From: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org (fegmaniax-digest) To: fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Subject: fegmaniax-digest V14 #139 Reply-To: fegmaniax@smoe.org Sender: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk fegmaniax-digest Friday, June 3 2005 Volume 14 : Number 139 Today's Subjects: ----------------- shit me baby one more time [BLATZMAN@aol.com] Re: Would it be sad if there were no cones? [Jeff ] Re: Pres Bush shat on from great height [Jeff ] Re: Pres Bush shat on from great height [Benjamin Lukoff ] Re: Pres Bush shat on from great height / Howl [Steve Schiavo ] Re: Pres Bush shat on from great height [Jason Brown ] Re: Now on the radar [Tom Clark ] Re: Now on the radar ["Jason R. Thornton" ] Re: Now on the radar [Eb ] Re: Pres Bush shat on from great height [Benjamin Lukoff ] Re: Pres Bush shat on from great height [Jeff ] Re: Pres Bush shat on from great height [FSThomas ] Re: Would it be sad if there were no cones? [Steve Schiavo ] Re: Pres Bush shat on from great height [Steve Schiavo ] Re: Pres Bush shat on from great height [Capuchin ] Re: Pres Bush shat on from great height [Capuchin ] Re: Pres Bush shat on from great height [Tom Clark ] Re: Pres Bush shat on from great height [Jason Brown ] Re: Pres Bush shat on from great height [Benjamin Lukoff ] Re: Pres Bush shat on from great height [Capuchin ] Re: Pres Bush shat on from great height [Capuchin ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 3 Jun 2005 11:50:19 EDT From: BLATZMAN@aol.com Subject: shit me baby one more time In a message dated 6/3/2005 8:30:50 A.M. US Mountain Standard Time, owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org writes: I know people who have committed crimes in order to go to jail and get medical treatment in the USA. The crazy things people do! I know people who have actually licked dog poop! One of my friends had a nice lunch of Friskies Buffet one day, then went around shouting "Fuckin A, Friskies Buffet!" for about a year Anyway, did anyone see that train-wreck of a show last night called "Hit Me Baby One More Time"? It's no secret that I love cheesy TV, but this show really made me feel like crap. To see the horrible joke of a frontman from Flock Of Seagulls come out and play I Ran made me feel so old. The guy CAN'T SING AT ALL!!!! And before anyone tells me "Well Duh", I just have to say that you never really know who has a legitimate voice these days. This guy sounded like a horrible impersonation of the Seagulls... Not only that, but all the guys were old and fat, and it made me feel pretty stupid, as I had just got home from working on my new CD at my friend's house... Anyway... the show was just pathetic, and since the prize was a dumb check to the charity of choice for the winner, there really was no tension in the show... Ugh Blatzy ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 3 Jun 2005 11:00:39 -0500 From: Jeff Subject: Re: Would it be sad if there were no cones? On 6/3/05, Gene Hopstetter, Jr. wrote: > MP3 link: > > http://tinyurl.com/18r > > GTO's - Wouldn't It Be Sad If There Were No Cones? - Pamela Des > Barres and her 60's uber-groupies supergroup The GTOs wax accapella > on their love-hate relationship with cones. > > via wfmu.org. The TinyURL link comes up blank for me. Scrabbling around the WFMU site, I can only come up with a RealAudio (i.e., crap) link to that track. If this is truly an mp3, could you repost with the evil, long link in so it works? Thanks mucho... - -- ...Jeff The Architectural Dance Society http://spanghew.blogspot.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 3 Jun 2005 10:27:29 -0700 From: Tom Clark Subject: Re: Pres Bush shat on from great height On Jun 2, 2005, at 9:09 PM, Benjamin Lukoff wrote: > It should be pointed out that Clinton *did* lie under oath about his > affair with Lewinsky, which is technically a crime. Of all the > things Bush > and his cronies have done, I don't know if any of them are technically > criminal... > Downing St. Memo, anybody? "The Foreign Secretary said he would discuss this with Colin Powell this week. It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran. We should work up a plan for an ultimatum to Saddam to allow back in the UN weapons inspectors. This would also help with the legal justification for the use of force." "The Attorney-General said that the desire for regime change was not a legal base for military action. There were three possible legal bases: self-defence, humanitarian intervention, or UNSC authorisation. The first and second could not be the base in this case. Relying on UNSCR 1205 of three years ago would be difficult. The situation might of course change." Granted it's not as black and white as "I did not have sex with that woman...", but geez... - -tc ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 3 Jun 2005 13:02:34 -0500 From: Jeff Subject: Re: Pres Bush shat on from great height On 6/3/05, Tom Clark wrote: > On Jun 2, 2005, at 9:09 PM, Benjamin Lukoff wrote: > > > It should be pointed out that Clinton *did* lie under oath about his > > affair with Lewinsky, which is technically a crime. Of all the > > things Bush > > and his cronies have done, I don't know if any of them are technically > > criminal... > > > > Downing St. Memo, anybody? > Granted it's not as black and white as "I did not have sex with that > woman...", but geez... And of course, it also resulted in far-less momentous events - I mean, c'mon, what are thousands of dead Iraqis compared to a *cum-stained dress in the Oval Office*? And there's the little, rather-older matter of W's National Guard non-service... I don't suppose (if we're arguing the criminality of Bush & Cheney) we should bring up their arrest records on DUI charges, multiple times each, should we? Nah, because that would be even more trivial than extra-marital relations - although, again, rather more endangering of others' safety than unconventional cigar usage. - -- ...Jeff The Architectural Dance Society http://spanghew.blogspot.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 3 Jun 2005 11:15:44 -0700 (PDT) From: Benjamin Lukoff Subject: Re: Pres Bush shat on from great height On Fri, 3 Jun 2005, Jeff wrote: > And of course, it also resulted in far-less momentous events - I mean, > c'mon, what are thousands of dead Iraqis compared to a *cum-stained > dress in the Oval Office*? Don't get me wrong. I think Bush and Cheney are far, far worse than Clinton. I guess I'm just playing a bit of devil's advocate. Say what you will about Bush and Cheney, they seem to have been playing things pretty carefully in terms of exposing themselves to impeachment. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 3 Jun 2005 11:37:52 -0700 From: Eb Subject: Re: Would it be sad if there were no cones? > GTO's - Wouldn't It Be Sad If There Were No Cones? - Pamela Des > Barres and her 60's uber-groupies supergroup The GTOs wax accapella > on their love-hate relationship with cones. I have that collectable morsel on CD...the URL didn't work for me either, but be advised that their "cones" are a type of undesirable, lecherous man rather than actual CONE-cones.... Note: My only other cone songs are King Missile's "World War 3 Is a Giant Ice Cream Cone" and Michael Penn's "Disneys a Snow Cone." I'm seeing Of Montreal tonight. Eb np: The Books/Lost and Safe ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 3 Jun 2005 13:55:39 -0500 From: Steve Schiavo Subject: Re: Pres Bush shat on from great height / Howl Rather than shit, how about a RFG (Rod From God, for those not keeping up). Unnervingly close to a BFG, isn't it. But enough of that, looks like Howl's Moving Castle will be getting an art house release in the US next Friday, and a bit more the Friday after that. Thanks to lang - Steve ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 3 Jun 2005 15:30:39 -0400 From: wojizzle forizzle Subject: Re: Would it be sad if there were no cones? one time at band camp, Gene Hopstetter, Jr. (ghopstet@darwin.sfbr.org) said: >GTO's - Wouldn't It Be Sad If There Were No Cones? - Pamela Des >Barres and her 60's uber-groupies supergroup The GTOs wax accapella >on their love-hate relationship with cones. hah! i meant to post that yesterday but had no time. the link from the tinyurl-impaired: http://blogfiles.wfmu.org/BL/0506/GTOs_-_Wouldnt_It_Be_Sad_If_There_Were_No_Cones.mp3 +w ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 3 Jun 2005 13:35:45 -0500 From: Jeff Subject: Re: Pres Bush shat on from great height On 6/3/05, Benjamin Lukoff wrote: > On Fri, 3 Jun 2005, Jeff wrote: > > > And of course, it also resulted in far-less momentous events - I mean, > > c'mon, what are thousands of dead Iraqis compared to a *cum-stained > > dress in the Oval Office*? > > Don't get me wrong. I think Bush and Cheney are far, far worse than > Clinton. I guess I'm just playing a bit of devil's advocate. Say what you > will about Bush and Cheney, they seem to have been playing things pretty > carefully in terms of exposing themselves to impeachment. Of course they haven't been hauled into court to testify on whatever the prosecutor happens to think of. For example: the equivalent of the Clinton sex thing would be asking Bush, under oath, if and when he used cocaine. In other words, we only *think* Clinton was less cautious because in hindsight (had he known he was going to be asked under oath) we can see that he should've been. Put Bush and Dick under oath, and see what comes squirming out. Anyway, funny you should mention the "I-word": . The main thing, though, is the weakness (both practically and temperamentally) of the Democrats. I'll give the right-wingers one thing: they're tenacious, and they refuse to back down under pressure, even public pressure. That may have hurt them, and may continue to do so, but it also allows them to portray themselves as having and sticking to principles (unlike the Dems), which appeals to a lot of people. (Of course, *Hitler* had princi...oops, Godwin's Law!) The right-wingers spent a hell of a lot political capital with their teeth firmly chomped into Clinton's ass-cheeks, and indeed Clinton's public approval ratings were high throughout the whole thing - but it still forced Clinton to respond to them rather than push through his agenda (which probably was a good thing: I'm no fan of Clinton, even if I do think that whole mess was unfair and overblown). I don't want the Dems, or any opposition, to be as ruthless or vicious as the right-wing was then - but some conviction in walking even slightly against the wind of public opinion might be nice once in a while. - -- ...Jeff The Architectural Dance Society http://spanghew.blogspot.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 3 Jun 2005 11:39:05 -0700 From: Jason Brown Subject: Re: Pres Bush shat on from great height > > Granted it's not as black and white as "I did not have sex with that > > woman...", but geez... > > And of course, it also resulted in far-less momentous events - I mean, > c'mon, what are thousands of dead Iraqis compared to a *cum-stained > dress in the Oval Office*? I think its really funny that after beating up on Mark Felt for being a traitor, conservatives are now saying Linda Tripp should be a hero too. > And there's the little, rather-older matter of W's National Guard > non-service... I don't suppose (if we're arguing the criminality of > Bush & Cheney) we should bring up their arrest records on DUI charges, > multiple times each, should we? Nah, because that would be even more > trivial than extra-marital relations - although, again, rather more > endangering of others' safety than unconventional cigar usage. Considering the fact the National Guard and DUI stuff all happened before they were in the White House. There is some material difference between those misdeeds and Clinton's. But neither are in the same universe of wrongness as the misdeeds Bush has committed as President. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 3 Jun 2005 12:47:25 -0700 From: Eb Subject: Now on the radar The same day the "Deep Throat" story broke, I Googled "W. Mark Felt." 300 page links. Today, there are 72,600. Eep. Eb ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 3 Jun 2005 13:32:52 -0700 From: Tom Clark Subject: Re: Now on the radar On Jun 3, 2005, at 12:47 PM, Eb wrote: > The same day the "Deep Throat" story broke, I Googled "W. Mark > Felt." 300 page links. > > Today, there are 72,600. Eep. > Probably including Pat Buchanan's smear piece from today's papers. btw, Woodward's Washington Post story yesterday was pretty fascinating. I did a Google Image Search for "Deep Throat" and...well I guess you can imagine what popped up. - -tc ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 03 Jun 2005 13:33:27 -0700 From: "Jason R. Thornton" Subject: Re: Now on the radar At 12:47 PM 6/3/2005 -0700, Eb wrote: >The same day the "Deep Throat" story broke, I Googled "W. Mark Felt." 300 >page links. This sounds like a great excuse to Image-Google "Deep Throat" the rest of the day. - --Jason "Only the few know the sweetness of the twisted apples." - Sherwood Anderson ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 3 Jun 2005 13:41:28 -0700 From: Eb Subject: Re: Now on the radar Tom Clark wrote: > I did a Google Image Search for "Deep Throat" and...well I guess you > can imagine what popped up. Now there's a gruesome double-entendre. Eb ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 3 Jun 2005 14:16:53 -0700 (PDT) From: Benjamin Lukoff Subject: Re: Pres Bush shat on from great height On Fri, 3 Jun 2005, Jeff wrote: > Of course they haven't been hauled into court to testify on whatever > the prosecutor happens to think of. For example: the equivalent of the > Clinton sex thing would be asking Bush, under oath, if and when he > used cocaine. In other words, we only *think* Clinton was less > cautious because in hindsight (had he known he was going to be asked > under oath) we can see that he should've been. Put Bush and Dick under > oath, and see what comes squirming out. That's the point--Bush and Cheney will do everything they can to avoid being put under oath, I think. They sure didn't go under oath for the 9/11 investigation (what did Bush say, he'd be happy to 'visit' with the commission?). > The main thing, though, is the weakness (both practically and > temperamentally) of the Democrats. I'll give the right-wingers one > thing: they're tenacious, and they refuse to back down under pressure, Yep. I saw a petition to impeach Bush circulate last year and it was a sad, silly mess. Holes so big in it you could drive a semi through 'em. > even public pressure. That may have hurt them, and may continue to do > so, but it also allows them to portray themselves as having and > sticking to principles (unlike the Dems), which appeals to a lot of I do think it's a hell of a lot easier for the Republicans to articulate their principles than the Democrats. What *are* the Democrats' principles, anyway? Of course neither one can fit their principles on the back of their membership card like the Libertarians: "We hold that all individuals have the right to exercise sole dominion over their own lives, and have the right to live in whatever manner they choose, so long as they do not forcibly interfere with the equal right of others to live in whatever manner they choose." ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 3 Jun 2005 14:25:57 -0700 From: Jason Brown Subject: Re: Pres Bush shat on from great height > I do think it's a hell of a lot easier for the Republicans to articulate > their principles than the Democrats. What *are* the Democrats' > principles, anyway? Government can help individuals better their own lives and all individuals are entitled to equal civil rights. Of course it gets awfully twisted in reality. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 3 Jun 2005 16:58:23 -0500 From: Jeff Subject: Re: Now on the radar On 6/3/05, Eb wrote: > Tom Clark wrote: > > I did a Google Image Search for "Deep Throat" and...well I guess you > > can imagine what popped up. > > Now there's a gruesome double-entendre. Grew some? I should say so! - -- ...Jeff The Architectural Dance Society http://spanghew.blogspot.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 3 Jun 2005 17:10:54 -0500 From: Jeff Subject: Re: Pres Bush shat on from great height On 6/3/05, Benjamin Lukoff wrote: > > Of course neither one can fit their principles on the back of their > membership card like the Libertarians: "We hold that all individuals have > the right to exercise sole dominion over their own lives, and have the > right to live in whatever manner they choose, so long as they do not > forcibly interfere with the equal right of others to live in whatever > manner they choose." That's nice...and then pesky reality rudely butts in and asks nasty questions - like, "what's 'forcibly'?" and "what's 'interfere'?" and "does 'sole dominion' apply to children? marital partners? employees? prisoners?" Pursue each of those questions (and others) and you can probably trace your way to most laws that exist, in their attempts to parse the meaning of such terms and compromise between untrammeled individualism and the fact that people live with other people but have a right to be (reasonably) left alone. As an aside: it's sadly typical (of Americans, at least) that anyone would think any particular virtue accrues to being able to compress one's principles to a single-sentence statement. Why should that be? The world is complex; principles need to be complex to effectively deal with it. - -- ...Jeff The Architectural Dance Society http://spanghew.blogspot.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 03 Jun 2005 18:14:06 -0400 From: FSThomas Subject: Re: Pres Bush shat on from great height Jason wrote: > Government can help individuals better their own lives That has *got* to be one of the most piss-my-pants frightening thing I've read. - -f. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 3 Jun 2005 17:24:25 -0500 From: Steve Schiavo Subject: Re: Would it be sad if there were no cones? On Jun 3, 2005, at 1:37 PM, Eb wrote: > I'm seeing Of Montreal tonight. The Sunlandic Twins makes me think of Tom Tom Club, not that that's a bad thing. - - Steve ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 3 Jun 2005 17:25:32 -0500 From: Jeff Subject: Re: Pres Bush shat on from great height On 6/3/05, FSThomas wrote: > Jason wrote: > > Government can help individuals better their own lives > > That has *got* to be one of the most piss-my-pants frightening thing > I've read. What, were you traumatized by someone wearing a Nixon mask on Halloween when you were a kid? Why can every other form of organization people might form have the possibility of improving people's lives...but to say that government is one of them causes you to ruin and be forced to replenish your wardrobe? Paranoid much? Government - like any other powerful organization - needs to be carefully watched lest it abuse its power. But it's precisely that power that *can* make it a force for good - esp. if (pardon my horrible idealism) it's a representative government actually reflecting the wishes of the people comprising it. (Or did you misread: "government can help individuals better than they can their own lives" or something?) Now, if Jason had written "monkeys can help people better their own lives," that's a piddle-maker. - -- ...Jeff The Architectural Dance Society http://spanghew.blogspot.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 3 Jun 2005 17:31:22 -0500 From: Steve Schiavo Subject: Re: Pres Bush shat on from great height > Jason wrote: > >> Government can help individuals better their own lives On Jun 3, 2005, at 5:14 PM, FSThomas wrote: > That has *got* to be one of the most piss-my-pants frightening > thing I've read. Hey, it's not like you're living in the state of nature. - - Steve ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 3 Jun 2005 18:36:50 -0400 From: Steve Talkowski Subject: Re: Now on the radar On Jun 3, 2005, at 4:41 PM, Eb wrote: > Tom Clark wrote: > >> I did a Google Image Search for "Deep Throat" and...well I guess >> you can imagine what popped up. >> > > Now there's a gruesome double-entendre. I'm curious to see how parents are addressing the question from their kids, "Mommy/Daddy, what's a deep throat?" Looking forward to The McLaughlin Group this Sunday for sure... - -Steve ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 3 Jun 2005 16:02:28 -0700 (PDT) From: Capuchin Subject: Re: Pres Bush shat on from great height On Fri, 3 Jun 2005, Benjamin Lukoff wrote: > Of course neither one can fit their principles on the back of their > membership card like the Libertarians: "We hold that all individuals > have the right to exercise sole dominion over their own lives, and have > the right to live in whatever manner they choose, so long as they do not > forcibly interfere with the equal right of others to live in whatever > manner they choose." Well, they can only say that because they don't mean it. For instance, adhering to this principle would deny private property rights (as it requires forcible interference with the rights of others to live in the manner they choose). J. - -- _______________________________________________ Capuchin capuchin@bitmine.net Jeme A Brelin ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 3 Jun 2005 16:04:14 -0700 (PDT) From: Capuchin Subject: Re: Pres Bush shat on from great height On Fri, 3 Jun 2005, FSThomas wrote: > Jason wrote: >> Government can help individuals better their own lives > > That has *got* to be one of the most piss-my-pants frightening thing > I've read. And yet you rely on it every day. If it weren't for a governing body and armed enforcement division, you wouldn't be able to have so much while others have so little. Personally, I'm a big fan of public agencies and not so much a fan of government. J. - -- _______________________________________________ Capuchin capuchin@bitmine.net Jeme A Brelin ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 3 Jun 2005 16:11:01 -0700 From: Tom Clark Subject: Re: Pres Bush shat on from great height On Jun 3, 2005, at 4:02 PM, Capuchin wrote: > On Fri, 3 Jun 2005, Benjamin Lukoff wrote: > >> Of course neither one can fit their principles on the back of >> their membership card like the Libertarians: "We hold that all >> individuals have the right to exercise sole dominion over their >> own lives, and have the right to live in whatever manner they >> choose, so long as they do not forcibly interfere with the equal >> right of others to live in whatever manner they choose." >> > > Well, they can only say that because they don't mean it. > > For instance, adhering to this principle would deny private > property rights (as it requires forcible interference with the > rights of others to live in the manner they choose). I think their response to that would be "that's what shotguns are for" - -tc ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 3 Jun 2005 16:11:31 -0700 From: Jason Brown Subject: Re: Pres Bush shat on from great height > Personally, I'm a big fan of public agencies and not so much a fan of > government. Care to explain that idea further? Because it sounds rather ass-headed. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 3 Jun 2005 16:30:32 -0700 From: Eb Subject: Re: Replicants or Decemberists? Jason Brown wrote: >> Personally, I'm a big fan of public agencies and not so much a fan of >> government. > > Care to explain that idea further? Because it sounds rather > ass-headed. I'd just like to re-caution subscribers that if they ask Jeme questions, he's likely to answer. Eb ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 3 Jun 2005 16:54:20 -0700 (PDT) From: Benjamin Lukoff Subject: Re: Pres Bush shat on from great height On Fri, 3 Jun 2005, Capuchin wrote: > On Fri, 3 Jun 2005, Benjamin Lukoff wrote: > > Of course neither one can fit their principles on the back of their > > membership card like the Libertarians: "We hold that all individuals > > have the right to exercise sole dominion over their own lives, and have > > the right to live in whatever manner they choose, so long as they do not > > forcibly interfere with the equal right of others to live in whatever > > manner they choose." > > Well, they can only say that because they don't mean it. > > For instance, adhering to this principle would deny private property > rights (as it requires forcible interference with the rights of others to > live in the manner they choose). How many people actually don't want private property of their own? ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 3 Jun 2005 19:14:46 -0500 From: Jeff Subject: Re: Pres Bush shat on from great height On 6/3/05, Benjamin Lukoff wrote: > On Fri, 3 Jun 2005, Capuchin wrote: > > > On Fri, 3 Jun 2005, Benjamin Lukoff wrote: > > > Of course neither one can fit their principles on the back of their > > > membership card like the Libertarians: "We hold that all individuals > > > have the right to exercise sole dominion over their own lives, and have > > > the right to live in whatever manner they choose, so long as they do not > > > forcibly interfere with the equal right of others to live in whatever > > > manner they choose." > > > > Well, they can only say that because they don't mean it. > > > > For instance, adhering to this principle would deny private property > > rights (as it requires forcible interference with the rights of others to > > live in the manner they choose). > > How many people actually don't want private property of their own? I believe it's more a question that people want as their own private property stuff that already belongs to someone else (or to everyone else). The concept of "private property" is inextricable from law. (Many cultures, of course, have no such concept.) I mean, how would the libertarians adjudicate between competing property claims? (I'm thinking, say, in the old, "unsettled" west...leaving aside for now the rather problematic-for-this-argument presence of the native population.) Chronological precedence? Sez who? Bob West claims 100 acres from a house he built in the southwestern corner of same; Bob East claims 100 acres (50 of which overlap West's claim) starting from the house he built in the northeastern corner of *his* claimed land. Who came first? How did either know that the land wasn't already "claimed"? Well, sez someone, West put up a fence. But in patrolling his bounds, he was unaware that shortly after he passed point X one day, a passing elk knocked the fence over, and a flashflood washed away the slats. Meanwhile, what West didn't know when he put up his fence was that East had already done the same - and damned if the same troublesome elk, and another flashflood, had washed away *his* fence beforehand. No one can prove who came first (even though I think I set it up that East is first here). So either you invent something like a government - - or the two of 'em just shoot it out, in which case all claims to "law" or "morality" or anything else boil down to sheer force. That is to say, private property rights are rooted in the existence of a government, to hold temporary and collective claim over land until deed and title can be established. Now, I'm not a lawyer - but I'm pretty sure it's something like that; and not a shining gold god of the market that proclaims a particular patch of land a certain individual's private property. - -- ...Jeff The Architectural Dance Society http://spanghew.blogspot.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 3 Jun 2005 17:19:22 -0700 (PDT) From: Capuchin Subject: Re: Pres Bush shat on from great height On Fri, 3 Jun 2005, Tom Clark wrote: > On Jun 3, 2005, at 4:02 PM, Capuchin wrote: >> On Fri, 3 Jun 2005, Benjamin Lukoff wrote: >>> Of course neither one can fit their principles on the back of their >>> membership card like the Libertarians: "We hold that all individuals have >>> the right to exercise sole dominion over their own lives, and have the >>> right to live in whatever manner they choose, so long as they do not >>> forcibly interfere with the equal right of others to live in whatever >>> manner they choose." >> >> Well, they can only say that because they don't mean it. >> >> For instance, adhering to this principle would deny private property >> rights (as it requires forcible interference with the rights of others >> to live in the manner they choose). > > I think their response to that would be "that's what shotguns are for" Right. Cause that's not forcible at all. J. - -- _______________________________________________ Capuchin capuchin@bitmine.net Jeme A Brelin ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 3 Jun 2005 17:23:21 -0700 (PDT) From: Capuchin Subject: Re: Pres Bush shat on from great height On Fri, 3 Jun 2005, Jason Brown wrote: >> Personally, I'm a big fan of public agencies and not so much a fan of >> government. > > Care to explain that idea further? Because it sounds rather ass-headed. Can't imagine why. Government governs -- guides, controls, steers, etc. Public agencies administer the public will. You don't have to govern to administer the public will. Helping folks get medical care is not government. Stopping folks from eating a meal without paying is government (and is often handled by armed thugs). J. - -- _______________________________________________ Capuchin capuchin@bitmine.net Jeme A Brelin ------------------------------ End of fegmaniax-digest V14 #139 ********************************