Recent comments

Darkcrusade 7 years 20 weeks ago
In reply to: Professional Atheist Richard Dawkins: Christianity's Bad but Islam is Worse
Web link by: KenK

Professional statist Dick Dawkins is a hypocrite. The statist religion has murdered,imprisoned and terrorized more than any (non)-entity you may name. He sets up a straw man to knock down. Hey,it's the lesser of two-evils, Right? A quibble about definitions. A Christian would be someone who follows Christ. Christiandom, is the devils attempt at subverting those followers, by a joinder with the State. Remember who controlls the kingdoms of this world? Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them; 9And saith unto him, All these things will I give thee, if thou wilt fall down and worship me. 10Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve. Do you remember all of the Christians who were put to death in the Roman Empire? They were not put to death because they were Christians. In Rome, you could believe anything you wanted to believe, just as long as you swore by the genius of Caesar; just as long as you said, 'Caesar is Lord.' Christians were put to death not because they were Christians, but because they were called traitors and treasonous individuals, because they would not swear allegiance to the State. All down through history, Christians have been put to death because they said, 'Jesus Christ is Lord.' For the Christian, it is idolatry, which above all else, constitutes treason to the social order. We know, and we believe, that God is True and His Word is True. Disobedience and unfaithfulness to God is idolatry; it is treason. "Christianity in its true sense puts an end to the State. It was so understood from its very beginning, and also for that Christ was crucified." The martyrs of the christians,a derogatory term at the time,grew true christianity in the face of terrible persecutions. This distressed Constantine, something had to be done or else the TRUTHS of this christianity cult MAY TAKE OVER THE WORLD PEACEABLY. If you cannot destroy from the outside,you infiltrate. Modern day imperial government knows the lesson well. The Scriptures have a few themes that seem to run from beginning to end. One happens to be The rejection of God for the creation imperial government. Could even the very elect be deceived? I know precious few(the remnant) who call themselves Christians, who are not dyed in the wool Statists. God made man. Man hates God. Man made Government. The creation(government) now rules over the creator.(man) No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon. God commands to have no one before him, for he is jealous. Man says ''I will have your first-fruits. You are my slave.'' God commands thou shall not kill. Man says ''Sally forth and spread my statist religion with the edge of a sword.'' It is always interesting to go back, and look again at the Ten Commandments and see which things God says actually are transcendant. What do we find there? As far as obligation and responsibility goes, the story looks like this. First Commandment: Our primary obligation is to God; all other obligations are secondary. Second Commandment: We must worship God and avoid the worship of all idols and secondary commitments. Third Commandment: God says that we may not empty the worship of God of meaning. Fourth Commandment: God has made a day of worship for us to spend with Him; we must keep it. We must not cause others to work on this day. Fifth commandment: God says that we have an obligation to our immediate family. Sixth Commandment: God says that we have a commitment to our fellow men not to kill them. Seventh Commandment: God says that we have a definite commitment to our spouse and to other married couples. Eighth Commandment: God says that we have an obligation to respect the property rights of others. Ninth Commandment: God says that we have an obligation to deal with other people truthfully and to guard their reputations. Tenth Commandment: God says that we are not to desire the spouses or possessions of others. And so, a look at the Ten Commandments reveals three circles of commitments: (1) To God first. (2) To our spouse and other couples, and to our immediate familiy. (3) To our fellow man, in not killing him, telling untruths about him, stealing from him, or causing him to work on Sabbath. Commitment to national units is nowhere to be found: not in the Ten Commandments; not in the teachings of Jesus; not in the teachings of Paul, or anywhere else in the New Testament. What are Christ's words that no one in ChristianDUMB can find these day? Christ Jesus has said; “And he said unto them, The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and they that exercise authority upon them are called benefactors.21 Luke 22:25 ..."But ye shall not be so." Jesus said in Matthew 20:25 “But Ye know that the princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them, and they that are great exercise authority upon them. But it shall not be so among you Mar 10:42 But Jesus called them [to him], and saith unto them, Ye know that they which are accounted to rule over the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and their great ones exercise authority upon them. Mar 10:43 But so shall it not be among you Will you accept Christ Jesus's words? Or will you compromise the incorrect interpretation of romans13,that keeps one floundering in the morass of cognitive dissonance. Romans 13 was Hitlers favorite verse. Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law. For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law. Romans 13:8-10 (no tax,no tribute,no voting,as that is a trespass and a violence to your neighbors.) Mat 7:12 Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets. and Mat 22:37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. Mat 22:38 This is the first and great commandment. Mat 22:39 And the second [is] like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. Mat 22:40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets. (No room for a Government of rulers here.) The next verses are prophetic and point to the rulers(kings) and their creatures(corporations,merchants) and how we should ''come out of the mystery babylon.'') Rev 18:3 For all nations have drunk of the wine of the wrath of her fornication, and the kings of the earth have committed fornication with her, and the merchants of the earth are waxed rich through the abundance of her delicacies. Rev 18:4 And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues. + 2Cr 6:17 Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean [thing]; and I will receive you, 2Cr 6:18 And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty
KenK 7 years 20 weeks ago
In reply to: Oregon Fire Chief Catches FBI Agents Posing as Militia – Quits His Job in Protest
Web link by: Melinda L. Secor

Feds trying to whip up an incident to justify the impending Waco conclusion. WTF is this "town armory" thing? Dont know of any towns in America that stockpile arms & ammo.
KenK 7 years 20 weeks ago
In reply to: Professional Atheist Richard Dawkins: Christianity's Bad but Islam is Worse
Web link by: KenK

Good for Dawkins. Except for the late Mr. Hitchens none of other so-called iconoclast evangelical atheists don't say sh*t about religious denominations except for Christians. Judaism, Hindus, Muslims nadda. Very little honesty in public debate any more. Maybe it's fear of ostracism or in the case of Muslims injury or death.
D. Saul Weiner 7 years 20 weeks ago
In reply to: Professional Atheist Richard Dawkins: Christianity's Bad but Islam is Worse
Web link by: KenK

I agree with that, but don't you think that many U.S. Christian churches are CURRENTLY just as death-crazed, except that they are expressing such a mentality through honoring and supporting the members of the armed forces, an avenue which is considered more civilized than shouting in street demonstrations and supporting acts of non-state terrorism?
ReverendDraco 7 years 20 weeks ago
In reply to: Professional Atheist Richard Dawkins: Christianity's Bad but Islam is Worse
Web link by: KenK

Islam, being the younger religion, is still going through the growth stages. . . Christianity was just as violent, just as death-crazed and misogynist as modern Islam - it was just 500 or so years ago instead of RIGHT F'N NOW! How do people think that the Dark Ages came to be? Rainbows and unicorn farts?
D. Saul Weiner 7 years 20 weeks ago
In reply to: Professional Atheist Richard Dawkins: Christianity's Bad but Islam is Worse
Web link by: KenK

I have nothing positive to say about the way that Islam is practiced in many parts of the world. But I would note that it does not seem to promote abominable behavior everywhere. In the U.S., it seems to be practiced quite peacefully. And while we may not associate Christianity with suicide-bombers and overt misogyny, there are plenty of Christian warmongers who have done much more to promote death and destruction worldwide (via the vehicle of the State) than freelance Muslims will ever likely accomplish. But again, I would not generalize to Christianity in total here, since there are also peace-loving Christians and sects of Christianity. It is too bad that Dawkins (and so many other Statists, who think that they are Atheists) can't grasp this reality.
KenK 7 years 20 weeks ago
In reply to: You Won’t Be Able To Tell Where Your Meat Comes From Now, Thanks To Congress
Web link by: Melinda L. Secor

Gratuitous advice. Learn to hunt & fish. Gutting & scaling fish is easy, as are birds. Because you never know when the Dear Leader is gonna classify all the little meat stores and cattle operation kulaks, and shut em down.
KenK 7 years 20 weeks ago
In reply to: You Won’t Be Able To Tell Where Your Meat Comes From Now, Thanks To Congress
Web link by: Melinda L. Secor

I get most of mine from longtime family owned meat store that butcher & prepares it themselves. I trust them to do it right & have never had a problem in over a decade of patronage. So it can be done. Whole Foods sells meat tho it's pricey.
mjackso6 7 years 20 weeks ago
In reply to: The State of the Nation: A Dictatorship Without Tears
Web link by: Westernerd

A lot of good, if depressing points, but at the end, this author shied away from the obvious conclusion as nearly all others seem to do. After illustrating the pitfalls of government very clearly, instead of taking the obvious leap, Anarchy, he defaults to the tired old trope of minarchy. That's what the founders set up in the first place, and the Constitution was their best effort to boilerplate it shut. That lasted all of about "four-score and seven years", so what makes ~anyone~ think another cleverly worded document can do better? Remember, Anarchy is an absence of ~rulers~, not an absence of rules or order.
John deLaubenfels 7 years 21 weeks ago
In reply to: You Won’t Be Able To Tell Where Your Meat Comes From Now, Thanks To Congress
Web link by: Melinda L. Secor

Is this Strike-The-Root, or has it changed to some kind of socialist daily? Real libertarians don't support government-mandated labeling.
nost8r 7 years 21 weeks ago
In reply to: You Won’t Be Able To Tell Where Your Meat Comes From Now, Thanks To Congress
Web link by: Melinda L. Secor

You can still know where your meat comes from. It's just more work. You have to seek out local, open farmers. Talk to them, volunteer at their farm, get to know them. They are our future.
KenK 7 years 21 weeks ago
In reply to: New ATF Guidance on Gun Sales is Legally Meaningless (or else it would be unlawful)
Web link by: KenK

In other words Obama's EO changes nothing legally. Before his reign ends tho there will probably be some highly publicized selevtive raids, arrests, & prosecutions for unlicensed sales in order to cause FUD
Samarami 7 years 21 weeks ago
In reply to: The Libertarian Position on Immigration
Page by: Hogeye Bill

Intended to address Terry Hulsey's comments regarding "intellectuals". So I'll make a second comment: Gary North had an excellent essay regarding the intellectual mentality some years ago. You can read it here: https://www.lewrockwell.com/2011/03/gary-north/those-lying-textbooks/ Sam
Samarami 7 years 21 weeks ago
In reply to: The Libertarian Position on Immigration
Page by: Hogeye Bill

Interesting interchange. My take is that once "we" embark upon the daunting task of "libertarian" (or "anarchist" for that matter) "theory", we lose the ability to divest from collectivism. Freedom sidesteps theory. Terry Hulsey: "...ownership...of free land would be determined by whom?..." Exactly. We had a participant a couple years ago on this forum that got himself thrown off (I think -- anyhow he abruptly disappeared). "White Indian". I liked White Indian because he was crazy (like me). And he "thunk". Injun was the nemesis of the "theorists". He and I both fit what one judge once diagnosed me: pathological nonconformist. Injun harped on the idea of land ownership from the standpoint of the original settlers in this land-of-the-free. Hundreds -- perhaps thousands -- of years ago. They were tribes with chiefs and with medicine men who were revered (just like politics -- the state -- is rather worshiped today by the white man). They formed no central political authorities charged with "determining" who owned the land upon which they hunted and they gathered herbs. They were mostly migratory. The white man labeled the various tribes and groups of tribes "nations". That was the white man's only mentality. He could not divest from collectivism either. But the natives of this part of the world did not fit the general category of "nation". They had no formally defined "borders". Where men and their families set up their tepees were their homes. Until it was time to move to where the wildlife had migrated for the season. And fight -- they fought like a bunch of libertarians, as I understand history. They fought among themselves over wells and buffalo herds and hunting grounds, but not "borders". That was the white man's purveyance -- forming political alliances and defining borders. And fighting wars. And taxing "citizens" (producers). And determining who could live where and travel where, etc etc etc. Oh White Indian, where art thou? Sam
Terry Hulsey 7 years 22 weeks ago
In reply to: The Libertarian Position on Immigration
Page by: Hogeye Bill

Mr. Hogeye, Your article for unrestricted free immigration rests on two propositions: * That radicals for property would limit free speech; * That radicals for property living in a world where states exist wrongly assume that the state can be proxy landowners for taxpayers, or anyone. On the first head, I do state that radicalizing property rights to abolish public property would revolutionize the meaning of free speech. First of all, as no one realizes, the intellectual would cease to exist. The intellectual is an institutional construct of a world of partially public, partially private ownership. His sole function is to be the advocate of how public property is to be disposed. In the absence of public property, he would be replaced by the (privately-funded) expert or by the scholar, whether working as an amateur or on behalf of some school. A discussion such as the one we are having would only have the status of a pleasant conversation among friends, with no bearing on the determination of public policy. Regarding the second head, it's possible that a lost bundle of cash that was originally stolen may not have a titled owner. This is not the case for most, and possibly all, federal land, since the original owners are a matter of historical record. But let's assume for argument that there exists at least some land without clear title. Both sides want to avoid the irresolution of an unending, and possibly violent, search of history for the "rightful owners," which would do nothing but spawn a blab fest over the meaning of "rightful." Let's grant the wish of those who want to return this land to homestead status. Ownership after this rush of "Sooners" into this bonanza of free land would be determined by whom? Immediately rejected by both sides is the possibility that the state can claim property in its own right. That leaves only two possibilities: Either determination is by the state as proxy for yet-to-be-settled owners, or there is no determination at all. In the latter case, the contending homesteaders would be left to "settle it among themselves" as to who got there first. It is puerile fantasy, in the current context, to assume that they would have their insurance agents or private security firms sit down to tea and crumpets for a polite resolution of the matter. (This truth does not denigrate the natural evolution of such agents in a longer context.) Therefore the only reasonable possibility is that a proxy state, without right to property of its own, would determine ownership on behalf of others to whom it would give title, peacefully fixed and assured. This same argument for a proxy state applies to all current policy matters, until the state can be replaced by anarchic institutions.
Paul 7 years 23 weeks ago
In reply to: The Libertarian Position on Immigration
Page by: Hogeye Bill

'land illegitimately held by government belongs to a collective of “taxpayers” who are the “true owners.” ' I too think Hoppe is wrong here, but (perhaps) not quite in the way you do. There is nothing wrong with the notion of "collectively-owned" land. In a free society, a town may own the town square collectively, with each of the townspeople (if they want) a shareholder. One can think of various ways for this to take place without any coercion. Such a town square could have any kind of restriction on its use that the true owners pleased; everything from "No immigrants allowed" to "Immigrants welcome; set your tents up on the north side." Where Hoppe goes wrong is imagining that ALL government land is owned by all the taxpayers. There is no way for this to take place, for the land to devolve to the control of the actual owners, in a free society without coercion. To homestead the land, even if you plan to later cede or sell it to a collective, you have to be there and work it. Impossible with all government land; there's too much of it. He also goes wrong in depending on "representative" government to administer that land, as the notion of representation in government is completely bogus, a logical impossibility.
GregL 7 years 23 weeks ago
In reply to: The Libertarian Position on Immigration
Page by: Hogeye Bill

Excellent retort to the "Hans Hermann Hoppe" school of libertarian immigration theory.
GregL 7 years 23 weeks ago
In reply to: Watch Politicians Snap When Alternative Media Journalist Asks them One Short Question
Web link by: Melinda L. Secor

Very well-done and professionally made short videos of politicians squirming to pretend there is no contradiction in their claim to authority.
D. Saul Weiner 7 years 23 weeks ago
In reply to: Say It Isn't So!
Page by: Paul Hein

Ah, the compassion of the California commies: Mandate the disclosure of the coercion of children used in producing chocolate. Next, mandate the coercion of parents into injected their children with poisons that could disable or kill them (vaccines) in order to attend any type of school or day care (SB 277). Hypocrisy, thy name is California.
KenK 7 years 23 weeks ago
In reply to: Say It Isn't So!
Page by: Paul Hein

Screw California. Those guys have voted for this kind of nonsense for decades and they can just live with it now, assuming that they even notice.
Log from Blammo 7 years 23 weeks ago
In reply to: Say It Isn't So!
Page by: Paul Hein

Without legal tender laws, the Federal Reserve Note would have to be redeemed with either United States Notes or coin stamped out by the U.S. Mint. However, as the legal tender laws allow tender of Fed notes to discharge debt obligations, and a Fed note is itself a debt instrument, the Fed can discharge the debt represented by the note by giving back more Fed notes. It is a bit crass to return to the bearer *the same note* that they just handed over for redemption, though. Technically, ownership of the note is not negotiated until *after* the obligation is satisfied. And equally technically, a dollar (or peso de ocho [reales]) is "coin silver" (0.900 Ag, 0.100 Cu), with total mass from 400 to 500 grains. The U.S. standard is 416 avordupois grains (26.96 g), which gave the U.S. silver dollar slightly higher seignorage than spanish silver dollars, which were the global trade standard at the time. This definition was valid for centuries. Now, you need 11.13 Fed "dollars" to get one actual dollar. False advertising? Hell yes.
Kevin M. Patten 7 years 24 weeks ago
In reply to: SPECTRE: Not Scarier Than the Newspapers
Page by: Kevin M. Patten

Thanks Glen! Yeah, I can understand why someone worried about false flags and mass surveillance would be happy that they both had some cinematic exposure. I'm lucky to live in a time when many activists and people know about this stuff. Something I didn't really point out in my review was that most of these crimes can't really be done by "rogue outfits" -- "SPECTRE" or ISIS or even Anoymous for that matter. Most of the time, the ones doing the monitoring and the terrorism aren't sitting in a basement or a garage or wherever; it's the State and big corporations like Facebook and AT&T who are partnering up, as you pointed out. That's not to say that terrorism isn't being committed by people unconnected to the fascist State. But these are important distinctions to keep in mind. Cheers.
ReverendDraco 7 years 24 weeks ago
In reply to: I Don't Get It
Page by: Paul Hein

"I can’t recall hearing anyone suggest that they simply be denied those benefits, although I will surely admit that someone might have suggested it." We tried in California back in 1994, with Prop. 187 - some silk-robed cretins decided that it wasn't legal for Californians to refuse to allow some foreigner to come and mug them under color of law. Which has caused an approximately $10Bn budget shortfall in Cali: $23Bn paid out to illegals in "benefits" minus the approx. $13Bn in taxes generated by the few Criminal Trespassers who "work" for a living.
Glen Allport 7 years 24 weeks ago
In reply to: SPECTRE: Not Scarier Than the Newspapers
Page by: Kevin M. Patten

Nicely done! You make good artistic and political points. I will say that personally, I appreciated seeing corporatist-engineered false flags put front-and-center in a popular film with a huge audience. The Bond franchise has always made money glorifying the State's violent "intelligence" apparatus; in SPECTRE, the roots of this violence are at least put in the spotlight. False flags aren't new, no, and neither is the fascist government/corporate "partnership" that long ago replaced the American republic (as of the adoption of the Constitution, I'd say), but many people still aren't willing to accept the awful truth. Smedley Butler would approve of SPECTRE's storyline, I think.
Paul 7 years 25 weeks ago
In reply to: Why Renters Are Screwed
Page by: Paul Bonneau

I should mention one other group profiting from this government intervention. There appear to be several "advocacy" groups whose supposed mission is to lobby for renters (against landlords) in the legislature, but that are probably more concerned with fund-raising to support the staff of those groups. Sometimes the human race seems to be nothing more than one gigantic, complex scam... I notice Wendy McElroy linked to this article. Thanks, Wendy!
Paul 7 years 25 weeks ago
In reply to: Why the Split Between Non-Violent and Violent Resistance?
Page by: Paul Bonneau

Woops, I goofed, pasting this comment on the wrong article.
Paul 7 years 25 weeks ago
In reply to: Why Renters Are Screwed
Page by: Paul Bonneau

One of my fantasies. Wife wouldn't go for that, however. I might just have to get out on my own now and then. BTW flyover country is little if any better than Oregon. I lived in Wyoming for a while. Rather than being free, it was unfree in a way somewhat different than in Oregon.
Glock27 7 years 26 weeks ago
In reply to: Anti-Gun D.C. Police Chief on How to Survive An "Active Shooter" Event
Web link by: KenK

Because they are smarter than the remainder of the unwashed masses, we are stupider to I guess because we can't act, can't dance, can't sing, can't lie, or maybe it is the fact that they recognize most of us can see through their smoky mirrors. To conclude, stupid is as stupid does! That was the stupidest remark I have ever read. I noted today on "Jews for the Protection of Gun Rights" they listed by nation the highest rates of mass shooting, contrary to the House Boys remark earlier this week. The U.S.A. ranks 8th with mass shootings, and what I garnered from the article these other countries out ranked the U.S.A. in numbers killed.
KenK 7 years 26 weeks ago
In reply to: Anti-Gun D.C. Police Chief on How to Survive An "Active Shooter" Event
Web link by: KenK

Why is it always the plutocrats, politicians, Hollywood types, brass-hatted cops, etc, (who all have personal entourages of security and/or unrestricted personal armed carry privileges for themselves) who lecture the rest of us that guns dont make us safer?
Douglas Herman 7 years 26 weeks ago
In reply to: Why Renters Are Screwed
Page by: Paul Bonneau

Paul, Brilliant from both sides of the argument, but mostly from the smalltime owner/ renter/ landlord POV. Get a van; live in it as you both work; sock away bucks. Move to smalltown in FlyOver Country. Problem, Reaction, Dilution. Doug
Log from Blammo 7 years 27 weeks ago
In reply to: Paris Terrorists Didn't Bother to Encrypt their Email, IMs, Smart phones, or Laptops & Still Weren't Detected
Web link by: KenK

That hypothesis is not the one preferred by Hanlon's Razor: never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity. The more information you collect, the more reduction and analysis you need to do in order to make sense of it. The signal-to-noise ratio inherent in collecting all communications on the Internet is so incredibly low that you would need a legion of analysts to put together a story that makes sense. Even with megabuildings packed with server-quality computers, the bottleneck is still in acquiring employees that know what they are doing, and are willing to do that kind of work. Compared with the private sector, the government pays peanuts and demands so much more. About the only way they can get skilled programmer-analysts is to train them up from their own military and then move them to a defense contractor that can offer pay not tied down by the government employee pay schedules. Even then, a Manning or a Snowden might start to feel slimy and blow their whistle. I feel confident in saying that no, nobody detected it. It was an attack with man-portable explosives and small arms on targets of no military or infrastructural value. It fell outside the "defended area", so the initial automated screening algorithms never flagged it for human review, or it was never passed on to any group that could act on the intelligence. They didn't ignore it because it suited their purposes to let it happen. They ignored it because they don't actually care about that kind of thing in the first place. Governments just don't care about protecting the servant classes from attack, except to the extent that it makes them appear weak.
Paul 7 years 27 weeks ago
In reply to: Patterning Your Home-Defense Shotgun
Web link by: KenK

Shotguns are nothing to be sneered at, but an AR-15 is much more versatile. All freedom lovers should be armed.
Paul 7 years 27 weeks ago
In reply to: Paris Terrorists Didn't Bother to Encrypt their Email, IMs, Smart phones, or Laptops & Still Weren't Detected
Web link by: KenK

Another possible explanation is that they DID detect it, but allowed it to proceed because it suited their purpose (that's assuming it was not a false flag).
Mark Davis 7 years 28 weeks ago
In reply to: The Complementarity of Love and Freedom
Page by: Glen Allport

Word.
Glen Allport 7 years 28 weeks ago
In reply to: The Complementarity of Love and Freedom
Page by: Glen Allport

Thanks, Bill! And good point: the gub'ment kills way more of us than the terr'ists do.
Glen Allport 7 years 28 weeks ago
In reply to: The Complementarity of Love and Freedom
Page by: Glen Allport

Well, if love and freedom are difficult thoughts for people who are "unsettled and vulnerable", I suppose they can always turn on Fox News and get the security and predictability of the Power Elite viewpoint. Heard a few snippets today as I walked past the television, and some of those Fox geniuses were insisting that Obama quit being such a pussy, worrying about civilian casualties Over There, and bomb the *bleep* out of ISIS camps where those crafty women and children are living. (Seriously!) Can't win a war without some collateral damage, you know . . .
mkghandi 7 years 28 weeks ago
In reply to: Chicago Sends More Than 100,000 "Bogus" Camera-Based Speeding Tickets
Web link by: KenK

HIGHWAY ROBBERY
Bill St. Clair 7 years 28 weeks ago
In reply to: The Complementarity of Love and Freedom
Page by: Glen Allport

Unsettled and vulnerable? Why? Because eight nutjobs killed a handful of people in France? Horrible, of course, but no threat whatsoever to my life, unless the government amplifies it and brings it here. The crashing of airplanes into the World Trade Center towers (or whatever really happened) was also no threat to my life. The TSA, however, created supposedly in response to that atrocity, threatens me every time I need to use a commercial airliner. Nice thought piece, Glen.
KenK 7 years 28 weeks ago
In reply to: I Don't Get It
Page by: Paul Hein

@paul bonneau Yeah sadly everyone's a libertarian until it's their rice bowl that's being messed with.
Paul 7 years 28 weeks ago
In reply to: I Don't Get It
Page by: Paul Hein

"The only rule for the government ought to be the denying of benefits to the “illegals.” Indeed, one should question the legitimacy of providing federal “benefits” to anyone, illegal or not." The first is not a solution, since it props up the institution of welfare. The second is the correct solution. Government SHOULD NOT pick winners and losers in the free bennies sweepstakes. Instead if it does anything at all, it should invite all and sundry. If we can't kill welfare through the ballot, maybe we can kill it through over-subscription. Of course it is silly for me to say what government should do. For some reason they don't seem to care about my opinion. We will just have to wait until a crashing economy solves both the welfare and immigration problems. BTW I have been shocked at how many libertarians (e.g on lewrockwell.com) have looked to government to solve this government-created problem. I guess their support of liberty has its limits.
KenK 7 years 29 weeks ago
In reply to: The Complementarity of Love and Freedom
Page by: Glen Allport

People feel unsettled and vulnerable right now Glen. They crave security and predictably rather than bromides from Chinese philosophers. People are just in no mood to hear this right now. Not an attack on you I'm just sayin.
KenK 7 years 29 weeks ago
In reply to: Feds Paid Carnegie-Mellon University to Break Tor
Web link by: KenK

Whoa. My bad. This is what the link should have taken you to http://www.wired.com/2015/11/tor-says-feds-paid-carnegie-mellon-1m-to-he...
Log from Blammo 7 years 29 weeks ago
In reply to: J.P. Morgan CEO: "U.S. Gov Must Kill BitCoin, Crypto-Currenies"
Web link by: KenK

Bitcoin was never even intended to last by Satoshi, the pseudonymous creator. It has always been proof-of-concept to pave the way for the next iteration of cryptocurrency, to discover the problems such a successor would need to solve. For instance, the fixed block size has been shown to be vulnerable to a "dust DoS" attack. When any government finally takes hostile action against Bitcoin, it will just make itself a problem to be solved. Bitcoin is fine for experimentation in virtual currencies, but no one should be throwing all their commerce into it, as it has always been a temporary measure. The future will include Bitcoin, Ethereum, Ripple, and alternatives that haven't even been invented yet. The Holy Grail of cryptocurrency is one where you can issue your own notes or coupons, backed by something you have or something you can do or make, that automatically propagate through your personal trust network to the point where you can buy commodity goods with it.
Log from Blammo 7 years 29 weeks ago
In reply to: Feds Paid Carnegie-Mellon University to Break Tor
Web link by: KenK

Link is broken. Try these: https://blog.torproject.org/blog/did-fbi-pay-university-attack-tor-users http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/11/tor-director-fbi-paid-carnegi... http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/11/fbi-the-allegation-that-we-pa...
mjackso6 7 years 29 weeks ago
In reply to: How Statists Deal with State-Caused Problems: Pass Another Law
Web link by: KenK

Sorry for the multiple post. Not sure how that happened.
mjackso6 7 years 29 weeks ago
In reply to: How Statists Deal with State-Caused Problems: Pass Another Law
Web link by: KenK

"We are trying to pass legislation that would require cities and townships to comply with the law" WTF?! So we're working on passing a law to make other lawmakers obey the law?! The sad thing there is that I doubt that the average Joe even sees anything wrong with that bass-ackwards oxymoron of a sentence, much less breaks out snickering when they read it (my immediate reaction). Sometimes I swear that I know exactly how Nero felt when Rome burned... Guess I need to learn how to play a fiddle while I still can...!
mjackso6 7 years 29 weeks ago
In reply to: How Statists Deal with State-Caused Problems: Pass Another Law
Web link by: KenK

"We are trying to pass legislation that would require cities and townships to comply with the law" WTF?! So we're working on passing a law to make other lawmakers obey the law?! The sad thing there is that I doubt that the average Joe even sees anything wrong with that bass-ackwards oxymoron of a sentence, much less breaks out snickering when they read it (my immediate reaction). Sometimes I swear that I know exactly how Nero felt when Rome burned... Guess I need to learn how to play a fiddle while I still can...!
mjackso6 7 years 29 weeks ago
In reply to: How Statists Deal with State-Caused Problems: Pass Another Law
Web link by: KenK

"We are trying to pass legislation that would require cities and townships to comply with the law" WTF?! So we're working on passing a law to make other lawmakers obey the law?! The sad thing there is that I doubt that the average Joe even sees anything wrong with that bass-ackwards oxymoron of a sentence, much less breaks out snickering when they read it (my immediate reaction). Sometimes I swear that I know exactly how Nero felt when Rome burned... Guess I need to learn how to play a fiddle while I still can...!
mjackso6 7 years 29 weeks ago
In reply to: How Statists Deal with State-Caused Problems: Pass Another Law
Web link by: KenK

"We are trying to pass legislation that would require cities and townships to comply with the law" WTF?! So we're working on passing a law to make other lawmakers obey the law?! The sad thing there is that I doubt that the average Joe even sees anything wrong with that bass-ackwards oxymoron of a sentence, much less breaks out snickering when they read it (my immediate reaction). Sometimes I swear that I know exactly how Nero felt when Rome burned... Guess I need to learn how to play a fiddle while I still can...!
mjackso6 7 years 29 weeks ago
In reply to: How Statists Deal with State-Caused Problems: Pass Another Law
Web link by: KenK

"We are trying to pass legislation that would require cities and townships to comply with the law" WTF?! So we're working on passing a law to make other lawmakers obey the law?! The sad thing there is that I doubt that the average Joe even sees anything wrong with that bass-ackwards oxymoron of a sentence, much less breaks out snickering when they read it (my immediate reaction). Sometimes I swear that I know exactly how Nero felt when Rome burned... Guess I need to learn how to play a fiddle while I still can...!