so than the mainstream. And I don't
even smoke dope or care if anyone does or does not. Nice cigars and
good whiskey.
Alan Baker
nkennedy <nken...@seascape.ns.ca> wrote:
>"And how is anyone being denied "peaceful dissent"? Canada has bent over
>backwards in allowing dissent; allowing -- among other things -- one
>Jose Bove of France (who apparently trashed a McDonald's restaurant in
>"non-violent" -- according to him -- expression of his disapproval of
>them) into Canada. This "dissenter" then went on the record saying that
>destruction of property is not violent providing that you are protesting
>Free Trade"->Alan Baker
>
> As usual Baker doesn't have the balls to declare weather
"whether"
> or not he
>considers himself libertarian or is a Rand follower.
I wasn't aware that I had to declare my political leanings to take issue
with things that I feel to be less than factual.
I addressed certain points that you raised with a question you've failed
to answer.
How is anyone being denied peaceful dissent? Put up or shut up.
> He will feebly try to "chuck some shit" but because of his lack of
>courage his point remains "sommet a tete".
Sorry. What does "sommet" mean?
> But the point is clear Baker blindly backs authority in Quebec.
I never said that, nor is that my position. I do not blindly back
authority, but in light of the actions of protestors at other similar
summits the security precautions _as the have been presented so far_
seem only reasonable and prudent.
But I will not pass final judgement for myself until I see what happens.
>I will ask him. What was your stand during the APEC protests.
I was appalled by the violations of civil liberties that took place.
>Were you for or again' the protesters? Why?
As far as that goes, I was neither for nor against the protestors. I
thought that they had some valid issues with Suharto, but I find that
their valid points often get drowned in a sea of rhetoric.
Still they had the right to protest and there is no doubt in my mind
that police went to far and were suppressing dissent rather than keeping
the peace. And there is also no doubt in my mind that it was done at the
behest of the politicians; a situation which is anathema to our system
of governance.
Sorry for the big words, but I'm sure you can find someone to help you
with them.
Alan Baker
John Dillinger <hagb...@hotmail.com> wrote:
And that concerns me greatly.
Alan Baker
John Dillinger <hagb...@hotmail.com> wrote:
It's OK, John. I said as much in my own message, by and large.
But if this is as clever as his "intellectual" traps get, I'm in no need
of help. <g>
nkennedy
how anyone else feels about the issue they're protesting, if they
Exactly. But what we are seeing is people willing to deny the right to
protest on the purported grounds that they will commit criminal acts,
but in fact they deny the right to protest because they disagree with
the protesters message. Sunnyjim and that crowd make no pretense about
this. They argue those who are anti this trade deal have no right
because what they believe is wrong.
These are fascists.
Neil K
Neil K
John Dillinger
>On Thu, 19 Apr 2001 21:37:23 GMT, John Dillinger
><hagb...@hotmail.com> wrote:
[...clip]
>I am still working on the BC MP thing. I really really really want to
>get rid of the BC NDP and see the Liberals as the best tool for the
>job.
Well, the Liberals are going to do that particular job with or without
your help. The BCMP could use yours, and this is an ideal time to
support them. Don't worry, the NDP are going to learn what its like
be a fringe party soon enough ;-)
>But the Liberals are still interventionist.
They're every bit as interventionist as the NDP, just in different
ways. I can't wait to hear Karl's future justifications for Liberal
policy, now that he's about to become the government's spokesperson
here in Usenet ;-)
> What is objectionable
>in the BC MP is much much less so than the mainstream. And I don't
>even smoke dope or care if anyone does or does not.
I don't either, but I did when I was much younger (and yes, I did
inhale, very deeply in fact). Marijuana is the overt central issue,
but its much more than marijuana. Its about the right of people to
choose what is best for themselves, rather than having these decisions
dictated by others. The executive of the MP are very much
libertarian, though not as radical as some of us would like, they're
as radical as they can safely be and still have some success.
> Nice cigars and
>good whiskey.
I don't smoke or drink either ;-)
JD
nkennedy
connection to Archimedes.
Yeah I thought so, wasn't he the guy who complained that he
couldn't move the world because couldn't find a place to stand.
He couldn't, you wouldn't , not much difference.
Have you always felt so inferior and had this strong compulsion to
attack spelling?
Neil K
Alan Baker
nkennedy <nken...@seascape.ns.ca> wrote:
Please provide a single example of this claim.
Or don't you have the "balls" for it?
John Dillinger
wrote:
Believing in freedom of expression means believing that people have
the right to express unpopular views as well as views they agree with.
> These are fascists.
A bit harsh. Would you grant that they might just not have thought
the issue through? I actually haven't read what SunnyJim has said on
the issue, so I can't comment. Although the more recent postings by
others (who, btw, do not identify themselves as "libertarian") seem
pretty reasonable. While I think we must be accountable as
individuals for our acts, if someone from a group of protesters throws
a rock through a store window, they're inviting trouble from the
police. It can be difficult to centre out the guilty party(ies) when
a demonstration turns into a mob. We shouldn't, however, assume
anything as an excuse to ban a protest.
JD
Alan Baker
nkennedy <nken...@seascape.ns.ca> wrote:
Perhaps you could tell me where it was in the message to which yours was
replying that I attacked spelling?
And since your level of integrity is such that you saw fit to snip it in
its entirety, I'll restore the text to assist you:
"In article <v5qudtk043v9ev9hc...@4ax.com>,
John Dillinger <hagb...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Thu, 19 Apr 2001 19:27:17 -0300, nkennedy <nken...@seascape.ns.ca>
>wrote:
>
>>I will ask him. What was your stand during the APEC protests.
>>Were you for or again' the protesters? Why?
>
>Neil, that's a very different question than where or not you believe
>they have a right to protest. I believe they do have the right to
>peaceful protest, but that doesn't mean that I'm for the protesters
>(I'm not). This is kind of a loaded question, I'm sure this other
>poster isn't "for" the protesters either. What you should ask is do
>you believe they have the right to a peaceful demonstration.
>
>IMO, people have the right to protest whatever they want, no matter
>how anyone else feels about the issue they're protesting, if they
>respect those around them.
It's OK, John. I said as much in my own message, by and large.
But if this is as clever as his "intellectual" traps get, I'm in no need
of help. <g>"
There you go, Neil. Everything but my sig from that message.
Would you care to point out the spelling flame?
SunnyJim
<hagb...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Thu, 19 Apr 2001 22:50:54 GMT, su...@wiggly.com (SunnyJim) wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 19 Apr 2001 21:37:23 GMT, John Dillinger
>><hagb...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>[...clip]
>
>>I am still working on the BC MP thing. I really really really want to
>>get rid of the BC NDP and see the Liberals as the best tool for the
>>job.
>
>Well, the Liberals are going to do that particular job with or without
>your help. The BCMP could use yours, and this is an ideal time to
>support them. Don't worry, the NDP are going to learn what its like
>be a fringe party soon enough ;-)
I am moving toward the BC MP. Really. No party (other than the
Libertarians) would get my vote unconditioinally.
>
>>But the Liberals are still interventionist.
>
>They're every bit as interventionist as the NDP, just in different
>ways. I can't wait to hear Karl's future justifications for Liberal
>policy, now that he's about to become the government's spokesperson
>here in Usenet ;-)
As I had said about Byron Muldoon back in '83: hate him now rather
than waiting for it to happen. And I was correct.
>
>> What is objectionable
>>in the BC MP is much much less so than the mainstream. And I don't
>>even smoke dope or care if anyone does or does not.
>
>I don't either, but I did when I was much younger (and yes, I did
>inhale, very deeply in fact). Marijuana is the overt central issue,
>but its much more than marijuana. Its about the right of people to
>choose what is best for themselves, rather than having these decisions
>dictated by others. The executive of the MP are very much
>libertarian, though not as radical as some of us would like, they're
>as radical as they can safely be and still have some success.
I will be looking up my candidate. So much for the card I received
from the Liberals last year. I have to vote with my concience.
>
>> Nice cigars and
>>good whiskey.
>
>I don't smoke or drink either ;-)
Come on over to my house. I have a really nice bottle of whiskey and
some nice cigars. You can always learn a legal bad habit. Not Cubans
though. Although I would like to participate in 'trading' Castro out
of his job. Open the doors for trade and the bastard will be gone in
12 months.
>
>JD
>
nkennedy
individuals for our acts, if someone from a group of protesters throws
a rock through a store window, they're inviting trouble from the
police. It can be difficult to centre out the guilty party(ies) when
a demonstration turns into a mob. We shouldn't, however, assume
Are you saying that because someone in a group MAY break a window, all
in the group should be treated with suspicion?
Neil K
Alan Baker
nkennedy <nken...@seascape.ns.ca> wrote:
He said exactly what he meant: when someone in a group _breaks_ a
window; not possibly, but actually.
And then he explicitly stated that the possibility of such actions is
not sufficient reason to ban a protest.
I guess you were to busy reading through your ideology.
John Dillinger
Its getting like a conference in here ;-)
>>Well, the Liberals are going to do that particular job with or without
>>your help. The BCMP could use yours, and this is an ideal time to
>>support them. Don't worry, the NDP are going to learn what its like
>>be a fringe party soon enough ;-)
>
>
>I am moving toward the BC MP. Really. No party (other than the
>Libertarians) would get my vote unconditioinally.
Actually, I wouldn't vote unconditionally for Libertarians either.
>>I don't either, but I did when I was much younger (and yes, I did
>>inhale, very deeply in fact). Marijuana is the overt central issue,
>>but its much more than marijuana. Its about the right of people to
>>choose what is best for themselves, rather than having these decisions
>>dictated by others. The executive of the MP are very much
>>libertarian, though not as radical as some of us would like, they're
>>as radical as they can safely be and still have some success.
>
>I will be looking up my candidate. So much for the card I received
>from the Liberals last year. I have to vote with my concience.
Another suggestion would be to take a very sharp HP pencil into the
booth with you and put your own name into each circle. A bit of
direct "self-government" ;-)
But I myself am voting MP this time around.
>>
>>> Nice cigars and
>>>good whiskey.
>>
>>I don't smoke or drink either ;-)
>
>Come on over to my house. I have a really nice bottle of whiskey and
>some nice cigars. You can always learn a legal bad habit. Not Cubans
>though. Although I would like to participate in 'trading' Castro out
>of his job. Open the doors for trade and the bastard will be gone in
>12 months.
I think I'll go to Marc's first, I always preferred pot over booze and
tobacco ;-)
JD
John Dillinger
wrote:
What would you do? Instead, lets say they're the KKK, and one of them
just wacked a young black kid over the head with a 2x4. Would you
treat the ...um.... "crowd" with suspicion of you were a cop there to
maintain order? Should you? You might argue that you "shouldn't" but
you probably "would". People acting in a mod usually act differently
than they would acting alone, so now (as a cop) you're faced with many
prospectively violent people, and you need to get through this crowd
to arrest one. Should or would you act with suspicion in regards to
the others?
Ideally, you just go after the person who violated the rights of
another, but at that point, you have to be on-guard against further
actions by others. Defensive but not aggressive.
JD
nkennedy
"A bit harsh. Would you grant that they might just not have thought
the issue through? I actually haven't read what SunnyJim has said on
the issue, so I can't comment. Although the more recent postings by
others (who, btw, do not identify themselves as "libertarian") seem
You haven't eh?
To your mind are the sentiments expressed ny sunnyjim below in
keeping with a libertraian view?
I would think that the overriding question for a libertarian would
be to ACTIVELY want to protect citizens from interference of expression.
I said that I have YET to se one who professes to be libertrian come
to the support of the protesters, this includes John Dillinger.
You and Scummy pretty close are you?
Neil K
From:
su...@wiggly.com (SunnyJim)
Organization:
Excite@Home - The Leader in Broadband
http://home.com/faster
Newsgroups:
alt.politics.radical-left, bc.politics, can.politics
References:
1
On Thu, 19 Apr 2001 20:16:11 GMT, Brian Hauk <bgh...@look.ca> wrote:
>Militant newsweekly articles on fight against police brutality
>
http://www.google.com/custom?q=police+brutality&cof=AH%3Acenter%3BAWFID%3A77e7d7ee09923f64%3B&domains=www.themilitant.com&sitesearch=www.themilitant.com
>
>
>
You're funny Hank. Like a clown.
Here's the thing: find a cop, hit him on the head, try to run away,
get caught, yowl and screech like a cat with a pineapple up your ass,
whine about police brutality, get your picture in The Militant and all
your comrades high five you when you get out of the can.
That is really going to help the poor in the Philipines that are
living on 50 cents a day. But you would rather make sure that whatever
they do try to sell to us is kept out. So you and your greasey
union/semi-militant sandalista bum buddies can continue to punish the
poor. And eat steaks and chips when ever you want.
Why do you hate the poor so? Are you rich? Are you one of those
parasites living off the fat of the land like a pimp? Are you really a
pimp Hank? Hank the Pimp? Stay offa my girls corner or I will kill
you? Is that you Hank?
John Dillinger
wrote:
>
>"A bit harsh. Would you grant that they might just not have thought
>the issue through? I actually haven't read what SunnyJim has said on
>the issue, so I can't comment. Although the more recent postings by
>others (who, btw, do not identify themselves as "libertarian") seem
>pretty reasonable."->John Dillinger
>
>You haven't eh?
> To your mind are the sentiments expressed ny sunnyjim below in
>keeping with a libertraian view?
Seems to be a personal view. Not an inaccurate one, imo.
> I would think that the overriding question for a libertarian would
>be to ACTIVELY want to protect citizens from interference of expression.
One reason why I'm in the MP ;-)
> I said that I have YET to se one who professes to be libertrian come
>to the support of the protesters, this includes John Dillinger.
I said they have a right to protest, what more do you want? You
appear to ignore that which does not fit your prejudice. Do I
support the protesters message, of course not. Why should I have to?
I don't "buy" the protesters message, if that's what you're getting
at. I don't particularly "buy" the regulated trade message given by
the Summit organizers either. What would you have me do, go to QC
and hold a sign saying "Libertarians support the right of Peaceful
Protest"? I don't recall any of these guys taking an active interest
in upholding any of my rights?
> You and Scummy pretty close are you?
I'm happy to discuss issues with anyone who cares to carry on a civil
discussion, whatever their political beliefs. SJ claims to be a
libertarian, and I do enjoy discussing issues with fellow
libertarians.
JD
Alex Curylo
nken...@seascape.ns.ca wrote on 4/19/01 1:47 PM:
> Get that John, not ONE who calls himself libertarian will step up.
Well, I call myself that, although a lot more pragmatic than ideological.
What bee is in your bonnet exactly about Québec?
--
Alex Curylo -- al...@witty.com -- http://alexc.webjump.com/
"The secret of reaping the greatest fruitfulness and the greatest
enjoyment from life is to live dangerously." -- Friedrich Nietzsche
nkennedy
Curylo
If you have to ask you failed the test, You don't give a fiddler's fuck
about the rights of Canadian citizens who are in Quebec to protest the
sell out of the nation state. We will still have the state, but now
responsible only to business.
Next...
Neil K
Alan Baker
nkennedy <nken...@seascape.ns.ca> wrote:
And I repeat: In what specific ways have the rights of those who want to
protest against this potential free trade agreement been violated?
Or are you just a lot of bluster?
Alex Curylo
nken...@seascape.ns.ca wrote on 4/19/01 8:05 PM:
> If you have to ask you failed the test, You don't give a fiddler's fuck
> about the rights of Canadian citizens who are in Quebec to protest the
> sell out of the nation state.
No, as a matter of fact I don't; but how not giving a fiddler's fuck about
what a pack of idiot rabble on the other side of the country are doing or
aren't doing makes me unlibertarian really does quite escape me. I'm
concerned about MY liberty, not theirs; I'll look out for me, and they can
look out for themselves, thank you very much.
... if I did give a fiddler's fuck about people's alleged rights to
protests, I'd be giving it about the Tibetans, or the Cuban opposition, or
people like that who actually ARE genuinely repressed, not a bunch of morons
yapping and whining about the very things that provide them with the
economic freedom to make fools of themselves like that in the first place.
So please explain how on earth it is that only people who give a fiddler's
fuck about what some greasy haired mouth breathing shambling nitwit in
Québec is doing or not doing qualify as libertarian, because I don't see it.
Way I look at it, if you want other people to stay the hell off your back
and are willing to extend them the same favor in return, you're a
libertarian.
But perhaps I am unduly simplistic.
--
Alex Curylo -- al...@witty.com -- http://alexc.webjump.com/
"http://homepage.mac.com/troll/ is a SCARY MOVIE."
-- 'The Nameless One'
nkennedy
Yeah, very good. Then from here on look after yourself, you don't
need, even the conversation of others.
You rat vomit lump.
Neil K
Right Said Jim
"Keith M." wrote:
> "Right Said Jim" <jimgir...@notsohotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:3ADF5C6C...@notsohotmail.com...
> > Your problem is that you are a leftist who feels that 'someone else'
> should
> > have to pay for all the wonderful social programs...
>
> Your problem is your a simple-minded moron who cant keep up with the
> dialogue underway by the two preceeding posters. Do you even know what a
> "leftist" is?
>
> Keith M.
>
> > nkennedy wrote:
> >
> > > "I've called myself libertarian since 1981. Go ahead, ask"John
> > > Dillinger
> > >
> > > To me it makes no difference, to stamp on anyone's basic freedom is
> > > vile.
> > > Does a French Majority in Quebec have a right to deny expression in
> > > another language? Certainly not.
> > > Does the federal government have the right to deny it citizens
> > > peaceful dissent regarding global economic structures. Certainly not.
> > > Do we have the right to say to someone "you can't say there were less
> > > than 6 million jews executed". Certainly not.
> > > I'm not a libertarian, but I'm closer to that creed than the
> > > pretenders here.
> > > Names like Deloney, Britton, Sheldon Scott, then the masked crud
> > > Smokin', sunnyjim. there are dozens of them.
> > > Although since the trade meeting in Quebec has come into view, many
> > > of them put their badges in their pocket.
> > > As a libertarian, where are you on the topics I broach
> > >
> > > Regards
> > > Neil K
> > > Neil
> >
do'nt think so@anytime.com Bernard
"Keith M." <vik...@escape.ca> wrote in message
news:EYMD6.1097$7Z3....@news1.mts.net...
>
> "Right Said Jim" <jimgir...@notsohotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:3ADF5C6C...@notsohotmail.com...
> > Your problem is that you are a leftist who feels that 'someone else'
> should
> > have to pay for all the wonderful social programs...
>
> Your problem is your a simple-minded moron who cant keep up with the
> dialogue underway by the two preceeding posters. Do you even know what a
> "leftist" is?
>
> Keith M.
>