On Second Thought, You Don't Hate America

An Albuquerque employee of the office of Veterans Affairs has beaten charges of "sedition." She was originally charged for selling state secrets to Iran writing a letter to the editor criticizing the Bush administration.

In the letter, Berg criticized the federal government on several issues, including its actions in Iraq and in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.

"I am furious with the tragically misplaced priorities and criminal negligence of this government," she wrote.

Berg identified herself as a VA nurse in the letter.

Within weeks of her letter's publication, Berg said Mel Hooker, Veterans Affairs Medical Center human resources chief, and other staff confiscated her work computer and later told her she was being investigated for possible sedition.

What would have happened if they'd found burned Dixie Chicks MP3s on there?

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • ||

    What would have happened if they'd found burned Dixie Chicks MP3s on there?

    Actually, you rip CDs to convert them into mp3s on a computer. You can then burn them onto a CD, either in mp3 format or in audio format, but even then the computer would only contain ripped mp3s.

  • ||

    Did they check whether she posted comments on blogs? What about bumper stickers on her car? Let's be really thorough before dismissing the charges. Can't have an anti-war bumper sticker and a VA parking permit on the same vehicle or the terrorists have won. (Please read with deep irony.)

  • ||

    Well I for one feel so much safer that her vigilant superiors (cough) looked into it in the first place. I mean who knew? She could have been part of one of them sleeper cells they talk about on the intraweb or something.

    WTF, I mean this is like from the Castro playbook or something? Get hauled off and questioned for your opinions going against government policy.

  • ||

    This almost seems too outlandish to be real. She got charged for sedition for writing a critical letter? Anyone know any legal basis there?

  • ||

    Yeah, sedition? Holy ass. It's like a parody. Did they threaten her with Gitmo?

  • ||

    Jason, I know of a number of laws this violates, but until now I thought they only applied in other countries.

  • ||

    Jason,
    You fool! You are in the pre-9/11 mindset. Before everything changed. We are now in a post-legal world (see NSA wire tapping). Decisons are now made by the decider, and what he decides, overrides any preconceived notion of law.

  • ||

    That nurse is clearly the worst sleeper cell in the United States to date.

  • MP||

    Decisons are now made by the decider, and what he decides, overrides any preconceived notion of law.

    This morning, in yet another reminder of how ignorant I am, and how history repeats itself, I was reading about YOUNGSTOWN SHEET & TUBE CO. V SAWYER (1952). GWB is simply carrying on with the long U.S. tradition of imperialist presidents.

  • ||

    Attempt # 3:

    "She got charged for sedition for writing a critical letter?"

    If you read the article, she was not "charged" in the sense of "indicted", but rather in the sense of "accused". It's an inartful use of language in this situation.

  • ||

    I wish the full article said whom she was charged by. Were any actual criminal proceedings initiated? or was it someone at the VA hospital who read too many Ben Shapiro columns and thought disagreeing with the gov't is sedition?

  • ||

    I wish the full article said whom she was charged by. Were any actual criminal proceedings initiated? or was it someone at the VA hospital who read too many Ben Shapiro columns and thought disagreeing with the gov't is sedition?

  • ||

    I hope you Libers wake up soon and realize that the GOP is NOT your closest of the two parties.

    Yeah, sure, one can fuss over their right to be asshole and complain that the PC police are bringing them down - but when the real poo poo hits the fan, it's those "PC" liberals who are your real friends.

    JMJ

  • ||

    JMJ,

    When is the poo poo going to hit the fan?

    Sounds nasty.

  • bloggaru||

    crazy

  • MP||

    it's those "PC" liberals who are your real friends.

    We have no friends.

  • ||

    "I hope you Libers wake up soon and realize that the GOP is NOT your closest of the two parties."

    Um JMJ, libertarians as a rule don't think either of the two parties are closest. That's why we are LIBERTARIANS. So it seems to me the only person that needs waking is you.

    Take stock of your environs, look around, read a post or two. Think before you type lest you look stupid. Well ok too late on that last point, sorry.

  • ||

    Mark - when the president acts with "war powers" when we are not constitutionally at war...

    JMJ

  • ||

    AL, it seems to me that most Libertarians lean to the Right. In your world, however, who knows? ;)

    JMJ

  • ||

    MP, perhaps you should be freindlier... ;)

    JMJ

  • ||

    Mark - when the president acts with "war powers" when we are not constitutionally at war...

    I like it.

    I can see President's in their office, overlooking the rose garden and then turning on a dime and whispering to their chief aid -

    'OK, it's time for us to unleash the real poo poo'

  • ||

    Jersey,

    Get your facts straight before you go spouting off more nonsense.

  • ||

    This reminds me of that last South Park episode (did you see it?) when at the end Jesus, Bush et al start pooping all over each other and the flag!

    Now there's two libertarians that I just plain adore!

    JMJ

  • ||

    "Yeah, sure, one can fuss over their right to be asshole and complain that the PC police are bringing them down - but when the real poo poo hits the fan, it's those "PC" liberals who are your real friends."

    Yeah, because only a real friend would advocate disarming you during a disaster.

    Troll.

  • ||

    "AL, it seems to me that most Libertarians lean to the Right."

    On economic issues yes. We all passed or did not sleep through our Econ 101 class, as most of your ilk obviously did. On social and civil liberties issues we are traditionally more liberal than the "liberals". We refuse to give our liberties up for "PC" considerations, for economic "security", and other "liberal" pogroms. We also don't like all this Patriot Act War on Terror BS either.

    YOU should wake up and realise that for civil liberties issues the Libertarians are a better fit than the Democrats or the Green Party or whoever your non-Republican choice is.

    I think you will find few supports of the VA hospital staff here.

    Clue, you are not in the National Review blog. This is not a ProanythingtheRepublicanssayisgospel blog. You need to know your subject better to be a good troll. I'm trying to help you man.

  • ||

    Sage,

    "Get your facts straight before you go spouting off more nonsense.

    What facts are you talking about?

    Mediageek,

    ""Yeah, sure, one can fuss over their right to be asshole and complain that the PC police are bringing them down - but when the real poo poo hits the fan, it's those "PC" liberals who are your real friends."

    Yeah, because only a real friend would advocate disarming you during a disaster."

    It depends on the disaster. But in the case of NO, it made sense, and the violence, in an oterwise extremely violent town, was kept to a minimum. It was one of the few things we did right, there.

    AL,

    ""AL, it seems to me that most Libertarians lean to the Right."

    On economic issues yes. We all passed or did not sleep through our Econ 101 class, as most of your ilk obviously did. On social and civil liberties issues we are traditionally more liberal than the "liberals". We refuse to give our liberties up for "PC" considerations, for economic "security", and other "liberal" pogroms. We also don't like all this Patriot Act War on Terror BS either.

    YOU should wake up and realise that for civil liberties issues the Libertarians are a better fit than the Democrats or the Green Party or whoever your non-Republican choice is.

    I think you will find few supports of the VA hospital staff here.

    Clue, you are not in the National Review blog. This is not a ProanythingtheRepublicanssayisgospel blog. You need to know your subject better to be a good troll. I'm trying to help you man."

    I'd take it easy on the hubris when it comes to your knowledge of economics, if I were you. You guys are considered the wackies, not my ilk. All I was saying was that Libertarians seem to lean more toward the GOP which strikes me as telling. That's all.

    JMJ

  • ||

    Here's a better one:

    http://www.alliancedefensefund.org/news/story.aspx?cid=3724
    Scott Savage, who serves as a reference librarian for the university, suggested four best-selling conservative books for freshman reading in his role as a member of OSU Mansfield's First Year Reading Experience Committee. ...

    Savage was put under "investigation" by OSU's Office of Human Resources after three professors filed a complaint of discrimination and harassment against him, saying that the book suggestions made them feel "unsafe." The complaint came after the OSU Mansfield faculty voted without dissent to file charges against Savage. The faculty later voted to allow the individual professors to file charges.

    "File charges" against someone for recommending mainstream books they don't like. PC is NOT a class act.

  • ||

    "It depends on the disaster. But in the case of NO, it made sense, and the violence, in an oterwise extremely violent town, was kept to a minimum. It was one of the few things we did right, there."

    Yes, because we all know that sending out a bunch of SWAT cops to tackle a little old lady in her home in order to forcibly disarm her of a .38 revolver is a wise use of scant resources.

    I don't believe you can say such things without being insane, a troll, or both.

  • ||

    "You guys are considered the wackies, not my ilk."

    You're an idiot.

    Centrally planned economic theories are DEAD. They've been DOA since Marx first put pen to paper.

  • ||

    Holy crap, JMJ takes a LOT of abuse on this website.

    Chin up old bean. I'm sure JMJ is a lovely chap.

  • Jim Henley||

    If only the nurse had waited until she quit working for the military and THEN spoke out against the Bush Administration nobody could POSSIBLY have objected.

    Hey! Why are you all laughing?!

  • MP||

    It depends on the disaster. But in the case of NO, it made sense, and the violence, in an oterwise extremely violent town, was kept to a minimum. It was one of the few things we did right, there.

    What we should have done was sent them all to a refugee camp for forced relocation by the Feds. That way the State could have fully controlled the situation.

    Yep...

  • ||

    Pepe Le Mur, I get the distinct feeling that the lowly scumbag who recommended those lowly scumbag books is probably a real lowly scumbag who is doing more than just suggesting reading material.

    The "charges," you loony, are institutional, not legal and have since been dropped.

    Nice try, though.

    Mediageek, I don't think anything like that happened.

    JMJ

  • ||

    "What facts are you talking about?"

    Exactly.

  • ||

    JMJ, wow hit a nerve there I guess. Look if you want to live with your head in the sand that's fine. If you want to learn something about what others think and how libertarianism differs from Neo-Cons, then read some.

    I see a majority here saying that the VA staff was totally crazy. What does that tell you about libertarian leanings? Oh wait that can't be true because I was always told libertarians were arch conservative more so than the neo-con folks. Oh man uh uh gee uh.

    You can't get your brain around it because it does not fit your off the rack world view.

    Get a clue fella.

  • ||

    Mediageek, no one one the left advocates total economic central planning anymore. Where the hell have you been?

    MP, isn't that exactly what happened?

    JMJ

  • ||

    Yes, AL, I saw the reaction and am pleased. Just chiming in.

    JMJ

  • ||

    "it's those "PC" liberals who are your real friends."

    That's why JMJ takes a lot of abuse.

  • ||

    "Mediageek, no one one the left advocates total economic central planning anymore. Where the hell have you been?"

    Ok, Jersey, I'll bite.

    What part of the economy would you leave to operate unfettered from federal regulation?

  • ||

    "Yes, AL, I saw the reaction and am pleased."

    Well it is our mission to please you, especially since you no longer believe in command economies.

    "Ok, Jersey, I'll bite.

    What part of the economy would you leave to operate unfettered from federal regulation?"

    Yeah JMJ dying to hear this.

  • ||

    mediageek,

    I think he qualified it with the word "total" I'm sure he's perfectly okay with lots of partial federal regulation.

  • ||

    I thought the sedition acts were repealed or found unconstitutional way back during Jefferson's presidency. What gives?

  • ||

    MG - every part that does not need some oversight.

    JMJ

  • ||

    JW - in the military, I believe, "sedition" remains as a crime.

    JMJ

  • ||

    "MG - every part that does not need some oversight."

    Do you even read what you post?

    LAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAME.


    My dog could come up with a better thesis.

    But I guess I shouldn't be surprised that, like most typical leftists, you're intellectually lazy.

  • ||

    No, MG, it's called real world pragmatism. If you see a need, you fill it. If you don't, you don't. Idiot morons who apply their idiot moron ideologies to everything without consideration for real world pragmatics are the intellectual lazies.

    JMJ

  • ||

    "every part that does not need some oversight."

    JMJ, yeah nothing scary in that. No need for me to worry about my property being taken. If I play by the rules and do the right thing I have nothing to fear. They are only going after rich bad people anyway.

    Man, you have more in common with the Republicans than you even want to know.

    Fool.

  • ||

    AL - see my last post...

    JMJ

  • ||

    JW- A Sedition Act was passed in 1918-it's the one that Debs was imprisoned under. It was repealed after WWI.

  • ||

    "No, MG, it's called real world pragmatism. If you see a need, you fill it. If you don't, you don't. Idiot morons who apply their idiot moron ideologies to everything without consideration for real world pragmatics are the intellectual lazies."


    Allow me to translate:

    *ahem*

    "BLAHBLAHBLAH. I'm not going to answer your question because I haven't actually put any real thought into it."


    Would it be poor taste for me to just declare victory now and be done with it?

  • ||

    Centrally planned economic theories are DEAD. They've been DOA since Marx first put pen to paper.

    Couldn't the same be said about laissez-faire capitalism, which many libertarian seem to be so fond of?

    Other than the World Bank / US promotion of it to developing countries, no developed nation has unregulated markets at play. And it doesn't seem to be working too well in those developing countries either.

  • ||

    "If you see a need, you fill it. If you don't, you don't."

    JMJ, good to know. That makes it completely different. WTF?????

    Basically like Republicans you are saying we should trust the government to do the right thing.

    If you think the government economic tinkering does not damage civil liberties then you have a LOT of learning to do.

    At this point in time Republicans (to me anyway) and their crazy Protect American Enduring War are more of an issue. Hence this thread and the article that spawned it. But that does not mean I am not watching out for pick pocket idiots like you who want the government to manage the rest of my life, money, etc.

    Man screw that. It's about time you cried racism as you did the other day or something because your line has played out otherwise.

  • ||

    You can argue that there's no truly "pure" strain of unfettered market economics in operation, but that's splitting ideological and semantic hairs.

    Generally speaking, the US and other nations with generally free market economies leave centrally planned places in the dust.

    While there are things like the World Bank or the Fed which can be argued to be forms of central planning, compared to a place like, say North Korea, the Fed ain't so bad.

  • ||

    We all passed or did not sleep through our Econ 101 class, as most of your ilk obviously did.

    ::cough:: Maybe not all of us.

  • ||

    Chicago Tom, The World Bank is not Free Market. Who makes it up? Governments. DUH!!! Automatically means it is not laissez-faire.

    Econ classes people, econ classes. I mean there is always night school. Never too late.

  • R C Dean||

    Jesus wept, JMJ. A career civil servant makes an ass of himself by accusing a subordinate of sedition, and its the fault of Chimpeachment W. Katrinaburton?

    No charges were brought, and the dark night of fascism is descending in America?

    What a fascinating planet you live on. Must be some quirk in the quantum noosphere that allows your posts to appear here in this iteration of the metaverse.

  • ||

    Yes, Another Lurker, perhaps if you took some economics, you wouldn't be so married to the two paragraphs of Limbaugh model you're so fond of.

    Might I suggest Robert Reich, Duncan Black, Robert Rubin, or Lawrence Summers? Each of whom has forgotten more about economics than I suspect you've ever learned.

  • ||

    Joe, I have to ask:

    Are the majority of people on the left complete mental feebs?

    I don't run in those circles, and the majority of encounters I have with leftists leaves me thinking that they're lucky to be able to breath without assistance.

    I mean, I may disagree with you vehemently, but at least you're thoughtful. Are you and Christopher Hitchens the only ones like this?

  • ||

    Chicago Tom, The World Bank is not Free Market. Who makes it up? Governments. DUH!!! Automatically means it is not laissez-faire.

    Well, the world bank isn't a market at all, its an institution. But it does pressure countries into adopting laissez-faire market economies as a condition of receiving aid.

  • R C Dean||

    Dowdified query:

    Are the majority of people . . . complete mental feebs?

    Answer:

    Yes.

  • ||

    "Well, the world bank isn't a market at all, its an institution. But it does pressure countries into adopting laissez-faire market economies as a condition of receiving aid."

    Tom tom tom, if you think what the World Bank advocates is market economics then I have a bridge in London to sell you. I personally find the World Bank the biggest enemy to true market economics since the Soviets were around.

    But but but that can't be true because Republicans like it!! Man the average Republican wouldn't know a free market if it bit them in the ass.

    Folks it's not either or here in this life.

  • ||

    Jesus wept, JMJ. A career civil servant makes an ass of himself by accusing a subordinate of sedition, and its the fault of Chimpeachment W. Katrinaburton?

    No charges were brought, and the dark night of fascism is descending in America?

    RC,

    Are you honestly implying that the current administration and its supporters love affair with "with us or against us" rhetoric and labeling dissent as "aiding the enemy" and equating it with treason has absolutely NOTHING to do with this incident?

    The fact that "sedition" was even discussed in this context is quite alarming, regardless of whether charges were brought. The blame for the rise of these kind of anti-1st amendment beliefs falls directly at the feet of our current administration who have made it very clear that dissent about the war effort will not be tolerated.

    This administration has fostered an atmosphere of fear and silence, and yet when that atmosphere trickles down to lower levels of government, there is absolutely no culpability on the part of the administration? Get serious

  • ||

    "Are you honestly implying that the current administration and its supporters love affair with "with us or against us" rhetoric and labeling dissent as "aiding the enemy" and equating it with treason has absolutely NOTHING to do with this incident?

    The fact that "sedition" was even discussed in this context is quite alarming, regardless of whether charges were brought. The blame for the rise of these kind of anti-1st amendment beliefs falls directly at the feet of our current administration who have made it very clear that dissent about the war effort will not be tolerated.

    This administration has fostered an atmosphere of fear and silence, and yet when that atmosphere trickles down to lower levels of government, there is absolutely no culpability on the part of the administration? Get serious"

    ChicagoTom well said on that one.

  • ||

    Mg,

    ""No, MG, it's called real world pragmatism. If you see a need, you fill it. If you don't, you don't. Idiot morons who apply their idiot moron ideologies to everything without consideration for real world pragmatics are the intellectual lazies."


    Allow me to translate:

    *ahem*

    "BLAHBLAHBLAH. I'm not going to answer your question because I haven't actually put any real thought into it."


    Would it be poor taste for me to just declare victory now and be done with it?"

    Now I know you're a kid. "Victory?" And how would you measure that? Got some screwy libertarian formula for that one? If you don't get what I said then you are an Idiot moron.

    AL,

    "Basically like Republicans you are saying we should trust the government to do the right thing."

    No, but who else can you turn to? When authority is required, they are the authority. What the hell else can ya' do? It ain't perfect. I never said it was. It's just that the gov't is who you turn to for authority.

    JMJ

  • ||

    No, but who else can you turn to? When authority is required, they are the authority. What the hell else can ya' do? It ain't perfect. I never said it was. It's just that the gov't is who you turn to for authority.

    Well, I think we all agree with that...

  • ||

    "No, but who else can you turn to? When authority is required, they are the authority. What the hell else can ya' do? It ain't perfect. I never said it was. It's just that the gov't is who you turn to for authority."

    Take that statement, change authority to national security and you just created the EXACT arguement for the average supporter of all of Bush's crazy Patriot Act, War on Terror, civil liberties violations, etc.

    Is it making a little sense yet?

    Look I am not an anarchist, and I think from our prior discussions you know I am not a "take the government out of EVERYTHING" guy. But it does not need to be the first place you look for a solution. It's a cop-out.

  • ||

    I'd have been worse.

  • ||

    AL,

    ""No, but who else can you turn to? When authority is required, they are the authority. What the hell else can ya' do? It ain't perfect. I never said it was. It's just that the gov't is who you turn to for authority."

    Take that statement, change authority to national security and you just created the EXACT arguement for the average supporter of all of Bush's crazy Patriot Act, War on Terror, civil liberties violations, etc.

    Is it making a little sense yet?

    Look I am not an anarchist, and I think from our prior discussions you know I am not a "take the government out of EVERYTHING" guy. But it does not need to be the first place you look for a solution. It's a cop-out."

    No, that is NOT the argument asshole Bush is making - he's saying that "we're at war," but we're not. He has exceeded his authority because the sleazy cons have stacked the courts and the congress and there are no checks or balances to restrain him becausze the American people or so f'n stupid they actually buy all the God-gays-guns malarkey that the sleazy cons spew.

    I never said the gov't "was the first place." Actually, what I was really implying was that it is the last. That's the point. We need a final authority. Final. Not first.

    JMJ

  • ||

    "Actually, what I was really implying was that it is the last. That's the point. We need a final authority. Final. Not first."

    Interesting your posts on the "correct" response to Hurrican Katrina fly in the face of that.

    A lot of your Bush ire I am with though. I think the jackboots are a weeeee bit further away from our door than you, but hey I like to try to head things off before they get too crazy.

    It's funny in general I am on your AND Joe's side regarding the issue at hand here about civil liberties, war on terror, and yet somehow in the end I am just another Dittohead.

    Still working on that one.

  • ||

    "We need a final authority. Final. Not first."

    A distinction without a difference, I'm afraid.

    I do periodic checks on which of the big coalitions I prefer, and historically the Right winds up on top. The keys are:

    1) Self defence is my One Big Issue. I will turn activist against any coalition that threatens me on that issue, regardless of any other policies.

    2) I view single payor healthcare as a mistake of galactic proportions. Strong advocacy of that positon makes me highly unlikely to join your coalition.

    There used to be a lot more, but my distaste for the right coalition's spending habits and lack of transparency counterbalance many of those. To me, the left coalition is making ground, but it has a few fundamental planks that I just can't swallow.

  • R C Dean||

    Are you honestly implying that the current administration and its supporters love affair with "with us or against us" rhetoric and labeling dissent as "aiding the enemy" and equating it with treason has absolutely NOTHING to do with this incident

    I'm saying that its perfectly possible that some career civil servant is stupid enough to believe that accusing his subordinate of sedition will curry favor with his superiors.

    I'm also saying that it requires a pretty good case of BDS to pin this on the Chimpler.

    Can anyone point to anything this administration has done to actually squelch free speech or a free press? Any arrests? Any indictments? Any frickin' investigations (not counting l'affaire Plame, which is entirely a self-inflicted wound on the media)? Any threats of the above? Anything at all?

    The whole chilling-of-free-speech, dark-night-of-fascism thing is a fantasy, concocted by people for a whole slew of reasons ranging from partisanship to hatred to a desire to puff up their drab little lives with some drama.

    God knows this administration has done some dumbass things in the name of Homeland Security, but by far the worst thing they have done to the First Amendment goes by the name McCain-Feingold.

  • fyodor||

    [Bush] has exceeded his authority because the sleazy cons have stacked the courts and the congress and there are no checks or balances to restrain him becausze the American people or so f'n stupid they actually buy all the God-gays-guns malarkey that the sleazy cons spew.

    Interesting example of partisan thinking. Aside from the appalling disrespect towards those with whom he disagrees (a meme not all that uncommon among my political allies in these parts, either), note the broad brush that not only conflates all the supposed evils (and stupidities) of the other side, but actually explain each other and feed on each other, without any regard whatever to the fact that they may be wholly different issues with totally separate justifications and pros and cons. It's almost like he's writing a horror movie! But please consider, JMJ, that even though I don't like Bush myself, the Democrats try to put their own into all three branches of government as well! The side you dislike winning elections does not mean checks and balances have been abolished!!

  • ||

    Sigh.

    These comments show why we're ****ed. I mean really, the Republicans (and Limbaugh?!), advocates of laissez faire? The World Bank, a laissez faire institution?

    verily, such people know nothing of economics, or even the English language. We're driving full speed into the abyss because people can't understand the difference between laissez faire and mercantilism...

  • ||

    AL,

    ""Actually, what I was really implying was that it is the last. That's the point. We need a final authority. Final. Not first."

    Interesting your posts on the "correct" response to Hurrican Katrina fly in the face of that."

    It was a friggin disaster area! What the hell are talking about?

    "A lot of your Bush ire I am with though. I think the jackboots are a weeeee bit further away from our door than you, but hey I like to try to head things off before they get too crazy.

    It's funny in general I am on your AND Joe's side regarding the issue at hand here about civil liberties, war on terror, and yet somehow in the end I am just another Dittohead.

    Still working on that one."

    What concerns us is that your ideology seems rather rigid, inflexible. It does not seem to always take reality into account.

    Jason,

    ""We need a final authority. Final. Not first."

    A distinction without a difference, I'm afraid.

    I do periodic checks on which of the big coalitions I prefer, and historically the Right winds up on top. The keys are:

    1) Self defence is my One Big Issue. I will turn activist against any coalition that threatens me on that issue, regardless of any other policies.

    2) I view single payor healthcare as a mistake of galactic proportions. Strong advocacy of that positon makes me highly unlikely to join your coalition.

    There used to be a lot more, but my distaste for the right coalition's spending habits and lack of transparency counterbalance many of those. To me, the left coalition is making ground, but it has a few fundamental planks that I just can't swallow."

    Jason, if you think the Dems are going to 'take yer guns,' then you're a loony. As for single payor, that seems quite a ways off, if ever. Gotta warn you though - the first big step toward single payor is happening right now - and it's a GOP governor who's moving it along...

    JMJ

  • ||

    "the American people or so f'n stupid"

    Why is it that people have the impression that leftoids are smug, condescending, arrogant pricks?

    (standard disclaimer for JMJ, otherwise I must be a dittohead: A largely agree with your views on civil liberties & this administration)

  • Jim Henley||

    "Pretty soon we'll have laws and every other fuckin' thing."

    Was it Charlie Utter who said that, or Seth Bullock?

  • ||

    Okay Brian - start drawing us some lines...

    JMJ

  • ||

    JMJ becausze the American people or so f'n stupid ...

    I actually thought you were making some reasonable arguments til you got here...I mean, come on, that's no way to win friends and influence people--I may think you are stupid, but that's ok, you go about your life. You think I'm stupid, so you have to be my mom?

  • ||

    "What concerns us is that your ideology seems rather rigid, inflexible. It does not seem to always take reality into account."

    Yeah you are Captain flexable JMJ. Grab a mirror amigo.

    Ironchef, welcome to the fake Dittohead camp with me, I was getting lonesome.

    Brian24 I am with you down the line. There are no bragging rights with our political parties as each is as stupid and out to violate the Constitution as the other, just in different ways.

    Oh wait, never mind Joe told me I was a right-winger. Still scratching my head.

  • ||

    I'm saying that its perfectly possible that some career civil servant is stupid enough to believe that accusing his subordinate of sedition will curry favor with his superiors.

    And how does a belief like that arise? Out of whole cloth? It is quite possible that the reason for this belief is because the government is fostering an atmosphere that shuns and attacks dissent, esp within the ranks of government employees.

    I'm also saying that it requires a pretty good case of BDS to pin this on the Chimpler.

    I say it requires quite a bit of intellectual dishonesty to believe that there is no culpability on the part of this administration for fostering and even promoting an environment like this.


    Can anyone point to anything this administration has done to actually squelch free speech or a free press? Any arrests? Any indictments? Any frickin' investigations (not counting l'affaire Plame, which is entirely a self-inflicted wound on the media)? Any threats of the above? Anything at all?

    Patriot act? NSA Spying? Library records? SPying on anti-war demonstrators and Quakers?

    Indictments? WHo needs indictments when they can just haul you off to Gitmo as an "enemy combatant"?

    Making people afraid to speak out squelches free speech, regardless of whether people are being indicted for it.

    When the president goes around condemning the media for reporting that the he might be breaking the law and unlawfully spying on Americans, that has no effect on free speech?

    When the Washington Post editorializes that retired Generals should not denigrate the Sec of Defense or else they will be giving "aid" to our enemy, that has no effect on free speech?

    When the word treason is tossed around at anyone who disagrees with the policies of this admin or tries to hold them accountable for their deceptions, that has no effect of free speech?

    Just because we aren't actually rounding people up, doesn't mean that barring that, nothing the administration and it's followers do or say has any effects on the 1st amendment and the practicing of it. And this whole atmosphere came from the top down. No of course it isn't all the administration's fault, but to pretend that it bears zero responsibility is dishonest.

    Of course, now that his approval ratings are in the mid 30's and disenchantment with the war effort nationally, the admins rhetoric is far less effective, but you can't just ignore the atmosphere that had wrapped this country up post 9/11 and in the first years of the war.

  • ||

    JMJ:

    It is interesting. The right coalition tells me that I should listen to what they say and not what they do, on the grounds that everything big government they do is a forced compromise with the left. Obviously, that isn't true.

    Still, the left coalition tells me that what they say to motivate their core voters doesn't matter at all. We won't REALLY "get reasonable gun control", and we won't REALLY be able to nationalize healthcare.

    You can see where that leaves me in a pickle.

  • ||

    File charges" against someone for recommending mainstream books they don't like.

    "Mainstream books." Anyone bother to copy and paste since Fuckhead Lemur didn't make it a link?

    The Marketing of Evil by David Kupelian, The Professors by David Horowitz, Eurabia: The Euro-Arab Axis by Bat Ye�or, and It Takes a Family by Senator Rick Santorum

    The rest is left as an exercise for the reader.

  • ||

    "..it's those "PC" liberals who are your real friends."

    We have no friends.

    Comment by: MP


    har har.

    I think every american becomes a libertarian, momentarily, on tax day. Or the first time they're arrested.

    JG

  • ||

    Jersey at 12:20 pm:

    "It depends on the disaster. But in the case of NO, it made sense, and the violence, in an oterwise extremely violent town, was kept to a minimum. It was one of the few things we did right, there."

    Jersey at 2:16 pm:

    "Jason, if you think the Dems are going to 'take yer guns,' then you're a loony."

  • ||

    Well Jason, I personally would love to see stronger control regulation and universal healthcare but I don't see it coming down the pike for a long long time to come if ever. I guess the best thing I could tell anyone is "split your tickets!" Balance is the key. I'd rather the gov't do nothing than do something stupid. On that I'm sure we all agree. ;)


    MG,

    ""It depends on the disaster. But in the case of NO, it made sense, and the violence, in an oterwise extremely violent town, was kept to a minimum. It was one of the few things we did right, there."

    Jersey at 2:16 pm:

    "Jason, if you think the Dems are going to 'take yer guns,' then you're a loony.""

    It was a disaster - and they're giving them back now.

    JMJ

  • ||

    Jersey at 12:31 pm:

    "Mediageek, I don't think anything like that* happened."

    *A little old lady being tackled by a huge cop in order to confiscate her self defense pistol.

    Note: Link goes to video of a little old lady in New Orleans being tackled by a musclebound cop in order to confiscate her self-defense pistol.

    Or perhaps Jersey would like to explain how in a disaster zone infirm and old people would be allowed to keep their defensive arms?

    Which is it, Jersey? Either the cops should confiscate all the guns, or they shouldn't.

  • ||

    "Now I know you're a kid."

    Intellectually and logically bested by someone who's younger than you.

    I'll bet that stings.

  • ||

    Eh, people are goofy. What can ya' say? The cop should be fired.

    JMJ

  • ||

    "It was a disaster..."

    Oh, right! *smacks forehead* I keep forgetting. People trapped in a disaster have no right to defend themselves.

    "... - and they're giving them back now."

    Only after the NRA filed a flurry of lawsuits on behalf of those who had their arms forcibly confiscated.

  • ||

    "Eh, people are goofy. What can ya' say? The cop should be fired."

    Why? He was just doing his job! Guns have no place in a disaster area, after all!

    Why, the gall of that grandma! Wanting to keep possession of a defensive arm! How dare she spit in the eye of authority like that!

  • ||

    MG, what do you want here? In a martial law situation, you have to disarm. That's just life.

    Geniuses like you remind me...

    After 9/11, idiot Ashcroft refused to order the FBI to track gun ownership records of young arab men because it would 'infringe on the rights.'

    After invading Iraq, idiot Rumsfeld didn't disarm the Iraqis, leading to the disaster we have today.

    Fuck your stupid guns.

    There's a time to arm and a time to disarm. There's a time for most everything under the sun. Grow up.

    JMJ

  • ||

    "After 9/11, idiot Ashcroft refused to order the FBI to track gun ownership records of young arab men because it would 'infringe on the rights.'

    After invading Iraq, idiot Rumsfeld didn't disarm the Iraqis, leading to the disaster we have today."

    WOW so now Ashcroft was in the wrong for now racially profiling Arab gun owners (Sounds like the one thing the man did right).

    How about if we had never rode into Iraq in the first place we would not have had the problem period. That's my position, but are you so dumb as to think that asking everyone in Iraq to pretty please bring their guns and bombs in that the situation would be different now.

    Jersey, you say some things I like and then you come in with with this simplistic stupid shit.

  • dhex||

    "MG, what do you want here? In a martial law situation, you have to disarm. "

    ahhh...now we get to the heart of the matter.

    see, jersey - IF THAT IS YOUR REAL NAME - the problem with the dems and the republicants and all those fine partisan folk is that, to me, it's an issue of boot-licking. now, i'm one of those libertoids who's mostly a libertine, and i've got nothing against bootlicking, part-time bootblacks...shit, some of my best friends are leathermen.

    but i do have a problem when the political arena is used to play out the psychosexual hangups of others; hence retardations like gay marriage (or just sodomy laws in general) or the stuff you posted above. i understand that most republicans are content to lick boots, so long as it's a republican boot. and dems are quite content to snuggle with the smooth, soft leather of a democratic boot, as we saw during the clinton "you cannot love your country and fear your government" administration.

    but not all of us are into public s+m play writ large, and prefer these things to be kept out of the public sphere. moreover, since not all of us are unrepentant subs (not that there's anything wrong with that, some of my best friends are, etc) this whole "whatever you say daddy" (so long as it is the proper daddy) is not all that convincing.

    me, personally, i'm a little too butch for all this "i trust the government to protect me all the time" thing. i don't believe my fellow citizens are brainwashed, but i do think they're conflating the personal and the private a bit too much, and may want to consider getting their kicks in less political arenas.

  • ||

    MediaGeek,
    Thanks for digging up the vid and saving me from doing it.

    As for JMJ, quit engaging him. His mentality is that "Uncle Sam knows best". He refuses to see how enforcing PC speech = gun confiscation = state religion = smoking bans in private = drug war. He just doesn't understand how we can be conservative in our economic policies while being liberal in our social policies.

    He doesn't realize that Democrats and Republicans have so much more in common than they are ever willing to admit. One restricts freedom in the name of terrorism and immigration the other restricts it in the name of political correctness and healthy living.

    Whatever the reason, they both restrict my right to live how I want to live so long as it doesn't infringe on others to do the same, or in the words of the Declaration of Independence "unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness".

  • Timothy||

    Joe: I'll take Larry Summers, Brad DeLong, and and Mark Thoma* for my lefty economist dollar over Duncan Black any day. For my righty economist dollar I'll take Andrew Samwick, Art Laffer, and Alan Greenspan. For my libertarian dollar would be spent on the entire GMU department, plus Milton Friedman. I'm not sure where Fisher Black would go politically, but what I've read of his work is interesting.

    *Full disclosure, I was a student in one of Thoma's classes at Oregon my last year in college.

  • ||

    Kwix, I guess the reason I continue to engage JMJ is simply because I find it fun.

    I guess that makes me a sick bastard, because it's really a lot like picking on the retarded kid in the classroom, but I just can't help myself.

    As for JMJ, dude, I hope you are really, really good looking, because if I'm both younger and smarter than you (as has already been established in this very thread) then it would truly suck if you had to go through life with the trifecta of old, dumb, and ugly.

  • ||

    AL,

    ""After 9/11, idiot Ashcroft refused to order the FBI to track gun ownership records of young arab men because it would 'infringe on the rights.'

    After invading Iraq, idiot Rumsfeld didn't disarm the Iraqis, leading to the disaster we have today."

    WOW so now Ashcroft was in the wrong for now racially profiling Arab gun owners (Sounds like the one thing the man did right)."

    Pragmatism eludes you, Lurker.

    "How about if we had never rode into Iraq in the first place we would not have had the problem period. That's my position, but are you so dumb as to think that asking everyone in Iraq to pretty please bring their guns and bombs in that the situation would be different now.

    Jersey, you say some things I like and then you come in with with this simplistic stupid shit."

    I agree that invasion was wrong, but if we were going to do it, the ONLY way to win a war is to forcibly disarm the population. Anyone who thinks otherwise is stupid. Period.

    Kwix,

    "As for JMJ, quit engaging him. His mentality is that "Uncle Sam knows best"."

    I don't think that at all.

    "He refuses to see how enforcing PC speech"

    What???

    "= gun confiscation ="

    In wars and disaster areas???

    "state religion"

    WHAT THE F!!!

    "= smoking bans in private"

    You lying piece of ....

    "= drug war."

    You are a liar. A god damned liar. Sleazy little punk liar.

    JMJ

  • Timothy||

    Declaring it makes it so, JMJ, touche.

  • ||

    If you ever get depressed about the state of the country, just imagine what it would be like if we all subscribed to JMJ's idea of pragmatism.

  • ||

    It must really suck to argue with people and find out that the crazy thoughts in your head are so easily dispelled by a ten second Google search.

  • dhex||

    dear jersey:

    pragmatism != morally correct action.

    in fact, it is often the opposite.

    HOW CURIOUS.

  • ||

    "Pragmatism eludes you, Lurker."

    Well if racial profiling is pragmatic then I guess I am not pragmatic.

    You got me you sly one you.

  • ||

    dhex, I'm not sure that he knows what either of those things are.

  • ||

    Dhex - morality is for morons. Empirically based ethical decision making is neither arbitrary nor moralistic. You're outclassed here pal.

    Al, I remember, right after 9/11, Al Franken was on with Conan O'Brien. COnan asked him about "profiling," All said, "If it were a bunch of Jewish comedians that flew those planes into those buildings, I wouldn't complain at all about being harrassed."

    You guys are all about silly adolescent libertarian ideology - and no reality.

    JMJ

  • ||

    "You are a liar. A god damned liar. Sleazy little punk liar."

    Ooooh, you've really stepped in it now, dum-dum!

  • ||

    "You guys are all about silly adolescent libertarian ideology - and no reality."

    Why hello Mr. Pot! How are you today?

  • ||

    Don't know if anyone has ever posted this here, but Jersey considers himself something of an author himself. If you want to see exactly how wacko he is, wou can find out here. My favorite so far is the recent post where he claims that the invasion of Iraq was an eminent domain abuse by the federal government.

  • ||

    Jason Ligon,

    the only folks more comitted to Gun Control than the left, are the right.

    And yes, I know you don't know what I mean.

    Maybe you heard about a certain case down south in "red" territory. A man was startled in the middle of the night in his bed, and shot an intruder who was there illegally.

    Of course the man in bed was black, and the intruder was a trespassing cop, with no warrant.

    That man, in that "red" state, is now sitting on death row. Who woulda guessed it.

    I suspect you do actually know what I am talking about.

    Not to say I support the left on gun control, just making the point that neither does the "red" either, when it comes down to it.

  • ||

    I would like to second Doctor Witherspoon's suggestion below that Mister McJones is a disgrace to our great State of New Jersey.

  • ||

    Alright, well, you all got this guy to say "morality is for morons". I can't see where the discussion could possibly go from there.

  • ||

    I bet it's all because of one of Bush's signing statements.

    He probably signed a law establishing Jesus day, and added a statement saying "PS: Lock that Berg bitch up. She's harshing my buzz."

  • ||

    This is from Jersey's archives:

    "Our day in the future world of Libertarian Utopia:

    We wake up late in the morning because the power is out. We get in our car and, after seven tries and finally a jump, it starts, blowing plumes of toxic gas all over our garden. We stop at McDonalds on the way and try to drink our 190 degree coffee, which we barely get a chance to sip. We eat what we think is some kind of sausage on some kind of perhaps bread. We sit in three hours of traffic to get through the ten miles of pot-holed roads to get to work. We arrive at work late and get yelled at like a truant juvenile. We work 12 1/2 hours, with no overtime or even acknowledgement of our extra effort, performing completely non-productive service sector task management. We then drive the three hours again to get home and fix ourselves a steak, that we pray doesn�t cause us madness, and vegetables that are genetically closer in structure to us then their wild originator. We have spent the day ingesting more chemicals then Timothy Leary did in a lifetime. We worked more hours than our great grandfather, the plowman. We produced nothing of value whatsoever. We are probably divorced and have 1.5 children, who we see twice a month, who are really not sure which one is �daddy�. We watch Fox news, which is now on every channel, and believe it is �fair and balanced� (can I say that?) and come away with opinions so ill informed that we may as well have developed them while tripping on acid and staring at a wall. We are very angry about gay people, fifteen year old girls who get abortions, black people, people who don�t speak enough English, �hateful� liberals (now there�s an oxymoron!), women with opinions, and anything that might make our lives better. And we are convinced there is too much regulation and litigation in the world and we have to put a stop to it.

    JMJ

    Posted in Quickie"

    Jersey,

    Do you actually believe this is what it would be like if Libertarians ran everything? You seemed to be conflated Libertaranism with some sort of stereotype of certain types of neocon/theocon Republicans.

    This post is just absurd. I'm rather libertarian in bent and:

    A) Black
    B) A polyglot who has spent a large amount of time with non-Americans of many backgrounds and opposes 'national languages'
    C) support gay marriage
    D) Have a very strong-willed wife who always presents her opinion
    E) despise Fox news

    Just for your information, I also believe in evolution, anthrogenic global warming, dislike the Administration, think we need to get out of Iraq, and a number of other things that I assume you believe that "libertarians" must scoff at.

    Jersey: libertarian (or even the big L version) does not equal = 'big-government Republican theocon'.

    I'm not even going to bother your misconceptions about governmental versus non-governmental regulatory frameworks.

  • ||

    I can't help but be skeptical of the "ends over means" position in political philosophy. That is, undoubtedly, the Left's position (and the Right's too anymore)-- and both describe it as "pragmatic politics." I would like to see JMJ present a model of what kind of state he wants (kind of like the whole "minimal state" thing Nozick describes). Then it would be easier to test it like a thought experiment. The main questions I would like to see answered: if government has no pragmatic limitations IN PRINCIPAL (that is, if we can indentify points in society where state regulation, etc. is justifiable without resorting to an axiom such as the libertarian "as little as possible), then what are the mechanisms by which we judge unjustifiable vs. justifialble governmental action? In other words, if it is right for the government to take people's guns in NO, then how exactly do we determine when it is NOT right for a government to act thus? If JMJ could construct such a model, then perhaps there could be a more constructive conversation than simply "you're an idiot!" "no, you are!" (not that it isn't fun :)

  • ||

    "the only folks more comitted to Gun Control than the left, are the right."

    Disagree.
    The Republicans are anti-gun, but don't speak up for gun control much because the NRA is a big donor to the R's and therefore they have to kowtow somewhat.

  • ||

    The kind of State that Jersey wants (or rather, the one he'd end up with if he got everything he wanted) is described here. (Beginnings of relevant posts are highlighted.)

  • ||

    PS: The server squirrels seem much improved today. Thank you. (Hoping I haven't jinxed everything now.)

  • ||

    "If JMJ could construct such a model, then perhaps there could be a more constructive conversation than simply "you're an idiot!" "no, you are!" (not that it isn't fun :)"

    I honestly don't think that's going to happen.

    Whenever Jersey actually presents something other than an outright condemnation, said idea gets criticized, and then he does one of the following:

    1) Offers a vague, completely undefined "solution"
    2) Attempts to change the subject by insulting the current administration and accusing us of being shills for it.
    3) Making accusations of racism.
    4) Making shit up.

    I've noticed that number four seems to be his favorite debate tactic.

  • ||

    We watch Fox news, which is now on every channel, and believe it is �fair and balanced� (can I say that?) and come away with opinions so ill informed that we may as well have developed them while tripping on acid and staring at a wall.

    C'mon, nobody tripping on acid would come up with the crap they say on Fox News. It would be waaaaaay groovier.

    C'mon, Jersey, "morality is for morons?" Now you sound like Kissinger. I thought better than that of you.

    William Livingston: kudos on the Arsenic and Old Lace reference. Boo-ya.

  • ||

    The VA is in the habit of taking reprisals against both veterans & employees who write things that 'embarrass' the VA. In Feb, 2006 I had written a member of the U S Congress about VA Medical Center, Wilkes Barre, Pa [WBVAMC]not reporting an incident of an employee, Chief of Staff [COS]at WBVAMC, assaulting another employee by choking to local law enforcment or taking any disciplinary action against COS, WBVAMC. Jay Kloin, MD, of VA Out-Patient Clinic, Allentown, Pa [AVAOPC] ordered my therapist, P S Casner, to tell him, Mr Casner, where I had heard of the assault, who had told me of the assault & not to write any letters to members of the Congress any more. This was & is illegal & unethical conduct, harassment & taking reprisals against me & de facto harassment. Dr Kloin may be reached at AVAOPC, 610 776 4304, 3110 HAMILTON BLVD, ALLENTOWN, PA 18103; Dr Kloin's superiors are Wm Grossman, MD, COS & Roland E Moore, Medical Director, VAMC, 1111 EAST END, WILKES BARRE PA 570 824 3521. Dr Kloin is now making verbal accusation of me threating him & has told me that I was "in trouble & to stop threating him" Since I'm 69 years old, 100% disabled, walk with a cane, hunch backed, short of breath, 5 ft 1 in tall, weigh 220 lbs, told Dr Kloin that I didn't wish to speak to him & asked him to keep at least 10 ft a way from me. I make it a point to keep at least 10 ft from Dr Kloin. Dr Kloin is around 5 ft 9 in, weighs around 175 lbs, is apparently a fit middle-aged man. I fail to see how I present any physical danger to Dr Kloin. As for my writing to a member of the Congress-that is my right & Dr Kloin is interefering it unlawfully. To force Mr Casner, my shrink, to deliver threats to me & illegally ask questions of me, is both illegal & unethical. It would be interesting to see a written comment on this matter from the Drs Kloin or Grossman, or Mr Moore.

  • R C Dean||

    Sorry, ChicagoTom, but I am completely unimpressed with your litany of how the Bushbots have crushed dissent in this country.,

    No indictments. No arrests. No convictions. No one shipped to Gitmo. Not one single person punished for exercising their First Amendment rights. Not one.

    Sure, lots of potential 4th Amendment violations out there that could be used to intimidate people, but I sure don't see any evidence that any one is intimidated.

    Nope. I see millions of people criticizing the Bush administration in the most vituperative and colorful terms. I see dozens of published editorials that are critical as well.

    The idea that Americans are cowering, afraid to express their opinions of this government for fear of jackboots kicking in their door is a fantasy.

    Now, some folks aren't real happy at the reception their opinions get in the marketplace of ideas, and may for that reason feel a little constrained about letting their freak flag fly, but lets not confuse robust disagreement with fascist oppression.

  • ||

    Stevo,

    I remember reading that, actually. That certainly explains my opinion of the matter (and most others here). I hope that Jersey can come up with something that isn't so easily caricatured.

    I think one of Jersey's underlying critiques is certainly worth considering: Libertarians seem often to make political decisions via an axiomatic (and to many unexamined) assumption that less government is better in all cases. Now, whether or not this axiom is valid, if it IS unexamined then it is of limited utility in the real world (rather like Marx's "do what we can and take what we need"). I tend to think of this as a valid point, and an unsettling one for me as a libertarian. Nonetheless, I think we can make some distinctions here. My critique of the position that JMJ holds is that it has no regulatory model. If we can use government abitrarily to make things better then how do we determine when not to use it? Part of it is, of course, the definition of "better." What I or JMJ thinks as better may not be better for someone else. More problematically, the whole idea of making the world "better" presupposes a transcendental notion of the good that defines goodness outside of the practical and contingent realities within which we make all moral decisions. It is utopian in the strictest sense of the word: it is "nowhere" (literally speaking) because the "where", the practical world, is too corrupt and people too myopic to make proper decisions. As a naturalist, I find the metaphysical underpinnings of this highly suspect. I also find it contradicotry epistemologically. How does a government have any more insight into the "better" than an individual person. What's more, historically speaking, the "better" has always been used for corrupt ends in itself.

    Now, doesn't the minimal state model fall into such a transcendental category? I don't think so-- or at least not in the same way. As long as this model remains falsifiable, then its transcendental function is "merely" logical-- in much the same way that God and Free Will existed for Kant as transcendental categories of practical reason. In other words, I maintain that it is rationally justifiable to construct political models and to base civic decisions on them as long as they do not pretend to irrationally utopian ideas (and are, thus, provisional like scientific theories). What's more, I think it rationally unjustified NOT to have some sort of a model. JMJ doesn't seem to make his opinions out of a model and is, therefore, I argue, open to the criticism of 1) a kind of subconcious utopian irrationality or 2) an unprincipled intellectual stance. If he could construct such a model, then his criticisms of Libertarianism would make much more sense, and our criticisms of him would have a more constructive purpose than simple censure because of not adhering to the stated orthodoxy.

    Sorry for the length.

  • lunchstealer||

    I hope you Libers wake up soon and realize that the GOP is NOT your closest of the two parties.

    OK, first of all, if you really want libertarians to join the progressive coalition, let me give you a few hints. Try - JUST FUCKING TRY - to hide your contempt for us. Perhaps you could refer to us as 'libertarians' instead of 'libers'. Perhaps you could invite us to join with you, rather than coming in here and issuing these smug pronouncements that we should 'wake up' - something like "Hey, I know we've got our differences, but if more libertarians would band together with us liberals, we could at least stop the Bush-style jerks from trampling all over civil liberties".

    Of course, I think the best thing you could do is probably to stop posting here, and ask one of your friends who's not as void of ideas and un-fucking-charming as you are to take your place. Seriously, we've got liberal posters who come over here and talk to us, but when they do so, they actually engage the issues, not just toss your spunk on the screen and tell us how we're all Bush's toadies.

    Yeah, sure, one can fuss over their right to be asshole

    You're certainly adept at excercising that particular right.

    --

    I get the distinct feeling that the lowly scumbag who recommended those lowly scumbag books is probably a real lowly scumbag who is doing more than just suggesting reading material.

    OK, Do you see here how what you're doing is being an appologist for left wing violations of civil liberties? I'm sure there are jerks on right-wing blogs who are saying things like "Oh, I'm sure she was doing other things than just writing a letter to the editor". You're exhibiting a double standard. When a progressive needs civil liberties you jump to the ramparts, but a left-wing attack on conservative speech brings out "Oh, I'm sure that right-wing guy deserved it." Its a double standard, and it shows that at least YOUR brand of progressive civil liberties are as two-faced and insincere as Pat Robertson's. If I was to start supporting your brand of civil liberties, I'd be selling out my ideals just as surely as if I were to support Bush. You're exactly the same as him.

    The "charges," you loony, are institutional, not legal and have since been dropped.

    Actually, no legal charges were ever brought against the nurse, either. It was an investigation by the HR department, and they too were dropped. Again, you're being an appologist for left-wing attempts to limit speech, even while you decry similar behavior on the right.

    [libertarians] are very angry about gay people, fifteen year old girls who get abortions, black people, people who don�t speak enough English...

    The above statement shows that you have no respect for libertarian ideas or ideals. You hate us so much that you don't listen to a single thing we say. A liberal who had any respect at all for libertarians would never have written the above sentence. You're a troll. You have no sense of intellectual honesty, and almost every post I see makes me cringe for my friends who are liberal, because you are a disgrace to liberals.

  • ||

    As the Glenn Reynolds thread has shown, you know you're a libertarian when folks from both the Republicans and Democrats accuse you of being the other side.

    The Republicans get mad because many of us don't support imperialistic or preemptive wars of aggression.

    The Democrats get mad because we don't support the redistribution of wealth.

    I tell people that libertarians are the true liberals because libertarians want everything liberalised. Unfortunately, the left wing took control of that word here in America, and I don't think they're giving it back...not that we'd want it, considering the connotations it would give folks.

  • ||

    Lowdog, not even the left wants the word "liberal" back after the way they've mucked it up in the past five decades.

    I wonder what they'll call themselves after they thoroughly corrupt the term "Progressive?"

  • ||

    Mediageek's JMJ list seems to be exactly the same as the one applied to ChicagoTom's modus operandi:

    "1) Offers a vague, completely undefined "solution"
    2) Attempts to change the subject by insulting the current administration and accusing us of being shills for it.
    3) Making accusations of racism.
    4) Making shit up."

    Are JMJ & ChicagoTom the same knucklehead posting under two aliases?

  • ||

    Only if JMJ is Chicago Tom's alias after smoking about ten rocks of crack.

  • ||

    Hmmm... Good point.

    But CT's really going off - in a JMJ fashion - on the "The Past Is Another Planet" thread about how "you people" toe the Bush administration line and how [those people] call people (like him, apparently!) who disagree with him "kossacks" (SP?) and "stupid crazy liberals" despite the fact that those words are never used in the entire thread.

    Course, you guys are ganging up on JMJ over here while CT seems to be only pissed at me... Heh!

  • lunchstealer||

    Lowdog,

    I've had many of the same ideas. There's always that movement afoot to rebrand themselves "progressive". Maybe we should support that. Of course, I worry about what that means to Yes and King Crimson fans, but I'm willing to let that slide.

  • lunchstealer||

    Actually, rob, CT may have kinda gone off the deepend, but I thought he had a point about your 'daily kos' snark.

  • ||

    Jerkoff MyJones-

    Mark - when the president acts with "war powers" when we are not constitutionally at war...

    Would that be: Wilson(Dem), Roosevelt(Dem), Truman(Dem), Kennedy(Dem), Johnson(Dem), or Bush 43(Repub)?

    And, from a libertarian viewpoint... who do you really think is going to stop a 'president'... given the last 100 years of 'precedent'?

  • ||

    Jim Henley-

    Hey! Why are you all laughing?!

    Because, she's still an ignorant bint!

    Actually, I agree w/ your point... If she had quit before her objections, it would not be as bad-- but instead, all she has done is proved that she is nothing but a cheap whore.

  • ||

    Despite the several valiant efforts to save this thread, it started quite lightheartedly amusing and quickly became quite darkly amusing, ccharacterized by such statements as If you don't get what I said then you are an Idiot moron -- now there's constructive dialog. Any thread that devolves into a disavowment of morality is, though memorable for its extreme vitriol and irrationality, pretty effed up.

    By the way, JMJ, if that's what you think of morality, then that probably has something to do with why you're so hostile to (afraid of) liberty/libertarianism.

  • ||

    Joe-

    Also, the next time you compare me to Christopher Hitchens, you lose a finger. ;-)

    You can only wish you were C. Hitchens-

    He's probably richer than you...
    He's surely smarter than you...
    He'll definitely drink you under the table...


    Plus, I'd bet more people here at "Hit & Run" would actually prefer reading something from him...

    Don't you understand 'flattery'? :o)

  • ||

    rob-

    Are JMJ & ChicagoTom the same knucklehead posting under two aliases?

    I'll agree w/ 'mediageek'... ChicagoTom seems to be a thoughtful poster who(even if/when I disagree) contributes to the discussion.

    JMJ is just a troll...

  • ||

    I was fishing the other day and laid out my bait and waited - BAM FISH ON!

    I am sure that's what JMJ is feeling

    This HRN hole is full of fish

  • ||

    This thread was funny.

    Reading everyone having a go at JMJ is like watching a simpleton walk into a glass door.

    Again.

    And again.

    And again.....

  • ||

    You all picking on poor, trolly JMJ makes me cry.

  • dhex||

    "Dhex - morality is for morons. Empirically based ethical decision making is neither arbitrary nor moralistic. You're outclassed here pal."

    oh, ok. thanks for clearing that up.

    so you're good with blood for oil, then?

    you sly neocon, you!

  • lunchstealer||

    dhex, the guy's morals resemble Bush's more than anyone else. In his world, political ally persecuted at the workplace for their speech is a violation of civil liberties, but if it's a political enemy, then he's a 'lowly scumbag' who's probably up to no good. Sounds like Bush. He's come out FOR racial profiling. Sounds like Bush. He doesn't understand even the basic concepts of libertarianism. Sounds like Bush.

    Seriously. A guy who supports racial profiling lecturing libertarians on how we should join with HIM to protect civil liberties. What a tool.

  • ||

    "Actually, rob, CT may have kinda gone off the deepend, but I thought he had a point about your 'daily kos' snark." - lunchstealer

    Hmmm... I didn't realize I'd said anything all that offensive to Daily Kos posters. Sorry to the thoughtful posters at Kos if I said something that hurt their feelings.

    But I didn't think that generally referring to a thread as tho it were the product of non-thoughtful posters at Kos is anywhere near as offensive as specifically being referred to as a "Bushbot."

    That CT got all wound up maybe says something about him, maybe it doesn't. Maybe I just caught him when he was already feeling raw. But he went off on me like a guy who had just attacked him personally and proceeded to call me a bunch of things that are definitely offensive.

    Hey CT, if you're reading this, I'll buy you a beer and we can both complain about people who have swallowed - and regurgitate on command - the BS rhetoric from both sides of the aisle. (Frankly, I find both sides repellent... Which is probably why I find myself at HNR, since misery loves company!)

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement