Never mind the pajamas … We blog in the nude!

Archive for March, 2005

The Minuteman Project: Vigilantes? Well Go Figure

Posted by RightWingRocker on March 29, 2005

O’Reilly had a piece on this today on TV, so I suppose it’s time to bring it back to the front. Original post date, March 25.

Look, I voted for President Bush. I respect his leadership in most matters. The stands he has taken in defense of the Constitution have been generally heroic.

So why the fuck can’t he do the same thing when it comes to illegal immigration? We have violent criminals sneaking into this country every day. We have desperate “workers” sneaking into this country every day. Why can’t we get this situation under control? I would think it to be imperative that we do so in a post-9/11 America. All but one of the Jihadifucks who hit us that day were in the country illegally, having snuck in across our porous borders.

So, Mr. Bush, please explain to me why you would be surprised to see a vigilante group forming along the Arizona border when you haven’t done a damned thing about this URGENT problem. If you’re not going to do anything about it, why shouldn’t the citizens of Arizona take the matter into their own hands? SOMEONE has to protect the borders. I honestly don’t give a flying fuck what Mr. Fox says. His failure to show respect for our country’s laws and customs make him no better than a useless piece of shit. His administration publishes pamphlets and books explaining how to get around US customs and INS agents in order to get into the US. He refuses to detain violent criminals deported to his country, and these scumfucks continue to return to the US and commit more crimes. He restricts freedom to the point that ten percent of his country’s population would so rather live in the US, that they are willing to risk imprisonment to live here.

Let me make myself perfectly clear here. I fully support LEGAL immigration. Virtually all Americans are descended from immigrants. Furthermore, most Americans are not interested in the kind of jobs many of these (mostly Mexican) immigrants take. These illegals are not “taking jobs” from Americans. They’re taking jobs from LEGAL aliens, who respect the law, the process, and our national sovereignty. But anyone here illegally should be simply deported. Let them go through the process. This would also alleviate many of the problems we have here with these bums actually collecting socialist benefits that they do not pay into (further problems with socialism … go figure). These people are not Americans. They are therefore not guaranteed any rights by the Constitution, so the ACLU can go fuck themselves.

Oh, and why not have a vigilante group pick up the slack? What is wrong with that? Look at the huge drop in violent crime in cities patrolled by Curtis Sliwa’s vigilante group, The Guardian Angels. These vigilantes live with a problem that exists right in their own back yard. Who could possibly know better than they how to defend their homes from these thugs? So we have a vigilante group out in Arizona. I think that’s fucking incredible. This group is saving the INS, the US taxpayer, and the border patrol mucho deniero while simultaneously adding manpower to the cause.

My message to the Minuteman Project is this: GO FOR IT! If I had the means, I’d definitely volunteer. The ACLU can’t do anything to you, since none of these shitwads has any Constitutional rights in the first place. And if you find one of these murderous gangster convicts trying to get back here after being deported, I say shoot to kill. Fuck the ACLU.


Update: This from Michelle Malkin (3/30).


Posted in Uncategorized | 2 Comments »

I have no more Constitutional Authority

Posted by RightWingRocker on March 28, 2005

Am I really supposed to belive this, Mr. Bush? It’s as clear as day that you have the constitutional authority to tell the courts to go fuck themselves. Constitutional crisis, my ass. What you have right now is a constitutional crisis. You could bring it to an end by simply reading your state’s own laws and exercising the authority you have there.

You are, as the chief executive of your state, NOT beholden to court decisions that are contrary to your job description in the Florida Constitution. Just do your job, and let the courts go to hell. It seems that is where they came from, and it’s DEFINITELY where they’re headed. Bury them face down so they dont trip over anything on the way.

Once this is all over, and it looks as though it will be soon, as Michael’s necropheliac of a lawyer has begun to call her “beautiful” as she’s lying there dying of dehydration and starvation, there should be a strong outcry for the impeachment of the judges for refusing to consider the new testimony that you ordered them to look at. For stopping where you did, you should be impeached as well.

To think I might have supported you as a Presidential candidate – HA! You stand for absolutely nothing, and this situation proves you have no backbone at all. What are you going to do when political pressure to avoid a necessary war comes into play? You can’t even stand up to a stupid wussy-ass rogue judge with an activist history. What will you do when REAL terrorists and REAL socialists attempt to bring the US and President Jeb down? Would it take a 9/11-type tragedy to make you grow a fucking spine?

All anyone wants is a chance to try the case with the new evidence included, and to keep Terri alive until that process has been completed. You brought the new evidence to the courts’ attention, and what did they do? They told you to go fuck yourself. I hope the Republican Party does the same during the primaries the next time you try to run for office. I’m telling you the same today.



(note – This post is my farewell post for Terri, speaking in her final defense. Please leave no comments.)

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a Comment »

Saving Terri: Governor Bush CAN do it!

Posted by RightWingRocker on March 26, 2005

I hate to re-post before many people have had the chance to read yesterday’s important post, but a woman’s life in hanging in the balance. If need be, I will change the date to bring that post to the front again when Terri’s situation has been resolved.

After listening to everything presented in the media, I decided to look into actual Florida Law and the Florida Constitution. Turns out Governor Bush has the clear authority to handle this, without interference from any courts. He further has the authority to demand justification in writing for decisions the courts have made.

With regard to the authority to demand justification, Florida’s Constitution, in Article IV, Section 1, states, “The governor may require information in writing from all executive or administrative state, county or municipal officers upon any subject relating to the duties of their respective offices.” Mr. Bush has the clear authority to demand that the courts justify in writing these decisions, and he has the authority to initiate judicial proceedings against the judges in question. (“The governor may initiate judicial proceedings in the name of the state against any executive or administrative state, county or municipal officer to enforce compliance with any duty or restrain any unauthorized act.”). Where I live, we call that “pressing charges” or “suing someone”.

Florida statutory law, Title IV, 14.01 authorizes the governor to “protect life, liberty, and property”, and further lays out a process for doing so. All he really has to do is declare the situation an emergency, order nourishment to be resumed, and post notices in the buildings and areas that affect Terri (Title IV, 14.021). He could then easily demand that a thorough investigation into the matter, including investigation into the activities and motivations of Michael Schiavo, reasonable hearings regarding the wishes of Mrs. Schiavo, and statements made by people who have treated her and provided various health services, and most importantly, a FULL examination of her situation by qualified medical doctors including actual MRI/PET scans that would shed light on the situation. All of these rights have been denied Terri so far.

So, Governor Bush, I implore you to exercise your powers to save a life. It is required of you by your state’s Constitution, and process is outlined in statute. Can you really allow the courts to starve a woman to death on he basis of her health when there hasn’t even been a thorough assessment of said health? That’s really all anyone is asking for.


Posted in Uncategorized | 2 Comments »

Welcoming a New Soul to the Hall of RWRock

Posted by RightWingRocker on March 24, 2005

I recently made the acquaintance of “X”, a computer technician with an excellent blog. His latest post is quite revealing. Do check it out, as it’s quite well done. Perhaps a few words of welcome in the comments section from anyone who cares to drop a line?


Posted in Uncategorized | 6 Comments »

Terry Schiavo: The Case for Living Will Legislation

Posted by RightWingRocker on March 23, 2005

Everyone who reads this blog already knows what I think of Scott Peterson. My rant last week just about said it all. My question for the world (not for the trolls, but for reasonable people) is this:

Why in the world would we allow a man, convicted of killing his wife and son in a pool of blood, to die peacefully under a lethal injection administered while asleep, and at the same time force an innocent woman, who has committed no crime (and from some of the scuttlebutt I’ve heard, may well have herself been a violent crime victim), to die a slow, painful death by starvation?

I know I am not with the majority on this, but somehow I cannot see how anyone can ignore the blatant equal protection and due process issues involved here. Why has this woman been sentenced to die without being convicted of a crime? If she had stated that she wanted to be allowed to starve to death if she were so disabled, where is the written statement with her signature saying so? Why are we now allowing people to be killed in this fashion based on hearsay?

If people are going to have this kind of power over other people’s lives, it should first be spelled out in a living will. Many people do this already, and I applaud those folks. This should be a legal requirement in cases like this. The government’s first responsibility is to protect the lives of the people. Living will legislation is an absolute imperative. I strongly encourage Congress and all the State legislatures to enact such laws. This would clear up most, if not all, gray areas in cases of this type. A living will law would require someone to set forth these things, and thus would provide CLEAR and CONCISE and, I would hope, UNIVERSALLY acceptable answers to my questions above.

I also cannot see any harm in such legislation. Whose rights and/or freedoms would be violated by simply requiring that such wishes be put in writing in advance? I think it would make everyone’s lives a whole lot easier, and this poor woman’s situation would have been resolved a long time ago. Please keep Terry and her family in your prayers. This has been a really rough go for all of them.


Posted in Uncategorized | 14 Comments »

Brian McNicoll on Blogger Rights

Posted by RightWingRocker on March 22, 2005

Found this today on townhall.com … VERY important for all bloggers!


Posted in Uncategorized | 3 Comments »

The Second Amendment – What a Novel Concept

Posted by RightWingRocker on March 21, 2005

Amendment II:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

There were two reasons for the Second Amendment. The first addressed concerns regarding the ability of the populace to defend itself against foreign invasion in the event that the military would be unavailable to come to its aid:

Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe,which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes …

James Madison, The Federalist No.46

How about that idea? What if somehow the jihadists were able to get around the US military or even destroy it? Who would defend America’s freedom and the rights of its citizens? The French? Cut me a fucking break. An armed populace solves many problems regarding the defense of American rights and freedoms. What if a jihadist, or even some common criminal, somehow made his way into my neighborhood unnoticed by the police or the Army? Who would defend my children against his heinous acts, once his presence was discovered by the locals, especially if police assistance were too far away to stop his shenanigans?

This amendment is as necessary today as it was in the 18th century, when it was penned by the Founding Fathers, if for this reason alone. The idea of breaking into a home knowing the occupants may be armed is a huge deterrent to crime.

The second reason dealt with the right of Americans to defend themselves against oppression from within:

Let us not insult the free and gallant citizens of America with the suspicion,that they would be less able to defend the rights of which they would be in actual possession, than the debased subjects of arbitrary power would be to rescue theirs from the hands of their oppressors …

Either the mode in which the federal government is to be constructed will render it sufficiently dependent on the people, or it will not.

– James Madison, The Federalist No.46

So, in other words, the citizens of America might have to use their arms to defend their rights against an oppressive US government. Hmm … It could easily come to that the way things are today. Can anyone think of a time prior to the 20th Century where the rights of the American citizen were more in jeopardy than since the “New Deal”? The Second Amendment guarantees the right of every American to stand on his own to defeat such oppression.

Hmm … standing on one’s own … What a novel concept.

Every limitation on gun ownership is therefore ILLEGAL under the Second Amendment, and should be. Such arms are the people’s last defense against oppressive invaders as well as criminals and oppressors within. Every major oppressive government in history has started out by taking the guns from its citizens. People who stand in the way of the Second Amendment should be looked upon as a warning to all Americans of the real danger that lies within our borders. We are a free people, charged with the responsibility of defending our own rights against those who would take them away. This is largely what America is all about, and anyone who would stand in the way deserves to die by civilian American arms.


Posted in Uncategorized | 15 Comments »

Scott Peterson: Let Me at the Little Fuck

Posted by RightWingRocker on March 17, 2005

I pray for his soul.

That having been said, what the fuck is the deal with these “lethal injections”? Is the American system so full of pussies and wimps that we can’t let a guy who violently disposes of his wife and son be disposed of with the same violence? Don’t forget, Laci and Connor committed no crime, had hurt no one, and yet were forced to suffer and die violent and painful deaths because it was inconvenient for Scott that they live.

Look dude, go ahead and have your little fling … I dont fucking care what you do behind anyone’s closed door, whether yours or Amber’s or whomever’s. But if you’re in that big a hurry to get your family out of the way so that you can move on, just get a damn divorce. I’m sure Amber would have respected that, and if she didn’t, well maybe she wasn’t the long-term piece you were looking for anyway. There’s plenty of ass out there if you want to get some. You’re in California already. If you can’t find a hot piece of ass in California, knocking off your wife and son isn’t going to get you any closer to it. Instead, you’ll be getting it on with some fat dude named Bubba until your sentence is carried out.

Another pile of bullshit is the amount of time the appeals process takes for this shit. By the time this fucktard is put down, he will have long forgotten exactly what he did and exactly how he did it. He’ll have more vivid memories of his special intimate moments with Bubba, which I suppose counts for something, but let’s face it. That’s not why he’s being put down.

Let’s get back to the whole “lethal injection” shit again, shall we? Why should a guy who violently deprives his own family of their lives be allowed to die so humanely? I lost a very close friend to lethal injection some years ago, and I was there when it happened. It was very humane and incredibly dignified. That dog will live on in my heart forever. Does Scott Peterson deserve to die in the same manner as my Yorkshire?

Fuck that. Scott should be blindfolded and placed in the most submissive position available, and then let the Rocha family have at him. Fists at first, then let them piss and shit on him till he smells like a fucking septic tank. After that smash his fingertips with a sledgehammer like they used to do at Plymouth Colony. Then slowly slash his wrists and piss in the wounds. Once he has bled to death, throw his corpse out into the bay where he threw his wife and baby that fateful night, and let the beasts have at him until there’s nothing left.

This is not revenge for the Rocha family I am talking about. What I’m talking about is the idea that the punishment has to fit the crime. I’m not about letting this scumfuck off with twenty years of free room and board and then a quiet good-night when two innocent people are dead just because he wanted to fuck around. Fuck around if you need to. Get a divorce if you can’t stay married. Killing people is another matter entirely, and if you’re going to commit heinous acts of violence that result in people dying, then you should suffer the same fate, ASSHOLE.


Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment »

First Amendment … What it REALLY says.

Posted by RightWingRocker on March 13, 2005

I didn’t start this blog to pick on Robert Lindsay, but we’ve had such revealing “discussions” here, and his ultra-left-wing positions are important to note and compare to the more America-friendly conservative positions. Here is what Mr. Lindsay says about the First Amendment:

#1- Religious freedom – The First Amendment:

My take on the 1st Amendment is … that the Constitution mandates that the US Govt must not have any connection at all with any religion, even deism, or simple belief in God. Therefore, the US govt may not discrimate against atheists. I can’t answer the rest of your arguments about the FF wanting to have a religious foundation for our society – most of them were Deists, which is virtually an atheist. My line on this is the same as Barry Lynn, ACLU. (edited for grammatical purposes)

Before I get into this I have to laugh at the idea that somone who is willing to toe Barry Lynn’s line on anything is willing to call himslf a “moderate”. At least Bob is willing to admit he is a left-wing socialist. Bill Clinton never admitted that, true as it were, and you had better believe Mrs. Clinton will follow that same path in her effort to get elected to the Presidency. “New Democrat”? Nah … just a stealth Liberal. For his admission to at least lean that way, Bob deserves a little credit, but “moderate”? No, Bob, that’s not you.

Now here is what the First Amendment ACTUALLY says:

Amendment I:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

“No law respecting an establishment of religion” simply means that CONGRESS cannot establish in law one specific religion that all people must follow, such as Jaudaism, Catholicism, Islam, or, as in the case of England at the time, Episcopalianism. This did not in any way prohibit individual states, such as Virginia or Massachusetts, from establishing state religions, as many states did have established state religions at the time. Wisely, all of the states eventually did away with state religions.

The Ten Commandments are permanenetly engraved in the very chamber in which the Supreme Court convenes, as a tribute to their contribution to the development of law in America. Every congress that has ever convened has started with a prayer. Every President has taken his Oath of Office with his left hand on a copy of Scripture. These truths stand as evidence that the Founders would have wanted at least some recognition of the value of religion in American life to be prominent.

The Federal Government cannot favor one religion over another, and doesn’t. This does not mean that religion is to be excluded from public display or discourse, as Mr. Lynn advocates. Mr. Lynn’s opposition to public displays of religion, including setting aside quiet time in schools during which students may CHOOSE to pray (or not to pray for that matter) if they want to is a direct violation of the First Amendment.

The Federal Goverment may not in any way infringe upon anyone’s free practice of religion. As uncomfortable as those campus preachers that often approached me back in my college days made me, it is clearly part of their religion that they do this. I know God and revere him, but my personal faith does not require that of me. Do I therefore have the right to interfere with THEIR practice of THEIR religion, simply because it makes ME uncomfortable? The answer is an emphatic NO. Religion is the basis of our morals, and our Constitution is completely unacceptable for a people without that moral structure. That is why you will not see conservatives interfering with Islamic students’ desire to conduct prayer in school. You WILL, however, see conservatives opposing many schools’ efforts to force non-moslems to follow the Islamic prayers, as we have in California. It is completely unacceptable that schoolchildren must be forced to follow the customs of a religion which is not theirs, while at the same time being barred from practicing the customs of their own religion. I’m sure you would at least agree with that, now wouldn’t you, Bob?

Furthermore, we do not govern the United States based on your “take” on the First Amendment, nor Barry Lynn’s. Those who WROTE the First Amendment and saw to its passage are the ones we look to for guidance…

A deist emphasizes morality, Bob. This is not an atheist. Also, in the 18th century, when all of this was written, a deist was one who believed that God simply did not interfere with the laws of the universe. This is not to say that God did not set forth a set of absolutes. Rather, it means that deism was basically the belief that God got everything going, gave us the tools we would need to know how to fulfill our destiny (scripture or nature, depending on the deist), and basically entrusted us with our own ability to succeed using the guidance he gave us. By this definition of deism, Bob, I personally qualify as a deist. Though my method of worship is Catholicism, I believe that my destiny is my responsibility, and anything that I do that interferes with what God wishes for me is my responsibility to deal with between God and myself. Note that my deistic belief does not exclude God from my life. It merely acknowledges that God has put the responsibility on me to do what is right based on his guidance, and that any initiative that needs to be taken in squaring up for any sins must be mine exclusively. Not even close to an atheist.

I must thank you for one thing, though, Bob. You have motivated me to diverisfy my posts to make my blog more interesting. I will still, however, use FREQUENT rants just because I like to. You should probably expect one thrown at you soon, as I haven’t done one like that in a while. Nothing personal.


Posted in Uncategorized | 6 Comments »

Plymouth Colony: A Celebration of Capitalism

Posted by RightWingRocker on March 10, 2005

There was no socialism per se in 1626 and the word was not even known. – Robert Lindsay (commenting on my Lying About Libertarians post)

While the word “socialism” dates most likely to the 19th century, the concept is far older. Here we can see socialism at work at Plymouth Colony in governor William Bradford’s 1621 commentary, “First harvest”:

They began now to gather in the small harvest they had, and to fit up their houses and dwellings against winter, being all well recovered in health and strength and had all things in good plenty. For as some were thus employed in affairs abroad, others were exercised in fishing, about cod and bass and other fish, of which they took good store, of which every family had their portion.

Sounds a lot like socialism to me. Any other ideas regarding what to call it? I didn’t think so.

The story continues in a 1623 Commentary, “Private and communal farming”:

All this while no supply was heard of, neither knew they when they might expect any. So they began to think how they might raise as much corn as they could, and obtain a better crop than they had done, that they might not still thus languish in misery. At length, after much debate of things, the Governor (with the advice of the chiefest amongst them) gave way that they should set corn every man for his own particular, and in that regard trust to themselves; in all other things to go on in the general way as before. And so assigned to every family a parcel of land, according to the proportion of their number, for that end, only for present use (but made no division for inheritance) and ranged all boys and youth under some family. This had very good success, for it made all hands very industrious, so as much more corn was planted than otherwise would have been by any means the Governor or any other could use, and saved him a great deal of trouble, and gave far better content. The women now went willingly into the field, and took their little ones with them to set corn; which before would allege weakness and inability; whom to have compelled would have been thought great tyranny and oppression.

So, in an effort to improve a situation that was obviously problematic, that they “might not still thus languish in misery”, Gov. Bradford and those chosen to advise him decided to employ what is today known as capitalism. Far more corn was grown than before, less stress was placed on the Governor, all to the end of “far better content”. Women and children, who before would claim to be too weak to work, chose to do so with enthusiasm. People took control of their own destiny! Go figure!

Bradford goes on to directly debunk the socialist system:

The experience that was had in this common course and condition, tried sundry years and that amongst godly and sober men, may well evince the vanity of that conceit of Plato’s and other ancients applauded by some of later times; and that the taking away of property and bringing in community into a commonwealth would make them happy and flourishing; as if they were wiser than God. For this community (so far as it was) was found to breed much confusion and discontent and retard much employment that would have been to their benefit and comfort. For the young men, that were most able and fit for labor and service, did repine that they should spend their time and strength to work for other men’s wives and children without any recompense. The strong, or man of parts, had no more in division of victuals and clothes than he that was weak and not able to do a quarter the other could; this was thought injustice. The aged and graver men to be ranked and equalized in labors and victuals, clothes etc., with the meaner and younger sort, thought it some indignity and disrespect unto them. And for men’s wives to be commanded to do service for other men, as dressing their meat, washing their clothes, etc., they deemed it a kind of slavery, neither could many husbands well brook it. Upon the point all being to have alike, and all to do alike, they thought themselves in the like condition, and one as good as another; and so, if it did not cut off those relations that God hath set amongst men, yet it did at least much diminish and take off the mutual respects that should be preserved amongst them. And would have been worse if they had been men of another condition. Let none object this is men’s corruption, and nothing to the course itself. I answer, seeing all men have this corruption in them, God in His wisdom saw another course fitter for them.


William Bradford: History of Plymouth Plantation, c. 1650

So, you see, the Pilgrims DID know socialism. Not necessarily by name, but DEFINITELY in concept. And if they knew it, you can bet the Founders knew it too.

Just wanted to get this “incomprehensible concept” out in the open. Thanks for the starter-thought, Bob.


Posted in Uncategorized | 3 Comments »

A Peace(nik) Offering

Posted by RightWingRocker on March 9, 2005

As a peace gesture to the liberals who have come by, let us all join hands and sing …

Kum Ba Ya, Lord, Kum Ba Ya.
Kum Ba Ya, Lord, Kum Ba Ya.
Kum Ba Ya, Lord, Kum Ba Ya.
Oh, Lord. Kum Ba Ya.

I’m not exactly sure what the hell this was supposed to accomplish, but I suppose if it made anyone feel better, it must have been worth it.


Posted in Uncategorized | 2 Comments »

Martha and Michael: Can We Just End This, Please?

Posted by RightWingRocker on March 7, 2005

Look, without commenting on the particulars of the case, I would like to issue a call for the media to PLEASE SHUT UP about Martha Stewart. She was found guilty of something, served time, and is now out of jail. Do we really need to know any more than that? Who gives a fuck what her hair looks like or what kind of car or airplane she’s travelling in? Who cares what the fuck she is wearing or even where she’s going? Honestly, I cannot see how it would be relevant to anyone’s life, including people who watch her TV show, which despite its popularity, I find EXTREMELY BORING … I’d rather watch grass grow. If you want to see Martha on TV, you won’t have long to wait. She’ll be out there doing whatever she does on her TV show soon enough. Just quit this fucking media blitz, its annoying the shit out of me.

As to Michael Jackson, this bullshit is worse than the OJ Simpson trial some years back. At least OJ was willing to face the embarrassment of being a defendant in a major trial with the respect that a defendant should give the court. Michael is making a spectacle of himself, almost as if he set this whole thing up on purpose to attract attention to himself. To be honest, I have no idea whether this asshelmet is guilty or not, but I do wish he would show respect for his position. If he is found guilty, we can expect more of the same nauseating attention when he gets out as we did last week with Martha Stewart. Michael, this is NOT an opportunity to show off. It is an opportunity for you to demonstrate to what extent you are guilty or not guilty of a crime of which you are accused. This is a SOMBER moment. Knock it off with the freaking glitz already; you’re giving showbiz and musicians a bad name, or possibly even contributing to one that already exists.

I, for one, am not wasting my precious time watching any coverage of Martha getting out of jail or Michael going to court. If Martha’s sentence is over and she is clearly not a danger to anyone (you will find it hard to convince me that she is), then let her go and be done with it. There is no need to glorify whatever crime is it she was found guilty of. Just open the door and let her go. I honestly don’t give a rat’s ass how she felt while she was in there, or how it feels to be free.

Likewise, I have no time to be bothered with Michael’s antics in and out of the courtroom. If something substantial in the case comes up, I’ll listen to what it is, and think about what I think the jury should do with it. Any coverage of the crowds gathered around Mr. Jackson’s limousine outside the courtroom will result in my immediately changing the channel and looking for a station that is actually showing somethng else. Hopefully I won’t have to sit through another annoying episode of SpongeBob just to avoid this stupid shit.



Posted in Uncategorized | 7 Comments »

Lying about Libertarians … Have you Commies no shame?

Posted by RightWingRocker on March 4, 2005

By now I guess most people have figured out that I have NO tolerance for socialists, or communists, or anyone with a philosophy consistent with anything like that. I had been checking out the blogs during a short break I had from the recent touring schedule, and I found a link to this site and couldn’t help but laugh my freaking ass off. I couldn’t believe that someone could be so ignorant of the actual truths that govern humanity and nature and really believe what he was saying. Then again, my own cousin would be right up there with him … time for a little “Fisk” and a little argument …

First of all, before I go on, I must say that I love the way this fellow calls Libertarian positions on things “lies”, despite the proof to the contrary on the issues that he cites … here we go!

Now total libertarian free market capitalism has become some sort of miracle nostrom that will cure all ills.

Hey asswipe, no one is saying free market capitalism will cure all ills. All we are saying is that there will be ills no matter what you do, and they are minimized in a free market system. Furthermore, in a free market system, each person is responsible for his own success and failure. There is no attempt to equalize outcomes, as in a socialist or communist system, as you advocate. Equalizing outcomes merely ensures that no one ever achieves actual prosperity. The equalized outcomes, in practice, doom virtually every citizen of one of these systems to poverty. This is all well and good for people who don’t mind poverty, but forcing people to live in it, as you would obviously advocate, is the antithesis of self-determination.

Most of the problems that occur with capitalism are actually the result of limitations placed on capitalism itself. You yourself cited problems associated with the sorry excuse for deregulation of utilities in California:

The debacle of electricity deregulation in California is simply the typical result of privatization and deregulation of electricity the world over, for decades now, since the 1930’s.

Electricity in California has NEVER been deregulated. Most of California’s electricity is IMPORTED from other states because the state’s ridiculous REGULATIONS will not let anyone build a power plant there. What asshelmet in his right mind would call that de-regulation? California has regulated the industry right out of the state. If electricity could be produced there, prices would be competitive. Try actual deregulation and you will see the light … literally! Case study after case study?? Try citing a few. I doubt any of them involve real deregulation.

Deregulation of the financial industry and stock market is likely to cause financial panics, stock crashes and economic recessions and depressions. It has in the past, it will in the future.

Not sure what you are trying to say here, sir. The financial markets have never suffered major long-term panics, crashes, recessions, or depressions. Look at the statistics from any 20-year period in the markets, INCLUDING THE “GREAT DEPRESSION”. The markets have always shown profits for the majority of investors. In a deregulated financial industry/stock market, you have the option, if you are uncomfortable with your prospects, to not participate. That’s called freedom. It’s largely what America is about, and it’s the concept upon which capitalism is built.

Deregulation of telecommunications in the US put the public system into the hands of a fewer and fewer people and sent cable prices through the roof.

You are missing the point here Bobby. It’s not your business who runs which company. That is up to the shareholders and the companies themselves. Oh, and thanks to deregulation, you have the opportunity to choose which telecommunications company to work with, regardless of the area of the industry you mean (as opposed to only one, which is what we had before). Cable prices through the roof? That would be TAXES causing that, my good fellow, and too much regulation keeping competition out of the industry. That is NOT deregulation. If you were to strip away the redundant taxation and regulation on telecom products, you would probably find that cable prices have most likely changed at the same rate as inflation. Luckily you are not restricted to your local cable company even so, since satellite television is available as competition. REAL deregulation of the cable TV industry would cause more upstart companies providing cable, causing competition and lowering prices. Over-regulation and over-taxation (both still the case) are disincentives to participation in these industries. It would not be perfect, but it would certainly be an improvement.

Privatization of water in Bolivia was a catastrophe – prices shot up, service was terrible, and many lost access to water.

Bolivia?? Please. You cite a failure of a third-world country as evidence that the United States shouldn’t do something. I can do that, too … Communism has failed dismally EVERYWHERE IT HAS BEEN TRIED. Name me one communist country that is more prosperous than the United States. Just one. Enough said. As far as water in Bolivia is concerned, I highly doubt that you are talking about real unshackled capitalism here, since Bolivia is hardly a capitalist country.

You cite airline and trucking deregulation, but these remain some of the most regulated industries in the United States.

The much maligned OSHA regulations save 10,000’s of lives every year and we can prove it.

OK, smartass … You’re on. Let’s see your proof.

Pollution regs do the same and clean up the planet besides, and we have the darn statistics to prove it. Reducing environmental regulations dealing with water, air and toxics means lots of injuries and deaths, time after time, in place after place, in society after society. We are talking about effects so predicatable here that if we were scientists, we could almost describe them as natural laws.

OK, I’m supposed to believe that a bunch of government asswipes in a room in Washington are cleaning up ANYTHING? I also don’t acknowledge that there is a major problem on a large scale in this area. Most of the problems occurring with nature are CAUSED BY NATURE and not by human beings. Volcanic eruptions, for example, are environmental disasters the likes of which we humans could NEVER recreate, and they’ve been happening all over the world for billions of years. Fluorocarbons galore every time, and lo and behold, there’s still a healthy ozone layer.

Even if there really were a problem in this area, how can you seriously demonstrate that government regulation would be a solution? The real solution would be capitalists taking over and competing for the opportunity to solve a problem that arose. Check out the (American) companies that worked so well in Iraq after the Iraq war in 1991. No large-scale environmental catastrophe – largely due to the capitalists getting together to solve a problem – and a great many lives were saved. Not too much in the way of injuries and deaths by my count. This is the way an environmental problem that may arise should be solved.

Seems like you have an affinity for socialist healthcare. Europe, India, Nicaragua, and especially Cuba are places that cook the numbers in their favor. All of these systems feature long wait times for urgent surgery. I suppose the people who die from not having their necessary surgical needs met every year don’t count as “unhealthy”?

I love the way you tout Cuba as having this wonderful healthcare system. Tell that to all the people who wait in lines for days to see American dentists brought in by missionaries that have to kiss up to Castro just to get into the country. And all these dentists can do, due to a lack of equipment, is pull teeth. The ones that don’t get to see the dentists often die of abscessed teeth! Yeah right. Nice healthcare system.

The real problem in American healthcare would be solved by real tort reform. Healthcare prices are not driven up by greed or envy, but by the rising cost of malpractice insurance. There was a time when people could afford to pay their medical bills without health insurance. Now we hear talk of the nanny state providing the insurance for you. What a fucking joke! If people would simply solve their problems without litigation, this problem could go away quite easily. Of course, John Edwards might wind up in the poorhouse … We can’t have THAT now, can we?

Oh and Bobby, please spare me the bleeding heart stories. You act as if these people’s families wouldn’t have a sense of responsibility or that there would never be a worthy charity to help these people. These solutions ALWAYS work better than stealing people’s money under the guise of helping people in seemingly helpless situations.

We have had socialized education for quite a long time now. Where are the success stories about today’s kids outperforming their predecessors? You didn’t cite any, and I see schools failing every day, not because there is a problem with the teachers, but because of the entitlement mentality in students, parents, and teachers alike caused by the socialist education system. Come to work with me for a day and I’ll show you. Teachers cry because their “State Health Benefits” might be turned over to a private company (who could very well provide better service at a lower cost). Parents refuse to insist that their children treat themselves and others with respect, and students who believe everything in life comes to them courtesy of the government, so why should they do any work? I see this every day in my job as a teacher. And, by the way, let me go on record as a teacher who has taught in a private school whose programs kicked every public school in its area’s ass. Its shortcomings were a result of the unfortunate mismanagement of its funds, something even more common in public schools.

Public roads vs. private roads … The Constitution (Article I section 8) does provide for public roads (called “post roads” in that document), so I doubt the Libertarians would change much there.

The devastation in the third world is a result of the LACK of capitalism there. Institute REAL capitalism in those countries and you can be guaranteed a quick reversal of the plight of these people. The former Soviet Union is a prime example. They’re not at the very top of the ladder, but they are climbing it, which is more than they could say under communist rule. And as they get better at it, they will get closer to the top.

I am not myself a Libertarian, and I do disagree with them on some matters, but I am a Constitutionalist. Bob, none of what you advocate is constitutional. Go read the Constitution and Bill of Rights and see for yourself. There’s nothing there giving the federal government any authority whatsoever to engage in any kind of socialism at all, particularly not with regard to the areas you cite.

Socialism had been tried in the colonies prior to the writing of the constitution (e.g. Plymouth Colony) and had failed dismally. Do you not think that the Founding Fathers would have included provisions for socialism if they felt it had any place in this great nation?

Be serious, man. I am not rich. My annual household income does not exceed $75,000.

The things you advocate would definitely bring people together at the same economic level, but that level would unfortunately place virtually everyone below the poverty line with no hope for escape. I, for one, am glad we have capitalism so that someday I may build for myself serious economic prosperity and pass it on to my children.

Get a life!


Posted in Uncategorized | 19 Comments »