But far
worse than any misallocated money or death from freak accident is the sheer
primeval mob spirit in which these pranks are performed.
When do you
soaked, shivering rocket surgeons exactly plan to use your brains, to the
extent that you have any, and start thinking for yourselves? When someone
nominates you for a "light a firecracker in your mouth" challenge?
When Al Qaida collects $100 million because they have a cool video? Before you
vote for the next fuehrer because he has a cool party trick?
If you
cheer mob spirit and irrationality, if "nominating," shaming,
guilting, peer pressure, and blind following is the coin of your realm, this is
what you are cheering on:
Don't ask
who is destroying the world. You are.
If the
world goes down your path, you are going to solve the ALS issue ironically,
because people will once again be slaughtering each other before they ever get
a chance to develop ALS, just like in the Dark Ages, just like in World War II.
That is the nature of barbarity.
As
ironically, if you would quit wasting time on collectivist blackmail and use it
instead for teaching people to think for themselves, people would become more
productive, GDP would increase, and more money would be available for all
research even without pressuring people to give. That is the nature of
progress.
You and
your methods are disgusting, no matter how noble you claim the ends you
advocate to be. Plus, wet, you look ridiculous. Now go away and be ashamed of
yourselves.
If
you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a
great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this
unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody
invested in roads and bridges. If you've got a business — you didn't build
that. Somebody else made that happen.
Upon the
predictable public outrage at Resident Obama's confession of his commitment to
collectivism and communism, he backtracked, and the leftist media attempted to
whitewash him by claiming that he didn't mean "you didn't build your
business," but that he meant "you didn't build roads and
bridges," that "that" referred to "roads and bridges."
Yet, sane people pointed out that that doesn't make sense, as "roads and
bridges" are "those," not "that," and that
"that" is immediately preceded by "business," so that this
is the most logical referent.
But even if
the resident and his socialist enablers plead grammatical illiteracy, it still
doesn't make sense. If Obama meant "roads and bridges," what about
the teachers and the American system? Does it make sense to single out roads
and bridges while ignoring teachers and the whole American system?
Maybe
Comrade Obama doesn't mind neglecting the American system, but would a leftist
ever snub teachers? They pay him to roll over pork to them, after all.
Now the
resident might backtrack again and claim that "that" referred to all
of the above — teachers, the American system, and roads and bridges. However,
that wouldn't make sense, either. For he said, "you didn't build
that." You may build systems and roads and bridges, but you don't build
teachers. Schools, but not teachers.
Any way you
slice it, it's pretty clear what Obama deep down in his heart really wanted to
say. He means it, and he wants to shout it from the highest steeples — while
preserving a modicum of plausible deniability.
Obama said he wanted to "spread the wealth around."
The London looters say they're redistributing property.
As long as socialist politicians claim they have the right to redistribute property, freelance looters will take that "right" into their own hands every time government loses control.
In 2009 a Washington state high school teacher called for the removal of the novel from a school curriculum. The teacher, John Foley, called for replacing The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn with a more modern novel. In an opinion column that Foley wrote in the Seattle Post Intelligencer, he states that all "novels that use the 'N-word' repeatedly need to go." He states that teaching the novel is not only unnecessary, but difficult due to the offensive language within the novel with many students becoming uncomfortable at "just hear[ing] the N-word." He views this change as "common sense," with Obama's election into office as a sign that Americans "are ready for a change," and that by removing these books from the reading lists, they would be following this change.
If you have to choose between Huckleberry Finn and Obama, is that even a question? I mean, it's a no-brainer (as in, if you choose Obama, you've got no brain).
If many students become uncomfortable at just hearing the word nigger, they've got an awfully bad teacher. Making kids believe that there are evil words teaches them nothing about rights or about the fact that people have equal rights irrespective of their looks.
It only teaches kids that there are words they must not use, or even just think of, and that those happen to be the words that the black person that occupies the White House probably doesn't like. Big Barrack is watching you.
Little did I expect I'd ever have to side with Obama against Ron Paul.
While nation building like in Iraq is not a good idea — the war there should have ended the day Saddam was caught — and it may be legitimate to speak of a welfare-warfare state in that context, the vicious, inhuman nature of the libertarian extremist anti-war attitude is now in plain sight.
"Do we have to wait till he (Gadhafi) kills us all before the (world) acts. We are very disappointed," said Adel Mansoura, an air traffic controller fleeing with his family.
"When we heard the U.N. resolution, we were very happy and thought we had our freedom but now we have been left on our own to the killers," he said at a petrol station where dozens of other cars lined for fuel as they fled.
The head of the rebel National Libyan Council, Mustafa Abdel Jalil, said the international community must act swiftly to protect civilians from Gadhafi's forces.
"Now there is a bombardment by artillery and rockets on all districts of Benghazi," he told Al Jazeera television. "The international community is late in intervening to save civilians from Gadhafi's forces."
"Today in Benghazi there will be a catastrophe if the international community does not implement the resolutions of the U.N. Security Council," he said. "We appeal to the international community, to the all the free world, to stop this tyranny from exterminating civilians."
"…and the least we could do to assist those trying to oust the Gaddaffi regime."
You bet.
"Let us be clear about one thing: for the US to establish a 'no fly' zone over all or part of Libya would constitute an act of war against Libya. Establishing any kind of military presence in the sovereign territory…"
Glad to see that the mystic and meaningless title "sovereign nation" still is a license to murder.
"The administration has stated that nothing is off the table as they discuss US responses to the unrest. This sort of talk is alarming on so many levels. Does this mean a nuclear strike is on the table? Apparently so."
Behold the death of a weak argument from ludicrous hyperbole.
"In this case, I would like to make sure we actually follow the black letter of the law provided in the Constitution that explicitly grants congress the sole authority to declare war. …the president … would have no authority to engage in hostilities because we have not been attacked…"
If a government like Gaddafi's slaughters the people it pretends to protect, any other nation or any private organization has an absolute right to go in and help the victims defend themselves, while taking any reasonable measure to avoid collateral damage. This is a natural right stemming from every individual's human right to life, which takes precedence over any national or international law, which at this point becomes null and void.
Anybody who would put the law above human lives is less than a human being.
"This is not our fight."
Where have I heard that before? Ah, yes, appeasing the nazis. Now, that was a good idea.
So if you ever see Ron Paul assaulted, like when Brüno tries to ass rape him again or a Gaddafi terrorist aims a missile at his plane, don't help Paul. He wouldn't want it.
Boy, am I glad that clown didn't get elected. (Never thought I'd say that.) Obama may be even more cowardly than the French, but at least he's been shamed into action instead of clinging to his delusions. Turns out Obama is indeed a better, or at least a less evil, person than Ron Paul.
"We don't have the money for more military interventions overseas… We have to rely on the Fed's printing presses and our ability to borrow from China to fund these wars."
A couple missiles and some jet fuel won't drive the budget over the brink. But if it need be to help human beings being slaughtered while fighting for their freedom, keep the presses rolling and palm off another couple billion dollars in bonds on the Chinese.
As far as I am concerned, Paul and his ilk of Libertarian peaceniks have crossed the moral event horizon. If the French are braver than you, you're doing something wrong.
How, then, do minarchist libertarians and objectivists arrive at such delusions?
Minarchism and more narrowly objectivism hold that there must be governments, or else there would be chaos — which is somehow bad. Also, for some reason there's no world government — as would be logical if there were one "objective" set of laws — but mankind is arbitrarily divided into countries, or nation states, or rather tribes.
Every tribe has a government to pacify, arbitrate between the members of, and defend only its own tribe, as governments must be funded by enforced taxation, and it would be wrong to use that money forcibly collected for the "common defense" of our tribe to unselfishly and altruistically defend a foreign tribe.
What's more, our soldiers enlisted to defend their own families and tribesmen. Thus, they will readily fight for the worst scum, if only it belongs to our tribe, but it would be wrong to expect them to fight for worthless foreigners, be it defenseless women and children or whatever.
Thus, objectivism and minarchist libertarianism both evict themselves from the realm of morality. Belief systems that encourage their followers to idly stand by while a few miles away mass murder is committed, which they could prevent at little cost or risk to themselves, cannot claim to be moral in any way, shape, or form.
Ayn Rand, who founded objectivism and injected it with her mistaken notion of minarchism, correctly observed that a morality is a code to sustain human life, and that self-sacrifice is immoral. (Why would you value anyone's life more highly than your own?) Yet these two belief systems she shaped forbid saving life even if no self-sacrifice is involved and thus become self-contradictory and, at least in their politics, invalid. Minarchist libertarianism, which unlike objectivism is not a comprehensive philosophy, but merely a political ideology, is thus completely invalidated.
Now, what's the difference between minarchist libertarianism and anarchist libertarianism, between objectivism and (anarcho-)capitalism? Let's stick with the example of the Libyan civil war.
On an objectivist aircraft carrier, the captain would address his crew like this:
"As we get our funding from American taxpayers, and you enlisted to protect only America, we are not authorized to defend foreigners. Therefore, we'll sit here, waiting for a direct threat to America to emerge, enjoying the Mediterranean sun, and watching those bloody foreigners getting slaughtered. Their problem if they can't by themselves handle the dictator of the country allotted to them."
This is the moral bankruptcy of objectivism, or at least of libertarian politics. (In fairness I should point out that the better sort of objectivists finds a workaround for that dilemma by declaring that helping freedom fighters is in the US national interest or that every human life has an intrinsic value.)
On a capitalist aircraft carrier, the captain would address his crew like this:
"We get paid for defending our customers, and you signed on to fight on their behalf. However, every once in a while, we hand out free samples to people who are not yet our customers, like those Libyans over there. If anyone of you has a problem fighting for Libyans, there's the gangway."
Plans for the eatery … were shelved due to concerns about design and construction costs and the difficulty of finding a restaurateur willing to run a likely money-losing operation, sources said.
"These things are always money-losers. We think we can achieve a far better financial return given the [quality of the] space and avoid all the complexities," Port Authority Executive Director Chris Ward said.
…
The former owners of Tavern on the Green, the Strip House chain, and Windows on the World itself were among many restaurateurs who expressed interest in taking on a reborn Windows.
Windows on the World is a license for printing money. If you can't make money with that, it's a miracle you can find the way to your refrigerator to ward off death by starvation. Does your wife keep feeding you, Chrissy Snow-Ward?
The only loser here is you, Chrissy. You couldn't find your own ass with a map and GPS.
I expect your immediate resignation. The only reason you don't is that you'd starve, as you couldn't even run a hot dog stand.
But you do build vanity projects next door to tall buildings, huh? Like that pointless mega-memorial Disneyland of Death?
" 'We are committed to finding the highest, best, and most practical use for this space — one that does not require subsidizing a restaurant with public money for years to come,' he said."
So what do you morons want to put there instead? Thanks to that coward Silverstein, there aren't going to be any offices at a decent height like that.
So what are you going to put onto those floors? More mechanical and communications equipment, like you wasted the other upper floors on?
I want my restaurant back, you government-funded imbeciles!
Wait, why was it that we have government? Like, because if all services the government pretends to provide were supplied by for-profit corporations, those who can't pay wouldn't get police or fire protection unless they relied on charity?
Turns out the government isn't very charitable. You don't pay your fee, they let your home burn. Nice.
So we pay monopoly prices, we get brutalized by fascist pigs, and we still don't get any services if we don't pay. What was the great idea about government again?
(One might say it's better than making the fee a tax and forcing people to pay it and buy fire protection at gunpoint, but it still isn't what we're always told about government: that the government protects you with basic services even if you can't pay.)
Right now we are advising all our clients to put everything they've got into garden hoses and fire extinguishers.
Necessary services — fire, police, health care and schools come quickly to mind — can't be delivered on an opt-in basis. Government, that much-maligned creature, actually does a few things well, including protecting the life and liberty of its citizens. What happened in Tennessee underscores again that we are all in this together, no matter how much we think we can go it alone.
Since when does government protect our liberty well? How do you protect somebody's life and liberty by brutalizing them for smoking weed?
I had thought outspoken collectivism of such an obscene degree existed only in Ayn Rand villains anymore. Even Obama minces his words.
I say, if a government that confiscates trillions of dollars can't even provide fire protection without a surcharge or a tax hike, it's time to abolish that government and let capitalism (and, if necessary, charity) take over. It can't get any worse, at any rate.
If I pay half my income to the government, I expect first-rate fire and police protection even in the last rural middle of nowhere, before they spend the first dollar on aircraft carriers (much as I love aircraft carriers) and Medicare / public school / socialism shit. If I pay taxes, the least I have to get is fire protection, no strings attached. If I don't get that, and have to haggle with a government or volunteer fire department anyway, then I don't want to pay taxes but negotiate with a for-profit fire protection provider right away.
BTW, one would think a capitalist provider would have accepted the higher, retroactive payment. Even in ancient Rome, private fire companies would buy houses on fire at rock-bottom prices and extinguish the fire instead of this waste.
In capitalism, you can buy any service for a price. Look at no-frills airlines. For a price, you can board first even if you arrive at the airport last.
Capitalism hates waste. Governments love to make examples.
The Roman firefighters got to keep the damaged houses. The mayor of South Fulton wouldn't have got to keep the late fee; it would have gone into city coffers.
So he only had his authority to preserve. By letting the house go to waste.
Yes, in capitalism some poor people would get no or shitty service. But the government has taken over half the country and some people still get no service.
And the statists' answer? More government.
You stupid, looting, slave-driving, murderous moon bats and wing nuts! The government could confiscate a hundred percent of our money and we still wouldn't all get fire protection or health insurance.
Because our dear rulers steal half of the tax money and waste the rest.
Why? Because they can.
Why can they do that? Because they have no competition.
And if there is competition, what is that called? Right. Capitalism.
Oh, and of course I cancelled my newsletter subscription.
It is in vain, dude, to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, peace, peace — but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms!
If you never understood why they're not properly called "greens" (though they sure vegetate) or "environmentalists," but eco-terrorists, or why Ayn Rand correctly identified them as anti-man, now you have proof from the horses' asses' mouths.
Apparently, we threaten the eco-terrorists' existence by breathing, using power, and stuff, or at least they're deluded enough to believe that:
Well, if the eco-terrorists want a civil war, they can get it. We'll win it hands down.
After all, they can't use jetfighters (emissions), tanks (depleted uranium), or even lowly handguns (lead pollution). OK, eco-terrorists, draw your sticks and stones, and make my day.
(As for that half-assed apology, you can shove it next to your head. One false move, and I amputate the shortest appendage of your unwashed hippie body.)
Update:
So what's the result of their stupidity?
Currently boycotting Gillian Anderson. Boycotting Richard Curtis, too, though I never heard of that limey fucktard.
Planning to fly somewhere, in spite of the airport nazis. Does anyone know what airline has the best fleet in terms of emissions? Anyone still have 707s or Concordes? :P
Surfing the web Doing research, I came across this here gem. If you think the fascist US drug laws are, well, fascist, get a load of this.
…urgent warning to all travelers to or through Dubai and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) generally to ensure they are completely free of any substances prohibited by that country.
The warning comes after Fair Trials International learnt this week that one of its clients, 43-year-old Middlesex man Keith Andrew Brown, has been sentenced to 4 years' imprisonment after 0.003g of cannabis was found in the tread of his shoe by customs officials in Dubai during transit from Ethiopia to London last September. This amount would not be visible to the naked eye, and weighs less than a single grain of sugar.
"We have seen a steep increase in such cases over the last 18 months. Customs authorities are using highly sensitive new equipment to conduct extremely thorough searches on travelers and if they find any amount — no matter how minute — it will be enough to attract a mandatory 4 year prison sentence," said Fair Trials International Chief Executive Catherine Wolthuizen.
"Moreover, the list of banned substances in UAE includes many medications available over-the-counter in other countries, such as codeine — a common ingredient in pain relief and cold-and-flu medication, as well as poppy seeds — a common baking ingredient.
"What many travelers may not realize is that they can be deemed to be in possession of such banned substances if they can be detected in their urine or bloodstream, or even in tiny, trace amounts on their person. We even have reports of the imprisonment of a Swiss man for 'possession' of 3 poppy seeds on his clothing after he ate a bread roll at Heathrow.
"With UAE becoming one of the most popular tourist and transit destinations in the world — in part due to extensive marketing of its beaches and shops — travelers need to know the risks they face if they are not completely clean of any banned substance or do not have a prescription for any medication they are carrying.
"For this reason, we have today published a comprehensive list of banned pharmaceuticals on our website and urge travelers to check any medication they may be carrying, and ensure their clothing is completely free of any banned substance before they fly," concluded Ms. Wolthuizen.
Yeah, sure. Like you could be sure to get all the poppy seeds out.
Just stay the fuck away from that hellhole.
(From 2008, but one may assume nothing has changed. At least Wikipedia says so.)
So don't chase your internet-addicted kids away from their computers. Surfing can save your life. Or at least four years of it.
"I tried to enslave my husband. My husband refused to stay enslaved. The stress of trying to keep him enslaved and of stealing his money, and society's scorn for my inability to keep him enslaved, put me through hell. Poor little me."
— Elin Nordegren
"Now, as the divorce is finalized, Nordegren says she is working on her college degree in psychology…"
"A competent and self-confident person is incapable of jealousy in anything. Jealousy is invariably a symptom of neurotic insecurity."
— Robert A. Heinlein
Someone insane enough to be jealous should not be allowed to work as a psychologist.
"…and is feeling confident in her 'beliefs, my decisions and myself.' "
Her beliefs that it's right to own a human being and exclude others from his life. Her decision to destroy her poor, clueless husband's life through her jealousy. Her self, which does not exist apart from as a shade on the lives of others, apart from the degree to which she can make them dependent and suffer, as her substitute for self-worth and achievement.
"I believe in love because I've seen it. I've been there."
No. You can't tell love from slavery. Dumb bitch.
Would someone who likes blondes and intellectual slumming even more than me please marry her and separate her from her ill-gotten money?
The 67-story tower by Vornado Realty Trust is planned to rise as much as 1,216 feet on the site of the Hotel Pennsylvania at West 33rd Street. The tower is expected to get the green light, despite opposition from Community Board 5 and Malkin Holdings, which controls the Empire State Building.
Like guild socialism or fascism: Use the power of the state to get rid of superior competition, in this case of those who want to build a more modern and beautiful building a couple blocks from your aging landmark.
"Community Board 5 had unanimously voted down the project."
Damn NIMBYs.
However, the full City Council is expected to vote on Wednesday to grant Vornado the final approval needed to proceed with the project.
"The height and bulk of 15 Penn Plaza are the result of waivers and bonuses greatly in excess of code. Another waiver granted 15 Penn Plaza the right to build without setbacks," said Tony Malkin, president of Malkin Holdings, in a press statement.
Setbacks make a building apologize for its greatness. Setbacks are bad. And who can't use a bit of shade in the summer?
"At only 67 stories, 15 Penn Plaza would be as tall as the 102nd floor of the Empire State Building…"
So what? What's it to you how many or how few floors the competition has?
In fact, it shows how outdated your building is. No space between floors for modern wiring.
"…and would, if built, be as much a scar on the complexion of New York City as the loss of Penn Station."
Really? If anything, the ESB is the scar on the complexion of New York City. If you look at the rendering in the article, sleekly soaring 15 Penn Plaza is much more beautiful than the ESB with its atrocious setbacks, no matter how much the general public has gotten used to it and thus even grown attached to it. Goes to prove that the general public is stupid.
The City Planning Commission, which gave the development a green light last month, said in its report that "the prominence of the Empire State Building would not be significantly affected because the new building… would be shorter than the Empire State Building (approximately 230 feet shorter), and the two buildings are approximately 1,000 feet apart, which would further diminish the perceived height of the new building in more distant views."
Who cares about the prominence of the Empire State Building? I hope towers twice or thrice as tall will be built all around the ESB.
If anything, the ESB embodies all that's wrong with New York: bad architecture pandering to the bad taste of the masses and a stagnation that would protect views of an outdated building, short by today's standards, instead of building the taller towers the city deserves.
Whatever became of "Excelsior!"?
Damn you, Tony Munchkin, damn you to hell, for stabbing the New York skyline in the back so that you can squeeze some more ill-gotten gains out of your ugly 1,250-foot hand-me-down hovel with its idiotic zeppelin docking mast on top. Damn looter.
If the end of gun control leads to a bloodbath of runaway shootings, then the Second Amendment can be repealed, just as other Constitutional Amendments have been repealed. Laws exist for people, not people for laws.
…
If the public doesn't like the rules, or the consequences to which the rules lead, then the public can change the rules via the ballot box.
Even if armed self-defense did lead to bloodbaths (which it doesn't — where guns are banned, like in Limeystan or Krautistan, the same going postal takes place, just with knives or illegally owned guns), neither the supreme court, nor congress, nor "we the people" would have any right to sacrifice one individual by disarming him and leaving him defenseless to save any number of others.
Stupid collectivist. Goes to show why you can't work with conservatives.
"They said we could wear it on any other day, but today is sensitive to Mexican-Americans because it's supposed to be their holiday so we were not allowed to wear it today."
But to many Mexican-American students at Live Oak, this was a big deal. They say they were offended by the five boys and others for wearing American colors on a Mexican holiday.
"I think they should apologize cause it is a Mexican Heritage Day," Annicia Nunez, a Live Oak High student, said. "We don't deserve to be get disrespected like that. We wouldn't do that on Fourth of July."
Reality check: If you're in a country and at any time feel offended by the flag of said country, you're in the wrong country.
Apparently, in a neighborhood full of ethnics, said ethnics can claim any entitlement they want, particular on their holiday. Well, at least those Mexicans learned very well how democracy, i.e., mob rule, works.
We learn two things:
(1) Political correctness has finally gone too far.
(2) Political correctness is all about tolerance for intolerance.
I guess by the same collectivist "logic," anyone caught wearing Mexican colors on the Fourth of July is fair game.
Let's imagine a woman who is getting pressure from some obnoxious sleazeball stud to cheat on her husband and commit adultery. She's tempted but, if caught, wants some excuse with which to placate her outraged husband so she can avoid a divorce. "Honest, honey, I didn't consent!" And let's imagine that the sleazeball wants to protect himself from a rape charge and probable beating by the husband.
So how could they do their deed and both cover their butts?
Perhaps, after sexy chit-chat over a few drinks in a bar, she says, "I'm really reluctant to do this." But they agree to go up to his place, ostensibly so she can help him hang his etchings or for some other lame-ass excuse that both know to be a lie. And she pretty much lets him have his way with her.
If later the husband finds out, she plays her "I told him 'No!' sort of" card. "I only agreed to drinks and to help decorate his walls!" When the husband sends the cops to haul the sleazeball off to jail, he argues that he "deemed" that she had consented and that what he did was perfectly legal. After all, he explains, she had the drinks with him and went up to his room to see his artwork, and they were just creating a fiction with which she might placate her husband. Of course, the two stories contradict one another. The police would probably rule this to be a case of adultery rather than rape and the slutty wife would face a divorce.
This is the scenario faced by Democrats in the House of Representatives.
Political sluts?
Ignoring the slap to politicians in general and Democrats in particular this hysterical screed is meant to be, let's look at the language and Hudgins' implicit values.
That impossible contract "marriage" is a good idea. Any attractive man is a "sleazeball." Any sexually healthy woman is a "slut."
And this Victorian hypocrisy is datelined March 19, 2010. More like 1910.
Scratch a conservative and you find some beta loser driven to fits of jealousy by and itching to initiate the use of force against anyone who so much as looks at the piece of property inventoried as his "wife." Assuming she's worth looking at in the first place. Some "Objectivist."
"A competent and self-confident person is incapable of jealousy in anything. Jealousy is invariably a symptom of neurotic insecurity."
— Robert A. Heinlein
"The moral failing of the adulterers and the Democrats, among others, comes from attempts to be dishonest, to fake reality."
The moral failing of this so-called Objectivist comes from attempts to fake reality.
Fact of reality is that no one alone can fulfill all the emotional needs of any other person. Monoamory is impossible, and any attempt to uphold it is philosophical suicide.
And this is meant to be an outreach to reasonable, freedom-loving people? More like an outrage. Little wonder Hudgins gets along so well with the fundies at those tea parties.
John Carter says while New Zealand were lucky this time, that will not always be the case and people need to realize their stupidity is putting others at risk.
He says the message is simple, do not be stupid.
Carter says the fact is a tsunami is a serious event and people could die.
Christchurch Mayor Bob Parker agrees with Carter.
He says council staff watched some of the city's surveillance and traffic cameras in beachside areas when Sunday's alert was in place.
Parker says a number of people were clearly ignoring warnings.
He says as well as putting themselves at risk, they are placing our emergency services in danger also.
"I can't believe that kiwi loon stole my good name."
It is only the evil anti-concept of altruism that puts rescuers at risk. Every individual has the unalienable right to risk his life and/or to commit suicide any which way he chooses. No one else has any duty to rescue him. No one else has any right to rescue him against his will. His life is his and his alone to keep or destroy.
Now the subhuman morons will go, "But surely, if you see some fellow human [insert some way how he could hurt himself], you'll jump him to rescue him."
No. I won't. If he's only harming himself, no one has any right to jump him in any way whatsoever.
Altruist rescuers, you are destroying the world by giving any mediocrity of a creep an excuse to initiate the use of force against anybody else. "It's for his own good. To save him from himself."
If someone wants to risk his life or commit suicide watching a tsunami, that's his problem, and only his problem.
If jackbooted rescuers are dumb enough to believe it's their duty to help others, even if those others put their own lives, and only their own lives, at risk, it's John Carter, Bob Parker, and the other jackbooted rescue thugs that are dumb.
If they believe they have the right to initiate the use of force against those who risk their own lives, "to save them from themselves," John Carter, Bob Parker, and the other jackbooted rescue thugs are criminal.
"The only real wisdom is knowing you know nothing." — Socrates.
What is the "stupidity" of someone who risks his life to watch a tsunami against the stupidity of a coward so ignorant that he it doesn't understand that someone else might value watching a tsunami highly enough to risk his life?
"Stop! If you try to commit suicide, I shoot you dead!"
Real great reasoning, piggy. The amount of stupidity it takes to become a pig is unimaginable.
What is the crime of watching a tsunami compared with the crime of being a pig? What is the danger of a fire compared with the danger of a government-run firehouse?
As for me, all I have to say to pigs and other "rescue" thugs is: Leave. Me. Alone.
If I decide to risk my life, I do not care to be rescued by the likes of you.
As for you, gentle reader: First they came for the tsunami watchers, and you did not fight back — because you were not a tsunami watcher.
Then they came for the BASE jumpers, and you did not fight back — because you were not a BASE jumper.
Then they came for the carnivores, and you did not fight back — because you were a vegetarian.
Then they came for you — and there was only Alex left to fight back, and he did not care to fight for you.
Ever wondered what socialized medicine would look like? If the disasters in Limeystan and Canuckistan aren't enough, there was one country that totally socialized medicine: the Soviet Union. Here's what it looked like:
Peed skills. Skeed pills. Speed kills. And so does Obama Care.
In the past, there's been some criticism about the black and white characters in Atlas Shrugged. The heroes are beautiful and the villains are ugly.
Well, move over, wing nut and moon bat critics. Here comes life imitating art.
Look at Injustice Sonia Sotomayor. I won't even mention her elephantine proboscis (which isn't her fault, unless you want to call failing to get a nose job a fault).
But what did she do to her face? Around the clock tanning? Chain smoking? Or maybe it's just gravity.
Suffice it to say that, putting it charitably, she's way uglier than Miss Pigskin, Pamela Anderson. And, taking a page right out of Atlas Shrugged, she has some pretty ugly things to say:
Coburn wondered how courts cannot see the explicitly stated Second Amendment "right to keep and bear arms" as fundamental, yet can hold as fundamental the unexpressed right to privacy. Sotomayor answered: "Is there a constitutional right to self-defense? And I can't think of one. I could be wrong, but I can't think of one."
Even Sarah Palin wouldn't say, nay, even think of something that stupid and evil. If Palin is Hitler in lipstick, then Sotomayor is Hitler in all his/her/its unvarnished ugliness.
And Sotomayor didn't graduate from some backwoods college, but summa cum laude from Princeton. So much for the quality of moon bat schools.
If there's no Constitutional right to self-defense, the Constitution is just a piece of worthless toilet paper. The right to self-defense is the only fundamental right there is. Without it, any other rights are meaningless. If you don't defend yourself, no one will.
From the streets of Washington, DC — where the pigs have been empowered by the courts to do nothing if you get raped and murdered because they'd rather have another donut — to the concentration camps of Germany — where the pigs will even actively assist in raping and murdering you — one thing is certain: You only have the rights you personally fight for. Or, as Henry David Thoreau had it: "Government never furthered any enterprise but by the alacrity with which it got out of its way."
If you have to leave defending yourself to the government, you're at the mercy of any punk on the street and of any Hitler in government. The only question is, is this one ugly villain motivated by love of punks or by love of Hitlers?
Posts
